Kashmir: Time for a Radical Approach?

PM #346
``I was defending the text of the originally posted HS article ``at face value``, not, in fact, knowing of his association with the LeT, then well, may i suggest the first steps in remedial reading comprehension to you: First, READ! Second, slow down, don`t prejudge, and lose the sanctimoniousness. ``

If you didnot know who he is why were you arguing about him? Weren`t you the least bit curious who he was? A little bit less sanctimoniousness on YOUR side and a little more honesty toward the subject being discussed would have lead you to do a google and see who the guy was.

You speak on subjects you know nothing about, defend extremists you know nothing about, who turn out to be as good as mass murderers, but you make no effort to seek information and still go ahead and call others sanctimonious while doing so.

I for one remember clearly that I used to post articles on LeT and Hafiz Saeed, I have even posted their website as reference(after which the interactor stopped replying). At that time I would be called a hate mongerer with quite the same objectivity as you are displaying now. And you expect Indians to discuss J&Kashmir with you. You are just a bunch of dishonest hypocrites.

Hmm, all I can say is that after reading 329 plus posts, I have come to the conclusion that no radical approach is possible in terms of a solution to Kashmir. They will keep killing us and we will keep killing them on the battlefield. This has to carry on till one or the other is exhausted.

As an Indian, I feel that our countrymen who are killed are uniformed soldiers, people who are important for us; as opposed to Pakistanis who are mere canon fodder. The Pakistani nation does not care about their people who die but we certainly care about our people who die. That puts Pakistan at an advantage.

In order for us to regain our advantage, we must make the Pakistanis who sit back and run the Kashmir policy without getting their hands dirty, pay for their involvement. It means hitting the Pakistani middle class;making victims out of them. A conventional war is of advantage to India because it will allow us to make widows and orphans out of the wives and children of military officers of the Pakistan Army. They are doing this to our military but we are not doing it to them. Let the generals pay with their lives. In terms of counter-terrorism as well, the target should be victims that matter, not Jihadi scum that is a dime a dozen for their own country.

``That the ISI/military gang in Pakistan will render judgement on India and indian democracy?``

Why not? After all Patrick Masih is quite comfortable with the idea of the Jehadis passing a judgement on Pakistani Christians as well. Multiple times.

Hey Dumbass:

``Now I`m starting to not even blame you for ignoring the fact that Kashmir is NOT, according to US stipulation, Indian territory but ``disputed territory``.

According to the UN, the entire Kashmir territory is disputed. If the LeT has a moral right to enter Indian Kashmir to kill our people, then we too have the right to enter the ``Disputed by UN Pakistan Occupied Kashmir`` to kill as many Muslims as we want. Why then does Musharaf talk of nuclear war?

The UN may consider the Kashmir territory on both sides of the LOC as disputed. But it certainly does not recognize the rights of supra nationalist extra constitutional groups like the Lashkar e Taiba to mete out what they recognize as justice. For you to give the Jihadis a ``Moral perspective`` is laughable.

But hey, I`ll just wait around for divine justice..the next time you happen to pray at the wrong church at the wrong time. :)

#307 by PM on April 6, 2003 6:16am PT

Only someone as deluded as you would stupidly separate a common man from his government. Or it could be because in Pakistan, the common man has never really mattered, having been ruled continuously either by the Army or the feudals. But how did “pragmatic” Pakistan’s involvement in Afghanistan suddenly cease to serve its interests after just one telephone call from President Bush?

[The jihadis may be terribly misguided, but please give them their dues: they`re not mere oppportunists, as are some of teh most powerful folks in the world today (before whom perahps you perform puja).]

Patrick mate, you’re in dire need of psychiatric help. It’s not us, it’s you guys bending over backwards worshipping your new best friends, even as they ream your a**es regularly, carting off Paki nationals off to Guantanamo Bay, no questions asked, and insult you publicly on Paki soil by calling your country the platform for terrorism. What’s worse, you have to suffer the humiliation of being fingerprinted by the INS, despite being what you proudly like to refer as “the frontline ally”. But what do you do? Like an loyal lap dog, you have no choice but to suffer in silence, or Uncle Sam will turn the $$ tap off. Even a tiny Cuba has fared better, fending off the American threat.

[Some friendly advice: Don`t tune in to Sesame Street today. They`re doing the letter `J`. Wouldn`t want you getting convulsions and/or elileptic-like fits.]

Ah, there you show your true colors!! Are you trying to scare me into submission just in case you aren’t able to convince me with your post? Talk sense Patrick. Or get help.

sadna # 340

`` an attack in which 3-4 innocent people were killed, including civilians. ``

Following that attack, Cowasjee wrote an article basically accusing India of organizing the `drama.`

#332 by sadna on April 6, 2003 7:57pm PT
``PS: PM #338
I too would recommend reading comprehension classes to you. I was trying to tell you that Indians can be expected to retaliate when attacked by armed religious bigots( those who kill out of religious hatred are bigots where I come from).``

Where, dear lady, did you find me saying that I expected Indians to fight fire with anything but fire? (Like I said, remedial reading is now desperately needed, unless of course, you are deliberately putting words in my mouth. Consider it an open challenge to show where I have made the suggestion you contend I have. Pmishra2, the invitation extends to you too-- that is if you actually get off your high horse and current obsession with HS and L-i-T).

Oh and, btw, state machinery that supresses dissent or insurrection through the methods used by the Indian army in the 80s & 90s is called fascist where I come from.

re. #331 by sadna
``In case you missed other aspects of Hafiz Saeed`s deep comittment to justice and democratic values, let me mention...``
In case in your sactimonious torpor you missed the point I made (first to pmishra then to Ralph) that I was defending the text of the originally posted HS article ``at face value``, not, in fact, knowing of his association with the LeT, then well, may i suggest the first steps in remedial reading comprehension to you: First, READ! Second, slow down, don`t prejudge, and lose the sanctimoniousness.

re. #339 by pmishra2
``You haven`t answered Sadna`s main point: we are to believe that warlord and religous bigot like Hafiz Saeed is an individual to need to negotiate with?
Only if you can show me where i havesuggested the same. Otherwise... off to Reading Comprehension 101 with you too!!

``That the ISI/military gang in Pakistan will render judgement on India and indian democracy?``

Now I`m starting to not even blame you for ignoring the fact that Kashmir is NOT, according to US stipulation, Indian territory but ``disputed territory``. You see, coming from one who can post a 47,456-word article on the the Lashkar`s wrong doings without making so much as a single admission of Indian artrocities, I`m really not surpised at this lack of balance or judgement at all.

re. #339 by pmishra2
``You haven`t answered Sadna`s main point: we are to believe that warlord and religous bigot like Hafiz Saeed is an individual to need to negotiate with?``

Only if you can show me where i havesuggested the same. Otherwise... off to Reading Comprehension 101 with you too!!

``That the ISI/military gang in Pakistan will render judgement on India and indian democracy?``

Now I`m starting to not even blame you for ignoring the fact that Kashmir is NOT, according to US stipulation, Indian territory but ``disputed territory``. You see, coming from one who can post a 47,456-word article on the the Lashkar`s wrong doings without making so much as a single admission of Indian artrocities, I`m really not surpised at this lack of balance or judgement at all.

More information on the ``Gandhi`` of Pakistan, as proclaimed by HisFlatulence and by his great fan PM. A more nasty warlord, hatemonger and religous fanatic would be hard to imagine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Lashkar e Taiba and its political wing called the Markaz Dawa Al Irshad have for many years been calling for the expansion of the so-called jihad to the rest of India from Jammu & Kashmir for creating two independent homelands for the Muslims of South and North India. As a first step in this jihad, it had in the past called for intensified activities in Hyderabad and Junagadh, which it looks upon as Pakistani territory. The Red Fort, as the seat of the Muslim rulers of the past, is an important symbol in its eyes. This paper is a backgrounder on the Lashkar e Taiba. It has been prepared out of extracts from past papers on various subjects written by the author.

While reporting the Red Fort attack on December 22, 2000, sections of the foreign media described the Lashkar as a Kashmiri militant organisation. It is not. It is a Pakistani organisation based in Pakistan and operating from there. It is a member of Osama bin Laden`s International Islamic Front For Jihad Against the US and Israel. The wrong perceptions abroad about this organisation need to be corrected vigorously.


The activities of Osama bin Laden and his announcement of an International Islamic Front For Jihad against the US and Israel assume ominous significance in the context of his past and continuing links with the Markaz Dawa Al Irshad (the Centre For Preaching) of Pakistan and the Lashkar-e-Toiba (the Army of the Pure), its militant wing. The Markaz and the Lashkar have been involved in acts of terrorism, not only in J & K, but also in other parts of India.

The Markaz was founded in 1987, at the inspiration of Osama bin Laden, by Zafar Iqbal and Hafiz Mohammad Saeed of the University of Engineering and Technology of Lahore and Abdullah Azam of the International Islamic University, which has been funded by bin Laden. Abdullah Azam was killed in an explosion at Peshawar in 1989 and, after his death, Zafar Iqbal and Hafiz Mohammad Saeed have been leading the Markaz while continuing to teach at the University.

The headquarters of the Markaz, occupying over 190 acres of land, are located at Muridke, about 45 kms from Lahore in Pakistani Punjab. Its vast campus contains a huge Jamia mosque for the construction of which bin Laden had reportedly contributed Rs.10 million, a garments factory, an iron foundry, a wood works factory, a swimming pool and three residential colonies for the inmates. A big Islamic University is also coming up.

The ``Herald``, the monthly journal of the prestigious ``Dawn`` group of publications of Karachi, reported as follows in January, 1998: ``While the Dawa is involved in various areas, including religious education and social welfare, it is mainly through its militant wing that it is well known throughout the country. The Lashkar-e-Toiba provides military training to its members and prepares them to wage jihad. Although the Lashkar was initially involved in Afghanistan as well, its activities are now restricted to Indian Kashmir. Today, it is Pakistan’s largest so-called jihadi organisation.``

It quoted an office-bearer of the Lashkar as stating as follows: `` There are many other jihadi groups operating inside Kashmir, but their members are mainly local men (Kashmiris), assisted by fighters from other countries, such as Pakistan and Afghanistan. Eighty per cent of the Mujahideen in other jihadi groups operating in Kashmir come from that area, but the case with the Lashkar is exactly the opposite. Eighty per cent of its soldiers belong to Pakistan.``

The ``Herald`` added: `` The Lashkar prefers not to reveal the exact number of men it has currently deployed in Kashmir. The Amir ( Hafiz Mohammad Saeed) decides how many Mujahideens should be sent to the (Kashmir) Valley. The decision depends on the number of deaths that have taken place. It also depends on the requirement and capacity of the organisation inside Kashmir to absorb the new fighters. What is known, however, is that the Lashkar recruits and trains many more men than it actually requires to fight in Kashmir at any given time.

`` Compared to other similar organisations, the Lashkar has proved to be a resounding success. Since its inception, it has managed to attract thousands of committed young men to its fold. The driving force behind its massive success in recruitment is deceptively simple. It uses its impressive organisational network, which includes schools, social service groups and religious publications, to create a passion for jihad.``

According to the ``Herald``, the Lashkar organises two kinds of military training – a 21-day basic course called ``Daura Aam`` and a three-months advanced course called ``Daura Khas``. The entire advanced course is geared towards guerilla warfare, with training in the use of arms and ammunition, ambush and survival techniques. Other Pakistani press reports after the arrest of Ramzi Yousef, (involved in the bombing of the New York World Trade Centre in February 1993) had also revealed that in the past some volunteers were also trained in aircraft-hijacking.

The Markaz and the Lashkar are extremely secretive organisations and take great care to conceal the real identities of their office-bearers except the Amir and their fighters. For this purpose, they emulate the Palestinian organisations in the use of ``Kuniat``, which are Arabic pseudonyms adopted from the ``Kuniats`` of the Companions of the Prophet and later Islamic heroes.

Whereas in the Palestinian organisations, the ``Kuniats`` die with the holder and the same ``Kuniat`` is not allotted to any other fighter, in the Markaz and the Lashkar, the ``Kuniat`` does not die with the holder. The same ``Kuniat`` is allotted to another fighter. It is not unusual to come across two individuals with the same or similar ``Kuniats``.

Past reports on the activities of the Markaz and the Lashkar had referred to two heroes of the organisation who had reportedly played a legendary role in assisting the Bosnian Muslims in their fight against the Serbs.. One of them used to be referred to as Abu Aziz and the other as Abu Abdul Aziz.

Abu Abdul Aziz, who is suspected to be none other than Osama Bin Laden, is a leading financier of the Markaz and the Lashkar and had contributed Rs.10 million for the construction of a mosque and another sum for the construction of a special guest house inside the Muridke complex of these organisations. This guest house was initially built by bin Laden as a house for his stay during his visits to Pakistan, but, after 1992, the Pakistani authorities do not allow him to stay in Pakistani territory for fear of annoying the US, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. He has, therefore, converted it into a guest house for his associates from Saudi Arabia and elsewhere visiting Pakistan.

It is reported that this guest house was also used as a hide-out for Ramzi Yousef and Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pathan from Balochistan, who was arrested and taken to the US last year and subsequently convicted and sentenced to death for murdering two CIA officers outside the CIA’s headquarters in Washington in January, 1993.

While Osama bin Laden no longer attends the annual gatherings of the Markaz and the Lashkar at Muridke, he addresses them over the conference phone. Till 1995, he used to address the gathering from his hide-out in the Sudan and, since 1996, he has been doing so from Afghanistan. Addressing the last annual conference at Muridke in November, 1997, over phone from Kandahar, bin Laden said: `` Those who oppose jihad are not true Muslims..``

There is some confusion about the real identity of Abu Aziz. He used to attend the annual conferences at Muridke till 1993 and was introduced to the gatherings as a Saudi Muslim of Indian origin who was co-ordinating the flow of assistance to the Bosnian Muslims. He has not been heard of since then. It needs to be checked up whether bin Laden’s parents or other ancestors had, by any chance, migrated to Yemen from India before proceeding from there to Saudi Arabia. If this was so, there could be a possibility that Abu Abdul Aziz and Abu Aziz are one and the same person—Osama bin Laden.

There are some distinguishing characteristics about the operational methods of the Lashkar militants. They do not shave or have a hair- cut and allow their beard and hair to grow long and are taught to employ extremely cruel methods such as beheading and disembowelling their victims from the security forces and non-Muslim communities. Like fighters of many other jihadi organisations, they generally wear shalwars, which do not cover the ankle.

As regards ideology, the Markaz, an Ahle Hadith organisation of Wahabi orientation, was initially very close to Saudi Arabia, but seems to have developed differences with it because of its proximity to Osama bin Laden and of its contention that even Saudi Arabia does not have an ideal Islamic society. Its criticism of the stationing of US and other Western troops in Saudi Arabia also contributed to this. It describes the Hindus and Jews, in that order, as the main enemies of Islam and India and Israel as the main enemies of Pakistan. Its Amir is a strong opponent of Western-style democracy.

The Amir said in an interview to the ``Herald``: ``Democracy is among the menaces we inherited from an alien government. It is part of the system we are fighting against. Many of our brothers feel that they can establish an Islamic society by working within the system. They are mistaken. It is not possible to work within a democracy and establish an Islamic system. You just dirty your hands by dealing with it. If God gives us a chance, we will try to bring in the pure concept of an Islamic Caliphate.``

The ``News`` of Pakistan (November 23,1997) reported as follows on the ideology and beliefs of the Markaz Amir as reflected during its annual conference of November, 1997: ``The Markaz is trying to take advantage of the growing public discontent with the political system and widespread corruption. Using explicit references to the hardline Taliban in Afghanistan, it is making growing references to ending the democratic system in Pakistan. Prof.Saeed calls for a jihad to turn Pakistan into a pure Islamic state.

`` He rejects democracy saying that ``the notion of the sovereignty of the people is anti-Islamic. Only Allah is sovereign.`` The whole venue of the congregation was full of signboards with the slogan ``Jamhooriat ka jawab, grenade and blast (the answer to democracy, grenade and blast)``. Saeed was categorical in saying that his organisation had no immediate designs in Pakistan, even though the present system in Pakistan was not Islamic..

``He stated: ``In fact, there is no Islamic government in the world. Not even in Saudi Arabia, where the system is closer to Islamic teaching, but still not fully Islamic.`` He expressed his happiness over the success of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

``He said his organisation’s main interest in Pakistan was to pick people and train them to wage jihad in countries where an unislamic government was in power.``

The paper quoted him as saying as follows: ``God has ordained every Muslim to fight until His rule is established. We have no option but to follow God’s order. We continue to support other Islamic organisations in the world. This is a very long battle.``

The paper concluded as follows: `` The thumping success of the Muridke gathering took the government and the intelligence agencies by surprise…...Observers say the failure of the political government and growing poverty have turned Pakistan into a breeding ground of organisations carrying out jihad in various countries. Most intelligence officers interviewed by the daily view the unchecked military training of youngsters in the name of launching a jihad outside Pakistan as the most serious threat to the integrity and security of the country in the very near future.``

Even though the Pakistani authorities are concerned over the impact of the organisation on Pakistani youth which could, in the long run, lead to the Talibanisation of Pakistan with a Pakistani version of the Taliban possibly getting its finger on the nuclear trigger, they continue to use the Markaz and the Harkat-ul-Ansar, categorised as a terrorist organisation by the US last year, in their proxy war against India and leaders like Mr.Mushahid Hussain, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s Information Minister, continue to openly flirt with the organisation and bless its activities against India.

When the Markaz was started in 1987, it had a two-fold objective: to assist the Afghan Mujahideen and to rid Islam in Pakistan of what it projected as the corrupting influence of Hinduism. It continues to wage a sustained campaign against what it sees as the evil influence of sufism and Kashmiriyat. As it looks upon Kashmiriyat as the expression of the evil Hindu mind, many of its operations in J & K are directed against the Hindus.

Unlike the Kashmiri extremist organisations which describe their aim as the right of self-determination for the Kashmiris, the Markaz describes its objective as the liberation of the Muslims of J & K from the control and influence of the Hindus followed by the liberation of the Muslims of the rest of India. It describes Kashmir as the gateway to India and calls for the creation of three Pakistans or Muslim homelands—with Pakistan and J & K constituting one, the Muslims of North India forming the second and the Muslims of South India, the third.

Addressing the Lahore Press Club on February 18,1996,Amir Saeed said: ``The jihad in Kashmir would soon spread to entire India. Our Mujahideen would create three Pakistans in India.``

In an interview to the ``Takbeer`` of Pakistan (October 9,1997), he said: `` We feel that Kashmir should be liberated at the earliest. Thereafter, Indian Muslims should be aroused to rise in revolt against the Indian Union so that India gets disintegrated.``

Amongst other leading office-bearers of the Markaz are Yusuf Taibi, who is in charge of external relations, and Amir Hamza, Editor of its journal called `` Majla Al Dawa``, which claims to have a circulation of 70,000 (Rs.12 per copy). The Markaz describes photo cameras, TV sets and movie films as unIslamic. It carries out periodic campaigns for the destruction in public of cameras and TV sets and appeals to the public not to see films.

The Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of Pakistan and the CIA made full use of the Markaz against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan. After the withdrawal of the Soviet troops, the CIA cut off its links with the organisation, but the ISI has been continuing to use it to instigate acts of terrorism not only in Kashmir, but also in other parts of India. The Markaz’s objective of radicalising sections of the Muslim community in North and South India and setting them up against the Hindus and the Union of India suits the operational aims of the ISI.

At the same time, the Pakistani authorities have been concerned over the Markaz’s links with Osama bin Laden and other anti-monarchy Saudi dissidents. Their discomfiture is likely to increase with the announcement by bin Laden of the formation of an International Islamic Front against the US and Israel.

The threat posed to regional peace and stability by the Markaz and the Lashkar needs to be adequately highlighted in international fora.

PM #338
``we wouldn`t happen to be trying to get off the subject, now would we?`` Or are you suggesting that a man`s odious values in one area renders his actions (and motives) in all other areas equally odious? ``

In case you missed other aspects of Hafiz Saeed`s deep comittment to justice and democratic values, let me mention his organisation has repeatedly proclaimed its intention to fly their flag on Red Fort, Delhi, and on the Jamat Dawa website, an attack by its jihadis on the Red Fort in Delhi was celebrated for months together after the event, an attack in which 3-4 innocent people were killed, including civilians.

PS: PM #338
`` armed religious folks (I didn`t say `bigots`!) can be expected to retaliate when their co-religionists --separated in nationality by a mere one-and-a-half generations-- are reportedly being raped, killed and otherwise persecuted. Now, why was that so difficult to comprehend? ``

I too would recommend reading comprehension classes to you. I was trying to tell you that Indians can be expected to retaliate when attacked by armed religious bigots( those who kill out of religious hatred are bigots where I come from).

In Jihadi worldview, there are two kinds of people: good people and evil people. Muslims are good, non-Muslims are evil. However, the definition of Muslim is quite constrained in a Jihadi`s dictionary.

Since most Jihadis are Wahhabites, they consider Shias, Ismailis, and Barelvis as quasi-Muslims. If any quasi-Muslim collaborates with a non-Muslim, he becomes evil too.

The definition of a Muslim, according to Jihadis, is someone who:

a) Doesn`t drink.
b) Has a beard long enough to fit in one fist below the chin.
c) Offers 5 prayers daily. The ankles must be bare at all times.
d) Does not have any non-Muslim friends
e) Strives 24/7, 365 days a year for the glory of his brand of Islam. In pursuit of this goal, it is his duty to order his fellow brethren to offer nimaz, to fast, etc. If he sees anyone committing a sin, he must walk up to that person and scold him regardless of age, level of familiarity, relationship or other conditions.

Jihadis believe in a black & white world in which they define black and white. However, once a Jihadi has been oriented, he behaves like a ``Terminator``. You can let him loose on anything. He will not rest until he dies or the mission is accomplished.

To be fair, the Jihadis played a crucial role in bringing USSR to its knees. Of course American arms and Saudi money helped, but somebody had to face the Soviet bullets.

In 1989, when Kashmir suddenly erupted, it took both ISI and RAW by surprise. Nobody in Pakistan was expecting this, although the cavalier Hameed Gul tried to take credit for this. Yet this set the Pakistan Army thinking.

In the initial years of Kashmir insurgency, most of the fighters were Kashmiris. JKLF was in the lead followed by Harkat-ul-Ansar. In the meantime, Jihadis were busy fighting the Afghan Civil War.

With the spectacular success of Taliban in 1996, Afghanistan finally saw some peace. Now the Jihadis were like a hammer, looking for nails. The Northern Alliance had been pushed to a small enclave. There were no more ``evil people`` to be killed.

So the Jihadis returned home to Pakistan, and started killing Shias. Several top ranking bureaucrats were gunned down in broad daylight. Pakistan government panicked. It was time to do something fast.

So they decided to pump some Jihadis into Azad Kashmir. It was politically tough for Pakistan to jail or kill these Jihadis because of their Mullah overlords. By sending them into Kashmir, Pakistan could kill two birds with one stone. If Jihadis fall to Indian bullets, good riddance. Otherwise if the Jihadis kill some Indian soldiers, Kashmir issue will stay ``hot``.

As a result of this clever policy, India started feeling the heat in Kashmir. The casualty ratio on Indian side rose drastically between 1996 and 2001. Between 1990 and 1996, most of freedom fighters were Kashmiri. After 1996, the % of outsiders (Chechen, Punjabi, Pathan, Arab) fighters registered a drastic increase. Nevertheless, Kashmiris still form a majority of freedom fighters. Outsiders brought with them, their brand of militant Islam, which is quite different from anything practised in Kashmir (or Pakistan for that matter).

Now in the aftermath of 9/11, Pakistan Army is finding it hard to deprogram these ``Terminators``. The Jihadis have granted an honorary membership to Musharraf in the ``Evil club``. He is now a dead-man-walking because of his betrayal of Taliban and decision to curb militant activities.

In my opinion, Pakistan should distance itself from the Jihadis and support the Kashmiri freedom fighters instead. A better step would be to pump the Jihadis into IoK so that Indian Army gets some target practise.

You haven`t answered Sadna`s main point: we are to believe that warlord and religous bigot like Hafiz Saeed is an individual to need to negotiate with? That the ISI/military gang in Pakistan will render judgement on India and indian democracy?


hah, hah ! What a clown ! What is next? Maybe we should also read Mein Kampf to understand Jewish culture? Maybe we should ask the hoodlums of the VHP and Bajrang Dal on the correct model for indian minorities?

I guess this is a good introduction to the ``Alice-in-Wonderland`` world of Pakistani ``intellectual`` (stop laughing back there!). No wonder independent commentators leave the country wondering not if but only when the apocalypse will arrive there.

re. #328 by Ralph
The Turkish-kurd-aiding-Iraqi-Kurd-against-Ba`ath analogy was made in #307.
You`re welcome.

PM #333
You say:
``It is interesting to hear from Sadna, apparently an Indian, that Hafiz Saeed and other leaders, in not making public their financial books, or failing to criticize the absence of democracy in their neck of the wood, should somehow lose the moral prerogative to desire to avenge the oppression (even if exaggerated) of their brothers in faith in a UN-defined disputed territory``

You bet they lose their moral prerogative. Hafiz Saeed can keep claiming the moral prerogative, its not incumbent on Indians to grant it. What is interesting is Pakistanis like you choose to grant religious bigots like him and drug traffickers that moral prerogative wrt an issue like Kashmir which you claim to hold dear. What will you grant to them next, your grandmothers?

You say:
`` Examples of such obfuscation are (i) the demand for independent human rights` observers (especially when the reported state-sponsored oprresson was at its peak, creating extremisits where there may have been none) being presented as having the same magnitude of import as the holding of tansparent elections, which, in any case, is not the issue with anyone. ``


Are you on something strong? You seem to be changing your story and your opinion or your personality as you go along. This was indeed an issue with you only a few posts ago. Here is your own post #305 among others to which I posted my reply:

``Amen, to that, brother! --though I don`t think, obsession or not, it would be easy or realistic-- given our history -- for mullahs, or even the common Pakistani, to forget the K issue as long as there are reports from there of gross human rights violations. India should, to this end, ensure transparency not only of state elections but its handling of dissent/ insurrection``.

Patrick

Sorry mate, I was thinking along the lines of Parvez Mohammed ;)

I still disagree with your condoning of killings for `revenge`, as you say, but we can agree to disagree about that. I think that is an extremely dangerous doctrine. If we begin to accept people`s moral prerogative to kill followers of other religions in `revenge` for perceived oppression of coreligionists then incidents like Gujrats seem completely normal. To make the point that there is state government in Gujrat and not in Kashmir (there is) seems to be just sophistry.

I am heartened by the security Christians feel in Pakistan. There was a bad patch so I am happy conditions have improved. I congratulate Pakistani Christians for your solidarity with Pakistan. I make the same point in India. The security of minorities lies in working with the majority, not in looking for excuses to provoke and antagonize them.

#331 by sadna

`` You seem to be asking that the Indians convince the drug trafficking ISI and religious bigot Hafiz Saeed about the quality of Indian democracy and about Indian human rights record in Kashmir. ``

You seem to be assuming that I`m about to confirm Chamberlain`s assertion, and that even if I did, that I`d agree with your rather odious moral equivalence of drug-trafficking and killing/raping of innocent civilians by the Indian army. (--Given that that is a given)

The least count on my moral compass seems to differ from yours, lady, so you can keep asking.

``While you wait, also ask Hafiz Saeed for his opinion on the mandatory death sentence for blasphemy and about rights of Ahmedis.``

tsk tsk... now now.. we wouldn`t happen to be trying to get off the subject, now would we? Or are you suggesting that a man`s odious values in one area renders his actions (and motives) in all other areas equally odious? Interesting logic! Shall we call this Sanda`s dismissal-by-invalid-association principle?

``2. And lets see, according to you, Pakistanis get to use armed religious bigots to make their point but Indians must use reasoned arguments to make theirs. ...Why? The appropriate place to reply to points like those is in the battlefield.``

I would in all earnestness recommend a course in remedial reading. Or alternatively anger/stress management. Look for a therapist who specializes and anger-induced loss of reasoning ability. You see, the only thing i remember saying on the particular issue is that armed religious folks (I didn`t say `bigots`!) can be expected to retaliate when their co-religionists --separated in nationality by a mere one-and-a-half generations-- are reportedly being raped, killed and otherwise persecuted. Now, why was that so difficult to comprehend?

re. HE #311:
Agree with your point on Indian obduracy proving stumbling block to solution. Will be meeting Cowasjee tomorrow over dinner. Will ask for his take on the matter.
Thanks.
And, er.. you`re doing a great job keeping your composure.
Then again, hhhmmph... it must get kinda boring being THAT civil ;)

It is interesting to hear from Sadna, apparently an Indian, that Hafiz Saeed and other leaders, in not making public their financial books, or failing to criticize the absence of democracy in their neck of the wood, should somehow lose the moral prerogative to desire to avenge the oppression (even if exaggerated) of their brothers in faith in a UN-defined disputed territory in a region where, whatever unrealistic secularists would have us believe, and indeed what events such as transpired in Gujarat in 2002 clearly attest to, people largely identify themselves by religious affiliation.

But perhaps it is just Indian insecurity that blinds one to this simple truth that expresses itself in bloodshed (mostly of shall we say the minority communal group?) every ten years or so.

But surely `insecurity` cannot be invoked in the deliberate, albeit clever, manipulation of others` words so as to completely obfuscate and hopefully lead others off the actual issue being debated. Examples of such obfuscation are (i) the demand for independent human rights` observers (especially when the reported state-sponsored oprresson was at its peak, creating extremisits where there may have been none) being presented as having the same magnitude of import as the holding of tansparent elections, which, in any case, is not the issue with anyone.

But of course it suits Sadna`s agenda perfectly well to present the issue as one of transparency of elections and lack of the same among those PRESUMABLY asking for it (although, if you look closely, they really aren`t) as this shifts all responsibility for the creation of these `monsters` away from one`s backyard, which one can now cite as being spanking clean. Perhaps the only thing it is cleansed of are the orignal voices of dissent, and the image of the monster where it rightfully belonged. However, again, we will probably never know just how strong those voices were, and the actual means of their extermination, because --and this is not something Sadna will tell you-- many of them were silenced by what Sadna would call their own state`s army.

Another--rather classic, it has to be said--tactic of obfuscation is the drawing of false, deliberately ridiculous comparisons and extensions of (il)logic to statements made by one`s adversary-- a tactic often used by arjun_m when he seeks to ridicule anyone claiming that the perpetrators of Spet.11 are far from proven. Just as he seeks to completely avoid the debate by suggesting that those making such claims must also believe the canard of 4,000 Jews staying away from work that day (which, of course, they DON`T necessarily believe), Sadna here tries similar dismissal-by-fallacious-association when she seems to suggest that what transpires in the US general elections, or the US`s actions internationally, should be of the the same relevance to Pakistan`s religiously minded as the goings on in a part of a region that has been under dispute (whatever anyone`s RIGHTS to it) since its very independence from colonial rule and principality.

One would almost draw the conclusion that such spohistry is the, pardon the pun, province, of Indians. Thankfully, one is spared such a conclusion by the presence of those many Indians who, whatever their feelings about Kashmiri independence or Pakistani infiltration, haven`t lost the ability to tell apples from oranges. And haven`t mastered the art of verbal alchemy to peddle the two as one species, either.

It is interesting to hear from Sadna, apparently an Indian, that Hafiz Saeed and other leaders, in not making public their financial books, or failing to criticize the absence of democracy in their neck of the wood, should somehow lose the moral prerogative to desire to avenge the oppression (even if exaggerated) of their brothers in faith in a UN-defined disputed territory in a region where, whatever unrealistic secularists would have us believe, and indeed what events such as transpired in Gujarat in 2002 clearly attest to, people largely identify themselves by religious affiliation.

But perhaps it is just Indian insecurity that blinds one to this simple truth that expresses itself in bloodshed (mostly of shall we say the minority communal group?) every ten years or so.

But surely `insecurity` cannot be invoked in the deliberate, albeit clever, manipulation of others` words so as to completely obfuscate and hopefully lead others off the actual issue being debated. Examples of such obfuscation are (i) the demand for independent human rights` observers (especially when the reported state-sponsored oprresson was at its peak, creating extremisits where there may have been none) being presented as having the same magnitude of import as the holding of tansparent elections, which, in any case, is not the issue with anyone.

But of course it suits Sadna`s agenda perfectly well to present the issue as one of transparency of elections and lack of the same among those PRESUMABLY asking for it (although, if you look closely, they really aren`t) as this shifts all responsibility for the creation of these `monsters` away from one`s backyard, which one can now cite as being spanking clean. Perhaps the only thing it is cleansed of are the orignal voices of dissent, and the image of the monster where it rightfully belonged. However, again, we will probably never know just how strong those voices were, and the actual means of their extermination, because --and this is not something Sadna will tell you-- many of them were silenced by what Sadna would call their own state`s army.

Another--rather classic, it has to be said--tactic of obfuscation is the drawing of false, deliberately ridiculous comparisons and extensions of (il)logic to statements made by one`s adversary-- a tactic often used by arjun_m when he seeks to ridicule anyone claiming that the perpetrators of Spet.11 are far from proven. Just as he seeks to completely avoid the debate by suggesting that those making such claims must also believe the canard of 4,000 Jews staying away from work that day (which, of course, they DON`T necessarily believe), Sadna here tries similar dismissal-by-fallacious-association when she seems to suggest that what transpires in the US general elections, or the US`s actions internationally, should be of the the same relevance to Pakistan`s religiously minded as the goings on in a part of a region that has been under dispute (whatever anyone`s RIGHTS to it) since its very independence from colonial rule and principality.

One would almost draw the conclusion that such spohistry is the, pardon the pun, province, of Indians. Thankfully, one is spared such a conclusion by the presence of those many Indians who, whatever their feelings about Kashmiri independence or Pakistani infiltration, haven`t lost the ability to tell apples from oranges. And haven`t mastered the art of verbal alchemy to peddle the two as one species, either.

PM

`please demostrate how my Turkish-kurd-aiding-Iraqi-Kurd-against-Ba`ath analogy is flawed?`

Please clarify that analogy or point out where you made it. Thanks.

PM #325

Are you confirming that the ISI did indeed play a substantial role in drug trafficking on the Afghan-Pakistan border in the last 6 years as Nancy Chamberlain(not Wendy) testified recently to a Senate committee? (It came on CSPAN, btw).

1. You seem to be asking that the Indians the drug trafficking ISI and religious bigot Hafiz Saeed about the quality of Indian democracy and about Indian human rights record in Kashmir.

You can keep asking.

While you wait, also ask Hafiz Saeed for his opinion on the mandatory death sentence for blasphemy and about rights of Ahmedis.

2. And lets see, according to you, Pakistanis get to use armed religious bigots to make their point but Indians must use reasoned arguments to make theirs.

Why? The appropriate place to reply to points like those is in the battlefield.

re. Ralph, #326:

Newspapers operate under the imperative `sell or sink`, so you can well imagine why key articles might be left out of headlines.

But even in making the distinction of `the Hindus` from `Hindus` I was not passing judgement on whether EITEHR would be morally acceptable. (You see, as one of the the few Christian principles I still happen to follow(though with much less conviction than the Good Lord doth admonish) is that of offering the other cheek.)

But I think that the two lie on very different places on the totem pole of evil, and that is the point I was trying to make.

By the way, I don`t happen to deem the extra-juducial killing of the perpetrators of Godhra morally accpetable. That is because there WAS a judicial system in place which should have been allowed/pressed to enforce the rule of LAW. (Though, regrettably, we all know what the law enforcing agencies choes to do instead). In Kashmir, by contrast, there existed no such possible recourse to law and I can very well step out of my Christian skin to understand and even condone the acts of the jihadis, insofar as they were retaliatory, or perceived to be.

rgds,
P(atrick) M(asih)

P.S. You`d be happy to hear I have encountered no anti-Christian sentiment in even the most fundamentalist quarters of society, related to the war in Iraq. Thankfully, people can turn their TV`s on to find Michael Moore and Jean Chriac rail against Bush`s megalomanical operations, and see that, even if this a war agaisnt Muslims, it is not perpetuated by Christians per se. Local Christian leaders have also made it to the airwaves and have done much through rallies and protest marches to create a sense of solidarity with the Muslim masses. The security about churches is actually less now compared to a year or so ago.

PM #325

Are you confirming that the ISI did indeed play a substantial role in drug trafficking on the Afghan-Pakistan border in the last 6 years as Nancy Chamberlain(not Wendy) testified recently to a Senate committee? (It came on CSPAN, btw).

1. You seem to be asking that the Indians convince the drug trafficking ISI and religious bigot Hafiz Saeed about the quality of Indian democracy and about Indian human rights record in Kashmir.

You can keep asking.

While you wait, also ask Hafiz Saeed for his opinion on the mandatory death sentence for blasphemy and about rights of Ahmedis.

2. And lets see, according to you, Pakistanis get to use armed religious bigots to make their point but Indians must use reasoned arguments to make theirs.

Why? The appropriate place to reply to points like those is in the battlefield.

re. pmishra2 #320:
``Yes, you are quite right. Hafiz Saeed is definitely similar to Gandhi. In fact, I think Gandhi had more violent tendencies (didnt he abuse his wife? and mistreat his sons?) and Saeed is more of a normal person.``

Ok... you get the Chowk annual missed-the-point award. Good going. With any luck, you might even fool a few other Indians here about that the argument was about!

re: harimau

[Is Pakistan`s existence justified?]

There was no alternative in 1947. Nehru and G.D. Birla wanted division of India. Muslims felt economically exploited and politically alienated. Jinnah wanted a confederation of 3 states to avoid partition of Punjab and Bengal. Nehru and Birla disagreed. Gandhi acquiesced.

1947 proved that there are 2, not 1 nation in subcontinent. And
1971 proved that there are 3, not 2 nations in subcontinent.

Economically Pakistan has progressed considerably from 1947 situation. The British were using our territories as recruitment area for British Indian Army. There were just 34 industrial units in Pakistan, whereas there were over 830+ in India. So from this perspective, Pakistan has made progress and justified its creation from economic perspective.

Nevertheless, I believe the Hindu-Muslim divisions were deeper in 1947. Now, the communal divide has been considerably abridged. Films and media have helped in creating a common culture in India and Pakistan.

Personally I feel that Indians and Pakistanis get along very nicely on a superficial level. Lingering beneath is distrust and grudge, largely because of the Kashmir issue. In my opinion, this is the only issue on which Indians and Pakistanis disagree ferociously.

Eventually, (if Kashmir is resolved amicably and equitably), I foresee a South Asian Union along the lines of EU in which the Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Sri Lankan, Nepali and Bhutanese economies are intertwined with few trade barriers, custom regulations and visa restrictions.

If your question suggests that Pakistan should reunite with India, I believe this would be impractical. Pakistanis have gotten used to a particular way of life that Indians would consider too Islamized. To accomodate Pakistanis into India, some major changes will be needed in Indian constitution. I am not sure if majority of Indians will like that.

For example, Indians could object to Urdu as official language. Pakistanis could object to Devangiri script. Pakistanis would like to ban alcohol. Indian Hindus would like to ban cow-slaughter.

We are better off solving the Kashmir issue and living as separate (but friendly) nations.

here we have an interview with the ``Gandhi of Pakistan``. A man who organizes mass murderers of civilians but is treated like a great leader! Notice that this delusional and paranoid monster suffers from some kind of bizarre obsession with India in general. And we are to believe that Kashmir is some kind of special case? That it`s :solution: (giving in to murderous lunatics like these) will lead to peace?

What a joke !


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

Mohammad Hafiz Said

Globalising jihad

Kashmir would have won its freedom, had the former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif not withdrawn forces from the Kargil front. We were very close to victory but Nawaz Sharif, the traitor, sold out the blood of mujahideen to the US



By Mohammad Shehzad

Professor Mohammad Hafiz Said, the mastermind of suicide attacks in Kashmir, breaks his long silence to speak on an issue closest to his heart.

Professor Said is the former chief of the now defunct jihadi outfit, Lashkare Taiba. Prior to founding the Lashkar in 1986, he served as teacher at the Engineering University Lahore.

The Lashkar was banned by Musharraf`s government on 13 January 2002 in the aftermath of an attack on the Indian Parliament on 13 December 2001. Said had already stepped down from Lashkar`s leadership by that time. He renamed Markaz Al Dawatul Wal Irshad (whose armed wing was Lashkare Taiba) as Jamatud Dawa, and assumed the position of its leader.

Said was arrested in May 2002 and released on a court order on 31 October 2002, on the basis of the argument that he had resigned from the leadership of Lashkar before it was banned.

Said was in Islamabad on 2nd April to address the Defense of Muslim-Fraternity Conference, organised by Jamaatud Dawa. Political Economy interviewed him on the occasion. Excerpts follow:



PE: You visited the United States in 1994 and gave lectures in 20 cities. What impression did you get of the US state and society at the time?

HS: At that time the US was not hostile towards Pakistan. Its attitude became anti-Islamic after the collapse of the former USSR and the fall of communism. The 9/11 incident added fuel to the US`s animosity and biases against the Islamic world. When I visited the US in 1994 the situation was not that bad.

PE: In an interview with a weekly in 1997 you stated that Kashmir would win its freedom within two years. What went wrong?

HS: I would say that the Kashmir cause has received a serious setback due to 9/11. All freedom movements around the world, particularly in Islamic countries, have now been declared as ``acts of terror``. The US is trying to suppress all such struggles of freedom. Kashmir would have won its freedom, had the former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif not withdrawn forces from the Kargil front. We were very close to victory but Nawaz Sharif, the traitor, sold out the blood of mujahideen to the US.

But despite all these acts of `dishonesty`, the mujahideen are fighting stoutly against the Indian repression, and are determined to challenge the immoral Indian occupation of Kashmir. All these factors have delayed the process of Kashmir`s liberation. I think it will take time. But I assure you that the Kashmir movement will be successful.

PE: How far is it correct to say that your bitterness against India is due to the fact that 36 members of your family lost their lives at the time of partition?

HS: It is true that many members of my family were martyred by the Hindus. These things do matter at a personal level, but my bitterness is due to the overall policies, tone and tenor adopted in India against the Muslims. Right from the time of partition, whatever India has done--be it the demolition of Babri Mosque or the holocaust of Muslim populace in Gujarat--proves that Hindus` policy is aimed at eliminating the Muslims so that India could become a Hindu state. In a nutshell, there has been no change in the aggressive and vicious policies of India against the Muslims since partition.

PE: So, what is the solution?

HS: The solution is, of course, not to kneel down before the Indians and beg them for a dialogue. Dialogue is not a bad idea. But India has never been sincere in resolving issues through talks. It has been finding opportunities to stab Pakistan in its back. Look at the role it played in the disintegration of Pakistan in 1971. It sent its troops to the East Pakistan and paved the way for the creation of Bangladesh. And what a shameful role it is playing in Kashmir by defying the UN resolutions and masterminding the mass murder of the Kashmiri Muslims. So we think that our policy of `Kashmir through jihad` is absolutely right. It is India that has shown us the path of jihad.

PE: How do you respond to Dr Israr Ahmad`s statement that the fight in Kashmir is a jihad for freedom (jihad fil hurriyat) and not a jihad for Allah (jihad fisabeel Allah)?

HS: Jihad for freedom is synonymous with jihad for Allah. The Quran is very clear on that. There is only one jihad and that is jihad for Allah. All other forms of jihad are primarily for Allah`s sake. Allah orders the Muslims in the Quran to fight for the rights of the poor and battle against the atrocities against the Muslims. Allah says that such a fight is His fight. Those who dispute that jihad in Kashmir is not for Allah could maintain it as their personal opinion, but they cannot say that this has been established in the Quran.

PE: Do you see any circumstances under which the US could play a positive role in Kashmir? What would that role be?

HS: In the light of the US anti-Muslim and anti-Islam policies, Uncle Sam cannot be trusted. The US is provoking the `infidel` powers against Islam. It has waged a crusade against the Muslims. It is openly condoning Indian acts of terror and extending the Hindus its full support. It has declared the legitimate freedom struggle in Kashmir a reign of terror. In the backdrop of all these facts, we will never accept the US role on the issue of Kashmir.

PE: Americans and the Indians allege that the `infiltration` across the LoC still persists. Is it true?

HS: This is totally wrong. There is no infiltration across the Line of Control. Everything is being carried out by the Kashmiris inside Kashmir. Their freedom struggle is indigenous. This baseless accusation is just an excuse to pressurise Pakistan.

PE: You have been released on bail. What is your legal situation? Do you apprehend that Pakistani government will again bring charges against you? Do you face any restrictions on your movements or activities in Pakistan?

HS: There were restrictions. The government of Pakistan banned Lashkare Taiba. The Lashkar`s role has been limited to Kashmir. The Lashkar is still active in Kashmir. Jamaatud Dawa`s mission is to preach Islam on every street of the country. We are invoking the spirit of jihad among the Muslims. We are also running a lot of philanthropic projects; for instance, we provide free medicines, ambulance services, education etc. We are doing it freely and there is no restriction by the government.

PE: How do Muslim scholars of India, belonging to Ahle Hadith sect, view the jihad in Kashmir?

HS: Their view on jihad in Kashmir is the same as ours. Whether it is Imam Bokhari of Delhi Mosque or the religious figures of other parts of India, they all are unanimous on the point that jihad in Kashmir is valid, and freedom is the right of all Kashmiri Muslims.

PE: Who supports your policies in the National Assembly? What do you expect from them?

HS: I believe the US aggression on Iraq has internationalised the issue of jihad and united all the Muslims on one platform. At the moment, the entire National Assembly and Senate is supporting jihad --be it ARD, PPPP, MMA or PML. I don`t see any rift on the issue of jihad.

PE: The motto of Pakistan Army is jihad for Allah. Do you think it is following this motto?

HS: I would say that the survival of the entire Muslim world depends on jihad. Jihad is the only solution to the repression against the Muslims. It is high time that the army acts according to its motto. It is time for the government to act according to the ideology of Pakistan, which is Islam, and Islam preaches jihad. I would urge Pakistan Army to wage jihad to liberate all oppressed Muslims around the world.

PE: You once asked the Indian Muslims to stand up for jihad. To what extent do you think the Indian Muslims support you in this regard?

HS: I feel they do support our views on jihad. I see that the Indian Muslims are awakening to the call for jihad in the aftermath of brutalities in Kashmir, Gujarat, and other parts of India. India is, in fact, forcing its Muslim population to wage a jihad, just like the US has invigorated the Iraqi Muslims.

re. pmishra2 #320:
``This is what is called shamelessness... The difference between you and Narendra Modi is that the latter is more sincere.``

Can it already. Save your righteous indignation for the time when you`ve successfully defended your position. Otherwise it`s merely so much of added obfuscation.

Has it occured to your self-rightheous self that not all Pakistanis are acquainted with names that Indians like to believe are the masterminds behind civilian killings in Kashmir, even if they those Pakistanis may readily admit to the occurences of such killings?

Now, if you`ve got your self-righteous kicks for the day and want to reengage in actaul debate, perhaps you can address the issue of Indian failure to allow INDEPENDENT (though somone on this board seems to have problems with that) human rights` observers into Kashmir at the height of the insurgency. Could it be that (HORRORS!) the Indian army was also enaging at the time in -- what did someone call it? Tit-for tat?-- at the time? Naah... that would be -- what`s the word? Evil? -- and we all know that the Indian army in Kashmir is totally incapable of being `evil`.

For extra credit, please demostrate how my Turkish-kurd-aiding-Iraqi-Kurd-against-Ba`ath analogy is flawed? Any other takers? Maybe Sadna, once she figures not all of us are stupid enough not to see the obvious flaws in her own analogy with US elections/intervention?

Killing Muslims and Killing the Muslims

PM

Some of your postings dont reveal you to be a mad and bloodthirsty jihadi, so I hope a moderate Muslim like you doesn`t think the way your outburst made you sound.

Still, it is hard to take your explanation at face value. If after Gujrat incident, Narendra Modi had claimed that Hindus were morally justified to kill the Muslims for what they have done to Hindus, what, accordiing to you, would he be saying? Would you hear him say that it was justified to kill

- those who burnt the train full of Hindus
- Muslims who died in the revenge massacre
- or would he be saying that according to him all Muslims deserved to die?

Would you maintain the distinction between the Muslims and Muslims then?

If you would, then you fairness is laudable. Indeed, unfortunately most people have neither your fine grasp of the english grammar nor your subtle moral mind. This includes those who work for AFP and the publishers of The Daily Times. Here is what they published about the statement about whose morality you are not sure. You will notice that everyone missed the point about `the` Hindus and `Hindus`.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_4-4-2003_pg8_4

Killing Hindus better than talks: Hafiz Saeed

ISLAMABAD: The founder and former head of the outlawed Lashkar-e-Taiba says “killing Hindus” is the best approach to the 56-year-old dispute between Pakistan and India over Kashmir.

“The solution is not to kneel down before India and beg for a dialogue. India has never been sincere in resolving issues through talks,” Hafiz Saeed told AFP on Wednesday. “Our policy of Kashmir through jihad is absolutely right. India has shown us this path. “We would like to give India a tit-for-tat response and reciprocate in the same way by killing the Hindus, just like it is killing the Muslims in Kashmir.” —AFP

As a Christian, I would appeal to you to not start killing `the` Christians because `Christians` are killing `Muslims` in Iraq. There arent too many of them in Pakistan and I hear them all falling over one another to prove their loyalty to Pakistan. Thank you for your generosity.

Acruqlly, His xcellency is not quite off the mark about the Pakistani perspective. I may disagree with his opinions, but they are quite an adequate reflection of the establishment there.

HisExcellency #319


Yes, you are quite right. Hafiz Saeed is definitely similar to Gandhi. In fact, I think Gandhi had more violent tendencies (didnt he abuse his wife? and mistreat his sons?) and Saeed is more of a normal person.

I think you should write about this concept and popularize it. If nothing else, it may ultimately earn you a slot at a classy mental health facility. Your family will be spared the burden of dealing with you.

re: harimau

[Tell me, exactly what constitutional guarantees did Jinnah provide HIS minorities BEFORE or, for that matter, AFTER the formation of Pakistan?]

This is a long debate in itself. In short, the constitution provides freedom of speech, religion, political association, etc. There is no difference between the American constitution and the Pakistani constitution as far as minority rights are concerned. The 1956, 1962 and 1973 constitutions are egalitarian and tolerant in nature. Since Jinnah had died in 1948, his public speeches were used as guidance in these constitutions. As a result, minorities enjoyed considerable freedom in Pakistan until 1974.

In the 1970s, a wave of Islamic fundamentalism swept across the Muslim world. Iranian revolution, King Faisal`s ascent in Arabia, rise of Algerian FIS, resurgence of Turkish Rifah party occured in this period. This wave affected Pakistan as well. The Mullahs demanded declaring Ahmedis as non-Muslims. Bhutto used this as a political issue: he declared Ahmedis as non-Muslims in exchange for Mullah support of his nationalization programme.

Mullahs too this as encouragement and started spreading their wings. Their demands grew harsher and harsher. Finally a confrontation happened. Bhutto lost power. Zia exploited Islam to stay in power. He passed a series of black laws known as Hudood Ordinance in 1981.

Ever since 1981, the Mullahs have enjoyed considerable influence in Pakistan society because of those laws. The Pakistani masses have been protesting against these laws since 1981 but there is a division of public opinion. Sindhis and Punjabis are generally against these laws, Pashtuns and Baluchis are in favor.

To summarize: Jinnah wanted to establish a tolerant moderate Islamic state with loosely defined religious ideology along the lines of European states. Even after his death things remained pretty good for Pakistani Hindus, Christians and Ahmedis until mid-1970s and the advent of Zia-ul-Haq. Ever since, none of the secular leaders (Benazir, Altaf Hussain, Nawaz Sharif) have been able to challenge the Mullahs (Fazlur Rehman, Qazi Hussain, Noorani, Sami-ul-Haq, Hafiz Saeed, Maulana Azhar, Azim Tariq).

Maybe someone should write an article on ``Treatment of Minorities`` in India and Pakistan. It could be a nice topic for constructive criticism.

Cheers.

re: harimau

[I suppose your definition of softline is when you kill civilians with Kalashnikovs and grenades]

Killing of civilians is neither a softline nor hardline. It is not clear who is doing this so I will not comment on Nadimarg, Chittisinghpura, etc. Perhaps a judicial inquiry will reveal which terrorist organization was involved. There are several rogue elements among the freedom fighters such as Lashkar-e-Jabbar who were also involved in acid attacks on women in Kashmir. But such organizations are very few in the Kashmir struggle. The Pakistani Mullahs claim that Indian security forces staged these killings, although this is quite doubtful.

Nevertheless, there are civilian deaths in every revolution. Even in Gandhi`s Civil Disobedience movement, there were numerous incidents like Chauri Chaura. These unfortunate victims are just the collateral damage in the struggle for Kashmir`s liberation.

The Quran condemns killing of civilians. The Quran also condemns the occupation of another people through military force and violating their human rights. Perhaps if India were to stop its occupation and human rights violations, these civilian deaths would stop.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

[Okay, let us assume it is Pakistan that wants peace and it is India that doesn`t. What do you plan to do about it? ]

Absolutely nothing.

Ref HisStupidity (various posts)

You have said that Jinnah wanted constitutional guarantees for minorities (read, Muslims) and since the Congress wouldn`t provide it he got Pakistan.

Tell me, exactly what constitutional guarantees did Jinnah provide HIS minorities BEFORE or, for that matter, AFTER the formation of Pakistan?

In your heart, do you believe that India has failed to provide equal treatment under law to its minorities?

The real intent of these questions of course is: is Pakistan`s existence justified?

PS. By the way, exactly what constitutional guarentees does the MAJORITY in Pakistan have?

Ref HisStupidity #310

{[Pray to Allah for that. And see if the rest of India gives a sh!t even if the Valley erupts. ]

Quite a frank admission. It is India that wants the real estate of Kashmir with disregard for Kashmiri sentiment. Pakistanis on the other hand, do give a shit. And when that happens, you will smell it all over you.}

Do you think the Pakistanis will take Kashmir if it comes attached with, oh, let us say, the Biharis stranded for 32 years in Bangladesh?

How about if another 20 million bhaiyyas from UP and Bihar are attached to the Valley? How would you like that? Some Gujjus like Jinnah?

Ref HisStupidity #311

[There is no point in adopting a soft line when the other side is adopting a hardline attitude.]

I suppose your definition of softline is when you kill civilians with Kalashnikovs and grenades.

[If and when India softens its stance, so should Pakistan.]

I don`t think it has softened up India. In fact, it has hardened India.

[Otherwise it will appear that Pakistan is begging India for peace, which is far from the truth.]

So, spend even more on your army and see if we care.

[Peace will happen when both countries want it, and are willing to work towards it.]

Okay, let us assume it is Pakistan that wants peace and it is India that doesn`t. What do you plan to do about it?

re: nakhok

[I can see why HisExcellency believes that readers view him as a madrassah-graduate who has been brainwashed by Pakistani education system.]

I don`t believe that. Only certain Indian chowkies are indulging in this personal attack, as if this will strengthen their hollow, self-serving arguments.

[HisExcellency shouldn`t grudge his readers if they come to the conclusion that he learnt his history and psychology at a Madrassah in remote Pakistan. ]

Speak for yourself only. Most readers are perceptive enough to understand why you are calling me a madrassah-educated Pakistani. You are simply attacking me because you don`t like my opinion. There is a word for that. Bigotry.

I just like to express my opinion aggressively. If Indian or Pakistani chowkies can counter my opinion with facts, I am more than willing to revise my opinions.

Cheers.

Indians are only wasting time on the DF trying to befool themselves. Their knowledge about Kashmir issue is from the leadership which don`t want to face the facts on the table. If they think their leadership is right then they should encourage it to resolve with the power of their argument instead of wasting so much on military action in Kashmir.

PM #306

[quote]
If you have more inormation on the killings of innocent civilians by Hafiz Saeed`s and his cronies (which you may well), then I can understand why my post would rub you the wrong way.
[end-quote]

This is what is called shamelessness. This is just like the VHP in Gujarat; this how people like Bal Thackeray talk. Their language is full of this qualification and contingency. What, innocent muslims were targeteed and killed in Ahmedabad??? oh my goodness, they are amazed and shocked !! Where is the proof? One hindu was also killed! This is a matter of ``pride`` of Gujarat etc. etc.

The difference between you and Narendra Modi is that the latter is more sincere. He is an open bigot. You cultivate a veneer of civility while participating in the same kind of denial and tacit support for murder.

Its interesting to hear from PM that in Pakistan apparently, a psychopathic killer who kills out of blind religious hatred is not responsible for his own actions, someone else is. Is this a characteristic of Islam or is it a characteristic of Pakistan?

And its nice to hear that people feel compelled to become psychopathic killers without control over their actions because other societies in which they donot live have not convinced them that transparent elections are held or have not allowed their favorite human rights organisations to operate as demanded. Forget the fact that in their own country elections are rigged and the premier human rights body in their own country is the target of their vilest rhetoric.

What PM is actually saying is Hafiz Saeed and the ISI are the people whom India must convince about its actions, being as they are the only trusted adjudicators of human rights and democracy on the subcontinent.

Of course donot ask Hafiz Saeed and ISI to be even as transparent themselves as they demand foreign governments to be, namely even to make public their own financial books. No, doing so will jeopardize the security of the subcontinent.

If Wendy Chamberlain deposed last month before a Congress Committee that the ISI had played a `substantial role` in the last 6 years in drug trafficking in the Afghan-Pakistan region, well we all know US has failed to convince Hafiz Saeed and ISI that elections were transparent in the US and its clear to all that GW Bush and the US govenrment is waging war on Muslims.

re: #304

[Shireen Mazari talks like Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle of the US talk, except Pakistan doesn`t have enough firepower to back up her talk.]

Who cares what you think of Shireen Mazari or Pakistan`s firepower? Neither are you a political commentator, nor a defence or military expert. Just stick to the facts, not your commentary. As long as Shireen Mazari and others in the English press are pro-Kashmir, nobody can claim that ``the English press in Pakistan is advising the government to ditch Kashmir.`` If Pakistan lacked firepower, India would certainly have crossed the line of control last year.

[Pray to Allah for that. And see if the rest of India gives a sh!t even if the Valley erupts. ]

Quite a frank admission. It is India that wants the real estate of Kashmir with disregard for Kashmiri sentiment. Pakistanis on the other hand, do give a shit. And when that happens, you will smell it all over you.

re: PM

``Maybe it`s not just the army, but the whole establishment. I don`t suggest that the Pakistanis have been completely misled/lied to about the oppression in Kashmir, but it has certainly been an easy story to peddle to a mass already predisposed to intense distrust for Indians.``

I don`t disagree with that completely. There are people in India as well as Pakistan who have a vested interest in perpetuating distrust towards the other. Stories like Kashmir, Babri mosque and Godhra help these people.

But most of the population stands in the middle. It listens to protagonists and antagonists of a theory. Whoever makes a more convincing case, the public swarms to that side.

On the Kashmir issue, Indian obduracy on almost all aspects of the issue (plebsicite, political prisoners, talks, troop reduction, mediation) is weakening the case of doves (Cowasjee, Ayaz Amir, Naqvi, etc). As a result, the hawks (Mazari, Shafqat, Mullahs, Kashmir Committee, Military) are having a field day. Pakistanis will not listen to the doves if they feel that India is being inflexible.

There is no point in adopting a soft line when the other side is adopting a hardline attitude. If and when India softens its stance, so should Pakistan. Otherwise it will appear that Pakistan is begging India for peace, which is far from the truth. Peace will happen when both countries want it, and are willing to work towards it.

re. pmishra #286
If you have more inormation on the killings of innocent civilians by Hafiz Saeed`s and his cronies (which you may well), then I can understand why my post would rub you the wrong way. However, I was judging his statements at face value. Killing THE Hinuds [that kill] the Muslims is not hardly the absolute nadir of depravity you can encounter. Unless, perhaps your are willing to believe that the likes of Hafiz are completely deluding themselves about past artrocities by Indian troops against civilians, including women, which I`m betting would not have been among your lists of human rights` violations in the region, though it was on a certain agency`s, called AI, priror to their being unceremonsiusly booted out of that state.

All I`m saying is that it is fatuous to present the issue as black-and-white.

re. harish_hyd #287:

``Now would you support your Jihadi brethren if they target the US Marines stationed in post-war Iraq? I bet not, for the US doesn’t take too kindly to Jihadis unlike India, and you and your fellow Lashkarites will either be shot through your heads or packed off on a never-ending vacation to that exotic tropical island, the Guantanamo Bay.``

Not very big on logic, are we! I questioned the characterization of Hafiz`s stance as `evil`; not the practicality of a stragety of guerilla warfare in a particualr situation. Comprende, amigo?

But to answer your question... sure I would support Jihadi tagetting US Marines in Iraq. FYI, even a certain US infantryman said as much week ago. Why? Heard of the idea of retalliation in War? Remember, the US doesn`t get to say when the war stops only so it can effectively go about its spoils-gathering. Or maybe you believe that fighting and killing under the command of Central Control, often against one`s will and values (if one has not learnt the art of completely suppressing those entities) in a war to secure economic advantage is of somewhat superior morality to jihadis fighting for silly (preceived) oppression of people with whom they identify.

``One reason the Pakis betrayed the Taliban, but not the Kashmiri cause is because they couldn’t make a killing out of giving it up as they did in the case of the former. That’s perhaps why post-September 11, when some journalists apparently expressed surprise at Pakistan’s quick acquiescence to President Bush’s demands, the US State Attorney told them that Pakis would sell their mothers off for a few dollars.``

``One reason the Pakis betrayed the Taliban, but not the Kashmiri cause is because they couldn’t make a killing out of giving it up as they did in the case of the former. That’s perhaps why post-September 11, when some journalists apparently expressed surprise at Pakistan’s quick acquiescence to President Bush’s demands, the US State Attorney told them that Pakis would sell their mothers off for a few dollars.``

Duh! The Pakistanis you refer to above are not quite as lumpen as the likes of noodle-heads would like to believe. There are the jihadis, who, you know, go about the dirty bisumess of killing and (don`t forget!) being killed. Also called fodder -- for the likes of the OTHER Pakistani you`ve stupidly lumped in with them: the administration/ agency bosses etc. The motivations of the former group are purely ideological and give little thought to personal loss. Those of the latter are often politcal and affected, naturally, by pragmatic concerns.

FYI, the like of the Pakistanis that enter Kashmir to wage war, and then some, did go into Afghanistan to fight alonside the Taliban, and DID end up in Guatanamo Bay. Sadly, such did not include the likes of Hamid Gul, former ISI chief. The jihadis may be terribly misguided, but please give them their dues: they`re not mere oppportunists, as are some of teh most powerful folks in the world today (before whom perahps you perform puja).

Some friendly advice: Don`t tune in to Sesame Street today. They`re doing the letter `J`. Wouldn`t want you getting convulsions and/or elileptic-like fits.

re. Ralph #288:
>>>You don`t find this evil?
``We would like to give India a tit-for-tat response and reciprocate in the same way by killing the Hindus, just like it is killing the Muslims in Kashmir.``<<<

No, sir I don`t. I might believe that tit-for-tat is not always the best course of action, and that the likes of Hafiz Saeed have no legal right (moral, I`m really not so sure)
to take up arms against the oppressors of their brothers. I might even believe that the oppression is overstated and in any case much more complex than Mr. Hafiz likes to believe (Though, with India not allowing independent montioring agencies like Amensty Internation in, one is never sure about the extent of the oppression, so Indian, I`m afraid, loses the moral highground right there).

(I might even believe that India should have rightly keep control of it`s part of Kashmir, but that STILL does not impact on the issue of `evil`, does it?)

Evil? No, I`m afraid I can`t see it as any more evil than, for argument`s sake, say Turkish Kurds using guerilla tactics against Baath Party goons oppressing the Irqi Kurds (which is a much more analogous situation than what harish-hyd presents in #287)

In any case, I read Hafiz`s statement to be advocating the killing of THOSE Hindus that are responsible for Muslim deaths, as he did use the article/qualifier ``the`` in referring to Hindus, which was why i asked what was so inherently evil in what was SAID.

re. HisExcellency:
``Don`t claim that Pakistan Army is fooling the people on Kashmir, and misleading them into supporting Kashmir policy. After all, the same Army failed to mislead the Pashtuns and Baluchis on its Anti-Taliban policy. The truth is that people in Pakistan (like elsewhere in the world) are very perceptive. The army can`t mislead them on any issue for 57 years!``

Maybe it`s not just the army, but the whole establishment. I don`t suggest that the Pakistanis have been completely misled/lied to about the oppression in Kashmir, but it has certainly been an easy story to peddle to a mass already predisposed to intense distrust for Indians. There is a tendency to vindicate the two-nation theory and general unreliability of the Hindu/Indian by illustrating of Kashmir issue, although the propagation of this half-truth, half-myth has not been half as jingoistic as Jay would like to believe with his `K for kafir` fiction. (In fact, Indian ineractors would be surprised to hear that the Matric Pakistan Studies textbook does admit to the fact that it was India that originally took the issue to the UN, leading to the resolutions).

So, when the Army asks for 35% of the GNP, it knows that if it has to convince the public of its necessity, it already has a favourably disposed audience.

Ref HisStupidity #291

I opine that some English journalists (not the entire English press) are [advising the ``ditch Kashmir`` line. Read my post again. I have mentioned Shireen Mazari and Shafqat Mehmood on the same line. These are respected intellectuals who feel that Pakistan needs to keep the pressure on India by proposing talks anywhere at any level while also reducing infiltration.]

Shireen Mazari talks like Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle of the US talk, except Pakistan doesn`t have enough firepower to back up her talk.

[Sooner or later, Kashmiri will erupt against India again like they did in 1964 and 1990.]

Pray to Allah for that. And see if the rest of India gives a sh!t even if the Valley erupts.

[If 90% of militants are Kashmiri then India won`t be able to accuse Pakistan of sending in Punjabis, Arabs and Chechens into Kashmir.]

Make that 100%. All we need is one dead Arab or Sudanese to claim that the insurrection is based in Pakistan.

[I will try to get a hold of a recent article by Shireen Mazari or other English writers and post it, just to give you an idea that English press is not unanimously in favor of ditching Kashmir.]

Please spare us the crap. I see her on PTV.

re. pmishra #296
Amen, to that, brother! --though I don`t think, obsession or not, it would be easy or realistic-- given our history -- for mullahs, or even the common Pakistani, to forget the K issue as long as there are reports from there of gross human rights violations. India should, to this end, ensure transparency not only of state elections but its handling of dissent/ insurrection.

re: A new paradigm for solving Kashmir problem
I read this article in dawn. It is good to know that there are still some people in Pakistan who can think clearly and dissect thr` the problems. I am posting it in full because it think it is an amazing post.
http://www.dawn.com/2003/04/06/op.htm#1


``Futile calls for a dialogue




By Anwar Syed


Not a week passes without General Pervez Musharraf, Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali, or Sheikh Rashid Ahmad (media minister) offering India a hand of friendship, and calling for a dialogue to resolve the Kashmir dispute (the ``core`` issue) and other problems between our two countries. We are willing to talk about educational and cultural exchanges, trade and tourism, and we believe mutually advantageous arrangements can be worked out in these areas, once the Kashmir dispute is settled.

It is not known what our side will say about Kashmir that it has not already said, and which India has not rejected, in case the issue once again finds its way to the conference table. India has told us countless times that it will not let go of its part of Kashmir, and if that is what we intend to propose, it does not want a dialogue.

General Musharraf, Prime Minister Jamali, and other Pakistani officials have been telling foreign dignitaries that we want to negotiate a durable peace with India. ``Good idea,`` they say. We ask them if they will mediate our dispute with India, and their answer usually is, yes, if India will also invite them to play such a role, which of course India has no intention of doing.

Some of them, notably President Putin of Russia, have told us that we must first create conditions conducive to a useful dialogue, meaning that we must stop letting ``freedom fighters`` cross the line of control in Kashmir. We say we are not doing it, but nobody believes us. Note also that even if India does agree to resume discussions with Pakistan - for appearances` sake - there is no assurance that they will come to fruition.

When we know that our calls for a dialogue on Kashmir are not well received, and when we know also that no outside power can force India to negotiate the matter under our terms of reference, it is not clear why we keep issuing them. Where is the audience? Are these calls intended to give the world powers the impression that while we are the nice guys, anxious to resolve our differences with other parties by peaceful means, India is the one that is intransigent, arrogant, and militant? There is no reason to believe that even if our foreign listeners accept our interpretation of India`s posture (which is to be doubted), they will do anything about it.

Could it be that they are intended primarily for domestic consumption; to cause the impression that our government has not abandoned the issue; to create the appearance of activity when in fact there is none? That is a distinct possibility. All governments engage in this kind of rhetoric from time to time. The problem with this approach in our case is that it is at once irrelevant and dysfunctional.

As I may have said once before, it is wrong to assume that the great majority of our people do not want to ease relations with India unless it settles the Kashmir dispute to our satisfaction. On the other hand, those who feel passionately about Kashmir, who are ready to kill and get killed for the sake of its liberation, are convinced that our government has practically abandoned the freedom-fighters in Kashmir under western pressure.

There is still another explanation, astonishing though it may be. One of the more eminent Pakistani commentators said to me the other day that, in issuing these calls for a dialogue, we are only talking to ourselves! Many of us talk to ourselves; some of my fellow-professors do - or so their wives allege. But how does a government talk to itself?

I suppose it means that certain policy positions, having been repeated for decades, become a habit of the mind, and one keeps repeating them even if there is no occasion for their reassertion. This inclination is especially characteristic of bureaucrats, but generals and politicians will adopt it readily enough. It is so much easier and safer to say what has been said routinely before; innovation is both taxing and hazardous.

It is a part of our traditional discourse that if India made acceptable concessions on the Kashmir issue, peace would reign between the two countries, and all kinds of blessings would result on both sides: with peace will come amity and friendship, mutually beneficial trade, lower military expenditures, and more money for development and poverty alleviation. On closer examination all of this may be seen as a gross exaggeration.

Let us first take this matter of peace. It should be understood that everybody wants peace if it can be had on one`s own terms. Second, if peace means absence of war, then note that, excluding the Kargil affair and skirmishes along the Line of Control in Kashmir, the two countries have had peace for more than thirty years.

War has loomed on the horizon a couple of times during recent years as an Indian response to our material aid to the insurrection in the Valley. But now that our government has stopped, or intends to stop, the passage of fighting men and materials from our side to the Indian side of the Line of Control, the threat of war should recede.

If we keep the Kashmir issue on the back burner, so to speak, there is no reason for either side to make war on the other. Even if some persons on the ``lunatic fringe`` hope to mount the Pakistan flag on top of the Red Fort in Delhi, no intelligent Pakistani contemplates our invasion and conquest of Indian territory. Most Pakistani observers believe also that in case Pakistan remains peaceable, India will not attack.

It is argued that even if there is no actual war, tension will afflict relations between the two countries as long as the Kashmir dispute festers. That may be true, but it seems the Indians are able to cope with this tension reasonably well. The pace of their educational, economic, and technological development is considerably faster than ours. Their nationhood and internal cohesion are firmer today than they were fifty years ago.

Their political system is reasonably stable, and in international relations they are more influential even with our ``allies`` than we ourselves are. Everything considered, tension in their relations with us is not hurting them to any significant degree. If it is hurting us, it is our problem, not theirs, and we are the ones to find ways of overcoming it.

It is said also that if relations between the two countries improve, trade between them will flourish, and that will be great. I have no expertise in that area, but even a layman can see reasons for not sharing this optimism. First, it is clear that, being industrially much more advanced, India will have many more things to sell to us than we can to them.

Second, neither side will want to increase trade with the other to the neglect of its trade relations with other countries, especially the major economic powers. Third, if trade between them and us becomes free and open, it will ruin the relatively inefficient and non-competitive Pakistani industry.

Lastly, it is fashionable to assert that if Kashmir is settled, and peace and amity follow, then both India and Pakistan can reduce their defence expenditures substantially, and direct the resources thus released to economic development. This reasoning is not necessarily valid even if it sounds good. One might have expected that with the demise of the Soviet Union, and with the resulting end of the cold war, American defence spending would decrease significantly, but no such thing has happened.

New enemies and new threats to American security, ``world order,`` and democracy have been discovered, new doctrines (pre-emption) formulated, and new obligations perceived. The United States government has been waging a war that may cost a great deal in blood and treasure, ostensibly to secure to the Iraqi people the ``inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.``

The argument that a resolution of its disputes with India will help Pakistan reduce its defence expenditures may have a measure of validity. It has no other ``enemies`` in the neighbourhood, and its possession of nuclear weapons should suffice to deter unprovoked aggression. If it does not develop the ambition to dominate places across its western border, it would make sense for it to downsize its military apparatus.

But India`s circumstances and calculations are radically different from those of Pakistan. It is not maintaining a huge military establishment only to intimidate Pakistan. It has larger concerns and ambitions. Other world powers regard India as a counterpoise to China, and the Indian policy-makers contemplate the future in the same terms.

Of all the littoral states it has the largest navy in the Indian Ocean. There can be little doubt that it wants to be the dominant power in the region, which in its own reckoning includes Southeast Asia, Central Asia, and the Gulf emirates. We may then conclude that the state of its relations with Pakistan has, at best, only peripheral relevance to the size of its defence budget.

If amity with Pakistan is not one of India`s more important needs, what do we hope to gain by inviting its leaders to a dialogue in a framework that is unacceptable to them? It is high time for us to devise a course of action different from the one we have pursued for fifty years and which has been shown to be barren.

If we, on our own part, feel that improved relations with India will work to our advantage, then let us first address issues that are more amenable to resolution, and defer Kashmir to a more propitious time. When that time arrives, we can re-energize the issue. We don`t have much of a choice in the matter.``

Sridhar

Pakis pay heed: Here are some very good suggestions from a wise Pakistani.

Futile calls for a dialogue
http://www.dawn.com/2003/04/06/op.htm
By Anwar Syed

Excerpts:
+++
It is argued that even if there is no actual war, tension will afflict relations between the two countries as long as the Kashmir dispute festers. That may be true, but it seems the Indians are able to cope with this tension reasonably well. The pace of their educational, economic, and technological development is considerably faster than ours. Their nationhood and internal cohesion are firmer today than they were fifty years ago.

Their political system is reasonably stable, and in international relations they are more influential even with our ``allies`` than we ourselves are. Everything considered, tension in their relations with us is not hurting them to any significant degree. If it is hurting us, it is our problem, not theirs, and we are the ones to find ways of overcoming it.
+++

If we, on our own part, feel that improved relations with India will work to our advantage, then let us first address issues that are more amenable to resolution, and defer Kashmir to a more propitious time. When that time arrives, we can re-energize the issue. We don`t have much of a choice in the matter.
+++

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

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

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

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

re: the reality of Pakistani politics
While this forum seems to have become a duel between HisExcellency and nakhok, i thought i should post the following Url, which i found interesting:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_6-4-2003_pg7_60
Sridhar

The only way to end the Kashmir problem fairly is for Kashmir to be Independent. Yet this never happen in reality without Jihad...As Allama Iqbal said:


Qatl e Hussain asl mein marg-e-Yazid hai
Islam zinda hota hai har Karbala kay baad

The above principle can be taken as general: in the case of the Kashmir issue the `Yazidis are the Indian army and the Hussainis are the brave people of KAshmir who are waging jihad...insha Allah their blood will pay dividends. History is witness that no people have failed to win their freedom once they are willing to sacrifice their lives for their cause..that is why both kashmir and falasteen will be liberated no matter how long it takes...everyone knows it. Most of all the occupying armies of india and the zionist entity.

The core issue with J&K comes down to this: indians must re-affirm their democratic heritage, provide transparency and find a model that respects the grant of autonomy demanded by the Maharaja of J&K when he signed the instrument of accession.

For pakistan, the situation is more difficult. Because, it must give up an obsession and a false ideal. A delusion that its military and mullahs have collaborated on. Herein lies the problem...

Why is it that all the articles about Kashmir are written by people other than Kashmiris? This is the main problem.

I cannot see how the Kashmir problem will be solved by Pakistan and India agreeing to something, even if it is mutually suitable to each of them, without the wishes of the Kashmiris. That would assume that their is no internal struggle in Kashmir.

The solutions to such problems are usually quite obvious. It is just that the problems with the most obvious solutions usually have the most difficult second level solutions.

The solution to Kashmir is to allow the Kashmiris to vote for their future, and let the chips fall where they may. If the join India, Pakistan or become independent should be immaterial. Very simple. If they are allowed to do so, a generation from now no one will even remember there ever was a Kashmir issue.

It is only when this obvious and fair solution is ignored that unsolvable problems arise. The way to solve a problem is not to sweep it under the carpet, or by looking for unworkable second level solutions, which will not last. A problem is solved by making the concerned parties accept the obvious (which is usually the only) solution.

Being a Pakistani Kashmiri, I can safely say I am quite happy in being a part of Pakistan. Now lets get the opinion of the Indian Kashmiris - and not the Indian Hyderabadis, and Madrasi and Kolkatis and Delhiites. That is your solution.

re: #288 Ralph

[You don`t find this evil? ]

From Islamic point of view, killing of civilians/noncombatants is evil. Hafiz Saeed should not make such inflammatory statements for another reason, i.e. he is Pakistani. It would be okay (though not desirable) for Salahuddin, the Hizbul Mujahideen chief to make such statements. Only Kashmiri mujahideen should be making any statements about the Kashmir issue. Pakistanis should only endorse these statements and not vice versa.

re: nakhok

[HisExcellency has opined that it is just the English language press in Pakistan that is into advising the military regime into ``ditching the Kashmir issue``. ]

Incorrect. I opine that some English journalists (not the entire English press) are advising the ``ditch Kashmir`` line. Read my post again. I have mentioned Shireen Mazari and Shafqat Mehmood on the same line. These are respected intellectuals who feel that Pakistan needs to keep the pressure on India by proposing talks anywhere at any level while also reducing infiltration. In their opinion, the source of Kashmir insurgency is Indian misrule. Sooner or later, Kashmiri will erupt against India again like they did in 1964 and 1990. In their opinion, Pakistan needs to continue the low-intensity conflict at pre-1999 levels. This will keep the issue alive without jeopardising the region with war. In other words, groups that indulge in high profile attacks (Parliament, Nadimarg, Kaluchak) must be distanced. But indigenous groups like Hizbul Mujahideen must be supported so that India can`t paint Kashmir as an infiltration problem. If 90% of militants are Kashmiri then India won`t be able to accuse Pakistan of sending in Punjabis, Arabs and Chechens into Kashmir.

I will try to get a hold of a recent article by Shireen Mazari or other English writers and post it, just to give you an idea that English press is not unanimously in favor of ditching Kashmir.

Nevertheless, intellectuals in general consider it fashionable to criticize their countries, cultures, ideologies, politics and what not. This is true in America as well as South Asia. End of the day, public opinion can better be guaged through elections, referendums, opinion polls, etc instead of op-ed pieces.

Your suggestion of Pakistan Army`s obsession with Kashmir is not entirely incorrect. The existence of Pak Army depends largely on Kashmir, there would be no need to maintain 0.5 million troops otherwise. When the people of Pakistan feel overwhelmingly against some policy, they demonstrate their opposition to it quite ferociously. The Taliban-about turn was opposed by only about 20% of the population. Yet you could see thousands of people taking to the streets of Peshawer, D.I.Khan, Quetta, Bannu, Karachi and Waziristan against the Army`s decision.

Similarly in 1984, when the army was in power, there were widespread demonstrations in Sindh in the so-called Movement for Restoration of Democracy (MRD). During the late 1980s, Karachi saw massive demonstrations by Mohajirs against discrimination. In the 1970s, people filled the streets against Bhutto in favor of Nizam-e-Mustafa (i.e. The Islamic System of Muhammad) movement. During the 1960s, PPP and Awami League mobilized the masses against Ayub Khan.

If Army`s Kashmir policy is indeed at odds with the people`s wishes (as you claim), why have there been no massive demonstrations against Pakitan`s Kashmir policy? On the contrary, every year people hold large demonstrations in favour of Kashmir policy on February 5 (Kashmir Day). Clearly, your argument of Kashmir issue being Pakistan Army`s creation breaks down in the face of facts and logic.

Don`t claim that Pakistan Army is fooling the people on Kashmir, and misleading them into supporting Kashmir policy. After all, the same Army failed to mislead the Pashtuns and Baluchis on its Anti-Taliban policy. The truth is that people in Pakistan (like elsewhere in the world) are very perceptive. The army can`t mislead them on any issue for 57 years!

Any student of Pakistan history will tell you that Pakistani masses are quite knowledgable about Kashmir issue and support it wholeheartedly. The criticism of intellectuals simply adds color to the debate, but does not tilt it against the opinion of masses.

Cheers.

re: #286

I agree that internationalization of Kashmir has highlighted Pakistani misdeeds in Kashmir. Pakistan`s policy of using non-Kashmir jehadis hurts the indigenous movement. Pakistan should instead support Kashmiri-led jihadi organizations such as Hizbul Mujahideen. Hafiz Saeed and Maulana Azhar are Pakistani citizens. They have no right to lead armed struggle against India.

But on the other hand, internationalization of Kashmir has also highlighted the Indian misdeeds. The increased focus on Kashmir means that people all over the world are following elections, human right abuses and complaints of Kashmiris against India.

If this attention facilitates the reduction of 700,000 troops in India, the release of political prisoners and restoration of Kashmir`s ``special status`` under Article 370, Pakistan Army could sell these steps as a ``victory to the Pakistani public``. This will pave the way for a toning down of Pakistan`s involvement in Kashmir.

Both countries have maximalist positions. Pakistan wants plebiscitge, India claims Kashmir is its integral part. But in a negotiated settlement, the foreign office and top leadership deviate from maximalist positions to come to a middle-ground. This is how the bargaining process works. You start with an extreme position, then climb down slowly as the other party softens its stand.

In the end, Pakistan is not expecting to get a plebiscite in Kashmir. The US has already ruled out that possibility. But a unilateral climb down is also not possible. India will have to open talks, and then offer some fig leaf in the form of troop reduction, prisoner release, etc.

As for the Iraq option, I believe pre-emption is not a new option. India always had the option of preemptively attacking Pakistan. And vice versa. Drawing parallels between US-Iraq and India-Pak is pure rhetoric. US forces have a tremendous technological and numerical edge over a depleted Iraq. Iraq does not have nukes and its Republican Guard is already 1/3rd of its fighting capability in 1991. Most Iraqi tanks are outdated and immobile. These are being used as artillery pieces instead.

Pakistani nukes can obliterate all the major Indian cities in less than 5 minutes. And vice versa. Indian Army is aware of this. All this jingoistic talk by Yashwant Sinha is just coercive diplomacy. He is trying to threaten war, without actually fighting it.. in the hope that Pakistan will roll back its Kashmir policy unilaterally out of fear.

This sabre rattling is usual. I wouldn`t be surprised if suddenly one day Yashwant Sinha makes a hard hitting speech against Pakistan, and the next day India agrees to open peace talks with Pakistan.

#284 by PM on April 4, 2003 11:40pm PT

Let’s see what happens to Hafiz Saeed’s statement when India is replaced with the US, Hindus with Americans, and Kashmir with Iraq.

``Our policy of `Iraq through jihad (holy war)` is absolutely right... The US has shown us this path for jihad....We would like to give the US a tit-for-tat response and reciprocate in the same way by killing the Americans, just like it is killing the Muslims in Iraq.``

Now would you support your Jihadi brethren if they target the US Marines stationed in post-war Iraq? I bet not, for the US doesn’t take too kindly to Jihadis unlike India, and you and your fellow Lashkarites will either be shot through your heads or packed off on a never-ending vacation to that exotic tropical island, the Guantanamo Bay.

One reason the Pakis betrayed the Taliban, but not the Kashmiri cause is because they couldn’t make a killing out of giving it up as they did in the case of the former. That’s perhaps why post-September 11, when some journalists apparently expressed surprise at Pakistan’s quick acquiescence to President Bush’s demands, the US State Attorney told them that Pakis would sell their mothers off for a few dollars.

Now, why are you frothing from your mouth?

PM # 284

Excuse me?

You don`t find this evil?

````Our policy of `Kashmir through jihad (holy war)` is absolutely right... India has shown us this path for jihad....We would like to give India a tit-for-tat response and reciprocate in the same way by killing the Hindus, just like it is killing the Muslims in Kashmir.``

Doug

`` If peace has to prevail then the victors, the powerful and the mighty must learn to be magnanimous, merciful and benign. ``

I see. You perhaps define merciful and benign as Indians bending over and allowing Pakistan to do whatever ot wants. If that is peace, I don`t want it.

re: nakhok

You have taken great pain in painting Sher-e-Bangla Fazl-e-Haq as the Bengali supremo and Jinnah as the sore loser of 1937 elections. I am afraid you have let your nationalistic feeling cloud your history IQ.

The Muslim League campaign in 1937 elections was marred largely because Jinnah was out of the country until 1935. Muslim League was going through a transition period in early 1930s and finally settled on Jinnah as their leader. Jinnah`s westernized image and the late entry of Muslim League in the election campaign were the chief causes of its defeat.

However, the 1937 elections confirmed the communal divide in India. Congress won 711 of 1585 general seats in provinces but only 26 out of 485 Muslim seats. Muslim League won 109, mainly in U.P. and Bombay. However, in Bengal the Muslim League won more seats than Fazl-ul-Haq`s Krishak Praja Party. Muslim League`s final tally in Bengal was 60, KPP`s tally was 59. Surprise, surprise !!

Congress and Muslim League were pre-poll allies. In U.P. and Bombay, both parties had entered into electoral seat adjustments e.g. in U.P. the AIML withdrew its candidate on Muslim seat in favor of Congress Muslim Rafi Kidwai. Nehru and Jinnah had a pre-poll arrangement that in the event of either party`s victory, Congress and Muslim League will form a coalition government in U.P. and Bombay.

However, after the election, Congress realized that it has been routed on Muslim seats. 1937 elections had established that Congress was a Hindu party, whereas Muslims preferred Unionist Party, Red Shirts, Muslim League, KPP, etc. Of the 26 Muslim seats won by Congress, 17 were in NWFP. In 8 out of 11 states, Congress didn`t win a single Muslim seat.

Congress wanted to establish a foothold in Muslim contituencies by buying over the elected Muslim representatives. This ofcourse is an unethical practice. Nevertheless after elections, Congress went back on its word with AIML and imposed tough conditions for forming coalition in U.P and Bombay. Congress High Command demanded that all Muslim Leaguers should resign and join Congress. In effect, Congress wanted to liquidate AIML, not share power with it as agreed earlier.

Naturally Jinnah couldn`t sabotage his party just for the sake an unreliable partner. Jinnah hardened his stance toward Congress as a reaction to the rigid attitude of Congress High Command.

The most glaring feature of this election was that Hindus in Hindu-majority became a perpetual majority, whereas Muslims were reduced to a perpetual minority. But in Bengal and Punjab, the situation was reversed. Hindus could never hope to form government in these provinces, while Muslims were gauranteed a perpetual seat on treasury benches.

In the aftermath of 1937 defeat, Jinnah shunned his western suits and hat. AIML was considered an elitist party in 1937, so Jinnah decided to ``de-starch`` the image of AIML by reducing membership and adopting ``awami`` issues.

It would be hypocritical to accuse AIML of playing the religion card. It was Congress that Hinduized the entire movement by using religious epithets and symbols. Congress tried to expand its Muslim constituency by unethically attempting to liquidate Muslim League.

The results of 1937 election established the Hindu nature of Congress. Jinnah was simply spelling out the results of 1937 and its implications. This does not amount to ``playing the religious card``. The communal divide was already a reality, not Jinnah`s creation.

#284 PM

The good thing about Kashmir is that has been fully internationalized. Everything is going on in the open and under the eyes of the world. And the world understands that murder in Kashmir is funded by Pakistan and through murderous thugs like Saeed.

The state of J&K conducted an open and transparent election last year. Mass murderers like Saeed helped kill over 600 civilians, mostly ordinary J&K residents and placed a price on every candidate participating in the election. Not long before that there was an organized suicide attack on the State assembly with over 30 killed. Anyone who thinks that the indians were responsible for these atrocities, also believes that the jews were responsible for destroying the WTC. Such people should seek medical treatment and not burden us with their demented ramblings.

I have posted on this lists numerous reports of violence against civilians perpetrated by militants. These reports also appear in international newspapers like NYTimes and elsewhere.

SUMMARY: You may choose to remain in your deluded world where gangsters like Saeed are ``public figures`` and their vile utterances ``OK``. No one else accepts that; everyone understands the daemonic role played by Pakistan and its ``public figures`` in fomenting and supporting violence against civilians in J&K. And fortunately, it is no longer we indians who have to bear this burden alone....

# 271

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
Fazl-ul-Haq`s concept of partition was also rather different from that of Jinnah. He wanted separate states, not one Muslim state.
+++

Yes, that was the irony of the Pakistan Movement. The Muslim majority states didn`t need a Pakistan. They were already in control of their destiny. It is in the Muslim minority provinces (among the aristocrats of UP or the mercantile class of the Bomaby Presidency) that the Pakistan Movement got its most enthusiastic support - it was the means to promote its class interests. And to this end they did play the religion card to the hilt.

Not surprisingly, the Muslim League establishment could never be comfortable with someone like Sher-e-Fazlul Huq. Class solidarity led them to be at at home with the likes of Nazimuddin and Ispahini.

Shere-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq was not an one-election wonder like Jinnah. He had won elections without the Muslim League before 1945. And he won elections without the Muslim League even after 1945. In 1954, it was under his leadership that Jinnah`s Muslim got completely wiped out in the elections to East Pakistan`s Assembly a mere 6 years after Pakistan came into being.

M.B.Naqvi`s observation was most perspicacious:

+++
www.jang.com.pk/thenews

The News, Karachi, Pakistan
Wednesday December 11, 2002-- Shawwal 06, 1423 A.H.

Why Jinnah`s Pakistan ended
by M B Naqvi
mbnaqvi@cyber.net.pk

``One emphasises a narrower reason for the earliest power struggle between the Punjab and Bengal Groups in the first Constituent Assembly
in 1948-49. East Bengalis had opened their account with the expropriation of all intermediary landed interests between the state and the cultivator. This without compensation reform frightened the social elites in West Pakistan, almost all of whom landlords. Bengalis acquiring the central power seemed to them like encouraging the new Bolsheviks to repeat that enormity here also. So they were determined to deny the Bengalis their due share of power and entered into an open conspiracy: they sought help from the bureaucracy and got it. With West Pakistan`s landowning MPs help, they cornered all power``
+++

re: nakhok

[...for whatever reason, indulging in quack psychology to prove the manhood of the Kakul kleptocrats of ``martial races``. ]

[Wali Khan has been criticised in Pakistan for the book. But no one, not even the government, has dared to sue him for libel or to prosecute him for blasphemy. This gives credence to his book. After all, Pakistan is a nation where an Ahmadiya may be sent to jail merely for calling himself a Muslim and his place of worship can be demolished if he calls it a masjid, all in accordance with the laws of the land!! Wali Khan would have been in very deep trouble if it could be shown that his book is not factual.]

Seems like you have run out of comments. Is that why you are repeating old ones again and again like a broken record.

The military does not need to prove its manhood. It already looked the Indian eyeball to eyeball for 10 months and not one Indian dared to cross the line of control or international border. The sheepish George Fernandes had to one day announce unilateral withdrawal of troops. Case closed.

But here is a complete analysis of Nehru`s homosexual psychology, if you may:

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet6.html

Credence depends on what you want to believe. If you want to believe that Jinnah was a British collaborator, dream on. I will not attempt to lift the layers of prejudice heaped on you by your media and education. Regardless of your views on Jinnah, the Kashmir issue still needs to be resolved.

Since it is unlikely that Pakistanis will fold up and ditch their principled stand on Kashmir any time soon, India will have to put up with the insurgency for quite some time. Good luck to Indian troops anyway :))

Will catch you again sometime!

# 276

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
Contrary to your misperceptions that I am perhaps a madrassah-graduate who has been brainwashed by Pakistani education system since childhood, I am actually a British-born Pakistani who has a dual degree in History and Psychology from Trinity College, Cambridge. I followed this one up with an MBA from the Wharton School at Univ of Pennsylvania. I am presently working at a Systems Integration and E-Commerce Consulting company in Philadelphia.
+++

I can see why HisExcellency believes that readers view him as a madrassah-graduate who has been brainwashed by Pakistani education system.

HisExcellency has applied his training in history and psychology to come up with gems like ``Nehru`s homosexual tendencies explain why he wasn`t man enough to face a plebiscite in his own ancestral state (Kashmir).`` HisExcellency shouldn`t grudge his readers if they come to the conclusion that he learnt his history and psychology at a Madrassah in remote Pakistan.

# 277

HisExcellecny wrote:
+++
I don`t fault you for getting the wrong picture about Pakistan`s Kashmir policy. After reading the critical English press, westerners get the impression that Pakistani public is critical of Kashmir policy. For every critical article about Pakistan`s Kashmir policy, there are about 7 that support it. Most of them appear in the Urdu press.
+++

Ah! So it is just the English language press in Pakistan that is not going along with General Pervez Musharraf and his band of merry military officers !! No wonder General Pervez Musharraf won the referundum with 98% approval. The other 2% must have been lead astray by the English language Press.

# 276

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
``But please don`t get too overawed by my credentials. I would like to continue debating the issue until we can finally get back to the topic (i.e. Kashmir) instead of peripheral issues like Biharis, Jinnah, Nehru, Gandhi, martial race theory, Fazl-ul-Haq and East Pakistan.``
+++

HisExcellency has opined that it is just the English language press in Pakistan that is into advising the military regime into ``ditching the Kashmir issue``. And HisExcellency must have found out that the English language press in Philadelphia isn`t any different. In fact English-speaking American officials, even on Pakistani soil, have been saying much the same thing.

The American Ambassador in Pakistan wants Pakistan to stop cross-border terrorism.

President Clinton took the unusual step of demanding time on Pakistan TV to lectutre and hector the Pakistan regime on the sins of trying to redraw the LoC with force.

Peace cannot be achieved over the exile of a quarter million Pandits from the Valley. Peace cannot be achieved by imposing PoK`s religious homogeneity over the rest of the erstwhile kingdom of Jammu & Kashmir as well.

temporal has made an excellent suggestion. It is time for a ``radical approach``. And his suggestion for ``a bilateral or multilateral commission that would recommend turning what is de-facto into de-jure border`` would be a step in the right direction.

Unfortunately Pak military has too much to lose from this common sense solution. Pakistan cannot afford war. Unfortunately, Pakistan`s military cannot afford peace either. And peace will remain a distant goal as long as the military is in command of Pakistan`s government.

Heres a quote form an article (unfortunately, from the ``infamous`` English language press in Pakistan) that expresses the predicament very eloquently:

+++
www.jang.com.pk/thenews

The News, Karachi, Pakistan
Wednesday February 12, 2003-- Zil Haj 10 1423 A.H.

Pakistan`s lost sovereignty
by Khurram Dastgir Khan

``Pakistanis have lost their sovereignty. For more than half of their country`s existence, they have been ruled by military dictators. The Pakistani state exists not to serve the citizenry but solely for the establishment to abuse state resources for selfish personal/institutional gains. Through formation of Quislings` League and through pre-poll, during-poll and post-poll rigging, the establishment has usurped the people`s sovereignty at the ballot box. Milan Kundera might as well be describing today`s Pakistanis: ``They believed they were inhabiting an infinity, and it was not the pain of their current life but the vacuity of the future that sucked dry their energies, stifled their courage, and made [their lives] so craven, so wretched.``
+++

re pmishra2 #268
Perhaps you can let us know, once the knee stops jerking and you stop seething, exactly which part of Hafiz Saeed`s statement, IN CONTEXT, you found so worthy of your forthing-from-mouth indignation.
Maybe it`s just the jihadi lover in me, but I kinda found myself less than morally outraged reading his statement. Perhaps you missed the pivotal part:
``Our policy of `Kashmir through jihad (holy war)` is absolutely right... India has shown us this path for jihad....We would like to give India a tit-for-tat response and reciprocate in the same way by killing the Hindus, just like it is killing the Muslims in Kashmir.``

If your contention is that the Indian army is NOT responisble for gross uman rights violation/artoricites, well, that`s another matter/ brigde to sell. But, taken at his word, you would have to admit that this Lasharite really says nothing that particularly merits the label `evil`.

# 275

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
``Wali Khan must be musing about his pre-1937 days of glory when he wrote ``Facts are Sacred``.
+++

One more artful dodge by HisExcellency!! Wali Khan wasn`t speculating. He cited official papers as reference.

Wali Khan has been criticised in Pakistan for the book. But no one, not even the government, has dared to sue him for libel or to prosecute him for blasphemy. This gives credence to his book. After all, Pakistan is a nation where an Ahmadiya may be sent to jail merely for calling himself a Muslim and his place of worship can be demolished if he calls it a masjid, all in accordance with the laws of the land!! Wali Khan would have been in very deep trouble if it could be shown that his book is not factual.

re: nakhok

[In post # 97, I had pointed out to HisExcellency that if hegoes thru the columns of mainstream Pakistani journalists like M.P.Bhandara, Ayaz Amir, Irfan Husain, M.B.Naqvi, Cowasjee etc. he`ll find out that they are all advising the Pakistan Army to ``ditch the Kashmir issue``. ]

English dailies are not the mainstream in Pakistan. Less than 0.3% people read them. Urdu press, television and radio have far greater penetration. English commentators like Shafqat Mehood (a former Senator) and Shireen Mazari (a very influential journalist) do not endorse the views of Cowasjee, Naqvi, Ayaz Amir, etc. The leading Urdu journalists Irshad Haqqani, Altaf Hussain Qureshi, Asadullah Ghalib, Hassan Nisar, Majeed Nizami et al., are very supportive of the Kashmir policy.

I don`t fault you for getting the wrong picture about Pakistan`s Kashmir policy. After reading the critical English press, westerners get the impression that Pakistani public is critical of Kashmir policy. For every critical article about Pakistan`s Kashmir policy, there are about 7 that support it. Most of them appear in the Urdu press.

However, when I mentioned lack of press coverage of Kashmir, I was referring to television coverage. The primary source of news even in the US is television, not newspapers. In India and Pakistan especially, more than half the population is illiterate. This highlights the importance of news channels. May be the foreign media should set up local bureaus that relay their news in both English and the local languages.

For example, BBC Radio has an English channel as well as Hindi, Pushto, Urdu. Punjabi and Sindhi channels that relay the same news in local languages. Al Jazeera has recently launched an English channel, that runs simultaneously with the Arabic channel.

# 276

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
``I will not shy away from quoting an exact thesis on homosexual psychology that explains why Nehru... ``
+++

HisExcellency is most welcome not to shy away from whatever gives him the most satisfaction!!

But the fact remains that when he wrote ``Nehru`s homosexual tendencies explain why he wasn`t man enough to face a plebiscite in his own ancestral state (Kashmir)`` he was, for whatever reason, indulging in quack psychology to prove the manhood of the Kakul kleptocrats of ``martial races``.

re: nakhok

[When HisExcellency was challenged to cite the edition and page number for this claim, he lamely explained: ]

You didn`t elaborate in your post that you were referring to my comments, not Wolpert`s comments. Well now that it is clear that you were objecting to my comments, I have replied to them in a previous post.

But if you insist on a detailed discussion on this, I will not shy away from quoting an exact thesis on homosexual psychology that explains why Nehru...

a) displayed defensive malice towards others (especially Jinnah)
b) exhibited flippant attitude towards sex and marriage in order to cover underlying depression and guilt (of homosexuality)
c) displayed extreme superciliousness in public
d) refused to acknowledge accepted standards in non-sexual matters, on the assumption that the right to cut moral corners is due homosexuals as compensation for their ``suffering,`` ... e.g. on his right to have Kashmir because it is his birthplace
e) ``be generally unreliable, also of a more or less psychopathic nature. Nehru`s impulsiveness was quite well known.

PS: Contrary to your misperceptions that I am perhaps a madrassah-graduate who has been brainwashed by Pakistani education system since childhood, I am actually a British-born Pakistani who has a dual degree in History and Psychology from Trinity College, Cambridge. I followed this one up with an MBA from the Wharton School at Univ of Pennsylvania. I am presently working at a Systems Integration and E-Commerce Consulting company in Philadelphia.

But please don`t get too overawed by my credentials. I would like to continue debating the issue until we can finally get back to the topic (i.e. Kashmir) instead of peripheral issues like Biharis, Jinnah, Nehru, Gandhi, martial race theory, Fazl-ul-Haq and East Pakistan.

# 263

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
``The polarization in views of Indian and Pakistan chowkies is largely due to incorrect, biased media reports about Kashmir.``
+++

In post # 97, I had pointed out to HisExcellency that if hegoes thru the columns of mainstream Pakistani journalists like M.P.Bhandara, Ayaz Amir, Irfan Husain, M.B.Naqvi, Cowasjee etc. he`ll find out that they are all advising the Pakistan Army to ``ditch the Kashmir issue``. I gave a fairly large sample of their writings published in 2003. I have no problem with what they wrote.

I don`t think biased media report is the problem.

The Pak military is the number one problem. It is so hell bent on ensuring the largest piece of the national pie for itself that it just cannot risk a peace in Kashmir.

I am not complaining of bias in the mainstream Pakistani media. I have come to respect columnists like Irfan Husain, Ayaz Amir, Cowasjee, M.B.Naqvi and M.P.Bhandara. For whatever reason, it is HisExcellency that is complaining of the Pakistani media for failing to embrace the bias of the Kakul kleptocrats.

[HisExcellency thinks highly of Jinnah because of his ``popularity wave`` in the Muslim Constituencies in a single election (1945). So judging from HisExcellency`s reaction to ``one bitter Pathan`` and ``his party``, unsuspected readers can be excused if they came to the erroneous conclusion that Wali Khan or ``his party`` has never won any election. ]

With due respect to Wali Khan, he was a political pygmy compared to the colossal Jinnah. Wali Khan`s politics was confined to NWFP whereas Jinnah was the ``Quaid`` of the entire AIML and Pakistan Movement.

It would be more appropriate to compare Wali Khan with Dr. Khan Sahib, the NWFP Muslim League leader who gave Wali Khan a tough time in 1937 elections as well as 1943 provincial elections.

Dr. Khan Sahib was the Chief Minister of NWFP from Sep 1937 till Nov 1939. Wali Khan made a brief comeback from 1939 till 1943, but then he was again routed by the Muslim League in 1943 provincial elections. AIML`s Sardar Aurangzeb Khan became CM followed by Dr. Khan Sahib again. The Red-Shirts party of Abdul Ghaffar Khan and Wali Khan had already been marginalized.

Wali Khan must be musing about his pre-1937 days of glory when he wrote ``Facts are Sacred``. He should gracefully accept that he lost to Jinnah`s more powerful, popular ideology.

nakhok

You are hoping to do the impossible. Pakistanis swallow state manufactured fantasies for history. These fantasies laced with unmitiated hatred of India and Hindus, not facts are sacred here.

re: nakhok

You missed out a few facts in your discussion of Fazal-e-Haq. For example, you said that Fazal-e-Haq was not officially a member of Muslim League. That`s incorrect.

A.K.Fazal-e-Haq was not only a member of All India Muslim League, he even served as its President from 1916 to 1921. Later he formed his own party, the Krishak Praja Party. At the AIML Convention at Lahore in 1940, Maulvi A.K. Fazal-e-Haq presented the plan for partition of Muslim majority Bengal from India to form a new state.

See: http://www.sylhet-online.co.uk/G-Poli-Personalities.htm

All India Muslim League (AIML) membership rules did not prevent its members from joining other parties as well. It is common knowledge the M.A. Jinnah was the member of Congress as well as AIML during the early parts of his political career.

You also missed out the role played by Liaqat Ali Khan in the Jinnah-Fazl e Haq and Jinnah-Suharwardy friction. Unlike Congress, the All India Muslim League lacked second tier leadership. The only man who enjoyed popular support of Punjabis, Sindhis, Baluchis, Pathans, Kashmirs and Bengalis was Jinnah himself.

Fazal-ul-Haq and Suharwardy (Bengal), Sir Abdullah Haroon (Sindh), Liaqat Ali Khan (UP) and Qazi Issa (Baloch) did not have the political finesse to lead the Pakistan movement, simply because their charisma didn`t extend all over India. Fazl-ul-Haq`s concept of partition was also rather different from that of Jinnah. He wanted separate states, not one Muslim state.

Liaqat Ali Khan used his influence on Jinnah to propel himself to power within AIML through hand-picked pliable leaders such as Nazimuddin. First he created misgivings between Jinnah and Fazl-ul-Haq by portraying Fazl-ul-Haq as an unreliable parochial leader. With Fazl-ul-Haq out of his way, Liaqat concentrated on Suharwardy. No political heavy weights could be allowed to block his ascent to power after Jinnah`s eventual demise.

After independence, Liaqat advised Jinnah to declare Urdu as the official language. Since Liaqat was himself Urdu speaking, this would propel his constituency (the Urdu-speaking Mohajirs) into the Pakistani civil bureaucracy. Already dying of cancer, the 71-year old Jinnah was being manipulated by Liaqat Ali Khan crop and nail.

Why was Liaqat doing all this? To create a constituency for himself in post-independence West Pakistan. He felt threatened by the landed Punjabi, Sindhi and Bengali political elite i.e. Mumtaz Daultana, Iftikhar Khan Mamdot, Ayub Khuhro, Fazl-ul-Haq and Suhurwardy. They had a power base, and a vote bank. Liaqat didn`t. A conflict between Bengali and Punjabi heavy weights suited him.

Because of his political insecurity, Liaqat Ali Khan deliberatley delayed the framing of a constitution from 1949 till 1951. Delaying a constitution, he believed, was the best way of delaying general elections.

http://sindhlink.net/saeen/nation/book5-chap3.html

# 237

HisExcellency first wrote:
+++
``Nehru`s homosexual tendencies explain why he wasn`t man enough to face a plebiscite in his own ancestral state (Kashmir).``
+++

When challenged, His Excellency shifted the onus with the advice that readers should complain to Stanley Wolpert if they have any objection.

Whe HisExcellency was challenged to cite the edition and page number for this claim, he lamely explained:

+++
````Read that post (#230) again. Wolpert`s quote ends two paragraphs before this one. The last 2 paragraphs are not a direct quote, these are my comments on Wolpert`s quote.``
+++

Yes, they are HisExcellency`s comments, but they are certainly not comments on Wolpert`s quote. HisExcellency can credit on one but himself when he turned the quack psychologist to flourish his very own diagnosis:

``Nehru`s homosexual tendencies explain why he wasn`t man enough to face a plebiscite in his own ancestral state (Kashmir).`` Can HisExcellency cite the edition and page number for this claim?``

That, no doubt, was HisExcellency`s way of proving the manhood of the Kakul kleptocrats from the ``martial races`` !!

# 237

HisExcellency first wrote:
+++
``Nehru`s homosexual tendencies explain why he wasn`t man enough to face a plebiscite in his own ancestral state (Kashmir).``
+++

When challenged, His Excellency shifted the onus with the advice that readers should complain to Stanley Wolpert if they have any objection.

Whe HisExcellency was challenged to cite the edition and page number for this claim, he lamely explained:

+++
````Read that post (#230) again. Wolpert`s quote ends two paragraphs before this one. The last 2 paragraphs are not a direct quote, these are my comments on Wolpert`s quote.``
+++

Yes, they are HisExcellency`s comments, but they are certainly not comments on Wolpert`s quote. HisExcellency can credit on one but himself when he turned the quack psychologist to flourish his very own diagnosis:

``Nehru`s homosexual tendencies explain why he wasn`t man enough to face a plebiscite in his own ancestral state (Kashmir).``

That, no doubt, was HisExcellency`s way of proving the manhood of the Kakul kleptocrats from the ``martial races`` !!

# 237

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
Mian Chunnu is in Punjab. Rs 250 million of the Rs 700 million were already spent between 1997 and 1999 on building a 96-acre housing complex at Mian Chunnu for Biharis. This tells us that atleast 36% of that money was well-spent.
+++

His Excellency might want to find out who were the beneficiaries of the Rs 250 million already spent - it wasn`t the ``Biharis``. This is what Professor Ahmar writes in a recent article:

+++
Plight of stranded Pakistanis
by Dr Moonis Ahmar
amoonis@hotmail.com

[The writer is Associate Professor, Department of International
Relations, University of Karachi]

``On July 9, 1988 a Deed of Agreement was signed between the Government of Pakistan and Rabita al-Alam Islami, in Islamabad, which established a trust to bear the expenses related to the repatriation of stranded Pakistanis. Around 350 million dollars were raised for that purpose but the issue of repatriation remained unresolved. In March 1992, Pakistan High Commission with the joint cooperation of Rabita and the SPGRC conducted a comprehensive survey of stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh but out of only 238,414 people who were listed in that survey only 325 persons were repatriated to Pakistan on January 10, 1993. Since then not a single stranded Pakistani from Bangladesh has been repatriated to Pakistan and the issue has not only become a victim of vested political interests but it also reflect total apathy of the all the
Pakistani governments right from 1972 to the present to that grave
humanitarian issue.``

``Leave the task to me.`` This is what Pakistan`s President Pervez
Musharraf said to a five-member delegation of Stranded Pakistanis
General Repatriation Committee (SPGRC) led by its leader M Nasim Khan
when it met him in Dhaka on July 30. The delegation had apprised
President Musharraf of the plight of more than 200,000 stranded
Pakistanis holed up in 66 camps all over Bangladesh since the last 31
years and appealed him to at least ensure an early repatriation of
6,000 poor and oppressed stranded Pakistanis living in Adamjee Nagar
Camp, Naraynjang.``

``Mr. M. Nasim Khan, leader of SPGRC says that, ``the role of Pakistan has always been lamentable. They had always evaded and avoided to resolve the issue on humanitarian ground rather they have put forward lame excuses like financial, political unrest and natural calamity.````

# 236

HisExcellency in trying to explain why General Pervez Musharraf is doing nothing for the ``Biharis`` wrote:
+++
``Now Musharraf is not touching this issue (as well as Kalabagh Dam issue) simply because he doesn`t want to tackle too many problems at the same time. It`s just bad politics to start a new controversy when you already have your hands full in previous ones. (i.e. LFO, Afghan turnaround, referendum). ``
+++

Now, that in a nutshell is the problem. To General Pervez Musharraf and the military, ``Biharis`` are are nothing more than just another unpleasant fact like the LFO, Afghan turnaround or the rigged referundum. The military thinks it has only to ignore the ``Biharis``, and they will go away, at least from its conscience, if it has any.

Professor Moonis Ahmar of University of Karachi had written of the delegation of Stranded Pakistanis General Repatriation Committee (SPGRC) led by its leader M Nasim Khan when it met General Pervez Musharraf in Dhaka. Mr. M. Nasim Khan, leader of SPGRC lamneted that, ``the role of Pakistan has always been lamentable. They had always evaded and avoided to resolve the issue on humanitarian ground rather they have put forward lame excuses like financial, political unrest and natural calamity.``

Brigadier Aftab Siddiqui (Bilal Musharraf`s father-in-law) was hired at 2% profit for 25 years as ``consultant`` for Pindi-Peshawar Motorway (M-3) Project. He was also sold 12 sick units over 3 years!

http://www.satribune.com/archives/sep30_oct06_02/P1_bilalmusharraf.htm

``leading newspaper Dawn published portions of the incriminating statement on Sept 26 in a very subdued manner, hiding the disclosures under a positive statement by the National Highway Authority Chairman, Major General Farrukh Javed``

+++
http://www.dawn.com/2002/09/26/top17.htm

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
26 September 2002 Thursday 18 Rajab 1423

More motorways to be constructed: Tenders being issued
By Our Staff Reporter

.....Sheikh Yousaf, owner of Husnain Construction, which is the
contractor for M-3, explained the phases for which his company passed
for converting the M-3 project from the Built, Operate and Transfer
(BOT) plan to the government funded project.

When asked as to how much his company had been helped by Brig Aftab
Siddiqui (Rtd), father-in-law of Bilal Musharraf, he said the
gentleman had worked with his company as a consultant.

Mr Yousaf said it was originally agreed that he would get two per cent
of the profit from the project for 25 years, but since the project had
been converted to a government funded plan, Aftab Siddiqui was no
longer with his company. The cost of M-3 is Rs7 billion.

He, however, said Mr Siddiqui had been paid for the `services` which
he rendered, but refused to give more details.

Everything was documented, and the payments to Mr Siddiqui had been
made through cheques the copies of which had been provided to `` a
number of government departments,`` he said. Then his son rushed to the
stage and asked Mr Yousaf not to answer more queries on the subject.

Mr Yousaf said the company was heading the consortium of the Pakistani
construction companies called PAMIC, and added that they were
completing the project to show that the country had the expertise to
construct the motorway.

He said it was the first contract of its kind which had no escalation
clause.

When asked as to how many projects his company had fetched in the
period of military government, he avoided giving straight answer, and
said that whatever his company had got was on merit. He admitted that
he had purchased about a dozen sick industrial units......
+++

# 257

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
``I would rather trust the opinion of millions of people than just one bitter pathan who lost his power after independence due to Jinnah`s popularity wave. No wonder he despises Jinnah. ``
+++

HisExcellency thinks highly of Jinnah because of his ``popularity wave`` in the Muslim Constituencies in a single election (1945). So judging from HisExcellency`s reaction to ``one bitter Pathan`` and ``his party``, unsuspected readers can be excused if they came to the erroneous conclusion that Wali Khan or ``his party`` has never won any election.

``Facts are Sacred`` by Khan Abdul Wali Khan (son of Frontier Gandhi) shows how Jinnah had been secretly communicating with Lord Linlithgow, the Viceroy, and Lord Zetland, the secretary of state for India, over the 1930s to come to an understanding that would be mutually beneficial for Jinnah and the British rulers against their common enemy.

Wali Khan`s source is declassified documents from India Office Library in London. The tenure of secrecy for most such documents is 50 years. Jinnah`s letters to the Viceroy and the Secretary of State for India were written in the 1930s and were declassified over the 1980s. Right now, the 1947 documents are in the process of getting declassified.

Wali Khan has been criticised in Pakistan for the book. But no one, not even the government, has dared to sue him for libel or to prosecute him for blasphemy. This gives credence to his book. After all, Pakistan is a nation where an Ahmadiya may be sent to jail merely for calling himself a Muslim and his place of worship can be demolished if he calls it a masjid, all in accordance with the laws of the land!! Wali Khan would have been in very deep trouble if it could be shown that his book is not factual.

re:nakhok various
bravo! what a fund of knowledge. what an eloquent writing.

[Punjab was brought into the Empire with the help of Purbaiya troops. ]

Incorrect. The final push into Punjab happened at Chillianwallah after the British won an unlikely victory on January 13, 1849.

The Sikhs led by Sher Singh routed the Purbaiya troops of British Army. The battle had been won, and the British were retreating. Suddenly one of the scouts reported that a quarrel had broken out among the victorious Sikh army.

Sher Singh`s cousins started quarreling over the share of loot. One of them claimed a bigger share because he had brought more men to the battlefield. The other one claimed a bigger share because his men belonged to the Chillianwala area. Yet another group raised another claim. As a result of this quarreling and indiscipline, the victorious Sikh army started fighting with each other at the battlefield. Soon one of the parties got infuriated and left the battlefield with their men.

Instead of securing the battlefield and advancing towards the British, the victorious Sikh army simply dispersed. The British attacked back and won the battle.

You can read a book titled ``History of the Sikhs`` by Hari Ram Gupta to get the details.

In short, the Sikhs lost the war after winning it; the British didn`t win it with its Pubaiya troops.

re
[Indians believe that the British left because of Gandhi`s pressure. This a great delusion.`` ]

Much of the world believes that too!!
**************

Economic historians and political commentators do not believe with this assessment. They believe that Gandhi could have continued with his satyagarh and nonviolent noncooperation for another 20 years, and the British would still not have left.

The British left of their own will because of an economic necessity. Nelson Mandela was one of the pupils of Gandhi`s nonviolent noncooperation, yet he deviated from it considerable in the mid-1960s. He was jailed for plotting a bomb blast in 1968. In his book ``The Long Road to Freedom``, he discusses the shortcomings of noncooperation at length. Civil disobedience does not always result in achieving your goals.

Most people believe that Gandhi drove British out of India because of movies, films and media. Gandhi`s movement played a major role, yet there were some significant historical errors made by the British, that facilitated the end-game

The Jallianwala Bagh massacre was one such error. The British lost their moral high ground after this error. Had they not committed this mistake, Gandhi would have had a tough time convincing the rest of India that the British were an evil, blood thirsty nation. British kept law and order under control and cultivated fauji-landlord class in Punjab. There was considerable religious freedom as well. As a result, the people of Punjab and Sindh were not as bitterly opposed to British rule, as people in rest of India were.

World War II was a major factor in the British departure. An empire rules through economic might. After WW2, the British were no longer the economic superpower that they once were. They couldn`t afford outposts in India, Singapore and Burma any more. They didn`t just leave India.. They left a lot of other colonies as a result of WW2. There were no Civil Disobedience movements in those colonies.

[The repatriation issue is a ping pong because the military doesn`t care a damn for the ``Biharis``. It had used them like the cat`s paw and once it decided that the ``Biharis`` were no longer useful, it discarded them like the rind of a squeezed lemon]

Once again you are demonstrating a closed mind, that wants to believe what it wants to believe... without any evidence or arguments. You are making assertions of military hatred for Biharis, despite the fact that Sindhi politicians are bitterly opposed to Bihari repatriation.

Repeating your prejudices against Pakistani Army a 100 times will not make them true. Do some research outside the confines of your brain, for once in a while :)

The Bengal Presidency and the United Provinces, for example, provided contrasting models in British India. In Bengal, the Hindus formed the bulk of the middle class and the upper middle class, while in the United Provinces, it was primarily the Muslims who filled that role.

The role reversal between the Hindus and Muslims in the two provinces resulted in an interesting contrast in their response to the two-nation theory. It was the wealthy Muslims of the United Provinces who championed the partitioning of India. In Bengal, it was the well-to-do Hindus who insisted on vivisecting their province in 1947. However, it is understandable why a Hindu Bengali, be he rich or poor, would have reservations about an Islamic State in Bengal ruled by the dictatorial Jinnah. But the Muslim aristocrats in the United Provinces were guided by
greed alone when they rejected a secular and democratic state for the subcontinent to embrace the two-nation theory.

It is interesting to note that while the poorer Muslims of UP were misled into voting for Jinnah in 1946, they stayed back in the land of their birth after partition when they realized that they had merely been the cat`s paw for the well-to-do coreligionists with their own agenda. The upper class and middle class Muslims of UP had known all along what they really wanted. It was the hapless lower class Muslims who were left behind to bear the stigma of having voted for Jinnah at a critical juncture of India`s history.

In pre-partition Bengal, not every Hindu was a zamindar nor was every Muslim a share-cropper. The 1937 election can illustrate the anomaly. Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq dramatized this perspective by contesting Sir Khwaja Nazimuddin in the elections in a constituency that was basically the latter`s zamindari. Sir Khwaja Nazimuddin was a leading zamindar, a polished politician, first cousin to the Nawab of Dhaka and an Executive Member. Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq told the voters that ``he came from a
family having no resources.`` He declared that ``by the grace of God,`` he would abolish zamindari ``within the shortest possible time,`` and that the ``peasantry of Bengal were dearest to his heart.`` Needless to say, Shere-e-Bangla of Krishak Praja Party handily defeated Sir Khwaja Nazimuddin of the Muslim League in a constituency that more or less comprised of the the latter`s zamindari.

While there is truth to the assertion that the Muslim Bengali`s vote for the Muslim League in 1946 was a vote against the zamindars of East Bengal many of whom were Hindus, it is indeed ironic that there was no tribute to, or role for, Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq when Pakistan was born in August of 1947. Even Surhawardy had been marginalized by that time. The man who was given to lead East Pakistan at its birth by Pakistan`s ruling establishment was Sir Khwaja Nazimuddin who was more at
home in the drawing rooms of aristocrats of UP than in the field with the peasants of Bengal or in the factory with the workers of Bengal.

The polarization in views of Indian and Pakistan chowkies is largely due to incorrect, biased media reports about Kashmir. Hindustan Times prints one thing, Frontier Post reports some other version of the same incident. Doordarshans presents its side of the story, PTV contradicts it or sometimes blacks it out. Pakistani population in general believes that:

a) India is torturing Kashmiris in custody, humiliating their women
b) Kashmiris are overwhelmingly pro-Pakistan and would always vote for Pakistan in a plebiscite.
c) Muslims in India are a tortured community and are cursing themselves for not migrating to Pakistan in 1947.

Because of these widely held beliefs, Pakistanis are very emotional about the Kashmir issue. The jihadis who line up for recruitment, believe they are fighting for justice and liberation. To the Indians, they appear as murderers and Hindu-haters. This is because Indian have been programmed by their media to believe that:

a) Pakistan Army wants to conquer all of India and suppress Pakistan citizens.
b) Kashmiris love India but Pakistan is sending in terrorists to create the impression of an insurgency
c) People in Pakistan are dying to get rid of their army and become Indian citizens.

How can we test the veracity of these perceptions when the media in both countries pounds us with propaganda? Essentially both nations are working from different scripts. It is impossible to come to the same conclusion when you are working from different scripts.

To bridge the gap in perceptions between Indian and Pakistani chowkies, we need to introduce foreign media into Kashmir. With CNN, BBC, MSNBC ABC, CBS, Al-Jazeera, WSJ, Radio Moscow and every other news agency in Kashmir, we will uncover the truth. This will go a long way in dispelling all misconceptions.

But governments in India and Pakistan will not like this. Because this prevents them from perpetuating the official story and performing cover-ups.

Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq became the first Premier of united Bengal in 1937 as the leader of Krishak Praja Party. The Muslim League hadn`t fared well in that elections and it started to woo Fazlul Huq. It succeeded to the point that Fazlul Huq was the one who moved the so-called Pakistan Resolution at the Lahore session of the Muslim League in 1940.

However, soon enough Shere-e-Bangla and the Qaid-e-Azam fell out and for understandable reasons. Fazlul Huq was willing and able to give voice to the toiling sharecroppers and small farmers. The All India Muslim League establishment, on the other hand, was dominated by the aristocrats of United Provinces and the mercantile community of the Bombay Presidency. Land Reform or social justice in Bengal was just not in the top of its agenda.

Inevitably, within months of the Pakistan resolution of 1940, irreconciliabel differences surfaced between Huq and Jinnah. Sher-e-Bangla was just not willing to take orders from the Qaid-e-Azam. Jinnah had Huq expelled from the Muslim League. It is quite another matter that Huq claimed that such expulsion was meaningless because Huq had never oficially been a member of the Muslim League. Fazlul Huq remained estranged from the Muslim League for the remaining two decades of his life.

Fazlul Huq`s departure from the Muslim League looks all the more significant if we recall that he was the Premier of undivided Bengal (the largest province in British India) at the time of his divorce with the party. Fazlul Huq was the Premier for six years from 1937 till 1943.

In 1943, at the time of his fall from power, Fazlul Huq was the Premier of Bengal as the head of a non-Muslim League coalition. The Muslim League was the main opposition in the Bengal Legislature. It was in February of 1943 that Fazlul Huq promised an enquiry into the excesses of the British Raj during the suppression of the Quit India Movement in Midnapore. He did so on the floor of the Legislature. Bengal Governor, Herbert, was livid with rage. He forced Fazlul Huq`s resignation. And finally in April of 1943 he had Khwaja Nazimuddin of Muslim League sworn in as the Premier of Bengal.

Suhrawardy became the Premier of Bengal after the 1945 elections. But Suhrawardy proved to be too independent for Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan who engineered a coup to install Nazimuddin as the leader of the Bengal Muslim league on the eve of independence. In August of 1947, Hussein Shahid Surhawardy, the last Premier of united Bengal, handed over power to Khwaja Nazimuddin in Dhaka and to Prafulla Chandra Ghosh in Calcutta.

1954 saw the first elections (only for the provinicial government) in East Pakistan. Muslim League was comprehensively beaten by a coalition (Jukto Front) headed by Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq. Fazlul Huq`s Krishak Praja SHRAMIK Party was an important constituent of the Jukto Front. The word SHRAMIK had been added to the old name of Fazlul Huq`s party to broaden its appeal to the labor in the industrial sector.

The Muslim League of Nazimuddin, Nuril Amin and Monem Khan bit the dust in that election. But Fazlul Huq`s days in power didn`t extend beyond a couple of months in spite of his landslide election victory. He was accused of being an Indian agent (much as Sheikh Mujibur Rahman would be a decade later at the infamous Agartala Conspiracy Case). He was accused of treason and unceremoniously kicked out by the Muslim League establishment. Sher-e-Bangla complained bitterly, after that humiliation, that even the Britsh Governor, Herbert, had
treated him with more dignity in 1943.

``Field Mrashal`` Ayub Khan had openly written of his disdain for Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq in his ghost-written autobiography. The ``Field Marshal`` would later have him ``EBDO``ed that not only barred him from running for office but even took away his voting rights. Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq died a broken-hearted man in Ayub Khan`s Pakistan.

# 238

Because of his anti-Jinnah prejudices, Wali Khan is more popular in India than in his own province :) The people of NWFP rejected his party`s pro-India stance at the 1947 Jirga. If the people believed Jinnah was bogus, they wouldn`t have voted in such overwhelming numbers for him.. therefore the verdict of history is greater than the verdict of one man.

I would rather trust the opinion of millions of people than just one bitter pathan who lost his power after independence due to Jinnah`s popularity wave. No wonder he despises Jinnah.

Urstruly:

``Bayghairto, Hinduo sharam karo. ``

Bayghaiart Suar key bacchey, chillana band kar. Tera bhee yahi haal hoga Inshaallah!!!

:)

[Here are some insight into why some of the pakis (e.g HisExcellency ) in here are so full of hate for India and Hindus.]

Criticism of Indian occupation of Kashmir does not equate with hatred of India or Hindus. arjun_m and nakhok have been criticising Pakistan`s policies toward Biharis and Bangladesh. Do they hate Muslims and Pakistan? (If they do, then perhaps they don`t deserve to be on this forum).

Nobody becomes great on the basis of their religion, nationality, physical attributes, wealth or strength. Nazi Germans were a strong industrial power with perhaps the best armed forces in the world. They are also fair skinned, blue eyed and brilliant as a nation. Yet their suppression of Jews and obsession with military world domination, made them a menace to civilized society.

Nobody respects rascals. In 1971, the Pakistan Army lost the respect of its own citizens because of its suppression of Bengalis. Then Pakistan was on the wrong side of history. Now India is on the wrong side of history.

arjun_m and nakhok: Please don`t hide behind nationalism. It won`t protect you from the truth for that long. Can you deny that Indian security forces committed widespread human rights violatations in Kashmir? The entire world knows this. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch has been criticising India since 1990 for human right violations. The American government, Japan, the British and even the European Union has repeatedly complained to India about these violations.

Are you going to claim that Americans, British, Japanese, Germans, French, Italians, Spaniards, Arabs also hate India and Hindus??

Indians must stand up for what they believe in. History will record the Kashmir massacres against you. If you are true nationalists, then you will take pride in rectifying India`s human rights image... instead of attacking those who criticize Indian policies as India-haters or Hindu-haters.

Indian chowkies are commiting the same mistake that Yahya Khan made: justifying oppression in the name of misplaced nationalism.

The utter bankruptcy of the shameless people funding murder and ethnic cleansing in J&K has never been more visible than today. In the past 10 days, 24 innocent people were murdered in a systematically co-ordinated mass killing carried out with planning and care. Several families were murdered in their homes by militants. Grenades were thrown in marketplaces killing women and children.

And a militant (i.e. armed man with weapons) was shot by the security forces.

Guess who is being mourned today? The militant ! A person with blood on his hands. The mass killings of civilians is celebrated by these lovers of freedom. The death of an armed thug is mourned. No wonder Pakistan and its cohort are where they are today...

[There was a stark irony about the Pakistan Movement. The Muslim majority provinces had no real need to secede from India.]

Not in the political sense. In Muslim majority provinces, Muslims controlled power but not the commerce and economy. Most of the Punjabi fuedals and Sindhi waderas were under debt to money lenders who were predominantly Hindu. All the capital in these provinces was controlled by Hindus.

This might not have been a bad thing under normal circumstances. But under British India, in a police state that was bent upon marginalizing the native population, this bred resentment between Hindus and Muslims.

You are right in observing that the vanguard of Pakistan Movement was the Muslim minority from UP and other parts of India. But these people were also politically and educationally more mature than people in Muslim majority provinces. Before 1947, there were very few universities, and colleges in Punjab and Sindh.

Punjabis have traditionally never led any movement, they prefer to follow instead. History has proven that in the last three centuries, Punjab has produced only 2 real leaders: Ranjeet Singh and then Nawaz Sharif. Since most the Punjab is part of Pakistan, I am not including Indian Punjab in this list. But if there was any noteworthy Indian Punjabi leader, please feel free to add to this list. (Bhagat Singh was a student leader, not a polticial leader).

It is therefore not surprising that a UP leader (Liaqat Ali Khan) became Pakistan`s supremo after the death of Jinnah.

FYI, Suharwardy did become Prime Minister of Pakistan for a brief period of time. Yet he was opposed by an influential Punjabi politician, Mian Mumtaz Daultana.

Daultana was more of a spoiler than a leader. A typical drawing room politician who excelled in intrigues. Many believe he was responsible for the murder of Liaqat Ali Khan.

In short, Pakistan Movement was a very strong grassroots movement even in the Muslim majority provinces. it just happens that the movement was led by Muslims from minority provinces.. because they had better political skills. Punjabi and Sindhi politicians were mostly feudals who were good second-tier leaders.

http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/documents/documents.html

The Security Council Resolution clearly states that Pakistan was to vacate its troops from the whole of the state. It also mentions, albeit indirectly, that Pakistan had consistently lied on the question of whether or not its troops were involved in the fighting in Jammu & Kashmir. Once the then Pakistani Prime Minister conceded that Pakistani troops were indeed involved, the UN had no option but to ask for their withdrawal. That the withdrawal never took place, is another story.

The truce agreement stated:

Part II, A

1. As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.

2. The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.

3. Pending a final solution, the territory evacuated by the Pakistani troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the commission.

The truce agreement in part II, B went on to state:

1.When the commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistani nationals referred to in Part II, A, 2, hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistani forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.

2. Pending the acceptance of the conditions for a final settlement of the situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian Government will maintain within the lines existing at the moment of the cease-fire the minimum strength of its forces which in agreement with the commission are considered necessary to assist local authorities in the observance of law and order. The Commission will have observers stationed where it deems necessary.

3. The Government of India will undertake to ensure that the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will take all measures within its powers to make it publicly known that peace, law and order will be safeguarded and that all human political rights will be granted.

+++
Here`s how a DAWN article describes the genesis of the LoC:

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
27th July, 1999

Kargil - before and after

By Zafar Iqbal

``MILITARILY, the critical point which was supposed to have created the Kashmir problem was the hiatus in the tribesman`s march towards Srinagar when they stopped for a bit of ``rest and recreation`` (R&R) at Baramulla about a dozen miles from Srinagar airport. Their concept of recreation included a diversion into some looting and pillage and possibly a bit of rape on the side.``

``Anyway, whatever the truth, this window of opportunity permitted the Indians to capture Srinagar airport and bring in reinforcements; at least so the story is told. The ultimate result was the cease-fire line.``
+++

And this is what Altaf Gauhar (the powerful information secretary in
the regime of ``Field Marshal`` Ayub Khan) writes about the same:

+++
The Nation
(Reprinted in Pakistan Link of 9/10/99)

Four Wars, one Assumption
Altaf Gauhar

``.....the Kashmir invasion, planned by hoardes of lawless tribesmen of the NWF, who indulged in murder and looting as they moved into the territory of Jammu and Kashmir. Khurshid Anwar, an ex-army officer, who was killed in the operation, was supposed to be the main organiser of this operation. The tribesmen were assured that the Indian army was too ill-organised to offer any counter offensive, so they could fight their war of freedom without fear. No one remembered that frontier rebels do not fight wars of freedom on behalf of other people. They settle their tribal disputes through looting, murder and devastation.``
+++

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

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

A SHAHEED LIVES FOREVER


The only party in Kashmir who have adopted a radical approach is Kashmiri Freedom Fighters and I might add a correct one. They are the reluctant heroes who are thrown into the herodom by ruthless bayonetts and bullets of their oppressors. What choice did they have in a country where extra-judicial murder is constitutional. Those baysharam hindus who have occupied their land, kill them, rape their women and children and still claim that it is Pakistan who is spreading terrorism in their country should see this picture of Shaheed Saif-ul-Islam.

http://akhbar.urdupoint.com/03/04/04/

This picture is a proof of the extra-judicial murder of Saif-ul-Islam. Never in my life I have seen corpses stand up and reach for the throat of their murderers. But what is wrong with this picture. You can see that Shaheed`s hands are tied, which means that he was murdered in the custody of India law enforcement agencies. No one ties the hands of a corpse - but you coward bayghairat hindus listen and listen good a Shaheed never dies - your day of reckoning is near. Bayghairto, Hinduo sharam karo.

Picture has been forwarded to Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch,

If Pakistanis hate India in general and Hindus in particular, then there`s definately something wrong with Indian policies which are devised by hardliner hindus. The so called moderate hindu leaders didn`t contribute less for creating this hatred. When Pandit Nehru promised to hold plebiscite and gave assurances to Pakistani leaders that the will of Kashmiris would be given preference but acted opposited to it, then hating such people is natural. It`s not only Pakistanis who Indians for such things but all the honest people of the world hate them as well for these kinds of dirty tricks.

Hindus are not ready to change their dirty mentality but expect others to show only civilized attitude towards them.

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

This is the part of the UNSC Resolution that Pakistani regimes did not honor and do not want to be reminded of:

1. As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.

2. The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.

3. Pending a final solution, the territory evacuated by the Pakistani troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the commission.

# 236

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
``British actually believed in the martial race theory.``
+++

No, they didn`t. After all, Punjab was brought into the Empire with the help of Purbaiya troops.

But it was the Purbaiya troops that proved less than dependable in 1857 while the Punjab troops stood loyally by the side of the British who realized what a mess they would have been if Purbaiyas and Punjabis had joined hands in 1857. It was in the post-1857 era that Divide et impera, and not conviction, that led the British to propound the ``martial races`` theory.

And after 1947, the ``recruitment area`` simply found it expedient to keep alive the myth of ``martial races`` by marshalling the monopoly over the big guns that they it inherited from the British days.

# 238

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
``Jinnah only launched the Pakistan movement when he became sure that the British were too weak to rule India for long.``
+++

HisExcellency has hit the nail on the head. If Jinnah weren`t sure, he would have gladly continued to collaborate with the British secretly as he had been doing thru much of the 1930s (see Wali Khan`s ``Facts Are Sacred``).

# 238

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
``Jinnah was quite aware of the backwardness of Muslims``
+++

There was a stark irony about the Pakistan Movement. The Muslim majority provinces had no real need to secede from India. Provincial chiefs like Khizr Hayat Khan of Punjab, Dr. Khan Sahib of North West Frontier Province and Surhawardy of Bengal were in control of the provincial government long before Pakistan came into being. Not surprisingly, Khizr Hayat Khan and Dr. Khan Sahib were opposed to the Pakistan Movement. Even Surhawardy realized his folly at the end, but, by then, it was too late to prevent the partition of Bengal. As soon as Jinnah got his Pakistan, he discarded Surhawardy like the rind of a squeezed lemon. The pliant Nazimuddin was brought in to become the new Muslim League chief in East Pakistan.

Muslim League politicians from the Muslim minority provinces were the most enthusiastic proponents of the Pakistan Movement. They were responding to the fears and ambitions of the aristocratic and middle class Muslims from the United Provinces and the mercantile class Muslims from the west coast. They had been alarmed by the populist agenda of the Congress, particularly of its socialist wing. They looked forward toward a fiefdom in the proposed Pakistan where it would be possible to use religion as a weapon to eliminate Hindus and Sikhs in the workplace and in commerce. It was only natural that Jinnah, from a mercantile class family from the west coast, and Liaqat Ali Khan, from an aristocratic family from United Provinces, would spearhead the Pakistan Movement.

# 238

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
``What happened after Jinnah`s death cannot be blamed on him.``
+++

Jinnah laid the foundation of what followed in Pakistan. I have already posted how he had recklessly endangered the lives of minorities in East Pakistan by scapegoating the Hindus for opposition to his plans for Urdu.

And as a Governor General, he set the tone for what followed after his death. Jinnah displayed a very dictatorial disposition in the one year he was in power. ``When the time came, Jinnah opted to become the Governor General of Pakistan instead of Prime Minister because, under the Constitution, Governor General could give instructions to the Prime Minister. Jinnah, after becoming Governor General, not only appointed the Prime Minister but himself chose and appointed all the members of the Cabinet.``

``He was the President of Muslim League, and did not relinquish party presidentship even after becoming the Governor General. Thus, Jinnah accumulated all power in him as the leader of the party, head of the administration and the State, a virtual dictator.``

``He even assumed authority to take care of the government`s Kashmir and Frontier Departments.``

``As a Governor General, he caused Legislative Assembly to endorse these additional powers. He even presided over Cabinet meetings, unprecedented in parliamentary democracy. He often, without the knowledge of the Prime Minister, instructed the Provincial Governors, Ministers and Departmental Secretaries. Parliamentary norms were not applicable to Jinnah.``

``In fact, the way Jinnah ran the administration, though briefly, established the precedent to concentrate all powers in one hand and hold a number of positions by a single person, the tendency that gave birth to military autocracy in Pakistan.``

I understand that HisExcellency is not a fan of Nehru. Neither was Nixon who faulted him for socialist leanings, non-alignment etc. Nixon was always a lot more at home with ``Field Marshal`` Ayub Khan and General Yahya Khan than he was ever with Nehru. Nevertheless, this is what Nixon wrote of Nehru in his book, ``Leaders``:

``Nehru was what Nkrumah and Soekarno were not: a charismatic revolutionary leader who was also a nation builder.....Of all the world leaders I have met, Nehru would certainly rank among the most inteligent.....He faced challeneges that would have staggered a lesser man``

``India was almost impossible to govern and that anyone succeeded in holding it together had to be a political genius. Nehru did this. He also, to his credit, insisted on the retention and development of democratic institutions, despite enormous economic and social problems and the consequent temptation to turn toward dictatorship.``

# 238

His Excellency wrote:
+++
``You have missed the point in my post #230. You tried to delegitimize Jinnah on the incoherent grounds that he never went to prison, as if going to prison would result in azaadi. Just to illustrate the inanity of that argument, I countered with the quote about Nehru`s homosexual tendencies.``
+++

It is HisExcellency who missed the point. I had very explicitly asked him to read Wali Khan`s ``Facts Are Sacred`` to find out why Jinnah was not considered ``prison material by the colonial rulers. Wali Khan based his book on the now declassified papers of the British government. He has quoted copiously from Jinnah`s secret letters to British officials. It exposes Jinnah as a collaborator with the colonial power. If HisExcellency reads ``Facts Are Sacred``, he`ll realize that that he did Jinnah a gross dis-service by calling Sheikh Abdullah (who did serve time in the Maharaja`s jail for championing the peoples` cause) a ``pliant lackey``.

+++
``Just like Nehru`s homosexual tendencies do not delegitimize him..``
+++

I am glad that HisExcellency doesn`t think that ``homosexual tendencies`` do not delegitimize a politician. But neither does ``heterosexual tendencies``!! Assuming that HisExcellwncy is correctly quoting Stanley Wolpert, I would point out to HisExcellency that Cambridge Professor Akbar S. Ahmed in his book, ``Jinnah, Pakistan and Islamic Identity The Search for Saladin`` has spun the story in the other direction by alleging ``heterosexual tendencies`` in Nehru!!

+++
``Indians believe that the British left because of Gandhi`s pressure. This a great delusion.``
+++

Much of the world believes that too!!

+++
``So lets rectify the Kashmir problem while we are living.``
+++

That exactly is the author`s contention. He/she is asking for a radical approach. His/hers suggestion ``to bring in a bilateral or multilateral commission that would recommend turning what is de-facto into de-jure border`` seems like a step in the right direction. But, unfortunately, Kashmir is just too important for protecting the Pak military`s vested interests. It would have discovered Kashmir if it hadn`t existed!

Here are some insight into why some of the pakis (e.g HisExcellency ) in here are so full of hate for India and Hindus. According to the articles here - they have been taught to do so from childhood, right from the schools texts. And these schools are the regular ones, not madrassa types.

http://www.thefridaytimes.com/inews8a.htm

Excerpts:

+++
The books, which do not name the authors, are literary equivalent of hate speech...“Hindu” India and Britain are depicted as enemies while Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Ummah are extolled. ``
+++

Words like “dark”, “ugly” and “short” are used to describe Hindus while Muslims are presented in glowing terms.
+++

Fifth grade students, for example, are taught that the 1971 war was a Hindu conspiracy
+++

“Gandhi was with the Muslims and against the English when the Caliphate Movement started but without giving any reason switched sides. This is typical of Hindus.”
+++

# 237

His Excellency wrote:
+++
``That`s why repatriation issue was like a ping pong..``
+++

The repatriation issue is a ping pong because the military doesn`t care a damn for the ``Biharis``. It had used them like the cat`s paw and once it decided that the ``Biharis`` were no longer useful, it discarded them like the rind of a squeezed lemon.

The Pak military doesn`t care any more for the Kashmiris than it does for the ``Biharis``. It is ready and willing to fight a proxy war to the last Kashmiri if that`s what it takes to preserve its vested interests. Pak military regime has everything to lose and nothing to gain by giving peace a chance.

Civilian control of the army is a must for peace. Negotiations can be meaningful only if the negotiators are elected representatives of the people. Army generals have no real incentive to negotiate in good faith - they have a vested interest to make themselves look like indispensable saviors of the nation - that is what allows them to justify usurping the largest share of the national pie for themselves.

Pakistan`s military, the largest body of organized crime in Pakistan, continues to monopolize power - it is determined to continue as the final arbiter of who gets to steal in pakistan and how much.

The public are quite capable of weeding out the politicians who must get re-elected to stay in power. It is the corrupt military with its monopoly over the guns that poses the problem. It is the military that has left the people so helplessly victimized.

re: nakhok

You have missed the point in my post #230. You tried to delegitimize Jinnah on the incoherent grounds that he never went to prison, as if going to prison would result in azaadi. Just to illustrate the inanity of that argument, I countered with the quote about Nehru`s homosexual tendencies.

Just like Nehru`s homosexual tendencies do not delegitimize him in the eyes of Hindus and Congress-wallahs, the refusal of Jinnah to lead noncooperation nonviolent satyagarhs does not delegitimize his status as the sole spokesman of Muslims. These leaders were essentially chasing different goals and using different methodologies to achieve those goals.

Nehru and Gandhi believed that nonviolence noncooperation would force British to leave India. To them, freedom was primary and the constitutional safeguards of minorities was something to be addressed ``after`` freedom was achieved. Nehru and Gandhi were after all Hindu leaders and the Hindu community was not as backward and illiterate as Muslims. That is why their concerns were different from those of Jinnah.

Jinnah was quite aware of the backwardness of Muslims and their susceptibility to fundamentalist Mullahs. He was also aware of the Congress arbitrariness while in power. So for him constitutional safeguards, modernity, economic aspects of independence and its impact on Muslim society was paramount.

Jinnah only launched the Pakistan movement when he became sure that the British were too weak to rule India for long. Indians believe that the British left because of Gandhi`s pressure. This a great delusion.

The British left because their exchequer suffered enormous losses during the World War II with Germany. With London bombed out, and most of their industrial capacity used up by war... Britain was no longer in a position to run a huge empire. Lord Kitchener, the Treasury Secretary, told British PM at the end of WW2, that Britain has only enough gold left to feed its own citizens for a year.

Jinnah realized this in 1941 and expressed this to Liaqat and his sister Fatima in correspondence. It was at this point that Jinnah decided that Muslim League should accelerate its movement.

What happened after Jinnah`s death cannot be blamed on him. Dead men can`t rectify things. Only the living can. So lets rectify the Kashmir problem while we are living.

re: #232

The Punjabi/Sikh/Pathan army managed to stop the British advance for more than 3 decades whereas no other army in India including those of Tipu Sultan, Siraj-ud-Daula, Nawab of Oudh, etc could effectively pose a challenge.

The British sincerely believed that rugged, physically well-built and mentally tough people were more suited to a life of soldiering. The following abstract of a dissertation gives a preview:

http://www.easternct.edu/personal/faculty/mcneilk/long_abstract.html

I am searching for the dissertation, and will post it soon.

The British believe of martial races was based on their experience of wars with Scottish Highlanders. To the British mind, the Punjabis, Pathans, Sikhs and Kashmiris were Asiatic counterparts of Highlanders.

With hindsight, we know this to be false. The Vietnamese would not qualify as a martial race according to British definition. Yet they defeated the white American race, that the British would consider a superior race.

My point: British actually believed in the martial race theory. For the same reason, they prevented the industrialization of Punjab, Kashmir and NWFP. They didn`t want their ``Asiatic Highlanders`` to end up working as laborers and factory workers. They wanted this crop to end up as fauji-landlords instead.

re: #235

[Nehru`s homosexual tendencies explain why he wasn`t man enough to face a plebiscite in his own ancestral state (Kashmir).`` Can HisExcellency cite the edition and page number for this claim? ]
+++++
Read that post (#230) again. Wolpert`s quote ends two paragraphs before this one. The last 2 paragraphs are not a direct quote, these are my comments on Wolpert`s quote.

[the funds have been frozen at American command because the funds were being used to fund terrorism instead of repatriating the ``Biharis``. ]
---------
The State Department did not specify the time frame during which Rabita was engaged in terrorist funding. We don`t know for example, that these activities happened after 1999 or before that. If it happened after 1999, then atleast the Nawaz scheme was being duly implemented.

[That doesn`t explain why the Fauji-landlord Mafia can`t settle the ``Biharis`` in ``recruitment are`` in Punjab and why it would rather spend the Rabita Trust fund money to sponsor terrorism. ]
++++++++

Mian Chunnu is in Punjab. Rs 250 million of the Rs 700 million were already spent between 1997 and 1999 on building a 96-acre housing complex at Mian Chunnu for Biharis. This tells us that atleast 36% of that money was well-spent. Once again, read the link in that post for references.

Repatriation of Biharis is not straight forward matter. These people chose to migrate to East Pakistan and then refused to merge in that culture. The PPP and Sindhi does not even consider them Pakistani citizens. As you know, PPP was in power for half of 1990s. The PPP Prime Minister Benazir didn`t want to spend any money on Biharis even in Punjab. That`s why repatriation issue was like a ping pong.. When Nawaz Sharif came to power, he revived the repatriation project. When Benazir came in, she shelved it.

Now Musharraf is not touching this issue (as well as Kalabagh Dam issue) simply because he doesn`t want to tackle too many problems at the same time. It`s just bad politics to start a new controversy when you already have your hands full in previous ones. (i.e. LFO, Afghan turnaround, referendum).

# 230

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
``These are Stanley Wolpert`s words not mine. May be you should write an angry letter to Mr.Wolpert and condemn him for writing the truth about Nehru.``
+++

HisExcellency claims, Stanley Wolpert wrote, ````Nehru`s homosexual tendencies explain why he wasn`t man enough to face a plebiscite in his own ancestral state (Kashmir).`` Can HisExcellency cite the edition and page number for this claim?

+++
``Pakistan government had set up a repatriation fund of Rs 700 million under the aegis of Rabita Alam-e-Islami Trust Fund.``
+++

Yes, General Pervez Musharraf was member of the Board of this Trust Fund. But now the funds have been frozen at American command because the funds were being used to fund terrorism instead of repatriating the ``Biharis``.

+++
``It is the Sindhi politicians who feel that repatriation would hurt Sindh`s economy and lead to increased crime rate.``
+++

That doesn`t explain why the Fauji-landlord Mafia can`t settle the ``Biharis`` in ``recruitment are`` in Punjab and why it would rather spend the Rabita Trust fund money to sponsor terrorism.

# 230

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
``Wrong! This was based on military assessment of Ranjeet Singh`s army. Unlike other armies in the India, Ranjeet`s army was trained by French generals Ventura and Allard. A Russian gunner Viewkenawitch and French General Court were employed as the artillery experts. Moreover, Ranjit had a special intelligence wing that was run by his Prime Minister Fakir Syed Nuruddin with the guidance of Henry Steinbech, a German. ``
+++

HisExcellency is stating that Ranjeet Singh`s army had better military training. But I don`t see how this validates the ``martial races`` theory of the British rulers. That racist theory had more to do with the needs of the imperialists than with any physical fact.

re: #231

Nehru`s socialist leanings could sway the lower income groups but not the upper and middle income Muslims. As always the case, the frontrunners of a socialist movement are lower income people because they tend to gain a proportionately large amount of the economic pie.

On the other hand, those well-versed with Islam, can understand that socialism and Islam are at odds with each other. While on the one hand, Islam declares that ``the worker is friend of Allah``, Islam enshrines private property as a sacred trust. Some of the prominent Muslim figures such as Prophet Muhammad, Caliphs Umar, Abu Bakr and Usman were indeed wealthy men who gave a lot of charity to the poor.

Given this background, socialist ideologies could never win the hearts of enlightened Muslims. Even after independence, India adopted socialism for 3-4 decades whereas in Pakistan, socialism just lasted 4 years (1972-76).

The Muslim League campaign was always an economic one. Religious was just added to counterbalance the strongly religious outlook of Congress movement. As you know, Gandhi always packaged his actions in Hindu religious beliefs. Ahimsa and satyagarh, for example, were lifted straight out of Hinduism. Both imply a spiritual struggle.

The 1857 conflict left the Muslims of India in dire economic straits. The British had taken India from Muslims so naturally they were suspicious of Muslims. An intense economic apartheid was adopted towards Muslims. This rendered them educationally backward, economically weak and political disorganized. Jinnah`s campaign was aimed at precisely these weaknesses. Even in Muslim majority areas, most of the businesses were owned by Hindus. In the famous Anarkali bazaar of Lahore, there were at one time only 4 Muslim shops and 87 Hindu owned shops. Hindu shopkeepers had formed a cartel to prevent Muslims entrepreneurs from obtaining capital for opening their shops.

In 1945, if you walked into Chandhi chowk of Delhi, and picked any street vendor at random, he would invariably turn out to be a Muslim descendent of the Mughals.

In 1905, the Muslims of Bengal asked the British Viceroy to partition Bengal into East and West. As a result of this partition, the East Bengali Muslims experienced an enormous change in their quality of life and economic status. The West Bengali Hindus started lobbying against this and within 6 years they got the partition annulled. In united Bengal, Muslims had ``nothing`` whereas Hindus had ``everything``. In divided Bengal, Muslims could have ``something``, but even that ``something`` was not tolerable to the Hindus.

This religious-economic discrimination of the Hindus towards Muslims was very acute in UP, Bengal and Sindh in particular. That is why even in 1937 elections, anti-Congress Muslims were able to win a lot of seats.

The Congress ministry of 1937-39, further drove the wedge between Congress and Muslims. Muslim public opinion had completely turned against Congress therefore Muslim leaders like Jinnah, Liaqat, Fazal-e-Haq, Pir of Pagara, etc reflected their constituency`s opinion.

re: nakhok

Jinnah`s movement was popular but not socialist.

M.B. Naqvi`s article correctly describes the attitude of West Pakistani social elites after independence. A sort of mini revolt against Jinnah was launched by Mian Mumtaz Daultana, a powerful Punjabi landlord. However, Daultana lacked the popularity of Jinnah.

Jinnah`s death in 1948 left Liaqat in charge. But being a mohajir from UP, he didn`t have any power base in West Pakistan. For the same reason, he didn`t hold elections until 1954.

[Also, did it specify the kind of shirts the indians should wear? What about food? Did it also say that indians can only eat urad dal? ]

Thanks for making my point. India has no regard for UN. Unfortunately comparing a Plebiscite resolution with apparel, dal, food and bathroom habits will not win the argument for you. Seems like you are an infant trapped in an adult`s body.

[It was invaded by a neighbor in 1947. It went to the UN and got some resolutions passed. ]

You got your high school history wrong. Kashmir, not India was invaded by militias. India went to the UN because it couldn`t dislodge the militias with all its air power and army.

If India was really interested in fulfilling its promise, it would not have embarked on the Article 370 political wheeling & dealing with Sheikh Lackey. In less than 6 years, India even backtracked on UN role in Kashmir.

No wonder, the Kashmiris are firing bullets up the Indian nose.

nakhok

Please do not insult hisflatulence by calling him hisexcellency. Use the correct nick. Thank you.

re: #227

These are Stanley Wolpert`s words not mine. May be you should write an angry letter to Mr.Wolpert and condemn him for writing the truth about Nehru.

[The designation of the racist ``martial races`` was based on political calculations of the imerialist power and not on physical facts. ]

Wrong! This was based on military assessment of Ranjeet Singh`s army. Unlike other armies in the India, Ranjeet`s army was trained by French generals Ventura and Allard. A Russian gunner Viewkenawitch and French General Court were employed as the artillery experts. Moreover, Ranjit had a special intelligence wing that was run by his Prime Minister Fakir Syed Nuruddin with the guidance of Henry Steinbech, a German.

[It would never occur to this fauji-landlord Mafia to resettle the ``Biharis`` in the ``recruitment area`` between the Indus and the Jhelum.]

Mr.Empty-Vessel,
Do you know that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had ordered the construction of 96-acre housing unit in Mian Chunnu in December 1997. Neither the Army nor the so-called landlord Mafia objected.

Nine years earlier, Pakistan government had set up a repatriation fund of Rs 700 million under the aegis of Rabita Alam-e-Islami Trust Fund. It was Benazir Bhutto, the Sindhi Prime Minister who shelved this plan.

Read the details at:
http://paknews.com/art1apl-3.html

It doesn`t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the Army and Pakistani elite is not against repatriation of Biharis into Punjab or Sindh. It is the Sindhi politicians who feel that repatriation would hurt Sindh`s economy and lead to increased crime rate.

The PPP and World Sindhi Congress opinion on Biharis is as follows:
Biharis migrated to East Pakistan of their own free will. Instead of merging with the Bengali population, they formed tried to impose their own culture and language on the Bengalis. During the 1971 war, they formed terrorist groups called Al-Badar and Al-Shamas to attack Bengali shops. You can read that stuff at:

http://www.safhr.org/contents3312_4.html

You can`t peg everything that comes to your mind in your state of stupor, on Pakistan Army or the ruling elite. There is actually widespread debate in Pakistan on the Bihari issue.

# 222

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
``it was this 2 year period that finally estranged Muslims from Hindus.``
+++

The Muslim League in UP, because of its class composition, was not in tune with Nehru`s socialist leanings. Muslim League hadn`t done particularly well in the elections of 1937. While Nehru was quite willing to have Khaliquzzaman as the Muslim League representative in the UP ministry, he wasn`t as eager to have Liaqat Ali Khan. Well, this didn`t sit well with the Muslim League establishment in UP.

In Bengal, Fazlul Haq was a populist figure with a base among share-croppers and workers. He had become Bengal`s Premier in 1937. And understandably, once again for ideological reasons, Fazlul Haq didn`t sit well with the Muslim League establishment which was more at home with Nazimuddin or Ispahini.

Class conflicts, rather than religious conflicts, were at the root of the disenchantment of the Muslim League with the Congress in 1937. And, yes, it succeeded in 1945 by cleverly playing the religion card. But even without the Congress, the same problem continued to bedevil the Muslim League even in Pakistan.

This is how M.B.Naqvi described the causes of the demise of Jinnah`s Pakistan in 1971.

+++
www.jang.com.pk/thenews

The News, Karachi, Pakistan
Wednesday December 11, 2002-- Shawwal 06, 1423 A.H.

Why Jinnah`s Pakistan ended
by M B Naqvi
mbnaqvi@cyber.net.pk

``One emphasises a narrower reason for the earliest power struggle
between the Punjab and Bengal Groups in the first Constituent Assembly
in 1948-49. East Bengalis had opened their account with the
expropriation of all intermediary landed interests between the state
and the cultivator. This without compensation reform frightened the
social elites in West Pakistan, almost all of whom landlords. Bengalis
acquiring the central power seemed to them like encouraging the new
Bolsheviks to repeat that enormity here also. So they were determined
to deny the Bengalis their due share of power and entered into an open
conspiracy: they sought help from the bureaucracy and got it. With
West Pakistan`s landowning MPs help, they cornered all power``
+++

# 222

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
``Nehru`s homosexual tendencies explain why he wasn`t man enough to face a plebiscite in his own ancestral state (Kashmir).``
+++

HisExcellency is so eager to prove the manliness of the fauji-landlord mafia of ``martial races`` that he has now turned into a quack psychologist!

# 211

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
``During the 1857 uprising, the Bengali regiments revolted against the British. But the Punjabi regiment fought for the British. The British had succeeded in dividing the Indians along ethnic lines. After 1857, the predominance of martial races in British Indian Army became greater.``
+++

The designation of the racist ``martial races`` was based on political calculations of the imerialist power and not on physical facts. The myth has been kept alive in Pakistan to protect the interests of the fauji-landlord Mafia. To that end, this Mafia would rather fight India to the last Kashmiri than give peace a chance.

And, of course, it would never occur to this fauji-landlord Mafia to resettle the ``Biharis`` in the ``recruitment area`` between the Indus and the Jhelum. This Mafia would rather bank on the fears of the de-franchised native Sindhis to keep the ``Biharis`` rotting in refugee camps in Bangladesh for eternity.

Here`s the problem, in a nutshell - Pakistan`s ruling elite has been throwing temper tantrums in the hope of ``solving`` the issue of Jammu & Kashmir on its own terms. It is issuing threats that unless it gets its way in Jammu & Kashmir, the world in general and India in particular will have to face the dire prospect of:
(1) confrontation with a Talibanized Pakistan and/or
(2) confrontation with a nuclear Pakistan.

Pakistan`s ruling elite is an incorrigible lot. It would rather acquire real estate in Jammu & Kashmir than bring home the stranded Pakistanis (aka ``Biharis``) who have had their lives on hold for the last 31 years in UN-run refugee camps. Pakistan feigns lack of fund to put off the repatriation of the hapless ``Biharis`` even as it funnels funds for organizing terror in neighboring Afghanistan and Kashmir.

Pakistan`s ruling elite is not doing anyone any good by such brinkmanship. Pakistan does have nuclear weapons but it is sheer lunacy to threaten to use them unless the Jammu & Kashmir issue is settled on its terms - this is temper tantrums at its worst.

America, and much of the world, is concerned because Pakistan not only has nuclear weapons but rattles them regularly in the hope of getting its way on Jammu & Kashmir. It has steadfastly refused, till now, to forswear first use of nuclear weapons. The Pakistani Generals are either insane or are indulging in dangerous brinkmanship to ``resolve`` their claims on Jammu & Kashmir on their own terms. This (and not any imagined collusion of ``Jews, Hindus & Americans``) is what makes it such a dangerous place on earth.

Muslim Kashmiris have no reason to want the expulsion of the Pandit community any more than Muslim Sindhis had any reason in 1947 to want
the expulsion of Hindu Sindhis.

Powerful outsiders (including Qaid-e-Millat Liaqat Ali Khan)
engineered the expulsion of the Hindu Sindhis to promote their own
agenda of creating a constituency in the nascent country.

And in 1971, while all Bengalis in East Pakistan were victimized, the
Hindus were victimized disproportionately more. Pakistani army was
trying to do a Sindh on East Pakistan by specially targeting the
Hindus. In fact, it victimized Muslim Bengalis, it did so with the
specious plea that the Muslim Bengalis were not good Muslims!

Today, Pakistan`s ruling elite is doing a Sindh on Jammu and Kashmir.
It is Pakistan that has engineered the expulsion of the Pandit
community. Muslim Kashmiris do not condone the expulsion any more than
the Muslim Sindhis condoned the expulsion of their Hindu neighbors in
1947.

Pakistan`s ruling elite, for all its talk on self-determination, dares
not risking a plebiscite in Pak occupied Kashmir (PoK) even after
altering PoK`s demography with immigrants from Punjab and NWFP. And
most Pakistanis aren`t even aware that a constitutional provision
(Article 370) in India protects Jammu and Kashmir from such
demographic invasion from the rest of India. Indians from other
provinces of India, cannot, by law, acquire immovable property in
Jammu & Kashmir.

The ``Bihari`` issue has been festering for the last 31 years. As far as
I am concerned, there is a crying need to end their nightmare.

It is not India`s responsibility to bring justice to the Sindhis & the
Mohajirs, the Shias and the Ismailis, the Ahmediyas & the Zikris in
Pakistan. It is Pakistan`s responsibility. Charity begins at home.
Pakistan needs to give a higher priority to doing the needful for them
instead of incessasantly beating the drums to get its way on Jammu &
Kashmir.

-

The Kashmir dispute is the oldest unresolved international conflict in the world today. Pakistan considers Kashmir as its core political dispute with India. So does the international community, except India. While Indian security forces are practicing an unprecedented reign of terror in Occupied Kashmir being widely reported world-wide; the Indian government, currently led by Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, is neither willing to negotiate the issue multilaterally—through international mediation—nor is it ready to sort it out with Pakistan through bilateral negotiations. India and Pakistan have already fought two wars over Kashmir. The exchange of fire between their forces across the Line of Control, which separates Azad Kashmir from Occupied Kashmir, is a routine affair. Now that both India and Pakistan have acquired nuclear weapons potential, the possibility of a third war between them over Kashmir, which may involve the use of nuclear weapons, cannot be ruled out. The likely nuclear disaster in South Asia, whose cause may be Kashmir, can be averted with an intervention by the international community. Such an intervention is urgently required to put an end to Indian atrocities in Occupied Kashmir and prepare the ground for the implementation of UN resolutions, which call for the holding of a plebiscite to determine the wishes of the Kashmiri people.

-

oh!Great!Expert!On!UN #196

heh, heh ! You have a child-like view of UN security resolutions with the idea that this or that step might not be allowed. Did the UN resolution also allow indians to go to the bathroom? Also, did it specify the kind of shirts the indians should wear? What about food? Did it also say that indians can only eat urad dal?

Overall, one gets the impression that you are at the level of a earnest high-school student, say 15 years old. If so, good. Otherwise, my advice to you is to grow up.

India is a sovereign country. Its actions are not governed by this or that resolution. It was invaded by a neighbor in 1947. It went to the UN and got some resolutions passed. The invader didnt respond and sat tight. The invader grabbed land and passed on some parts to another country.

Now some people want to selectively bring up some bits of history. Why stop there? Why don`t we go back to 1930`s? Why not revisit the partition with a plebiscite?

Indeed, your friends in the VHP and Shiv Sena don`t even want to stop there. They want to go back to bin Qasim`s invasion. They want a plebiscite on that as well. They want to ``send back`` the folks who got created with that invasion !

Use of selective bits of history to create grievances is a cheap tool of propagandists. In South Asia we each have a grievance we can drag out of the closet. Your approach has almost destroyed your country and is also hurting mine.

# 196

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
``The UN did not stipulate any timeframe for withdrawal of militias.``
+++

But the withdrawl was a pre-requisite for the plebiscite. And, of course, after all the ``rest and recreation`` by the militias at Baramulla, Pakistan was in no hurry to withdraw, and even less to face a plebiscite. Is it any wonder that the plebiscite became a non-starter so soon.

Much water has flown thru the Jhelum since then . It is useless to try to solve today`s problem with yesterday`s solution. The Shimla agreement and the Lahore agreement have long overtaken the UNSC Resolution. I agree with the author temporal that it is time for a ``Radical Approach``. ``a bilateral or multilateral commission that would recommend turning what is de-facto into de-jure border`` would indeed be a step in the right direction.

# 199

HisExcellency wrote of Jinnah:
+++
``A truly self-made man who believed in constitutionalism``
+++

A believer in ``constitutionalism`` doesn`t spread terror with calls for ``Direct Action``!!

Nor does he scapegoat religious minorities to defend unwise decisions of the government.

Jinnah was certainly not a religious fanatic in personal life. However, unlike Nehru, he was not above pandering to religious hatred to achieve his political objective. And he did that even after he had seen the
massive ethnic cleansing in the aftermath of the partition.

West Pakistan had been cleansed of Sikhs and Hindus within months, nay weeks, of partition. An overwhelming majority of the country`s Hindus were in East Pakistan. The rulers from West Pakistan soon realized that they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by demonizing the Hindus left in Pakistan. If nothing else, it was the means to disenfranchise a significant section in East Pakistan and turn East Pakistanis into a minority. It was this evil urge to contain the perceived threat, from Pakistan`s majority wing in any democratic setup, that led rulers in West Pakistan to talk of ``parity`` and of ``separate electorates.``

On March 21, 1948, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan and
its first Governor-General, while on his first and only visit to East Bengal, declared in Dhaka University convocation that while the language of the province can be Bengali, the ``State language of Pakistan is going to be Urdu and no other language. Any one who tries to mislead you is really an enemy of Pakistan.``

The use of the phrase ``enemy of Pakistan`` was deliberate. It was a loaded phrase, particularly mischievous in view of the massive ethnic cleansing in West Pakistan in the last seven months.

Jinnah`s demagoguery was deplorable but not surprising. He was merely repeating what Liaqat Ali Khan and his cohorts had been saying in the Constituent Assembly for the last one month. On February 23, 1948: Dhirendra Nath Dutta, a Bengali opposition member, had moved a resolution in the first session of Pakistan`s Constituent Assembly for recognizing Bengali as a state language along with Urdu and English. Non-Bengali Assembly members, led by Liaqat Ali Khan, had immediately pounded on Mr. Dutta`s religion to denounce the claim of Bengali as nothing but a Hindu conspiracy. Many a snide remark was made on the ``Hindu`` character of the language that was the mother tongue of the majority of Pakistanis.

But, fortunately, most East Pakistanis were not fooled. They realized that these non-Bengali members had deliberately chosen to forget that a language may have grammar but it has no religion. Any competent language is capable of expressing a gamut of religious beliefs. It is as easy to translate the Geeta into Arabic as it is to translate the Koran into Sanskrit. There was absolutely no basis for denouncing Bengali as a Hindu language. If anything, it was a Muslim language because a majority of the Bengalis were indeed Muslims.

But the ruling class in West Pakistan had its own agenda. And it certainly did fit that agenda to denounce Bengali as a Hindu language and to look down on East Pakistan`s majority as less than ``good Muslims.``

It is not surprising that, during the genocide in 1971, the Shaheed Minar was one of the first targets of Yahya Khan`s barbaric army. Nor was it surprising what they did to Dhirendra N. Dutta. He was an octogenarian by that time. The barbaric soldiers chose to drag this old man out of his house in Comilla and to summarily execute him in front of his neighbors and family. It was, thus, that West Pakistan`s ruling elite punished Mr. Dutta for having proposed Bengali as a national language of Pakistan some 23 years ago.

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

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

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

No radical solution of Kashmir is acceptable to Kashmiris. We want nothing but justice in Kashmir. That`s the only thing we`re sacrificing our lives for. Never ever dare to think of dividing Kashmir into pieces according your own convenience.

re: nakhok

How amusing that somehow you are trying to establish a link between a British policy initiated over 100 years ago and the Kashmir plebiscite promised by Nehru in 1949.. instead of looking right under your nose at the Machiavellian tactics that Nehru, Patel, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv, Narsimha Rao and Vajpayee used to deny the Kashmiris of a promise that India made to them.

Whether Pakistan Army is corrupt or not, this debate has nothing to do with the Kashmir plebiscite that never happened. The Pakistan Army does not hold the cards in Kashmir. It never has. It is India that has been holding the cards. Pak Army has just responded when India played a bad hand.

Once again I suggest that we should return to a radical approach. Wars and elections have been tried before but have failed to resolve this problem. Bilateral talks are a better option than war and elections, but these too have failed. The only untried approaches are plebiscite, multilateral talks and open borders policy.

# 211

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
It would be worthwhile to remember that the exclusive character of military in the areas that constitute Pakistan, was carved out by the British.
+++

It is the fauji-landlord Mafia that dealt the deathblow to Jinnah`s Pakistan. And it is this same fauji-landlord alliance that must keep the Kashmir obsession alive lest peace is given a chance to its detriment.

+++
www.jang.com.pk/thenews

The News, Karachi, Pakistan
Wednesday December 11, 2002-- Shawwal 06, 1423 A.H.

Why Jinnah`s Pakistan ended
by M B Naqvi
mbnaqvi@cyber.net.pk

``One emphasises a narrower reason for the earliest power struggle
between the Punjab and Bengal Groups in the first Constituent Assembly
in 1948-49. East Bengalis had opened their account with the
expropriation of all intermediary landed interests between the state
and the cultivator. This without compensation reform frightened the
social elites in West Pakistan, almost all of whom landlords. Bengalis
acquiring the central power seemed to them like encouraging the new
Bolsheviks to repeat that enormity here also. So they were determined
to deny the Bengalis their due share of power and entered into an open
conspiracy: they sought help from the bureaucracy and got it. With
West Pakistan`s landowning MPs help, they cornered all power``
+++

re: nakhok

[He hasn`t mentioned how Jinnah had fared in the previous election]

Jinnah lost the 1937 election but won the leadership of Muslim India during the terrible 2 year Congress government that followed. When you peruse through history books, you will realize that it was this 2 year period that finally estranged Muslims from Hindus. During this period, Nehru and Patel were more keen on insulting Jinnah than addressing the misgivings of Muslim community. Just like the Indian chowkies blame Pakistan for Kashmiri grievances, Congress leaders started blaming Jinnah for Muslims grievances.

[Had Jinnah lived and had he sought legitimacy thru elections in independent Pakistan, it is more than likely that he would have come a cropper.]

Stick to the facts that you know, not what you desperately want to believe in. Political commentary doesn`t seem to be working for you, but speculation does. You indeed have a good career on Wall Street :))

[Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan and its first Governor-General, while on his first and only visit to East Bengal, declared in Dhaka University convocation that while the language of the province can be Bengali, the ``State language of Pakistan is going to be Urdu and no other language. Any one who tries to mislead you is really an enemy of Pakistan.`` ]

That`s a valid point. This was a mistake.

Since you want a war of quotes over founding fathers, here is what Stanley Wolpert wrote about Jinnah:

``Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state. Mohammad Ali Jinnah did all the three.

MOHAMMAD ALI JINNAH FEARLESSLY championed nationalist causes from his debut in Indian politics at the turn of the century to his death in 1948. As a member of the Indian National Congress delegation to England in 1906, the barrister pleaded India`s case for constitutional advancement with its colonial rulers. His advocacy of such causes won him national acclaim and he came to be called an ``apostle of Indian self-government.

In 1913, Jinnah joined the seven-year-old All-India Muslim League. His first contribution was to write the goal of ``attainment of self-government into the League`s constitution; this was a Congress goal too. He consistently advocated communal harmony; his enduring commitment to democratic ideals earned him accolades around the country. C.R. Reddy, a Hindu leader, wrote: ``He is the pride of India and not the private possession of the Muslims.``

But Mohandas Gandhi changed the pattern of Indian politics with his emphasis on Hindu principles. He drove Jinnah, the ``ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity,`` to become the apostle of Muslim separatism. Jinnah resigned from the Congress party in 1920, and by the end of the 1930s had emerged as the supreme leader of India`s Muslims. During the fight for independence from Britain, Congress insistence on concentrating future power in the center caused deep anxiety among Muslims. The League believed that such a system of governance would reduce Muslim-majority provinces in India to ``clay in the hands of the potter.``

Jinnah`s attempts to form some kind of power-sharing arrangement with Jawaharlal Nehru`s Congress party were rebuffed. Nehru arrogantly declared that the contest was between imperialism and Congress, and that all others should line up. In such an atmosphere Jinnah galvanized the ramshackle Muslim League into a mass movement. The League needed a national policy as well as a rallying goal. Jinnah supplied both. The League demanded a separate state for Muslims and so it came to be. This was Jinnah`s monumental achievement.

Jinnah differed from most contemporary leaders in that he was committed to substance rather than symbol, reason rather than emotion, modernity rather than tradition. His was a pragmatic vision. His concept of Pakistan was predicated on the ideals of egalitarianism and social justice.``

Here is what the distinguished Mr. Wolpert wrote about Nehru:

``Nehru dressed in drag wearing his wig, made up with lipstick, powder and eye shadow, his body draped in silks and satins, Jawahar most willingly offered himself up night after night to those endless rehearsals for the Gaekwar`s At Home as a beautiful young girl, holding out her jug of wine and loaf seductively to her poet lover, Omar.

Nehru`s first attachment was with a young man called Ferdinand Brooks who was his French teacher. Brooks was a theosophist but before coming to India the `handsome` man was a disciple and lover of Charles Webster Leadbeater, a renegade Anglican curate who was accused of child molestation and pederasty on several continents. Leadbeater openly advocated mutual masturbation among young boys.``

Wolpert also suggests Nehru may have had a gay relationship in Harrow and makes much of Panditji`s admiration for Oscar Wilde.

Nehru`s homosexual tendencies explain why he wasn`t man enough to face a plebiscite in his own ancestral state (Kashmir).

# 198

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
``Jinnah`s popularity among Muslims is evident from the fact that in 1945 elections Muslim League won 95% of Muslim seats.``
+++

HisExcellency wants Chowk readers to judge Jinnah on the basis of a single election (of 1945). He hasn`t mentioned how Jinnah had fared in the previous election (1937). He hasn`t even mentioned how Jinnah fared in NWFP or the Punjab in the 1945 elections.

And more pertinently, HisExcellency hasn`t expressed his thoughts on how Jinnah might have fared in the next election in Pakistan had he lived and had allowed it to be held.

But we do know what Jinnah said the one and only time he visited East Pakistan. On March 21, 1948, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan and its first Governor-General, while on his first and only visit to East Bengal, declared in Dhaka University convocation that while the language of the province can be Bengali, the ``State language of Pakistan is going to be Urdu and no other language. Any one who tries to mislead you is really an enemy of Pakistan.``

We do know that Jinnah`s party was wiped out in the elections to East Pakistan`s Legislature at the earliest opportunity (1954). And we do know that East Pakistan would part company with Jinnah`s Pakistan in just another 17 years.

Jinnah kindled the fire of East Pakistan`s alienation with his mindless demagoguery during his one and only visit to the east wing where the majority of the Pakistanis lived. Had Jinnah lived and had he sought legitimacy thru elections in independent Pakistan, it is more than likely that he would have come a cropper.

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

re: #206

Nighat Yasmeen`s questions are valid. But unfortunately this does not qualify as corruption or land-grabbing in Pakistan. There is nothing illegal about allocation of land to military officers. Allocation of assets to different sectors of society is a political, not administrative issue.

The first 6 questions are directed against the military in general.

It would be worthwhile to remember that the exclusive character of military in the areas that constitute Pakistan, was carved out by the British. In Ranjeet Singh`s Punjabi/Pathan/Kashmiri/Sikh army, they found their toughest opponent. British had conquered rest of India quite easily through intrigue and superior troops, but in Punjab they had their biggest challenge.

After the death of Ranjeet Singh, the British managed to conquer Punjab with great difficulty. Based on this experience, Lord Macaulay described the people living in Indian Punjab and most of Pakistan as the ``martial races``.

Thereafter, British made it a policy to recruit their elite divisions from either Gurkha belt or Punjab/Frontier. To win the loyalties of soldiers in Punjab, British awarded lands to Punjabi/Pathan majors. Although most Punjabi/Pathan/Sikh soldiers never rose above the rank of Major, they were always the Chaudhries and Sardars of their villages. Thus a landed-military aristocracy was raised, which was loyal to the British.

During the 1857 uprising, the Bengali regiments revolted against the British. But the Punjabi regiment fought for the British. The British had succeeded in dividing the Indians along ethnic lines. After 1857, the predominance of martial races in British Indian Army became greater.

British magristrates in most districts would treat the average citizen with scorn but the Punjabi/Pathan army officers were given respect. Their complaints were given top priority. As a result of this exclusive treatment, the military became a power broker in the agriculturist Punjabi and Pathan society.

After independence, the same military took over Pakistan because of its land-holdings and defense needs arising from confrontation with India. The politicians needed the Army and gave it a major chunk of power. General Ayub was made Defence Minister while he was serving in the Army.

Why am I giving you this history lesson? To illustrate the point that neither Musharraf nor Pakistan Army is the architect of this century old policy. It will take a political decision taken by a political party to change this tradition. That will require more than just a letter from one lady. Perhaps the PPP, PML, MMA and MQM should include it in their agenda for next election.

re: #206

Nighat Yasmeen`s questions are valid. But unfortunately this does not qualify as corruption or land-grabbing in Pakistan. There is nothing illegal about allocation of land to military officers. Allocation of assets to different sectors of society is a political, not administrative issue.

The first 6 questions are directed against the military in general.

It would be worthwhile to remember that the exclusive character of military in the areas that constitute Pakistan, was carved out by the British. In Ranjeet Singh`s Punjabi/Pathan/Kashmiri/Sikh army, they found their toughest opponent. British had conquered rest of India quite easily through intrigue and superior troops, but in Punjab they had their biggest challenge.

After the death of Ranjeet Singh, the British managed to conquer Punjab with great difficulty. Based on this experience, Lord Macaulay described the people living in Indian Punjab and most of Pakistan as the ``martial races``.

Thereafter, British made it a policy to recruit their elite divisions from either Gurkha belt or Punjab/Frontier. To win the loyalties of soldiers in Punjab, British awarded lands to Punjabi/Pathan majors. Although most Punjabi/Pathan/Sikh soldiers never rose above the rank of Major, they were always the Chaudhries and Sardars of their villages. Thus a landed-military aristocracy was raised, which was loyal to the British.

During the 1857 uprising, the Bengali regiments revolted against the British. But the Punjabi regiment fought for the British. The British had succeeded in dividing the Indians along ethnic lines. After 1857, the predominance of martial races in British Indian Army became greater.

British magristrates in most districts would treat the average citizen with scorn but the Punjabi/Pathan army officers were given respect. Their complaints were given top priority. As a result of this exclusive treatment, the military became a power broker in the agriculturist Punjabi and Pathan society.

After independence, the same military took over Pakistan because of its land-holdings and defense needs arising from confrontation with India. The politicians needed the Army and gave it a major chunk of power. General Ayub was made Defence Minister while he was serving in the Army.

Why am I giving you this history lesson? To illustrate the point that neither Musharraf nor Pakistan Army is the architect of this century old policy. It will take a political decision taken by a political party to change this tradition. That will require more than just a letter from one lady. Perhaps the PPP, PML, MMA and MQM should discuss this in Parliament and include it in the next election campaign.

But until then, this will not qualify as land-grabbing or corruption.

# 198

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
``Unlike Gandhi and Nehru, Jinnah was one of the top 3 lawyers of British India.``
+++

What exactly is HisExcellency`s point? That Jinnah was a better lawyer? Yes, he made tons of money especially in probatory law. But how is that releveant to public life?

Here`s what TIME magazine said in its obituary to Jinnah some 50 years ago. In a write up titled, ``Mohammad Ali Jinnah created Pakistan out of oratory and blood`` TIME wrote in September of 1948:

``Out of the travail of 400 million in the Indian subcontinent,`` TIME
wrote in September 1948, ``have come two symbols---a man of love and
a man of hate. Last winter the man of nonviolence, Gandhi, died
violently at the hands of an assassin. Last week, the man of hate,
Mohammad Ali Jinnah, at 71, died a natural death in Karachi,
capital of state he had founded.``

We all know of the great carnage of 1947. We know how many lost not just their hearth and home, but their near and dear ones as well. Even one man person forced into exile from his ancestral land in the aftermath of the partition would have been one too many, even one person killed
would have been one too many.

Historians will attest that far too many were exiled & killed in 1947. But historians will also attest that leadders like Gandhi and Nehru were
not only appalled by the carnage, but in fact had risked their lives to stop the carnage. Both had denounced religious riots in no uncertain
terms, both had risked their lives to stop them. In fact, Gandhi lost his life for his efforts.

In Pakistan, unfortunately, the top leadership had other ideas. Prime Minister of Pakistan (Liaqat Ali Khan), for example, had encouraged expulsion (and worse) of people belonging to the ``wrong`` religion for the purpose of creating a support base for himself in Karachi and rewarding his supporters suitably.

All said and done, the carnage in 1947 stopped only when Pakistan`s religious minorities were reduced to insignificance thru mayhem and expulsion. India, on the other hand, continues to this day to have more
Muslims than Pakistan.

In newly independent India, Nehru envisioned a secular India. Jinnah, on the other hand, remained ready to take it out on the religious minorities even after West Pakistan had been suitably ``cleansed.`` Thus, when East Pakistanis proteseted the imposition of Urdu on the nation, both Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan promptly blamed the Hindus for this ``impertinence`` of the East Pakistanis. Hindus were threatened with dire consequences and Bengali was denounced as a ``Hindu language`` These leaders forgot that a language doesn`t have a religion other than grammar. The Koran can be translated into Bengali as easily as the Geeta can be translated into Arabic. Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan were quite willing to precipitate a Punjab-style carnage in East Pakistan for the purpose of Punjab-style ethnic cleansing.

Even after the shocking carnage that had taken a mind-boggling toll on Punjab in 1947, Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan were both willing and eager
to have a repeat performance in East Pakistan by scapegoating the Hindus. Fortunately, East Pakistanis were able to see thru the intention of
these leaders, and prevailed in their determination to gain Bengali the recognition as one of Pakistan`s national language.

re: nakhok

Some of the next set of 5 questions, only 2 questions are pertinent to Musharraf. The rest are again aimed at the system and should be discussed in Parliament.

The referendum and Wasim Sajjad`s writeoff are indeed poor decisions that have hurt Musharraf`s credibility. These are the only 2 valid criticisms that you have raised against Army rulers so far.

Most of the military lands and perks were taken during democratic governments. During Nawaz and Benazir`s governments, military indulged in more corruption than under the Musharraf government. This is quite a widely held belief in Pakistan.

Shaheen Sehbai`s criticism of Musharraf regime is quite valid. But this regime is still relatively more honest than the Benazir and Nawaz regimes. And despite the maltreatment of journalists, the Press enjoys more freedom than under Nawaz and Benazir rule.

# 197

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
``Pakistani chowkies don`t expect Indian chowkies to approve of our generals. After all, their job is to serve us, not the Indians.``
+++

If HisExcellency bothers to goes thru the columns of mainstream columnists like Irfan Husain, Ayaz Amir, Cowasjee, M.B.Naqvi, M.P.Bhandara etc., he`ll realize it is the Pakistanis themselves that are taking a dim view of the Generals.

Countries have armies. Pakistan is the exception. In Pakistan, it is the army that has a country!!

# 197

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
``This is the Army`s method of compensating its top soldiers for their services. You have to compare a soldier`s salary with that of a policeman, businessman or professional to understand this.``
+++

Pakistanis know land-grabbing when they see one. The chowk carried an article, ``Some Burning Questions`` by Nighat Yasmeen to put it in perspective. Needless to say, the questions were for the military, in general, and for General Pervez Musharraf, in particular. Here are some of the questions:

[The 1st set has 6 questions and are at the institutional level while the 2nd set has 5 questions and are at the personal level.]
.
.
(i) How do you explain that a professor holding a Doctorate -- who started teaching at a public university 35 years back, before you joined the army -- is not entitled to a single residential plot whereas the property you have amassed-- squarely due to your military service -- is worth hundreds of millions rupees?

(ii) How come a brigadier in the army has more perks and privileges than the Chief Justice of Pakistan (his tamely churning out of order-made indemnifying verdicts notwithstanding).

(iii) Why a senior surgeon serving in a government hospital doesn`t get a fraction of monetary rewards as compared to what a GOC grabs without doing anything productive at all?

(iv) What does a police officer get from the state, despite risking his life, putting up with abuses and curses of the public on daily basis (and quite often flouting the law at the behest of the junta), in relation to good-for-nothing military officers?

(v) Where in the world, a FA or at the most BA passed supervisor/foreman in a security firm is multi millionaire, by default, on his retirement, entirely because of his job?

(vi) Which government service, irrespective of tenure, academic qualifications and/or assignments, in the entire region of South Asia, results in comparable amount of financial gains than that of military career in Pakistan? What extraordinary, the military of Pakistan accomplishes to deserve the amazing remunerations?
.
.
(i) My son doesn`t get as little as a few tablets of Paracetamol after having queued for hours and endured endless humiliation at public hospitals. For your son there are helicopter ambulances, luxurious VVIP wards at well-equipped military hospitals [strictly out of bound for common man] -- free of cost. Why this callous discrimination against innocent Pakistani civilian children - in their own homeland? General sahib, my son demands an answer.

(ii) Barn for cattle at military farms are generally better furnished than the government school of my daughter. And, she is lucky that she has at least a school, be in rubbles, to go to -- more than 50% of her civilian age-fellows don`t have even this symbolic consolation either. In contrast, your daughter`s birthrights include O-Level at sumptuous Army Public Schools on highly subsidized rates. Sir, my girl holds you and your fellow officers responsible for this malevolent disparity. What should I tell her?

(iii) 90% civilian children don`t have access to decent playgrounds, but for your kids the state provides thoroughbred stallions and instructors for riding. A pointer: 140 million ``ordinary`` Pakistanis have fewer swimming pools available to them than the sports centres exclusively on the disposal of officers of the armed forces. [I can substantiate this claim with exact figures]

(iv) My old frail father toils in scorching heat to make the ends meet, to pay the ever-swelling utility bills in time, you write off millions of rupees, due from your defaulting chums, as it was your dad`s property. One fresh glaring example: Wasim Sajjad. Why?

(v) Billions of rupees from the national exchequer were shamelessly frittered away on that lousy referendum, just for appeasing your unconstitutional ambitions. An exercise, ``the heaviest ever mandate``, no one gives a damn to. Doesn`t the hard-earned money of my husband and taxpayers like him deserve a bit more respect and a better use? Before I forget, how free and fair the referendum was if the Election Commission has to straight away [and illicitly] destroy all the records on your orders? Would you kindly elaborate this unmatched urgency?
.
.
If HisExcellency goes over the questions he might never again write:``To redress the downgrading of a military officer`s social status, Pakistan Army awards lands``

And here are a couple of write-ups to give HisExcellency a feel for the Vox Populi on the land-grabbing General Musharraf:

+++
DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
12 November 1999 Friday 03 Shaban 1420

How many plots does a man require?
By Ayaz Amir

..... one of the things wrong with the Pakistani elite: it is over-privileged and over-pampered.

The army chief has six plots, an under-construction house in Karachi and two squares agricultural land in Bahawalpur. This is besides a house owned by his parents in Islamabad and a house in the name of his daughter in Defence, Karachi. The naval chief has three sizeable plots, a flat in his wife`s name in Islamabad and the obligatory two squares of land in Bahawalpur. This is what he must have acquired while in service. What he inherited were four acres (repeat four acres) of barani land in Rawalpindi and six acres in Multan. The air chief has six plots and the inevitable two squares in Bahawalpur. At this rate there will not be any land left in Bahawalpur.
+++

+++
DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
08 September 2000 Friday 09 Jamadi-us-Saani 1421

The worth of a general
M. SALEEM, Lahore

THIS is with in reference to Humayun Gauhar`s and Maj (R) Ishtiaq`s arguments regarding some details of the assets owned by most of the generals. Generals of the Zia and post-Zia era would normally possess a choice residentia