As the Bald Eagle Tries to Rule

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

sadna #123
``I speculate for example that Zia Ul Haq never failed in politeness to Bhutto even when he ordered him beheaded. ``

Meaning what the heck is the use of such meaningless show of politeness? It would have been more fundamental civility and politeness even if they had yelled at each other rudely but believed in keeping the other alive.

A democracy doesnot come from practising polite speech while going ahead and killing or imprisoning or banishing your opponent because you donot like what he says or does(even the horrible Narendra Modi is relatively soft spoken).

I remember reading some excerpts of Aurangzeb`s letters to his father, very respectful and decent letters, giving no indication that he would later kill his brothers and lock his father up for many years (no doubt never violating the norms of civil discourse all those years).

sadna #123
``I speculate for example that Zia Ul Haq never failed in politeness to Bhutto even when he ordered him beheaded. ``

Meaning what the heck is the use of such meaningless show of politeness? There would have been more fundamental civility and politeness even if they had yelled at each other rudely but believed in keeping the other alive.

A democracy doesnot come from practising polite speech while going ahead and killing or imprisoning or banishing your opponent because you donot like what he says or does(even the horrible Narendra Modi is relatively soft spoken).

I remember reading some excerpts of Aurangzeb`s letters to his father, very respectful and decent letters, giving no indication that he would later kill his brothers and lock his father up for many years (no doubt never violating the norms of civil discourse all those years).

Alephnull #121 I am sorry if I still dont understand your point. I thought what you wrote was reasonably clear, and I thought my summarization of what you wrote was reasonably accurate. But if you say I dont get it, I shall defer to your judgement.
Hoever, rest assured that I am not ``contriving`` to misunderstand you, as you say: I dont expect to win any prizes for misunderstanding people on chowk. Nor am I here to prove anything.
So let us end this discussion in peace, and I wish you a good weekend. (And I am not contriving anything here either - I dont get medals for ending discussions in peace, nor am I interested in winning popularity contests on chowk: God has blessed me with enough good family and friends in real life).

AlephNull #122
I was not rapping your knuckles at all, I was rapping poor tahmed`s knuckles via you :). I agree with everything else you say ! I am as informed as you are (or not) on Persianate norms of civility, except that I speculate for example that Zia Ul Haq never failed in politeness to Bhutto even when he ordered him beheaded.

I actually wrote a post in response to your thoughtprovoking posts which I later deleted - on my out-on-a-long-limb thesis that you probably have here a microcsm of public dialogue in Pakistan, ie, when a select few take it upon themselves to tell others what they should or shouldnot discuss and how.

Imagine an ordinary guy persistently demanding rights to his land, or his language or a road in front of his house, and being told that he was being uncivilised and was a hatemongerer to hold on to his point thus disturbing the peaceful civility and order maintained by his self-defined betters` decrees. Its an unfriendly comment for me to draw out of personal conversations, so sorry if anyone gets offended.

Rsridhar #116

Thanks for the compliment, but I think my posts need work. Tahmed has just contrived to read #110 all wrong – was it the fault of my obscurity or was it perchance intentional evasiveness on his part? I envy people whose posts pack a powerful punch in a few pithy phrases. Mine just go on and on and on … I don’t think grammar and spelling are important beyond a point. Oh for the gifts of an Ahmed Madani!

And to answer your questions – no, I never formally studied English beyond 12th standard. My formal training – such as it is - has been in scientific/technological fields. The phrase “delendam esse” that puzzled you is Latin; it means “is to be destroyed”.

Sadna #120

I remember Professor Bilal Ahmed’s persona well, though I was a Chowk lurker at the time. I recall that Bilal Sahib set an exceptional personal example rather than try to promulgate norms of behaviour. On the rarest of rare occasions he might remonstrate with someone in the very mildest terms. That was the entire extent of his attempts to control other peoples’ posts. But he seemed to have been a genuine saint. Those who are not cut from the same cloth are probably better off not trying to emulate him. To thine own self be true …

As to ‘Persianate norms’, you are definitely more familiar with them than I am. I may have used a completely inappropriate term out of reprehensible ignorance and am glad to have my knuckles rapped by someone more knowledgeable. I was groping, mostly in the dark, for the origin of a phenomenon I’ve noticed time and time again, namely that those who directly address matters that certain people find uncomfortable are forthwith anathematized as hate-mongers and cast out into the outer darkness.

This behaviour seems to be associated with a particular definition of tolerance, which requires that opinions not be expressed if they are offensive to someone or the other (in particular – opinions critical of religion, or of some aspect or other of a particular religion, are verboten). This places the burden of tolerance squarely on the speaker, and implies limits on free speech. The concept of tolerance that I prefer, (which happens to be the norm in mature democracies except during periods of war hysteria) allows all opinions to be expressed no matter how potentially offensive, and places the burden of tolerance primarily on the listener. It is based on rejection of the notion of blasphemy or thoughtcrime.

I guessed that the first (and bad, IMO) notion of tolerance had its roots partly in the concept of blasphemy and partly in (Persianate?) cultural norms that require that you express your disapproval elliptically, that you let your adversary save ‘face’ by not confronting him directly, etc.

AlephNull #110
Terming the repeated use of personal abuse against other posters `Persianate norms of politeness and civility` is a travesty against Persianate norms of politeness and civility. For that, we had the example of Bilal Ahmad, who never implied he was better than anyone else, who never implied that the norm for civility was obeying HIM wrt what should be discussed and how, and who never debased another for disagreeing with him.

Ref My Post #118

It should be ``The Pot Calling The Kettle Black``. :) But you guys know what I mean.

Isn`t true that in Pakistan, the greatest insult for any Paki is to call him a Hindu? And isn`t it a part of school text books to teach how to differentiate between a Musalman and a Hindu?

If so, then I don`t understand this latest breast-beating from Pakis about how Indians(read, Hindus) hate them more than they hate the Hindus. Is it a case of kettle calling the pot black, or what?

(Last time such paranoia prevailed was in Nazi Germany - calling a German a Jew was supposed to be ultimate insult to him.)

We are all used to the incessant whining and moralizing and breast-beating by pakis in chowk - but this latest beat ( Look mummy - Hinoods are doing ``Paki-bashing`` so openly , look how they have turned perfectly gentle paki souls into rabid Hinood-haters ) takes the cake.

Ahmedzai # 113, we shall have to do much moe than hope for things to improve at only a personal level (inside our stretch limo?) . . . so from Salman Rashid`s Pakistan First board . . .


```` #18 by veeresh on March 27, 2003 5:49am PT
Increasingly, and I say this with a bit of world vision and no Indo-Pak rancour, I feel that North India & Pakistan never really attained freedom, it just had borders re-drawn for it by the Colonials. ````

As I see, almost on a daily basis, how the South and West of India move ahead of the rest of the sub-Continent / country, I can begin to understand where this Indo-Pak yo mama/mah mama stuff comes from.

Alephnull #110 and #112: I read your posts with interest, and am grateful for your taking the time to explain what you mean.
So what you are saying, I think, is that
(a) the ``huge majority of Indians who have no deep organic connection to Pakistan (i.e. are not fellow panjabis, nor up-ites with relations in both countries).
(b) that this majority (as you say) is likely to view Pakistan ``in cold anger, without warmth or sympathy, as a practical problem to be dealt with in the most cold-bloodedly efficacious way possible.``
(c) The reason for this anger is (i) identification of islam and/or pakistan with past invaders (ii) terrorist activity within India supported by the Pakistan government, (iii) fanning of these negative views on pakistan by the BJP government.
And finally you say that there are grades of such feelings.

Without engaging in a debate on the justification for such feelings (e.g. I could point out that north indians are also descendants of invaders, and no group of people can claim to be saints and martyrs - human history is a history of man`s inhumanity to man), I would say that the above may explain something about Indian public opinion (and you, having grown up as an Indian obviously understand Indian public opinion better than I do).
However the above does not explain the deep hatred and spite that so many Indians posters seem to bring with them to chowk (and then many of them mellow after a few months, except a couple of individuals who seem incapable of thinking outside the rut their minds are in). You explain that by saying this what I call hate-mongering is not hate-mongering. Without quoting examples, let me just say I beg to differ. Let us leave it at that.
One last word: With regard to respect for all religions and all cultures, while there has indeed been a strong strain of this throughout muslim history (and indeed some of it is rooted in the fact the teachings of the Quran), and people like Hazrat Omar and Salahuddin Ayyubi - Saladin, to you nonmuslims, :-) - were indeed noble and chivalrous men in victory and in peace. But the muslim tradition is NOT the only that has such antecedents: I think that wherever men think for themselves, and can see beyond personalities and personal likes and dislikes and think in terms of universal principles, you will find such thinking. And such thinking is NOT goody-goody, I may add, but the difference between the animal-like ``tribal instincts`` of some individual on chowk (I find them to be complete bores with their single string theme of insult exchanges) and the far more interesting material one finds from people like shankar and stuka and dulla bhatti (to name three individuals from ``your`` side of the border, who actually think for themselves and in terms of some underlying universal principles.

re:#110 by AlephNull
A good post. You have a command of English that one would envy. Did you do masters in English? BTW, what the heck is ``delendam esse``?
Sridhar

re: #110 by AlephNull
My last post should read as ``command over English`` and not ``command of English``. My poor grammar!
Sridhar

ahmadzai,

That was a long post on the principled stand of pakistan. Please read the statements of general mushy , he said that `` Simla and Lahore declarations are not worth the paper as it did not address the kashmir``. He has shown that his way of addressing kashmir was through kargill invasion.

People like you are the central part of the indo pak problem, not ready to accpt the pak ideology, the miliraism and how it integrates with the jihadists, who have achieved majority through pak military manipulations.

Whe you accept that jihad and killing of kafirs is widely supported in pakistan of today, then there can be some progress.

Tahmed #101

You misunderstand me once again. I was not claiming that my attitude to those two delusionists was anything like yours. On the contrary; on the contrary. And to put it bluntly, I’ve no intention of following your ludicrous prescriptions for Chowk behaviour. Not bragging about being here for India-bashing means nothing when one does it at every opportunity (not that it damages India – it provides great insight into Pakistani mentality and is also good for a hearty belly-laugh.) Nor do I buy that fairy-tale about poor innocent Ahmedzai coming to Chowk just overflowing with the milk of human kindness towards Indians, only to have it turn into black bile on discovering the hate-filled nature of the Eastern neighbour. These attitudes tend to be more deep-seated and to develop over time. They are imbibed in mother’s milk, learnt through bedtime stories, in remarks from elders and conversations with peers, k for kafir education, Nazria-e-Pakistan, PTV, etc. etc. I think you know all this. So why keep up a pretense?

More generally, you grossly exaggerate the importance of civility on a forum for ideas. A while back Jay had a neat post about politeness being a minor virtue and honesty being a major virtue. He was right about this, as he is in essence about most things. It would have profited you had you read it. It is more important to speak your mind without fear or favour than to bother about superficialities like politeness. I think one should let it all hang out, not repress oneself. Short of threats of violence, invasions of privacy, and outright obscenity, everything should be permitted. Of course it helps to make your posts readable, preferably brief – perhaps I need help in that department. But a sharp edge, a twist of the knife, is always a bracing experience. Goody-goody posts are boring.

Friend at # 107:

``I would perhaps have added my own experiences with different nationalities during my mountaineering career and othe travel but that has to now wait for another time.``

I would be anxiously looking forward to reading account of your adventure travel and your personal observations about different nationalities.

Veeresh:

Let us pray for our future generation. At a personal level, when I see my kids play with Indian kids on a regular basis, I remain very hopeful.

Tahmed #100

{Thanks for taking the time to fully explain what you meant. …Your above summarization does not explain the facts that I had observed, though: I had said that the friendliest Indians I have found on chowk seem to be from north india (fellow punjabis, some of whom in fact were evicted from west panjab during partition just like my people were evicted from east panjab). …}

You’ve misunderstood me. I did not in fact fully explain myself - I just provided you with the necessary clues and left it to you to fill in the dots on your own. However, it seems necessary for me to spell it out. What you have observed completely contradicts your preferred explanations of ‘hatred of Muslims as outsiders’ and ‘resentment on being stood up at partition’ as causing hostility to Pakistan. Nor is it consistent with ‘Hindutva fanaticism’ and ‘inferiority complex towards Pakistan’ and sundry other risible theories advanced by Pakistani ideologues and on occasion by you. Resentment of Islam and Persianate culture as foreign imports inextricably linked (in North India at least) with invading Central Asian thugs, is a very real phenomenon, and certainly plays a role in forming attitudes towards Pakistan. There may also be lingering anger about partition among some obvious groups (I wouldn’t know about its true extent, being from the other end of the country). Moreover the VHP and their ilk lose no opportunity to posture as the ultimate and definitive Indian superpatriots, for which hostility to Pakistan provides an excellent platform. But had you been paying any attention, you would have realized that the people who cause you the most distress are anything but Hindutvavadis. In brief, none of the above explanations can account for the divergence you noticed.

Here is my take on what you have observed. Many Indian Punjabis, despite partition trauma, see Punjabi-speaking Pakistanis as cousins with whom they share distant kinship, a common language and a great deal of culture, far outweighing differences of religion. Something similar may be true for some Urdu-aficionado UP-ites. Further, there is a large group of North Indian Muslims, a fair number of whom have relations in Pakistan, who despite the continuous embarrassment Pakistan causes them might wish Pakistan well. So some (not all) members of these major groups and a few smaller ones (I am using a really broad brush here) may be predisposed to mending fences with Pakistan and wishing to see it prosper and be at peace within and without.

This still leaves a huge majority of Indians who have no deep organic connection to Pakistan, no emotional stake in it one way or another, and who for most of the last fifty years couldn’t have cared less either way. This is actually a matter of gradation rather than a sharp divide, with people like me being at the extreme, but I think my description is a good first approximation to reality. When such people are roused - from their slumbers in which Pakistan did not figure - and made to face the reality of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism and the prospect of perennial confrontation with a nation of neurotic malcontents, they are likely to view Pakistan in cold anger, without warmth or sympathy, as a practical problem to be dealt with in the most cold-bloodedly efficacious way possible. They are unlikely to be receptive to inane peacenik platitudes about ‘India-Pakistan same-same’, ‘brothers under the skin’, ‘two small-minded governments equally responsible for current enmity’ not to mention Pakistani agitprop such as ‘Kashmir is the core issue’ ‘India, Pakistan stand to benefit equally from peace if Kashmir is solved’, ‘whole of South Asia suffers from poverty due to the arms race initiated by India’ etc. etc. repeated ad nauseam. For these people, the preferred long-range solutions to the Pakistan issue range from LOC=IB followed by minimal interaction, at one extreme, to delendam esse at the other.

There is, moreover, a difference in mores. I note that you (together with many Pakistanis who maintain a civil veneer) have some curious notions about civility and respect for all religions and tolerance vs. hatemongering, which I completely reject. I surmise that your notions are partly derived from a particular interpretation of Islam, largely from Persianate norms of politeness and civility, combined with some elements of personal and family idiosyncrasy. Indians from completely un-Persianate backgrounds, such as most South Indians, are unlikely to share this part of your outlook. It is significant that in so many cases you label the Indians you disagree with as hate-mongers, Hindutvavadi fanatics and the like. In practically every one of these cases I find myself disagreeing with your assessment. Your adversaries are outspoken for sure, rude very often, even cruel, but I don’t see their manner of expression as disproportionate to what has aroused their ire. If they are hate-mongers then hate-mongering is no great offense.

So there you have my explanation in the most excruciating detail. You are welcome to reject it. You could for instance maintain that Indians have been mass-brainwashed into unreasonable hatred of Pakistan, that the Pakistan-hating extremist Hindutvavadi fanatic Vajpayee government manipulates Indian public opinion instead of trailing it, that Pakistani government actions are not the prime cause, etc. etc. This explanation may be immune to my criticisms of your other explanations. There are no doubt other possibilities for creative fiction. Your choice …

friend/ahmadzai . . . others . . . thanks . . . no cursing stars on account of interact moving off elsewhere, luckily it did not go back to Jinnah/Gandhi so I guess we have made some progress . . . yes, we are all not just pajamas but loose pajamas without starh if yu get my meaning . . . it is my fervent hope that the next generation atleast will move forward aided by more information media tv the works . . . thanks again/veeresh

#100 by tahmed32 on March 26, 2003 6:25am PT

[I am not looking for any explanations for the b!astards I find on chowk who clearly are here for one reason only - to throw insults from the safety of the internet.]

Ummm...sure, you were being very polite when you called Jay`s ancestors monkeys and said Arjun`s screws were loose. That`s by no means throwing insults, isn`t it? Or, are you calling yourself a b!stard?

Ahmadzai,
We are all pajamas. This is indeed a very good article. It would have stayed on its own track had it not been ``why I now indians too much`` track initiated by you.

I would perhaps have added my own experiences with different nationalities during my mountaineering career and othe travel but that has to now wait for another time.

Regards

More ``freedom`` from the land of the pure.....

But hey, its just a few kafirs, you will not hear a peep from these people who are still openly funding these killers in their country. They are too busy explaining how USA, Israel and India are ruining the world. Talk about shameless hypocrisy...

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/25/international/asia/25KASH.html
Attack on Hindus in Kashmir May Signal Increase in Violence There
By AMY WALDMAN


EW DELHI, March 24 — When an Islamic insurgency began in Indian Kashmir in 1989, the area`s Hindus became an early target. Muslim militants directed a systematic campaign of assassinations and intimidation against Kashmiri Pandits, as the area`s Hindu Brahmins were known, and most of them were forced out of Kashmir.

Advertisement




Around 40 Pandit families had fled the mountain hamlet of Nadimarg, about 35 miles south of the summer capital, Srinagar. But 11 families had stayed on, counting on the assurances of their Muslim neighbors that they would be safe.

Until early this morning, they were.

Ralph, mohar and friend:

OK since it seems like all of us have secured our place in the Subconty League of Brain-Washed Soules at the expense of a very good travel article by Veeresh Malik, lets get back to it ;

Veeresh might now be cursing his stars for posting the article and thinking, `` yar yeh logg aadmi ho ga ya pajama`` (borrowed this sentence from an Indian movie).

Going back to the article, when one now visits the middle-east, he sees tall structures and other infrastructural projects the walls of which seem to say - many million drops of sweat of Indian and Pakistani workers have dropped here to turn this dream of an Arab into reality.

Veeresh: Thanks for your article and providing me an opportunity to interact at the cost of your article. Your trip down the memory lane was a pleasant read.

Ahmadzai #98

``1. Its General Musharraf who is asking Indians to forget Kargil episode and move towards peace, because if Indians remain frozen on it then Pakistanis can say why stop at Kargil. Let us go back in history and let Pakistan be frozen on EP. Then there would be no progress towards peace. What Musharraf suggested to Indian journalists was to forget about the past and move on towards peace. ``

Dear Ahmadzai, suppose that I invite you to my house, and when molest you. I than ask you to forgive my improper conduct and now get invited to your house. Again I molest you. I now ask you to forget these episodes and be friend again. Whould you agree?

Mushy is at the helm of affairs in Pakistan. He has twice proven himself to be unreliable. His asking Indians to ``forget Kargil episode`` is certainly not going to work again. Mushy has to go.

#102 by Ralph

Exactly my thoughts.

ahmadzai #98

Does everyone in Pakistan (other than tahmed32) believe that Pakistan has a `principled` stand on Kashmir? This may be where real unfreezing needs to begin, if any progress is to be made.

The other requirement is that people learn some current facts and some history. Ignorance combined with moral delusion can be a very harmful mixture.

Ralph @ # 94:

Please read my earlier posts again. What I have been saying precisely to your reasoning is:

1. Its General Musharraf who is asking Indians to forget Kargil episode and move towards peace, because if Indians remain frozen on it then Pakistanis can say why stop at Kargil. Let us go back in history and let Pakistan be frozen on EP. Then there would be no progress towards peace. What Musharraf suggested to Indian journalists was to forget about the past and move on towards peace.

I have extended the same argument (ref post # 15 and 28).

2. The current wave of extremism is because of the current Government in India (ref post # 73) that is raising the non-issues so that a dialogue on Kashmir does not take place. This is because Pakistan`s position is so principled, and you can question that, that Indians cannot face Pakistanis on the matter. I gave two examples where Indian commoners listened to Pakistani commoners` position on Kashmir and agreed with it.

Another indicator why could this be true is Indian Government`s various measures to stop people to people contact between Indians and Pakistanis, because it knows that when people will meet, Indian public may begin to listen to and agree to Pakistan`s position.

Yet another indicator why could Pakistani position be more principled - Pakistani PM Jamali while requesting Indian counter-part to hold talks on Kashmir said that let us convince each other. If you (India) is able to convince us then we will give up Kashmir issue. If we (Pakistan) is able to convince you then you will allow the UN to hold the plebiscite.

That is about all.

What I am 100% sure, and you can question that too, will happen to Kashmir in a long-term range, is expressed through my exchange of messages with Sadna in Saima Shah`s article `Tunnel Vision`.

ahmedzai #90 I did go back and check your posts: and I think what you are saying is that it would be a good solution to have Kashmir as an independent nation. (btw, next time please just state your view, since I am sure you mean what you say and I dont need proof that you are being consistent with what you said earlier on post - I only ask that from Jay and one or two others AFTER I catch them deliberately misrepresenting my views and trying to present them to fit their stereotype of the evil Pakistani).
So, we are indeed on the same wave-length on this: the Kashmir dispute is basically a territorial dispute between two governments, with no great moral issues at stake despite what both sides claim.

Aleph-Null #95 Thanks for taking the time to fully explain what you meant. So, you say ``To summarise, South Indians in the main do not miss the presence of Pakistanis in their country and for the largest part of independent India’s history were oblivious to Pakistan’s existence. ``
You also discuss at length (although you miss this in the summary) that the north indians suffered from muslim rule of past centuries, and were also traumatised by partition whereas South Indians were not.

Fair enough. Your above summarization does not explain the facts that I had observed, though: I had said that the friendliest Indians I have found on chowk seem to be from north india (fellow punjabis, some of whom in fact were evicted from west panjab during partition just like my people were evicted from east panjab). And perhaps the most hate-filled individual on chowk, Jay, is from south india. Also, I may add, my own family was traumatised during partition (half the muslim families in our ancestral village were killed, and the rest fled leaving everything behind). But my family has nothing but fond memories of east panjab, and my parents talked fondly about her hindu friends till the end of her days (my late father even exchanged a couple of warm letters with people in our ancestral village). And I certainly dont bear any grudge against hindus in general.
So you above theory does not explain the facts as I see them. I know one thing for sure: some individuals are querrelsome, petty-minded and hate-filled by nature. I am not looking for any explanations for the b!astards I find on chowk who clearly are here for one reason only - to throw insults from the safety of the internet. Their problem has nothing to do with any profound historical experiences, just their own inferiority complexes and the kinds of households they were raised in. I was trying to see if this was based on some ethnic characteristics as well, but then rejected that as a generality.
So, thanks again for your patient explanation. I hope you will try to understand from what I have written above why this explanation does not relate to the clearly observable facts on chowk.

Aleph-Null #93 Concerning Romair, when I said I have a bit of fun at his expense sometimes, I was not by any means belittling him or trying to show myself to be cleverer than him. If you read carefully you will see that I was in fact complimenting Romair for not bragging about being here for ``India-bashing`` the way Harish and Jay brag about being here for ``Paki-bashing``. As for Ahmedzai, he is new to chowk and I noticed his initial posts were in fact very friendly and in a light-hearted manner towards Indians. After a month or so here, after putting up with the constant posting of hate-pakistan rhetoric from Indian posters, he seems to have hardened his attitude a bit too. Perhaps I am reading too much into all this, but this is what I observed.
And yes, I do think it is important to maintain a civilized and friendly tone on chowk. I dont see why you dont think this is important - in real life, it clearly makes a big difference in anything you do in how you approach other people (in a courteous and respectful manner or in an insulting and jeering manner).

>he had a chance at Agra to mend relations with India, to secure them >on a fresh basis

It is amusing that ahmadzai would be spending his time attempting to `unfreeze` Indians, supposedly `frozen` after Kargil backstabbing.

Despite Musharraf`s kargil adventure, Vajpayee invited Musharraf to Agra. For a man who had gambled for peace with Pakistan and had been stabbed in the back by Musharraf, Vajpayee was being foolhardy indeed in dealing with the same person again. India gave Musharraf a red-carpet treatment. True to form, Musharraf used the occasion to score cheap points, and returned home a hero to immature Pakistanis whose jurnail had outsmarted India.

That`s not all. While in India, Musharraf made bitter references to Siachin and Bangladesh War. So much for unfreezing of the past.

Ahmadzai#92
Before you try to unfreeze Indians, you need to freeze your Mushy and his goons.
Check what Dawn columnist have to say about Kargil and Mushy
``What Gen Musharraf takes pride in the most - his obduracy towards India - has been his biggest failure. Despite the scarecrow of Kargil he carried round his neck, he had a chance at Agra to mend relations with India, to secure them on a fresh basis. But he and his negotiating team blew it, not for want of goodwill but for a failure of vision. They saw the trees and were passionate about them. They just couldn`t see the forest. ``

Even after Kargil, Vajpayee took another chance and invited Mushy to Agra. Rather than trying to resolve Kashmir, Mushy just engaged in his smart talk. Indian editors should have forgotten diplomatic niceties for once and should have spaked Muchy on bottocks with UN resolutions. UN resolutions very clearly state that Pakistan is at fault. They should ahve also asked Mushy about what demotractic credentials he had to talk about democratic aspirations of Kashmiris.

Tahmed32 #88

{{On (a), you seem to indicate that there are in fact ethnic differences … that account for posters who proudly proclaim that they come to chowk not to exchange views or to have a civilized discussion, but to engage in ``paki bashing`` (i.e. posting of insults and putdowns).
Since I step back from the brink, as you say, I would be interested in learning more about what you think that there is something to this conjecture.}}

You thought in (a) that you had observed regional differences among Indians in attitudes and perceptions towards Pakistan, specifically in the more open and relentless derision and hostility of South Indians. IMO you have indeed realised something significant, which if pursued would give some insight. Your attempted explanation – ‘ethnic differences’ alone - however is IMO not the correct one. In (b) you went on to speculate on the nature of anti-Pakistan public opinion in India, and on its roots in, for instance, ‘being stood up through partition in 1947’ and ‘general resentment of Muslims as outsiders’.

What you failed to observe is that your attempted explanations in (b) were not consistent with the regional divergence you noticed in (a).
Speaking *very broadly*, South India is outside the realm of past Persianate/Central Asian rule whose successor is Pakistan. Most parts of South India spent far less time under Persianate rule than the Indo-Gangetic plain; some areas (most of Kerala, for instance) entirely escaped the tender mercies of Central Asian adventurers and their scions. Consequently – despite such events as the destruction of the Vijayanagar Empire - far less damage was done to indigenous pre-Islamic culture than in North India.

Thus on the one hand there is comparatively far less scope for historical resentments or grievances against the Persianate tradition embodied in Pakistan (so for instance the resentful Hindutva represented by the VHP has not taken root in South India). On the other hand South Indians are most unlikely to regard Persianate manners and civilization – the court culture of the Mughals or Avadh or the poetry of Ghalib or the like – as the pinnacle of refinement to be remembered with nostalgia and adopted and imitated.

Further, a strong case can be made that South Indians – and some other identifiable groups - were clear net beneficiaries of the 1947 partition, and were basically untraumatised by what was going on in the North. That makes yet another of your explanations untenable.

To summarise, South Indians in the main do not miss the presence of Pakistanis in their country and for the largest part of independent India’s history were oblivious to Pakistan’s existence.

You can now try to put yourself in the shoes of those you so vocally excoriate and see how the world looks like to them. Or if you want I can spell out my perceptions for you.

{{I will add a third reason now that I missed the first time: namely, the violence in Kashmir that the Indian public sees (largely correctly, I may add) as being the result of Pakistan government policies.}}

Well, of course, that’s the trunk of the elephant in the room that stereotypical Pakistani ideologues simply will not confront. You do realize, don’t you, that you’ve just undermined your position in #39 that:
{{This hatred for pakistanis results from your own psychological shortcomings … So try to look into the mirror for the roots of your hatreds, and dont try to escape this reality by pointing to the policies or actions of the pakistani government.}}

Tahmed #91

{{AlephNull #86 You also refer to my post #39 which you say is self-delusional.}}

The ‘self-delusional’ bit is the denial that policies or actions of the Pakistan government have anything to do with Indian attitudes. If you so deeply resent the term, I am prepared to replace it by ‘consistently and systematically incorrect’. Anything milder would be dishonest.

I might add that this is not the first time you have come across as self-, umm systematically incorrect. Not that I mind. I gain far more insight from observing the systematic errors of those who are trying to be polite and civil and reasonable than from any platitudes they may utter.

I should also warn you that my take is probably not much different, if at all, from those of any number of Indians who you’ve clashed with and complain about. You don’t have to like somebody to learn either from their insights or their systematic errors. I enjoy reading the posts of the other side`s world-champion delusionists, franticallly gyrating spin-doctors and ranting ideologues for precisely this reason. You could perhaps try the same attitude with everybody’s posts, including mine, and worry less about superficialities like politeness.

{{ As for your references to Romair and Ahmedzai: I may not agree with them on everything. At times I may have a bit of fun at Romair`s expense. … Since you seem to have a problem with them, I suggest you address them directly, not to me.}}

Actually I occasionally amuse myself by poking cruel fun at Romair’s colossal delusions (or creative fictions – I suspect it’s mostly the latter). Ahmedzai seems cut from the same cloth. Perhaps I’ll turn my attention to him some time.

Ahmadzai

Unfreezing is necessary for change, but whose mindset has to unfreeze for change to occur? Isn`t it people who just can`t get over Siachin and 1971? Even how real estate should have been allocated in 1947? If India forgets Kargil ever took place, will minds that can`t forget Siachen turn pacifists? Pakistan is involved in Kashmir because some people`s psyches are frozen in 1971. Musharraf justifies backstabbing Vajpayee becaues his military can`t get over Siachin. There are no economic relations between India and Pakistan because Pakistani military remains frozen in the past - how Kashmir should have been decided in 1947.

Wrong diagnosis of the problem and blaming the victim will not be helpful. Pakistan has to make hard choices about whether it should continue its past policies, thus remain frozen in the past, or make a new beginning. Unfreezing of military mind is the first requirement.

AlephNull #86 You also refer to my post #39 which you say is self-delusional. I dont think so. When I talk about Harish_hyd`s bragging about being a ``paki-basher``, it is based on his own words. Jay too has posts on chowk that I have read where he bragged about the same thing. And I do understand human nature enough by now to understand what this indicates: they are trying to be the macho men that they cannot be in real life.
What exactly is self-delusional here???
As for your references to Romair and Ahmedzai: I may not agree with them on everything. At times I may have a bit of fun at Romair`s expense. But let me assure you that neither one of them has ever felt the need to call themselves ``Indian-bashers``. Since you seem to have a problem with them, I suggest you address them directly, not to me.

Ralph @ # 70:

``You seem to carry a great deal of guilt about Kargil. Why? Do you work for Pakistani army? ``

A No fro me to both of your assertions.

I am only attempting to unfreeze Indians from Kargil so that some progress towards peace could be made between the two neighbors.

tahmed32 @ # 78:

``Please reflect upon this, and tell me if I am wrong in thinking this way. And if I am, I would like to know why.``

No, you are not wrong in thinking this way. But your inference of my philosophy is incorrect.

In order to know my personal viewpoint about Kashmir, please refer to an exchange of my messages with Sadna and Saima Shah in the latter`s excellent article on Chowk - `Tunnel Vision` .

The number of my messages on my homepage of this website are: # 79, 77, 76, 73, 72 and finally 48.

Messages on this topic were with a view to unfreezing Indians from Kargil and a hate-Pakistani syndrome.

AlephNull #86 Thanks for your thoughtful comments. On (a), you seem to indicate that there are in fact ethnic differences (the conjecture that I put forward and then reject as being unfounded since it would be a generalization) that account for posters who proudly proclaim that they come to chowk not to exchange views or to have a civilized discussion, but to engage in ``paki bashing`` (i.e. posting of insults and putdowns).
Since I step back from the brink, as you say, I would be interested in learning more about what you think that there is something to this conjecture.
On (b), I did try to put myself in the shoes of an Indian to see why public opinion seems hostile to pakistanis, and presented to reasons that came to my mind. I will add a third reason now that I missed the first time: namely, the violence in Kashmir that the Indian public sees (largely correctly, I may add) as being the result of Pakistan government policies. If you think I missed some other reason, i would appreciate your providing that.

PS: If it is possible to respond in a friendly manner and without accusing me of self-delusions, I would be even more grateful. I am honestly trying to understand this behavior that I see repeated on chowk every day by these ``paki-bashers``, not trying to prove anything.

Here is an editorial from New York Times bursting the Bush`s Bubble of -- ``Legitimating`` -- the unilateral -- UN rejected WAR -- against Iraq.

the Iraqi army and the Iraqi people did NOT exactly -- come running to --the ``American Liberators`` -- for delivering them from Saddam`s MOABs, and Daisy Cutters -- did they?

-- so that fig leaf -- to be exact -- the DIAPER -- from the butt of that Infantile Texas Emperor -- is GONE -- as well.


Diminished Expectations in Iraq

(editorial NYT)
s American forces began skirmishing with Iraq`s Republican Guard troops on the drive toward Baghdad yesterday, Iraq`s best soldiers seemed in no mood to lay down their arms.

Army Apache helicopters attacked and destroyed up to 15 armored vehicles of a Republican Guard division in central Iraq but were driven back by a ferocious hail of small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades.

Virtually all the Apaches were hit, and one went down.

It was the latest evidence that some of the initial hopes — even assumptions — that Iraqi resistance would quickly crumble seemed not to be panning out.

The American and British military are prepared to fight a war against a resistant enemy, and they insisted yesterday that everything was on or ahead of schedule.

But the public had reason to expect something different.

The Bush administration had conveyed the impression that the Iraqi government was shaky, that much of the army was not likely to fight and that the Iraqi people would welcome the invasion force with cheers and flowers.

While some of those things may still occur, so far the people greeting American troops have been much cooler than many had hoped. ((NYT)
_______________________________________

We Americans are SUCH naive, self indulgent, narcisstic BASTARDS!

The funny thing about the selfrighteous types who ponder the presence of Indians on chowk is, they will not admit there are more Pakistanis in India killing Indians than there are Indians in Pakistan killing Pakistanis or that there were more Pakistanis in Afghanistan killing Afghans than there were Afghans in Pakistan killing Pakistanis.

Those whom we have been waging jihad against for more than a decade should be more polite to us, thats their world view. How dare they post their views on our websites, fingerprint us when we visit their countries, refuse to discuss the handover of territory to us.

tahmed32 #62

{{ahmedzai #64 I agree with you that there are far more Indians posting insults to pakistanis on chowk than vice versa. ... I really dont know the reason, although I have some possibilities:

(a) its an ethnic characteristic: that is, some communities (e.g. south indians, and I know that some of the most offensive individuals like jay are south indian, and some really friendly chaps are panjabis) being more querrelsome by nature than others (some indeed even explicitly bragging that they come to chowk for ``paki bashing``). But then we are again in the land of generalities which I have learnt by experience are very misleading. So I reject this explanation.}}

It is sad to see you, for once, on the brink of actual insight, only to lose it by wandering off yet again into the land of mindless generalities (the generality, in this case, ironically being the notion that generalities are misleading).

{{(b) Public opinion in India is generally more anti-pakistan than vice versa: Maybe this is true, and there is a general anti-pakistan public opinion in India, molded perhaps by things that are not paralleled on the pakistani side - like feelings of being stood up through partition in 1947, general resentment against muslims as representing an outside influence on indigenous culture. You seem to think this is the case, and there is some possibility you are right. Although, even if this is true, public opinion does tend to be fickle and if tomorrow the two governments patch up public opinion will go the other way.}}

You apparently fail to notice a very puzzling discrepancy between your conjectures in (a) and (b). You could make the effort to step outside the confines of the standard Pakistani discourse and try to see yourself as others see you - or in this case, as Indians from different parts of that country regard Pakistan and Pakistanis and their behaviour. That could bring you to an alternative explanation that, while not comforting, may be a good deal closer to the truth.

Or you could, of course, find solace in the self-serving delusions of the Romairs and Ahmedzais or of your own #39. The choice is yours.

Bush IS a children`s Monster Moabster -- who Moabs and terrrizes the sleeping Toddlers of Baghdad -- every night.

Bush is -- the AMERIAN BIN LADEN -- doing 9/11 to the INNOCENT men, women and children of Iraq.

#56 by Romair on March 23, 2003 8:32pm PT

Romair, pls do not get annoyed with Tahmed. I`ve just figured out what his problem is.

#66 by tahmed32 on March 24, 2003 7:32am PT

tahmed32:

My deepest sympathies are with you. Here you are, spending some much time and effort to make yourselves heard, and no one`s paying any attention. It`s probably your wife who`s nagging you to the point that you`re losing your sanity, but don`t lose hope yet, you might turn out to be the next Socrates, whose life was beset with much the same problems as yours is. Good luck.

PS: You find my posts funny? I`m happy for you.

Bush is a CRUEL COWARD Draft Dodger -- who used his daddy`s name to protect his ass from Vietnam War -- but is sending someone else`s kid to die for his -- daddy`s fued -- with Saddam Hussein --

-- (he tried to kill my daddy)

squandering billions of -- NOT his Daddy` Money -- but OUR`S -- the hard working American Tax Payers` Money.

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

Bush is a TERRORIST -- TERRORIZING the Iraqi CHILDREN asleep at night --

Bush is a WAR CRIMINAL

#72 by ahmadzai on March 24, 2003 12:27pm PT
//...Introspection you need badly....//

Or else - what? What are you going to do? Send in more killers to massacre more Indians? Issue more threats of ``unconventional`` attack? I think You guys are doing all you can to fulfil your ``thousand cuts`` dream. For us it can`t get any worse than it already is.

Yet - you won`t get the real estate you are so despertely looking for. You can bet your last dollar on this one.

Ahmedzai #73 I think you and I have a philosophical difference on Kashmir: you think it is worth fighting for, and I do not. Let me make my case very simply: Kashmir is a territorial dispute between two governments, and it is NOT WORTH A SINGLE HUMAN LIFE to try and change the status quo.
Please reflect upon this, and tell me if I am wrong in thinking this way. And if I am, I would like to know why.

ahmadzai

You seem to carry a great deal of guilt about Kargil. Why? Do you work for Pakistani army?

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

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

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

#70 by mohar11
//...When you cut and paste things about innocent people getting killed in order to score ``holier than thou`` points on chowk, as you do, then you are merely exploiting their real life misery...///

Am I exploiting people`s real life misery? I didn`t realize that. Now that you pointed out - yes - I am exploiting misery of people. Because I haven`t seen anybody else writing about such misery of people in Gujrat, Kashmir, Chechnya, Palestine, Iraq or wherever.

I like you man. You are like a pophet - you give us all such good guidance, point out our mistakes.

//...Thank you and I must end discussion with you on this board now. Have a nice day....//
I have heard this before. So long buddy!

mohar11 @ # 70:

``Yes, your highness - that`s exactly what we are doing right now - ``introspecting`` over dead-bodies of 24 Indians massacred in Kashmir. ``

Introspection you need badly.When your Government would allow neutral observers and international media in your occupied part of Kashmir then the truth will become known to the world. With 700,000 or so military/para-military deployed and news filtered out only through state controlled sources, you will only get biased information from the valley.

In any case, I regret the crime against humanity. Pakistan has condemned the killing as a worse form of terrorism and all Pakistanis feel sorrow for the loss of valuable human life regardless of religious or ethnic affiliations.

tahmed32:

Warning - Looooong Post.

The hatred amongst Indians for Pakistanis is a definite product of their extremist Government agenda. In recent years, there is a definite sequence of events, which have made Indian Government very anti-Pakistani to the extent that there is not an iota of doubt in my mind that they have thrust an undeclared war on Pakistan. But ask any Indian and he will start from Kargil.

Kargil has only been made into an excuse by hawks in Indian Government, because of their own embarrassment at lack of preparation in the first place and coffin scandal at the latter. They did in fact invite General Musharraf for peace talks in Agra afterwards.

During the meetings at Agra, every thing was going right till the time General had a breakfast meeting with the Indian journalists. If you look at the proceedings of that informal meeting (please get a video if you can), all the journalists in the end enthusiastically agreed with General`s (Pakistan`s) stance on Kashmir being the core problem. The situation had turned quite embarrassing for hawks in Indian Government on that particular occasion. For example in the end, you would hear the journalists say some thing to the extent, ``we agree with you that Kashmir is a major issue and has to be resolved first``. At this, you would hear the General responding, ``well then its for you to tell your Government to recognize this as a core issue``. Journalists began laughing and supported the General`s viewpoint whole-heartedly.

This acceptance of the Pakistani stance on core issue by Indian non-government press, and by corollary its general public, lead Advani to interfere the following day and no joint declaration was allowed to be signed off.

Agra was a turning point where the Indian hawks decided that Pakistan would not budge an inch on Kashmir so they had to make their position inflexible too.

This was followed by 9/11 and Indian Governemnt tried to capitalize on it. General out-smarted them, thus causing another irritation.

Subsequent to 9/11, the undeclared war on Pakistan could be considered on a fair ground as Indians perceive that Pakistan is running a proxy war in Kashmir. It amassed 1 million troops on border citing events that were of doubtful origins in any case (e.g. all the attackers on Indian Parliament had no obvious target as seen in the video clips and I recommend you obtain that too for an analysis, running here and there without any objective. Moreover, all of them were killed. Therefore, no evidence could come out of them from where they came. Recall that earlier, there was a hijack hoax that had failed miserably). These events did not go in favor of India as much as it wanted to.

Economic pressure was put on Pakistan e.g. banning PIA flights over India. Pakistan retaliated and 16 or so PIA flights suffered as against over 100 Indian. India incurred a bigger loss than we did.

The amassing of troops also backfired in terms of burden on Indian exchequer and sagging of morale in Indian army. All these reports have been coming out in Indian media.

Since the US and the West have not stopped supporting the General, The Indian Government is visibly getting more and more irritated.

The general frustration of the failure of their above mentioned measures and many more like these is being wrongly attributed to Kargil alone.

Once again, why invite General to Agra after that episode.

The point is India would like to have peace with Pakistan if we drop Kashmir totally out of agenda. Since Musharraf did not do it, the Hawks got agitated. Generally, Indians are also agitated. Reason is that you get frustrated when you do not have a principled stand.

Because of our principled stand on Kashmir, all we have to do is to keep inviting India for talks. exactly, because of their lack of it, all India has to do is to create excuse after excuse or raise non-issues for not getting into negotiations. Its because of these excuses and non-issues that an average Indian is blitz into brain-washedness over the true picture.

For proof of our principled stand, I would refer you to another interview of General Musharraf by Indian journalists recently, shown on ARY Digital`s European transmissions last week. The Indian journalists were on the offensive to start with regarding Kashmir ``Cross-border terrorism``. But after hearing Musharraf speak on the matter and cross-questioning him, they boldly admitted that Pakistan has valid points. I can get you the details of that interview if you want.

On negotiations on Kashmir, Pakistan will be a winner any time because of the principle. This was proven right when the General had the opportunity to speak to the Indian journalists informally in Agra or formally in Pakistan on two different occasions.

India will always create excuses for going into any kind of negotiations.

Pakistanis (or people like you of Pakistani origin) should never fall for Indian excuses on Kargil.

#64 by ahmadzai
//..Btw, my response was only for Indians to introspect ;) ..//

Yes, your highness - that`s exactly what we are doing right now - ``introspecting`` over dead-bodies of 24 Indians massacred in Kashmir.

What else can we do anyway? When the victims of unbriddled Jihad and Islamic terrorism are being castigated as extremists extraordnaire , what else can they do really!

We are introspecting now - how we hinoods can become so ``inhuman``!!What have we done - how can the peace-loving, lilly-livered, gentle-souls living in our western border could be so moved to regard us as extremists!!

mohar11 #68 When you cut and paste things about innocent people getting killed in order to score ``holier than thou`` points on chowk, as you do, then you are merely exploiting their real life misery. This line of thinking is not much different, ironically, that the line of thinking of those who attack innocent people in the name of some political cause. That is why I ignore such cut and pastes by chowk posters trying to use the real life tragedies of people for to score points in their petty quarrels on chowk.
Thank you and I must end discussion with you on this board now. Have a nice day.

#65 by tahmed32 on March 24, 2003 7:32am PT
//.. Please dont try to hide behind your community .....blah.. blah//

Am I (hiding behind my community)?

Silly me! How dare I? That privilege is reserved for only some people. How dare a hindoo claim protection behind his community?

( I like what you write, man - I like them very much. I just don`t want to repeat your entire paragraph of wisdom all over again in my reply. So I use ``blahs`` indicating that there are more of the same for any interested reader. I see you don`t like such laziness on my part. Well - tough luck mate!)

And I see there is not a whimper about the ``respect`` those 24 hinoods got when they were massacred in Kashmir. Any other pakis here ready to offer their collecetive shoulders for us hinoods to cry on?

After all - hindus got lot of sermons on death of secularism in India when muslim minorities got butchered in Gujrat. We deserved such sermons ( even though it came from the most un-deserving source ) - we failed to protect our minorities.

But no such sermons were being issued when Hindu minority gets butchered in Kashmir. No corodile tears were being shed how secularism in India would be affected by such massacres. No call to ``introspection`` was issued.

Well - hindus who are such extremists, they deserve it, don`t they? They deserve to be killed until they hand over the real-estate of Kashmir to the its rightful owners - Pakistanis.

ahmedzai #64 I agree with you that there are far more Indians posting insults to pakistanis on chowk than vice versa. That is a fact, as one can easilyu see on chowk. Indeed, I have been noting this point for months now (long before you came to chowk). I really dont know the reason, although I have some possibilities:
(a) its an ethnic characteristic: that is, some communities (e.g. south indians, and I know that some of the most offensive individuals like jay are south indian, and some really friendly chaps are panjabis) being more querrelsome by nature than others (some indeed even explicitly bragging that they come to chowk for ``paki bashing``). But then we are again in the land of generalities which I have learnt by experience are very misleading. So I reject this explanation.
(b) Public opinion in India is generally more anti-pakistan than vice versa: Maybe this is true, and there is a general anti-pakistan public opinion in India, molded perhaps by things that are not paralleled on the pakistani side - like feelings of being stood up through partition in 1947, general resentment against muslims as representing an outside influence on indigenous culture. You seem to think this is the case, and there is some possibility you are right. Although, even if this is true, public opinion does tend to be fickle and if tomorrow the two governments patch up public opinion will go the other way.

I think the important thing is not to fall into the same trap as some of these individuals whose petty insults and putdowns of pakistanis, our culture and our religion both you and I decry. Let us try to always remind us about the positive aspects of India and Indian culture: and indeed there are many. From the incredibly rich and unique history, to great ideas like that of nonviolence that Gandhi gave the world (and were even accepted by Ghaffar Khan I believe who is from your province). I am not going to let a few pakistan-hating jerks on chowk take away from me this love for this ancient land and culture of India.

mohar1 #62 Please dont try to hide behind your community by misquoting me on ``inhuman`` hindus. I never said that. And if you dont like what I write, dont change what I wrote to ``blah..blah``. You sound like a 2 year old when you do that.

Harish/Romair: When I get both of you unhappy at the same time, I am clearly onto something. Anyway, I will say this about Romair (and there is no bias hear even though it will appear like that to some folks on chowk): he is not as vicious as harish_hyd. Harish proudly claims he comes to chowk for ``paki-bashing`` (thus overcoming his his need to be a macho man which he obviously cant be in real life). Romair makes no such claims. He simply makes meaningless statements like ``Canadians are more friendly than Pakistanis``.
Oh, and I wont skip your posts, gentlemen. You are too much fun for that.

tahmed @ # 46:

I do not agree with your line of thinking and defending an argument.

On generalization, your points are redundant, because (1) I have myself said in various earlier posts that we should not generalize, (2) I have admitted in my previous posts that I am not an extremist and that I enjoy watching Indian movies, have great respect for Hinduism as a Way of Life, etc. and (3) I am responding to an average Indian`s belief that Pakistanis are generally extremists.

Despite my submissions above, some level of generalization has to be made to further an argument, otherwise this interactive board would be useless. This is not a site to resolve inter-personal issues. Nor is this a dating site. Moreover, generally people do not come on this interactive boards to participate in popularity contest.

You wrote:
``Points 3: ``Points: Indians are .... also inhumane - having no regards for human values.``
Disagree 100%. This is a subjective generalization. The human psyche does not change at the national borders. While we all hope for the evolution of human societies towards greater respect for life, these are complex issues that cannot be reduced to such simple generalizations. ... I don`t think the number of posters here is large enough to draw any general conclusions about the indian community, however). ``

You are wrong. If you take the articles getting published in Indian print and debates in Indian electronic media, plus take Indian lobby at work in the UK and the USA then you would note that there is sufficient support to anti-Pakistani sentiments being promoted by extremist Indian Government and that Indians have fallen for it.

I mean what else could be the reason that so many Pakistani bashers have gotten together on Chowk like you said. Are Pakistanis on Chowk uglier or better looking than Indians? Have we come from some outer planet? Is this site making them green with envy? Is Chowk staff peeving them off? Or what? You tell me.

I have not been here on this site for long. But I have noticed one thing. Whenever a Pakistani would like to respond to an Indian accusations or a point of view, soon he will be branded a Jihadi, extremist or one having no knowledge of certain aspect. I mean what the he*k? Who are these Indians on this Chowk if you want me to believe that they are exceptions?

Boss, you have to agree that there is something drastically wrong with Indians these days. Their being anchored on Kargil is no excuse. That was another of my argument. We could have remained anchored on East Pakistan debacle for that matter and UK could have remained anchored on USA`s war of independence.

Finally, go on a comparable Indian site and see if Pakistanis are leaving any offensive comments there.

mohar11 @ # 44:

``Now, all you have to do is convince the INS and the rest of the world. ``

The initiators of Nazi practices i.e. The US and UK are themselves being proven wrong on Iraq by the rest of the world.

Increasingly, Bush and Company are being equated with terrorists. If they are wrong on Iraq, they were also wrong to begin INS registration process. You know it and every one knows it. I have to prove nothing. It is already proved.

Btw, my response was only for Indians to introspect ;)

nazarhayatkhan #60 On the subject of phremones and such: only last week they came up with a study saying that the male sweat is a turn on for women.

Indeed, I am still struggling to really understand the way women are wired. I discovered how little men know after living with one of these things - namely, my own dear wife - for two decades. I learnt: Dont ever try to fake it with a woman. Women have an x-ray going straight into your brain and can read your thoughts like a radiologist reads the x-ray.

So, I am not surprised that male sweat gets women excited whereas for a man sweat just stinks. I firmly believe women have powers of seeing, smelling and sixth sensing, that men cannot begin to understand.

#55 by tahmed32
//...Nor will my views on respect and appreciation for all religions and cultures change ... blah .... blah....//

You are such a great guy. Pakistan is full of such great guys like you, it`s just that some of us ``inhumane`` hindus are such ``morons`` who just cannot appreciate your greatness. So you will have to keep blowing your own trumpet until we get it.

Like - here is an example of your respect for all communities including hindus:

24 Kashmiri pandits massacred in south Kashmir...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2879607.stm

#32 Reply Tehmed32


nazarhayatkhan #26 you write ``Even when there is nothing on your mind, she is on the defensive and avoids talking to a stranger. ``

Maybe my honesty lets my inner thoughts slip out but it is a universal phenomenon. I find the `Realtionships` subject interesting and take it as a science. The subject is full of intangibles, delicate nuances, electro-magnetic waves, emotions, body talk, urges, attractions, obsessions, fixations, desires though nothing much may be visible or quantifiable.

Would you believe once my New York friend told me that when she is undergoing periods, even an odd taxi driver tries to make a pass at her. Because she exudes such a aroma around her.

Preamble as postscript . . . sorry for the cut-paste, but isn`t this getting repetitive?

+++

The 14th Sikh Regiment left Jullundur on the 20th of February for Iraq and proceeded to Baghdad, where they were detailed for garrison duty. Later in the year the 14th Sikhs moved to Kut al Amara, where they were employed in closing down the military cantonment and demolishing the post. Early in 1923 the 14th Sikhs were back again in Baghdad and were responsible for the protection of the Royal Air Force aerodrome.

At this time tribesmen in Kurdistan, under the leadership of Shaikh Mahmud, were actively hostile to the British administration. They had met with considerable success in the autumn of 1922 and the British forces had not been able to deal with them during the winter on account of the bad weather. In February troops were urgently required in Kirkuk and ``A`` and ``B`` Companies, under Captains Maclaren and Spankie,, were detailed for this role. The two companies were transported there by air on the 21st of February. This was the first occasion in history on which a large body of troops had been carried by air for military operations. The two companies, in full fighting equipment, were moved in nine troop-carrying aeroplanes and the actual journey in the air took less than an hour, whereas by march route: Kirkuk could not have been reached in less than a week.

The 14th Sikhs took part in the punitive operations directed by the Commander of the Royal Air Force in Iraq against Shaikh Mahmud and his forces in May and June, 1923. They joined a column under Colonel B. Vincent and concentrated in Kirkuk. The column marched from Kirkuk on the 12th of May and for a fortnight traversed the Kurdistan country, making many long marches. However, no serious fighting took place, and no casualties were suffered. The column returned to Kirkuk in June and then dispersed, although the 14th Sikhs remained at Kirkuk until the end of September.

For their services in Kurdistan, Major Story received brevet promotion to lieutenant-colonel and Subadar Bogh Singh was awarded the Military Cross. The Regiment arrived back in Baghdad in October and remained there until its return to India at the beginning of 1924.

+++

``the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.``
----------

Samuel P. Huntington

+++

#55 by tahmed32 on March 23, 2003 8:32pm PT

[The ridicule (or appreciation) of individuals whom I can only consider to be morons means nothing to me.]

Ditto for everyone else here, Mr. Tahmed. And there are a lot of us out here who consider you to be exactly that. Thanks.

ajeet #52 Actually, I think the Iraqi resistance is pretty much folding like a house of cards. In just three days of ground war, the US is 300 miles into Iraqi territory - this is incredible progress by any historical standard (e.g. after the invasion of Normandy, the allies had progressed a mere 2 miles in the first three days, and even the Blitzkrieg of the Germans in Poland and France was at snail`s pace).
Also, before the war, the major issue for the US was to try and avoid large numbers of Iraqi prisoners since that would tie up too many US troops. So the strategy was to seek ``capitulation`` (rather than ``surrender``) with leaflets thrown over Iraq advising Iraqi soldiers that this would mean they simply leave their weapons and go home. By all indications that is what has happened, and the resistance and casualties (on both sides) have been far lower relative to progress made than any of the vocal critics (including some of my friends on chowk) were talking about before the war. And I dont think anyone expected Saddam would be taken out of the picture in the first few hours of the war. One lady (maryam, her article is a few steps below this one) was predicting 500,000 civilian causalites and others were backing this figure as being based on some authoritative prediction. Even the Iraqi information minister himself reported on TV only 307 civilian wounded and three dead (and perhaps these include Saddam and one of his murderous sons). Neighboring Jordan has refugee facilities set up, and not a single Iraqi has yet bothered to leave Iraq.
This is not mitigate the loss of life, since even one life is precious. But I think that whatever the politics, the fact is that the US is doing a very good job at conducting this war even though the critics will never acknowledge it.

tahmad #27: ``So please never, ever, make such generalizations.``

Can I ask you a simple question: Why are you always so uptight?

You need to learn to chill out and stop trying to act as the Chowk police (unless you have been given that position by the Chowk Staff). People are just presenting their opinion here, having some fun, learning a few things, and un-learning a few others. They are expressing thier own views, not yours. You can take them or leave them, but cannot try to tell them to do this or not do that.

So I will continue to make generalizations, whenever I feel like it. I would advise you to just skip over my posts.....

mohar11 #53 ``We idol-worshippers are very grateful to you for such generosity and understanding.``
Good. You can ridicule this ``generosity and understanding`` if you wish. The ridicule (or appreciation) of individuals whom I can only consider to be morons means nothing to me. Nor will my views on respect and appreciation for all religions and cultures change simply because this same respect is denied by individuals like you to the religion or culture to which I was born.

#39 by tahmed32
//...I think certain actions and policies of the indian government stink, as do certain indian individuals on chowk.but this does not cause me to lose respect and appreciation for the hindu religion, or for hindus as a community..//

Gee - thanks man! We idol-worshippers are very grateful to you for such generosity and understanding. I was really worried what would happen if someday, you do lose respect for hindu religion because of the stinky actions and policies of Indin Gov`t and other Indian hate-mongers in Chowk.

So - it is a huge relief to know at least one Paki hasn`t lost respect for hindu community. But that`s hardly any consolation to our hindu a**es. You see - we still have got 14 million other pakis ( only 10% of Pakis are extremists, as admitted by Mushy Almighty Himself ) to worry about.

So please pardon us if we hindus sound a little ``self-righteous`` and display a little ``psychological shortcomings``. You see - there is a Jihad declared on us by 14 million strong army of the faithful. Then there is Mushy, the Mighty who sometimes fancies ``unconventional`` wars on us.

So what can we hindu cowards do? Some of us become self-righteous, others hate-mongers. But it is all our fault. We know it. So please, forgive us.

More evidence of ``respect`` for hindu community-

24 Kashmiri pandits massacred in south Kashmir...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2879607.stm

Tahmed #47

I have seen the reports about Saddam being taken out on a stretcher, but I don`t know how credible they are. If he is actually out of circulation, then another myth that Bush and company have floated that the iraqi government will fall like a house of cards, as soon as he is gone, is just a myth. The iraqis seem to be putting up a credible front.