President Pervez Musharaff’s Views

HisExcellency #156

`` Please be more specific. Are you talking about foreign aid or investment? Two different things. Aid does not directly impact national income, GDP per capita or private sector unemployment. In contrast, investment directly impacts the economy.``

Foreign aid !!!

If foreign aid does not affect anything please pay back the few billions back to Uncle Sam.
Ever heard of free money ???

`` The aid received by Pakistan was spent on social sector, military and infrastructure development. This would only explain higher employment in public sector.``

Don`t you think spending on social sector or infrastructure fuels economic growth ?


`` As a result, Pakistani growth rate and GDP per capita far outmatched India, South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia and other far eastern economies during late 1960s. In fact, in 1969 the South Korean government sent a team of experts to study the Pakistani model which was based on the Harvard Model of Economic Development. According to World Bank`s 1969 Report, Pakistan was about to ``take off`` whereas India was still back in the dark ages.``

Pakistani performance upto the 1960s was a function of excellent irrigation system in Punjab and Sind, low population density in Punjab-Sind, siphoning of East Pakistan resources.

BTW there are at least 100 foreign delegations that visit India annually to study economic projects. It mean squat.

You ignore the fact Bhutto was PM during energy crisis of 1970s. Pakistan being an importer would have been hurt no matter what.

`` Quite a ridiculous argument! Military expenditure as a % of total expenditure is approximately the same in 2003 as it was in 1996. Yet, the overall economy is stronger today than it was 7 years ago. ``

Why not compare 1988 with 1999 ?

`` I am saying what the common Pakistanis, World Bank, and IMF are also saying: Military governments have performed better in economic management than politicians. Hence your assertion that `military has brought misery to Pak` is pure Indo angst.``

Politcians never had control after 1977.

`` Between 1999 and 2001, Musharraf has essentially restructured the economy. Income taxes have been slashed. Instead, sales tax and custom duties (indirect taxes) have been increased. Defense expenditure was frozen. Agricultural tax was imposed in Pakistan for the first time. Telecommunication infrastructure was improved and expanded. And most importantly, Pakistan`s banking sector was reformed. Nawaz had drained the banks through bad loans and wilful default... Recovery of loans and tightening of lending process has improved the investment climate. Now anybody can get a loan; you don`t have to be a buddy of Nawaz Sharif or Asif Zardari. Now you can do business without having to spare 10-30% for custom officials and income tax officers.``

But the Pakistani economy was mired in a mess. They were close to a default in 2001.

`` Please post any article that supports your (lame) theory that `Pakistani economy was better under civilian rule than under military rule`.``

I never said that.

HisExcellency #157

`` Think again. China is the world`s largest dictatorship. India claims to be the largest democracy. I see this as a fundamental difference.``

They are not seeking to impose their models on anyone else.

`` Pakistan should also do the same, i.e. Freeze the Kashmir issue (without accepting LoC as border), and engage in trade/cultural exchanges (without letting India dictate which ideology to subscribe to).``

That will work if Pakistan cuts off support to armed militants.

re: bbabu

++
India and China have no fundamental ideological differences
++

Think again. China is the world`s largest dictatorship. India claims to be the largest democracy. I see this as a fundamental difference.

Nevertheless, India is wisely putting ideological and historical differences aside... and giving priority to economic interests.

Pakistan should also do the same, i.e. Freeze the Kashmir issue (without accepting LoC as border), and engage in trade/cultural exchanges (without letting India dictate which ideology to subscribe to).

In other words, Pakistan should treat India as a trade partner, not as a master or enemy. Pragmatism demands that we benefit from bilateral trade and buy cheaper goods from each other, instead of throwing precious dollars down the drain on expensive European and American imports.

re: babu

++
Zia and Ayub had American and Saudi cash flowing in it.
++

Please be more specific. Are you talking about foreign aid or investment? Two different things. Aid does not directly impact national income, GDP per capita or private sector unemployment. In contrast, investment directly impacts the economy.

The aid received by Pakistan was spent on social sector, military and infrastructure development. This would only explain higher employment in public sector.

However, if you are even vaguely familiar (although I seriously doubt most Indians would)with the Ayub Khan era, you will realize that most of the jobs being created were in the private sector. The 11-famous families (Dawoods, Saigols, Wazir Ali family, Adamjees, Crescent, and others) invested a lot of domestic capital in shipping, jute, textile, steel, banking, engineering, surgical goods, cement and sporting goods export units.

As a result, Pakistani growth rate and GDP per capita far outmatched India, South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia and other far eastern economies during late 1960s. In fact, in 1969 the South Korean government sent a team of experts to study the Pakistani model which was based on the Harvard Model of Economic Development. According to World Bank`s 1969 Report, Pakistan was about to ``take off`` whereas India was still back in the dark ages.

Since most of the industry (except Jute) was located in West Pakistan, the 1971 war didn`t derail this process either. The biggest blunder in Pakistan`s economic history was Bhutto`s nationalization in 1974 of banks and several key industries. Devaluation of Pakistani ruppee, labor strikes, corruption, mismanagement of industries by bureaucrats and flight of capital virtually paralyzed the economy. Bhutto was a politician. He had full control over the budget. Yet he blew the economy away.

Zia`s rule brought new industrialists to the forefront. Nawaz Sharif, Mian Mansha, Chaudhries of Gujrat, Crescent group, and several other families began to reinvest in Pakistan. By 1982, Pakistan was again sauntering ahead of India but behind the far eastern economies. South Korea has followed the Pakistani model of 1969, and sauntered ahead.

Benazir returns in 1988 and suddenly the floodgates of corruption open. Horsetrading, kickbacks and commissions mounted. Still the economy kept ticking along despite Benazir and Nawaz`s corruption. However, Nawaz Sharif froze Foreign Currency Accounts in 1999. This was the second biggest blunder in Pak`s economic history. It destroyed credibility of Pak government. The same year, Independent Power Producers were hounded off for kickbacks and commisions. As a result, foreign investors also went away from Pak.

++
Did Nawaz Sharif and Benazir have real control over the budget of Pakistan ?
++

Quite a ridiculous argument! Military expenditure as a % of total expenditure is approximately the same in 2003 as it was in 1996. Yet, the overall economy is stronger today than it was 7 years ago.

I am saying what the common Pakistanis, World Bank, and IMF are also saying: Military governments have performed better in economic management than politicians. Hence your assertion that `military has brought misery to Pak` is pure Indo angst.

++
What did the Pakistani economy do under Mushy till Sep-11 ?
++

Between 1999 and 2001, Musharraf has essentially restructured the economy. Income taxes have been slashed. Instead, sales tax and custom duties (indirect taxes) have been increased. Defense expenditure was frozen. Agricultural tax was imposed in Pakistan for the first time. Telecommunication infrastructure was improved and expanded. And most importantly, Pakistan`s banking sector was reformed. Nawaz had drained the banks through bad loans and wilful default... Recovery of loans and tightening of lending process has improved the investment climate. Now anybody can get a loan; you don`t have to be a buddy of Nawaz Sharif or Asif Zardari. Now you can do business without having to spare 10-30% for custom officials and income tax officers.

Please post any article that supports your (lame) theory that `Pakistani economy was better under civilian rule than under military rule`.

re: #144 by bbabu on July 2, 2003 8:32pm PT

You make an interesting point about the correlation between Oil Embargo and rise of fundamentalism. However, your knowledge is a little deficient about the latter. The fundamentalist wave engulfed Algeria, Turkey, Egypt, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia at roughly the same time. It may have been spurred by the Oil crisis of 1974... but the oil crisis died with the assassination of King Faisal. He was replaced with an American stooge, King Fahad who was not a fundamentalist.

The Islamic fundamentalist movement is not against any particular religion. It is against modernity. Islamic fundamentalist movements occur in Muslim majority countries only. It offers Islamic system of government as an alternative to Secular government. To get a better in-depth understanding of Islamic fundamentalism, please read the ``Contemporary Debates in Islam: An Anthology of Modernist and Fundamentalist Thought`` editted by Mansoor Moaddel and Kamran Talattof.

As this masterpiece elaborates, Islamic fundamentalism precedes the Oil Embargo and OPEC crisis of 1974. Both editors trace its roots to early 1900s.

++
Explain to me why an Muslim in UP/Bihar/MP would vote for the Muslim League if he was going to be stranded in Hindu India. The only logical explanation was the illiterate soul did not have a clue what he was voting for.
++

Once again you are misinformed about the 1945 Elections. Most of the UP and Bihar Muslim Leaguers were educated people with government jobs, small businesses and property. They suffered enormously under Congress rule from 1937 to 1939. As a result, the educated middle and upper class Muslims of UP/Bihar/MP migrated to Pakistan. These so-called Mohajirs were educated and became the backbone of bureaucracy in newly-formed Pakistan. Only the uneducated lower-middle class stayed behind. Only the uneducated Muslims of UP/Bihar/MP could be swayed by the vain `secularism` slogans of Congress. Educated Muslims with political IQ could see through the farce and voted for Pakistan instead. Socialist writers like Saadat Manto and Faiz wrotes volumes about this class divide among UP/Bihar/MP Muslims...

If you want a detailed discussion on this topic, let me know. I can provide you with enough historical material about those elections and Muslim perspectives from 1940-1947.

++
Explain to me what ``forced secularism`` is.
Secularism is simple in theory. It says that the State will not favor one religion over the other.
++

`Forced secularism` is when Muslim women are forbidden to wear head scarves in school or parliament in France and Turkey. `Forced secularism` is when the state starts interfering with the peoples` religious beliefs and lifestyles.

I am not talking about `secularism-the theory`. I am talking about `secularism-the practice`. All ideas are simple in theory.. But reality is significantly different from theory.

There are several problems with the concept of secularism:

a) It fails to provide constitutional safeguards for Muslims, Sikhs and other minorities. Suppose there is a law that is vehemently opposed by all Muslims, but vehemently favored by all Hindus. By virtue of their perpetual majority, Hindus can easily pass that law. Jinnah had suggested some safeguards in his Fourteen Points in 1920s.

Muslims need constitutional guarantees, not verbal promises or dogmatic ideals.

b) An overwhelming majority of Muslims oppose secularism for ideological reasons. Under Islamic concept of state, the state must enshrine the precepts of Quran in its constitution and penal code. Of course, this means that contentious issues must be postponed. But atleast, in principle, an Islamic state cannot enact laws that violate the basic tenets of Islam. However, Muslim states are also required to guarantee the freedom of religion for non-Muslim citizens.

c) Even if the state professes to be religion-blind, its citizens are not. Even in America, the words ``In God We Trust`` on bank notes declare that America is a Christian/monotheistic nation. In theory, it may be possible for a Christian/Jewish/Hindu/Muslim nation to act secular. But in practise, this is very difficult to do. You need a long time, education and media effort to remove religious prejudices ingrained into people since childhood.

Even after 57 years, India has not been able to rid itself of religious movements like Hindutva, RSS, etc. In fact, with the passage of time, these movements are growing stronger. Secular forces are considerably weaker today than they were in 1947.

Secular forces must be judged by their actions, not their words. The definition of secularism means nothing. As they say, the proof of the pudding is in its eating. The entire world has witnessed events in Kashmir, Golden Temple and Gujrat. Sadly, these catastrophes belie all claims made by Indian nationalists about their secular democracy.

HisExcellency #153

`` You are contradicting yourself. China and India don`t share the same race, language, ideology and politics. Moreover, China even thrashed India in the 1962 war. Yet, both countries are willing to cooperate in trade, without relinquishing their ideology.``

India and China have no fundamental ideological differences. They have a relatively petty border dispute. Tibet and Pakistan are serious short to intermediate term issues.

`` Pakistanis too are prepared to engage India on similar terms. We would like to trade with India, but will never compromise on our ideology. Nor do we expect India to compromise on its ideology. Pakistan has a surplus of electricity that can be supplied to various Indian cities that have frequent power outages. India has cheaper tea and wheat that Pakistan could benefit from. Pakistan has cheaper sugar. ``

What is Pakistan`s ideology ? Do not say you represent all Muslims in the sub-continent. You don`t.

`` * In 1999, when the Russian submarine Kirsk drowned, the Chinese advised the Russians NOT to accept foreign assistance from anybody in searching the crew. Their reasoning: Russia has a large population so it can afford to lose 20 sailors. But Russia should not accept foreign assistance out of national pride.``

That is false pride.

`` International maritime law states that a country`s borders extend into 10 miles of its coastal waters. China refused to accept this limit, and instead extended it to 100 miles.``

That is a gross violation of international law.

`` The Chinese realize that their ultimate opponent is US, not India. They also realize that if they maintain the current growth levels, they will outmatch US global influence in another 20 years. Hence, they are not pushed about dogmas such as democracy and secularism. Economic power is what they seek and are prepared to relegate everything else to achieve that goal.``

There is nothing stopping Pakistan from pursuing a single minded policy.

`` As for you `ludicrous` assertion that Pak Army has brought misery to people of Pakistan... think again. GDP/capita, employment, foreign direct investment and industrial growth rates were higher under Ayub and Zia rule, than say under Bhutto (both father, daughter) and Nawaz rule. Even a cursory look at World Bank reports will confirm this fact. ``

Zia and Ayub had American and Saudi cash flowing in it. Did Nawaz Sharif and Benazir have real control over the budget of Pakistan ? If not do not blame them.

What did the Pakistani economy do under Mushy till Sep-11 ?

re: #148 by rsridhar on July 3, 2003 7:22am PT

++
Pak does not share same views on history. The 2 countries are so much apart that for the 2 to become friendly, one has to give up its ideology completely.
++

You are contradicting yourself. China and India don`t share the same race, language, ideology and politics. Moreover, China even thrashed India in the 1962 war. Yet, both countries are willing to cooperate in trade, without relinquishing their ideology.

Pakistanis too are prepared to engage India on similar terms. We would like to trade with India, but will never compromise on our ideology. Nor do we expect India to compromise on its ideology. Pakistan has a surplus of electricity that can be supplied to various Indian cities that have frequent power outages. India has cheaper tea and wheat that Pakistan could benefit from. Pakistan has cheaper sugar.

++
Pakis are not as pragmatic as Chinese. An average Paki continues to trust Army generals when latter have brought only misery to Pak.
++

I agree. The Chinese are more pragmatic and nationalistic than the Pakistanis. Here are a few examples:
* In 1999, when the Russian submarine Kirsk drowned, the Chinese advised the Russians NOT to accept foreign assistance from anybody in searching the crew. Their reasoning: Russia has a large population so it can afford to lose 20 sailors. But Russia should not accept foreign assistance out of national pride.
* International maritime law states that a country`s borders extend into 10 miles of its coastal waters. China refused to accept this limit, and instead extended it to 100 miles.
* In 2001 a US spy plan transgressed into Chinese territory. The Chinese impounded the plane, released its crew and then humiliated the Americans by returning the plane piece by piece.

The Chinese realize that their ultimate opponent is US, not India. They also realize that if they maintain the current growth levels, they will outmatch US global influence in another 20 years. Hence, they are not pushed about dogmas such as democracy and secularism. Economic power is what they seek and are prepared to relegate everything else to achieve that goal.

As for you `ludicrous` assertion that Pak Army has brought misery to people of Pakistan... think again. GDP/capita, employment, foreign direct investment and industrial growth rates were higher under Ayub and Zia rule, than say under Bhutto (both father, daughter) and Nawaz rule. Even a cursory look at World Bank reports will confirm this fact.

Don`t make observations with your eyes closed.

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

#123 by rsridhar on July 2, 2003 6:49am PT

Yes I do agree with your post. Thanks for sharing the info

re:#143 by arjun_m
I read somewhere that most Israeli teenagers, after completing their compulsory military training, come to Goa to chill out. Goa is kind of a chilling out place for Israelis.
Sridhar

re:#145 by Buddy
Both Taiwan and PRC are similar at civilisational level. They share the same history, philosophy, culture. The only difference is that both have taken divergent paths politically. Taiwanese consider mainland china their own country and want to be reunited but only after PRC changes its ideology and becomes a democracy. PRC is in no mood to change its ideology at present but has become a freemarket economy. Someday, china will become a democracy. Then, Taiwan will rejoin mainland China.
India and Pak are different from civilisational aspect as well as from cultural, historical, political and every other aspects. Ghoris and ghaznis are Pak`s heros but are hated in India. Pak does not share same views on history. The 2 countries are so much apart that for the 2 to become friendly, one has to give up its ideology completely.

Pakis are not as pragmatic as Chinese. An average Paki continues to trust Army generals when latter have brought only misery to Pak. China, OTOH, had experimented with a number of ideologies (eg the long march, controlled socialism etc) giving them up one by one once they proved failures. It has embraced free market even though it goes against the very grain of communist ideology. Can you trust Pak`s Generals to have free trade with India and continue to negotiate peacefully on Kashmire? NO WAY.

Look at the recent trade agreements between India and China. NIITs from India are setting up shops all over China to train their men in software. China is investing in India now. The trade is expected to touch $10 billion in the next few years (it is about 4 billion today). This is happening despite a lot of problems including border issues, issue of arming Pak and trying to encircle India strategically. But recently i read a report that India and China will have joint naval exercises in Malacca strait. Amazing! When you have pragmatic leaders, any change is possible. With wooly headed military dictators, you can only talk about bullets and firearms.
Sridhar

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

Now, all we have to do is sit back and wait for a few major militant strikes. It always happens when there is a sense of normalcy in Kashmir.

PAHALGAM JOURNAL
India`s Tourist Destination: War-Haunted Kashmir
By DAVID ROHDE


AHALGAM, Kashmir, June 27 — Horseback riding for the kids. Barefoot walks for mom and dad in green mountain meadows. Alpine streams perfect for swimming and water fights between overheated children.

The new destination for Indian families trying to escape blistering summer heat? Kashmir, the bloodied but stunningly beautiful swath of Himalayan territory that has been the scene of a brutal 13-year insurgency and the focus of two wars between India and Pakistan.

Advertisement


By June 24, 64,000 Indian tourists and 800 foreign tourists had visited the Kashmir Valley this year, six times the number who arrived in the same period last year, according to state officials. The unexpected explosion in tourism has booked hotels solid, jammed flights and fostered something largely absent in this tense corner of South Asia for more than a decade: a sense of calm.

Standing in a valley here surrounded by granite peaks and pristine glaciers, D. C. Mehta, 55, a retired bank employee from central India, relished his vacation decision.

Before his eyes, half a dozen adults and teenagers madly splashed each other with the emerald waters of the Lidder River. This trip, he said, was his first return to Kashmir in 30 years.

``The number of tourists will increase,`` he predicted. ``There will be a flood.``

The spot where Mr. Mehta stood symbolized the scale of change here. Three years ago in the same meadow where his family played, three militants gunned down 29 tourists taking part in a Hindu pilgrimage. Eight years ago, militants kidnapped one American and four European hikers as they trekked in nearby mountains. One was found decapitated while the others were never found and are presumed dead.

Today, a Canadian, Spaniard, Frenchman, Israeli, South African and American strolled down this resort town`s main street. The foreigners were following in the footsteps of British colonialists who vacationed here a century ago. They said they felt safe and expressed surprise at the tourist boom.

``I`ve never seen this many Western tourists,`` said Eileen Salzig, 35, a Manhattan copywriter who said she had been coming to Kashmir for the last three years. ``I think it`s good for Kashmir.``

There are multiple reasons for the turnaround. In April, the Indian prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, began a peace initiative with Pakistan that reduced war fears. Killings in the state are down 20 percent this year, and a newly elected state government has started a ``healing touch`` policy intended to ease tensions and project an air of normalcy.

There is even talk of persuading Indian filmmakers to return to Kashmir, whose mountains served as Bollywood backdrops for decades. `` `Love Story` was made here,`` declared Salinder Sethi, a hotel owner, referring to an Indian classic, not to be confused with the American version.

Battered Kashmiris expressed a cautious optimism after seeing the insurgency claim more than 35,000 lives, 14,000 of them civilians, according to Indian government statistics. It has been a dirty conflict, with militants assassinating Kashmiri moderates who dare speak of compromise and security forces carrying out their own executions of suspected militants.

A similar spike in tourism in 1999 ended when a Pakistan-backed incursion touched off a 10-week border clash between India and Pakistan. An attack on tourists now would empty planes, hotels rooms and taxis in days, Kashmiri officials warned.

They say the root cause of the strife here — whether Kashmir belongs to India or Pakistan or should be independent — still stands unresolved. And away from the tourist spots, they point out, hundreds of soldiers, militants and civilians are still dying in the conflict. Despite the 20 percent drop in the casualty rate, 1,119 people were killed, including 387 civilians, from Jan. 1 to June 15 this year, according to Indian government figures.

But for now, Kashmiris are relishing the unexpected good times.

Gulam Rasul, the 54-year-old owner of the ``Cheerful Heart`` shawl shop on the town`s main street, was morose in an interview here last July. At the time, the main street was deserted. Hundreds of heavily armed policemen and soldiers ringed the town in an effort to prevent attacks on participants in the local annual Hindu pilgrimage.

Asked about the situation today, his leathery face brightened. ``First class,`` he said.

On the street outside, members of India`s growing middle class scoured souvenir shops and gobbled down ice cream. A red Mercedes-Benz coupe with New Delhi license plates sat parked on the street. A blue Mercedes-Benz coupe with New Delhi plates zoomed out of town.

While Kashmiris said they still wanted independence, they expressed a preference for negotiations over fighting. ``After having the gun for 15 years, we realize we will not get anything,`` said Rais Ahmed, a 20-year-old college student. ``Dialogue is in the air.``

He was referring to the Indian prime minister`s peace initiative and Kashmir`s new state government. In an election boycotted by militant groups last fall, the New Delhi-backed party that has dominated Kashmir, the National Conference, was driven from office for the first time in 50 years.

The new government has released some militant prisoners, cut back on searches by security forces and started investigations into some reports of human rights abuses by Indian forces, a long-running Kashmiri complaint.

The new freedoms are producing unaccustomed political activity and fresh hope. Mr. Rasul, the shopkeeper here whose mood has shifted from morose to cheery in the last year, summed up the situation with the Kashmiri version of optimism. ``I can`t say the sense of fear is gone,`` he said. ``But it`s down by half.``

#145 by Buddy on July 2, 2003 10:26pm PT

[Now look at us. Squabbling over Kashmir instead of making Indo-Pak an economically vibrant region!]

Nobe intentions indeed. But both the Chinese and Taiwanese people are educated and both China and Taiwan are basically progressive societies. But what is that India can possibly gain out of Pakistan except highly indoctrinated and brutal terrorists and the ISI? There is absolutely nothing that India can gain out of Pakistan. There`s no skilled manpower there to seek, and what can a beggared country possibly invest in India? As it is even far flung corners of India are infested with Paki spies. And that country has been brimming with hatred for India ever since its birth. Opening up of the country like the Chinese have done for the Taiwanese and vice-versa could spell doom for us.

Ref: #125 by arjun_m on July 2, 2003 7:57am PT
Even pakilands chinese buddies are investing more money in India...

Just look at China and Taiwan. Nothing comes in the way of doing business. The Taiwanese and Chinese are hypersensitive when it comes to the question of nationhood for Taiwan. Whenever a Taiwanese govt. official makes even oblique references to Taiwan as an independant country, China pulls out its missles and threatens Taiwan with all its might. However, this in no way comes in the way of business and trade between the two.

Although Taiwan does not allow mainland Chinese into their ``country``, the Taiwanese are allowed to visit, stay and live in mainland China. China considers Taiwan to be their province and so the Taiwanese are allowed in. The Taiwanese have made billions of dollars of investments in China and gain from the cheap labor and vast market. The economies of both have gained tremendously.

Now look at us. Squabbling over Kashmir instead of making Indo-Pak an economically vibrant region!

HisExcellency #136

`` Your comments about Pak-China relationship make an interesting counterargument to the ``Islamophobic theory``. ``

The rise of Islamic fundamentalism can be traced to OPEC, 1973 oil embrago and Saudi petro dollars. Pakistan had to get a share of the action. What better way than buttressing its Islamic credentials.

`` Pakistanis have a right and duty to expose Hindu fundamentalists who claim to be secular. Lets call a spade a spade. ``

Not if believe in the type of system Pakistan has now.

`` This is actually not true. The 1940 Lahore Resolution had already spelt out creation of a separate state as a goal for All India Muslim League. Jinnah had also been accepted as the sole spokesman and leader of all Indian Muslims at that session. Between 1940 and 1945, Muslim League campaigned for Pakistan vigorously. Effectively, the 1945 election was a vote about partition plan. Between 1945 and 1947, the Congress and AIML were simply trying to find a workable solution within the Indian Union. By 1946 however, it was clear that two parties could not work together because of their diametrically opposed views. ``

Explain to me why an Muslim in UP/Bihar/MP would vote for the Muslim League if he was going to be stranded in Hindu India. The only logical explanation was the illiterate soul did not have a clue what he was voting for.

`` Ah.. so finally you reveal the imperialist mindset behind all that ``secular`` and ``largest democracy`` eyewash! I am finding it hard to differentiate between your brand of ``forced secularism`` and Taliban`s brand of ``forced Islam``.``

Explain to me what ``forced secularism`` is

Secularism is simple in theory. It says that the State will not favor one religion over the other.

Most of the advanced societies in this world have been secular. Secularism does not automatically imply democracy, civil society (Saddam was secular), ethnic/economic disparities.

There are a lot of cultural legacies of British rule
Sunday as a holiday
English language
Western dress
Convent education

It happens whether you like imperialism or not.