Pakistan and Israel: Through the prism of realities

Endless Cycles...

I think we have gone in this cycle many times... needless to say Romair is beyond redemption, and he just harps on the same old same old. I am going to take Sameerjb`s advice and steer clear of debating with delusional air marshals whose entire focus in life is to write tedious and incoherent posts... how can a great `business mind` have so much time to write nonsense I wonder...

I mean I have only been on chowk recently because I had 3 months off from my job. In 3 days my frequency will go down tremendously as I will go back to work.



Ferozek,

Thankyou... I would definitely like to see Manto`s house and meet his daughter. Also please do come to my wedding. I`ll get you the details somehow.

re: tahmed32

What is this constant reference to military terms? Feldmarshal Erwin Eugene Rommel was a great stragistic and so was Heinz Guderian and Erich von Manstein and as a student of German history, I have to protest at the treatment meted out to their memory. Was Sagen Sie, bitte? (LOL)

Tahmed, the pincer movement is actully a double Cannae perfected by Hannibal in the Second Punic War to destroy the legions of Rome and its lessons were lost in antiquity until a German military officer by the name of Colonel-General Alfred Graf von Schlieffen incorporated the lessons of that war into his plans for the invasion of France. That plan, known as the Schlieffen Plan, is exquistly described by the great American history, Barbara Tuchman, in her magnum opus ``The Guns of August``. This is just for your information, so that you may know the origins of the term ``pincer``.

On the other hand, I disagree with you, because after having studied the Normandy campaign of June-August 1944, I think it was the finest campaign which the Wehrmacht fought in the Second World War. The Wehrmacht had no logistical support, no hopes for reinforcements, no air support as the Luftwaffe was decimated and yet, it withstood the fury of the allies for two months against all odds. The interesting thing was that the invasion of Normandy, code named D-Day, was planned for June 4, 1944 but high tides in the English Channel and bad weather conditions over the Caratean peninsula and Normandy made the landings impossible. The next date, when the conditions were favorable was June 6, 1944 and after that, the next possible date was in July.

When the allied invasion happened, Rommel was in Ulm, his home town, having left his command at Army Group B a day earlier to celebrate his wife, Lucie`s birthday, which happened to fall on June 6, 1944. Also interesting was the fact that the majority of senior German command and staff officers were in Rennes, where they had gone to play a stimulated allied invasion of France! They were to return to their posts by June 6, but owning to heavy rains, they decided to spend an extra night in Rennes! Gerd von Runstead, who was the overall commander, when informed of the invasion called Hitler at Fuhrersbunker, but was told by General Alfred Jodl, the chief of German Army that Hitler had just taken a few sedatives and was sleeping, with orders not be woken up! Runstead never called Hitler back.

It was only Hitler who thought that the allies would land Calais, but the German army had no such illusions. Rommel had anticipated an allied attack in Normandy and in fact it was Rommel`s defensive measures, which would extract such a deadly and costly toll from the American infanty at Red Dog sector at Omaha Beach. General Erich von Maracks, who was ``playing`` Eisenhower at Rennes was planning to invade Europe at Normandy and had predicted that the attack would happen there. Rommel would arrive in Normandy within 24 hours of the invasion having rushed from Ulm and would order, against Hitler`s orders, for the German panzer reserves to move forward to engage the allies. The German Wehrmacht, as you so languidily suggested, was not sitting on its back, but was engaged in sustained combat with the allies from the midnight of June 5-6, 1944 when the allied airborne element started to land. By early morning and day break, the German infantry was conducting a series of ``gegenangriffs`` - counter-attacks against the allies. Throughout the day of June 6, 1944 the German infantry were attacking and specially the SS panzertruppens were totally committed against the allies and resisting the American, Canadian and British infantry from expanding their beach heads and moving inland.

What really saved the Germans in Normandy that day was the battled hardened corps of cool thinking colonels and experienced sergeants capable of conducting the defence of an entire sector, which prevented the fighting discipline of the German army from breaking down. It is even more astonishing that the German army put up such a stiff resistence to allies, in a place where they never expected the landings, which forced an American Major-General named Norman Cota, the assistant division commander of the 29th Infantry Divison (the Blues and Grays, because it had soldiers from both the northern and southern states) to remark ``that it boggles the imagination what the German army might have been able to do to us, had Hitler not been working so effectively for us``.

Incidently, in the film ``Saving Private Ryan``, Captain John Miller (Tom Hanks) was commanding the 5th battlion of the 2nd regiment of United States` Army Rangers, which were attached with the 29th Infantry and given the job of clearing the German defences and the scenes from that movie were about Dog Green sector on the Omaha beach, a few yards from Red Dog sector. I can tell you, having had the honor of talking with men who took part in the Normandy landings, during a convention of American Veterans of Foreign Wars in Salt Lake City in 1996, that the German army was not sitting on its backside!

Normandy is a hobby of mine and has been since the last 30 years and I honestly thank you for allowing me to indulge in my favorite pastime by writing this post. This post was not to refute anything, which you have said, but to share a hobby with you! :)

Ciao

Romair 91,

tsk tsk itnay saray ilfaz and the same old BS?

You are, as most people here describe you, a delusional air marshal really. As for Naqshbandi and Urstruly, we`ll let them judge who are on what terms with them. Waisay show me where I have denounced Urstruly... I would like to see this one. Go read his board `Justice for half a man`... some of my best academic interactions especially about Islamic Jurisprudence have been with him. Tell me if I am the `fanatic` and you are the sane one why is everyone taking you on here on this board? So because you`ve known about `Khushwant Singh` since I was in my diapers what is that supposed to prove? I would say that shows how restricted your `education` at the military institution has made you as to not having seen the light since I was in my diapers.

You know I`d really like you to prove that charge of `fanaticism`? Have I threatened to kill anyone? Have I threatened to exclude anyone... I have even REPEATEDLY said that I would even accept Fazlurrahman (NOTE Maulana Fazlurrahman) as the Prime Minister, if he promised equal rights for all... If fighting for equal rights for all is fanaticism... yes then I am a secular fanatic... but only a delusional counterfeit coin would describe that as fanaticism. I am proud to be such a fanatic. I am a proud to be fanatical in my pursuit of equality. I am proud to be fanatical in my pursuit of the fulfilment of that wonderful vision on which this country was founded. I am proud to be fanatical in my pursuit to undo the discrimination against the minorities of this country. Its not that I have anything against you or your family for settling in Canada (waisay why Canada, I thought Amrika was just as good if you wore the `Proud Pakistani` t-shirt? I really took your word for it). But the fact is that you are not going to bring up your kids in Pakistan, whereas I will... (btw what is this Wealthy lahore? I`d really like to know)... and now you are making all these tall claims. If Pakistan was to ever go to war, one will not find ylh wanting in courage... you will find me in the frontlines... and I am still in the frontlines, frontlines against religious intolerance, while you sit easy and type away on your computer.


You define `secularism` ... yet you don`t seem to follow that dictionary meaning. You have your own meaning.. which is `irreligiousity`... and you and every other Counterfeit coin this country has ever had. You are to blame for the plight of Pakistanis who happen to be non-muslims because you have never stood up for them... and you attack those who stand up for them as `secular fanatics` because according to you they are indulging in a stupid debate... well dude... it ain`t a stupid debate if you are at the recieving end. People like you who think that all is well in Pakistan are sadly mistaken. The SSPs and other fanatical so called religious parties who want to convert Pakistan into a sectarian ghetto are already strong in Pakistan... the situation for the minorities is going to go from bad to worse... So you can shove your joint ventures up yers you know... because whats the point if Pakistanis are discriminated against, and people like you keep ignoring the issue? By ignoring the secularism debate... you are shooting Pakistan in the foot as many counterfeit coins like yourself have done so in the past.

-Manto

re: recognition of Israel
Romair`s assertions about advantages of recognising Israel has some merits. Having Israel at the right side of fence will mean one less headache for Pak and its foreign policy mandarins. But merely recognising Israel would not be enough. That relationship has to be nurtured. I posted some months ago a pdf file written by a researcher from Israel on the Israels polcy vis-a-vis Pak. Israel is not averse to having good relations with Pak. It would like to have a better handle of Pak`s nulclear policy as it is concerned about its proliferation and reaching wrong hands (viz Iran, Libya etc). It does not consider Pak a great threat as India does. What better way of keeping a tab on Pak`s nuclear program than being able to closely monitor it?
Israel`s relationship with India, which started out as military (supplying India`s military needs, help in anti-terrorism etc) has now assumed a strategic proportion. Sharon`s visit will be a highmark of that relationship. For sometime, Israel has been trying to find an ally who can be depended on to give support for a second strike capability from sea if Israel`s land mass gets choked or invaded by enemies (may happen someday as the technological divide between Israel and Arab states in terms of military strength start to decline). India fits the bill. I do not see Israel ever antagonising India for the sake of Pak. For eg, I do not see Israel denying Phalcon or other technology to India even after Pak recognisies it. Only US can force Israel to do that. India and US have a seperate evolving relationship. Indian caucus, which was responsible for bringing the bill for monitoring Pak`s use of aid, has its own committed supporters from US congress and does not necessarily depend on Israeli lobby though of late both have been working in tandem.
So, it is a very complicated situation. But i agree. It does not make sense for Pak not to recognise Israel when Palestine itself has recognised it.
What does Romair think will be the reaction of common man on street in Pak to such recognition? What about the Army generals, some of who are of jehadi mind? It is silly to assume that secularism is not an important issue for Pak. Had Pak been a secular state, it would not have been dragging its feet on recognising Israel.
Sridhar

Manotilives #88: ``You call everyone a fanatic except yourself``

Once again you are relying on lies and false accusations. I do not call everyone a fanatic. There must be hundreds of interactors on Chowk. Do you think I have called all of them fanatics. I only call a very few people fanatics. People who will go to the extent of using lies to discredit others who do not agree 100% with what they agree upon.

``why do I get along so well with people like Urstruly and Naqshbandi (and why you always end up in a verbal abuse match with then)``

Do you really get along well with these folks? I have read your interactions with Naqshbandi. Please read them again. I do not end up in a verbal abuse match with them. I do disagree with a lot of what they state. And we agree on certain things also. But on the whole, despite the disagreements, I have always felt they have been far more polite in accepting it, then you have. If anything, I think you are very frustrated that I do not denounce Naqshbandi and Urstruly, completely, like you do. Instead I try to make an attempt to include them, not exclude them.

---

Following was one of my last interactions with Naqshbandi. If anything, he has been a lot more polite with me, than I have been with him. Even though, I consider him to be wrong on many issues:

(Me) ``I am afraid you have a lot to learn about Islam. I think all your Ulema have greatly misguided you. It is these Ulema`s and their followers who have ruined Islam, and have made it such an easy target for everyone. This is probably why Islam has never supported professional maulvis in positions of power.``

(Him) ``Romair bhai--thanks but no thanks (though it`d be a pleasure to meet you I think I`ll skip your Qur`an interpretations thanks.) ``

---

Following was my last post to Urstruly. It is from this board. I agreed with his post, other than pointing out that Israel had been recognized by Palestinians, and hence Pakistan should recognize it also.

#35: Urstruly #34:Good post.

``even if whole world recognize it and Palestinians dont the question will remain moot.``

To the best of my knowledge, the Palestinians do recognize Israel. They negotiate with Israeli leaders, etc. etc.``

---

So, another lying accusations on your part.

``Personally I don`t know what `secular person` means.``

We are back to secularism again. I thought you did not want to discuss it.

``My friends include people of all religions, all races and all beliefs. This is secularism.``

This is good. This is what I believe in also. However, this is by no means the definition of secularism. Secularism is simply, ``The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.``

There are a lot of people who support secular systems, and even implement them, who do not make friends with people of all races, and faiths. Saddam Hussain put in place one of the most secular systems in the past two hundred years of Arabistan. Thomas Jefferson put in a secular system, yet he had slaves.

This is my whole point. One cannot take the definition of a word, like secularism, and paint it to be automatically be something good. Being secular does not make someone necessarily a good person. Just like being Islamic does not necessarily make someone a good person. Yet, there are certain people who try to morph the defintions of both these words to equate to goodness.

Otherwise, if we were to allow this, than a person has every right to state that Islamism and goodness equate to the same thing. So anyone who yells Islam is basically a good person. When they could be a terrible person. You seem to be willing to apply this rule on people who yell, ``Islam,`` but not on people who yell, ``Secularism.``

``We have given counterfeit coins like yourself many years to come upwith an `Islam` which gives us all equal rights... but the conclusion that secularism is the solution is because you have failed to give us an Islam.``

Another lying accusation.

Once again, open up your mind (or at least your eyes, and read). I have stated ten times, or more, that I am not interested in giving any kind of Islam to anyone. I deliberately state these words together, so people like yourself do not make lying accusations. Infact, I have stated again and again that Islamism and Secularism and any other ism should be taken out of the debate all together. I am not pushing an Islamic agenda. I don`t line up behind people just because they are Islamic (or Secular).

Following is what I wrote to you on this board:

(Me) #54: ``Actually, I try my best to keep secularism and religion out of every debate. That is my whole point. To attempt to point out that such things should not be in every debate. There are other things more important than these. Like education, economy, humanity, etc.``

Please read the above again and again, before falsely accusing me of something.

``You are a Bhagora because I can still quote the post from Saima Shah`s `Growing Up Muslim` where you admit you are never coming back to Pakistan... that your children will grow up cosily in the very constitutional canada.``

Another lie.

I actually am in the middle of trying to set up a joint venture in Pakistan. And one with an Indian company. And with an Israeli company, if possible, at a later stage. I believe, that business is the best way to unite people.

How could I set up joint ventures, in Pakistan, if I don`t return to Pakistan. Much of my time is spent inteacting with Pakistani companies and potential Indian ones, trying to set up this project. I am about to bid on a UAE project with Wipro, as a sub-contractor of theirs (if they agree). I am in talks with Tata Consulting`s Canada office. And I am interviewing companies in Pakistan, to find out if any of them can match the standards of Wipros. Haven`t gotten around to the Israeli part though. Hopefully, my company will grow into something which is based in five countries (USA, Canada, Pakistan, India, Israel and maybe Dubai). This is my vision of my company. Such actions to me to are far more important than screaming Ata-Turk and Mullah Omar the whole day. This is what I believe in.

My whole business is based on returning to Pakistan. I want to be in a stage where I can spend five months in Canada and five in Pakistan. And the remaining two in the other countries I mentioend. And I plan to retire in Pakistan. I have lived their longer than you have.

As for my kids, yes, I will not raise them as Pakistanis. I think it is very unfair to kids, if their parents live in one country (Canada), and raise them in a society of another country (Pakistan). Kids get confused. My kids will be raised as Canadian Muslims, who know that their parents came from Pakistan and are Pakistani Canadians. They will learn about their Pakistani heritage, and visit Pakistan, but I will leave it up to them, on how much they want to associate with it. I don`t see anything wrong with that.

As for me, I think I have paid my dues to my country. And not in wealthy Lahore, but in remote areas. And though I never went into combat, had I been asked, I would have done so, and risked my life, at the drop of hat. Even now, I am willing to work with Pakistani companies in IT alongwith Indian companies, even thogh working completely with Indian companies for off-shore business is probably more profitable. It is the least I can do, for a my country of birth. And not because Pakistan is secular or Islamic, or because Jinnah looked just like you, but because I grew up a Pakistani.

``People like you are responsible for the plight of the Ahmadis and Non-Muslims in Pakistan. You people don`t take a clear stance... ``

Another lie. (by the way, one of the best tactics of fanatics is to try to put blame on others through lies).

I do take a clear stance. I just described it to you in the previous reply, when I said,

#68: ``Why exactly are you trying to blame that on me? I have no issues with Qadianis or Sunnis or Shias or anyone else. I could care less, what you are, or aren`t. I judge people by how they treat me. I am only concerned about how you behave.``

As far as I am concerned, I am no one to decide who is a Muslim and who isn`t. If someone says they are a Muslim, then they are in my book. So you are barking up the wrong tree. You are arguing with a person, and using lies to accuse him, when he himself has openly stated that he has no issues with Qadianis or with anyone else. I am strong believer in affirmative action for all minorities in Pakistan and for women, as well.

``to Khushwant Singh it is mostly secularism vs religion also, and he is firmly on the side of secularism. By your myopic definition he should be a `secular fanatic`.``

I have known about Khushwant Singh, since you were in diapers. He is one of my four favorite Indian writers. I do not consider him a secular fanatic. He is a normal secular guy. As I said, I have nothing against normal secular or relgious folks. Just against the fanatics of these two groups. Just like I support PETA, but not the fanatics amongst PETA who will blow up buildings to save animals. I doubt Khushwant Singh would go on a tirade of false accusations, against me, like you have done. I think he would accept people who are different from him, and do not agree 100% with what he states. While you are unwilling to do so.

``I am sure even Khushwant Singh would agree that despite their Hindu Nationalism, BJP can`t be compared to the SSP which is as someone pointed out on the terrorist watch list. ``

He may or he may not agree with the comparison. I don`t know. Those are his views. However, I doubt he would start a tirade of lying accusations against me, if told him that their are a lot of similarities. SSP is rightly on the terrorist watch list. And I think BJP should be on the terrorist watch list, also. BJP is far more dangerous to India, than SSP is to Pakistan, since SSP is being hunted by the govt., while BJP is the hunter in India. The acts in Ayodhya and Gujrat were the biggest single acts of terrorism in South Asia in the last fifty years. Just because a party is not on a list, doesn`t mean it doesn`t carry out terrorism. But then again, BJP does utter the word, ``Secularism`` now and then.

re: mantolives

Y, you are entirely welcome and I sincerely hope the best for you in the future. On a lighter note, Sadaat Hasan Manto was my mother`s neighbor and his daugthers are old family friends and I hope, and one day you must come and see the house, where he lived and wrote his works and meet his daughter and grand daugher and have tea with us all.

re: Dost-Mittar

Sir, I thank you, but you do me injustice with such comments. I simply wrote in resonse to the real pain, which was evident from Y`s post and offered him a small slice from my own experience. I think, we can all use that advice in our own ways.

Ciao

rsaxena,

Agreed!


Nasah,

Yes... when the time is right.

-Manto

ferozk#81
I have not been following this thread but came across this post to Manto. It is a most wonderful post. I said something similar to YLH long ago but you have said it so much more beautifully. Manto can surely use this advice.

Romair#68
That was a very insensitive post.
Re. Hindutva,BJP and SSP:
I followed your url to the BJP site and found that they were a series of articles, editorials, etc. from various authors, but not the BJP`s official platform. The articles are preceded by this preamble in bold letters:
``Hindutva or Cultural Nationalism presents the BJP`s conception of Indian nationhood, as explained in the following set of articles. It must be noted that Hindutva is a nationalist, and not a religious or theocratic, concept.``
In other words, their appeal is based on patriotism and not on religion. It is nobody`s case that BJP is tolerant or friendly to Muslims. But, as I had asked you earlier,
-Does SSP have a shia/ahmadi/christian etc. wings, as the BJP does?
-Would SSP nominate a Non-Muslim as its president as the BJP did in case of a Muslim?
-Does SSP have Non-Muslim Vice Presidents, General Secretaries and other responsible leaders from among the minorities in its ranks?
-Does SSP want a uniform civil code for all Pakistanis?
-Has BJP asked to change the secular constitution of India?

If the answer to all this questions is in the negative, then your comparison is patently absurd.

re: manto

{I will always be a labelled as a Qadiani... }

...and you should be proud of that...the only nobel prize winner pakistan has ever produced was an ahmadi, right?...says something, doesn`t it?... :)

Romair #80 you write `` I cannot stop you from get your jollies from building someone up to something they have never laid claim to and then trying to prove they are unworthy of it``

Who am I to build you up? I might as well try to build up General Rommel (they say his mom named him after you, incidentally)! And show me one place where I have said that you are unworthy of being considered anything less than the military genius that you are.

OK, getting serious now. Why do you come up with inane statements like ``I am terrified of 4.2 million israelis but not 1.2 billion indians`` (or words to the effect)? If you want to be taken seriously, you need to use your brain a bit when you write. Right now it seems your keyboard is on some kind of autopilot and keeps churning out miles of inanities. I`ll say this about you: you are not as petty and vicious as some of the other characters on chowk. Because you seem to be a well-meaning chap, I`ll give you the famour tahmed advice: You need to write less quantity and more substance.

``Those of you who have read my post 62 should know that I am a Sunni Muslim (now less practising than before) and I am still discriminated against in Pakistan``(Hamdani)

time to get out of that ``Sunni Triangle`` as well....

An additional problem I have with the Air Marshall Counterfeit Coin aka Romair is that he tries to speak so authoritatively about Jinnah as if he was his `phoopi ka putar` (Romair brought up Jinnah on this board not poor old me). The Air Marshal knows nothing about the man. For example in a pathetic attempt to save some face Air Marshal came back with `Major portion of Jinnah`s legal career was spent in England`...

Now maybe the air marshal has new dictionary meaning for `Major` ... but last time I checked a measly 3 years (1931-1934) out of a 52 year long legal and political career can hardly be called `Major portion` of one`s leagal career. Even if you add the old chap`s stay in England for Education purposes from 1892-1895, still that doesn`t become a `Major chunk` of his legal career.

As always Romair is shown us the depth of his great literary, business and military mind which contends a mere 3 years out of 52 to be `Major`.

-Manto

Ferozk

Thankyou for that wonderful post. Thankyou for your best wishes... I am going to keep a copy of your post so that I can see it every time adversity stares me in the face.

I don`t believe in being a victim. Hence I have never mentioned the fact that I am the son of a Qadiani before on this board. The reason I brought up was to show people like Romair why the secularism debate is so important... that I don`t stand for secularism just for the sake of it, but because it is a legitimate cause. I would willingly withdraw my assertion if Romair was to show me an `Islam` where I am not discriminated against.

-Manto

The Counterfeit coin says:

``Once again, this is why I consider you a fanatic. You hate people who are not like you, and try to throw dirt on them. You hate people who don`t follow your exact definition of secularism or religion, and try to undermine their views through lies. These are all signs of fanaticism (A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.) ``

1) Then explain oh Counterfeit coin why do I get along so well with people like Urstruly and Naqshbandi (and why you always end up in a verbal abuse match with then) who are from the other side of the spectrum. The only person I see hating those who are not like him is you. You call everyone a fanatic except yourself, when it is you who are the fanatic. You are the one who attacks anyone who doesn`t fit in your narrow `middle` path .. which in reality does not exist!

2) Personally I don`t know what `secular person` means. My best friend these days is a tablighi jamaat ka Maulvi. He is taking Law classes with me. Did I stop being friends with him because he is from the tablighi jamaat? No. I hang out with him, but he has never imposed his views on me. I have never disrespected his faith. The problem is that you don`t understand what secularism means... you keep equating it to `irreligiousity` which shows the vast depth of your `literary` mind. I am secular not because I am irreligious ... I am secular because I don`t let religious beliefs get in the way of knowing someone... My friends include people of all religions, all races and all beliefs. This is secularism.


3) You obviously aren`t much of a reader. The reason I told you it wasn`t about secularism was because it isn`t... I don`t stand for secularism just for the sake of secularism. We have given counterfeit coins like yourself many years to come up with an `Islam` which gives us all equal rights... but the conclusion that secularism is the solution is because you have failed to give us an Islam. Secularism not for the sake of secularism, but secularism for equality... Like I said I don`t care if Jamaat e Islami comes to power afterwards, but as long as our equal rights are protected I don`t have a problem with Pakistan.


4) You are the one who started claiming what Jinnah would or wouldn`t do if he was to come on chowk. I didn`t start it. You are the one who started with that nonsensical and idiotic comment that Jinnah wouldn`t like people who made comparisons between his sister and Benazir Bhutto (not that I had made any comparisons but that is a separate issue). I told you that Jinnah would kick your arse because he kicked the arse of people like you many times in his life...


5) I didn`t know going to a Military school and completeing the training was a test of manhood. I found the military training and education to be quite stifling intellectually. They have an interesting way of rendering your brain incapable of logical argument. I suppose that is precisely what happened with you.


6) Your grasp of history is rather weak. For someone who claims to see Jinnah in his dreams you are pretty pathetic Romair. Mr. Jinnah spent 3 years from 1892-1895 in England. Then he spent 3 years from 1931-1934 in Britain. Even during those three years he kept coming back to India on regular intervals. How are 6 measly years out of a 71 year old life be called a `Major portion` ... maybe only a great mind like yourself can tell.... As for my `obsession` with Jinnah... I think my simple explanation in post 62 should do.


7) You are a Bhagora because I can still quote the post from Saima Shah`s `Growing Up Muslim` where you admit you are never coming back to Pakistan... that your children will grow up cosily in the very constitutional canada. Don`t even start with me...


8) People like you are responsible for the plight of the Ahmadis and Non-Muslims in Pakistan. You people don`t take a clear stance... `Indifference` you say and then you put up dictionary definitions... Your Indifference to `secularism` is your indifference to `minorities` and no nation can be said to be a civilized one if it doesn`t take care of its minorities.


9) I see you are quoting Khushwant Singh... what is it with Pakistanis anyway... they will quote anyone to prove a point. Have you read his book `The Death of India`.... where he criticizes Gandhi and Azad for their religious pretensions... and tells us that the only solution is to return to Nehru`s secularism .... to Khushwant Singh it is mostly secularism vs religion also, and he is firmly on the side of secularism. By your myopic definition he should be a `secular fanatic`.


10) I am sure even Khushwant Singh would agree that despite their Hindu Nationalism, BJP can`t be compared to the SSP which is as someone pointed out on the terrorist watch list. Now who is being the fanatic eh? Romair you or me? I said that anyone even the most rabid hindu fanatic or the Muslim fanatic can become the PM of where ever as long as he doesn`t take away my constitutional rights and liberties.

I am ready to accept anyone the PM of Pakistan including Fazlurrahman provided the system is a level playing field for all especially the Non-Muslims.

-Manto

re: Mantolives

Y, I am really sorry to hear hear that you are discriminated, and I am truly sorry that you are judged by your father`s faith.

This is unjust, but this is the country you opted to come back after your studies. Regardless of your faith or the dignity of your birth and your wisdom for a vision for Pakistan, my advice to you is simple. If you want to be a great leader, who shepards this nation, then by all means be one and set an example for the others to follow you. A quality of a great leader, amongst many others, is that s/he convinces his/her country to believe in what they personally believe and therein, lies their greastest strenght. Pakistan is not a perfect country and it has untold of problems and like all humans, it has its weakness and foibles and one of them is a lack of religious tolerance. You mentioned being treated like a minority, well my friend, you are a minority in the sense of a majority; a minority like the rest of your fellow compatriots, who suffer under a trynny of the minority, who lord over this nation. You are not the only who is discriminated and made to feel like a minority in this nation, but a minority in what sense? You mentioned religion as being the cause of your minority status, but there others in Pakistan who are minorities in an economic sense; ethnically, culturally, demographically, politically, and yes, in a religious sense.

It is so easy to complain about being the victim and I can understand your pain and I will not judge you, as I have no wish to be judged by you or anyone else. If you are truly disposed towards standing for elections and becoming a leader in Pakistani politics, then you will have to convince the rest of your compatriots to believe in what you cherish and hold so dearly. You have to convince them in the worth of your ideals to the extent that they see them as their own ideals and start to believe in them. Yes, there will be those who will resist and rightly they will resist, because change is always threatening towards the interests of the orthodoxy. Your idealism is commendable, but idealism though its shows the path to follow is no subsitute for the tedium of pragmatism, which allows you walk that well trodden path. You will be forced to compromise between your idealism and your limitations, but with the help of a solitary flame from the candle of truth, you will be able to see the path more clearly as you navigate your way; stepping aside the debris of history and and not stumbling upon ruins of past hopes.

In your journey, on this path of your choice, you will meet people who are cunning; people who are disloyal, people who will smile and say a kind word to you, wishing to lead you astray. You will meet all sorts of people, both good and bad, and as you walk amidst them, you will have to make allowence for their flaws and even more than that, you will have to be true to yourself; to judge and belive in the end of your journey, when all around you mock you and doubt your destination. More than anything else, you will have to learn to be flexible and you will have to waltz with different partners; turning with them and as their arguments turn, but always seeking to bring them to your point of view in the end. Over all other considerations, you will have to say a final good bye to your emotions as you wed yourself to the ideals of your hope, realizing that emotionalism is another name for the concubine of irrationality and you have to avoid her charms, which may be alluring, but will only led you into a moral depredation, which will cheapen the sancity of your values and aspirations. You will have to learn to live with anger, hate, rancourness and bitterness, but you must not respond to them and more than anything else, you must be steadfast in your convictions, but not feel superior to those, who disagree with you.

Y, if you think that you are capable of this and much more, then accept the challenge and react to adversity as a man and not as a child who relishes to touch the rose, but fears that the thorns will cut him too deeply and unless you are not willing to be suffer anguish, then do not try to pick the rose and smell it.

Best Wishes!

Ciao

tahmad #69: I suppose I cannot stop you from get your jollies from building someone up to something they have never laid claim to and then trying to prove they are unworthy of it. So, enjoy yourself, if this is how you get your enjoyment.

But as I stated, if you are not interested in an intelligent discussion, kindly run along.....

P.S. I mentioned Bruce Springstein, Sigmund Frued, and Sachin Tendulkar also. Please use those in your jollies, as well. Also, I play a little bit of soccer, so raising me to the level of Beckham would be nice. And I did act in a kid`s play once, so Tom Cruise will do. And I have starting seeing Jinnah in my dreams, like a couple of other people, so a comparison with him would be good, as well.

Then you can prove that I do not have the soccer skills of Beckham and the acting skills of Tom Cruise or the political skills of Jinnah, the singing skills of Springstein, the analytical skills of Freud, and the batting skills of Tendulkar.

And then you can clap your hands and jump up and down. And then we can go through this cycle again.....like good little forty-five year olds......