Two Phases of Indian Secularism

That`s precisely my point, that Sonia Gandhi`s Indian citizenship is not genuine, and by genuine I`m not referring to the ``technicality`` that she herself holds forth so blatantly as her excuse for misusing her position as Indira Gandhi`s favourite bahu.

Reg #181 acceptability of Sonia as a PM
My personal views are not very different from yours. But there are a few conscience problems....

Just because Sonia was not a born Indian would, in my opinon does not disqualify her... If her Indian citizen ship is genuine (which seems to be the case).... If congress party chooses her to lead them in case they come to power, there is nothing we can do stop her... for stopping her we would have to break some rules of Inidan democracy.

That she is not a fit candidate in view her ameteurship in politics and lack of statesmanship is a fact.

Anne Besant was not an Indian but no one had even for a moment thought it when the Home Rule Movement was launched by her (my history is a bit rust.. correct me if needed). Ofcourse the comparission btw Anne Besant and Sonia (congress seeks her leadership just because she is from the Nehru family) So opposing Sonias candidature would put us in an ackward position.

Indians settled in UK and US have are trying hard to make forays in their societies and standing for political posts. Will we not consider it unfair if the same treatement (opposing sonia just for being Italian) is meated to them?

In my opinion, the Congress men unable to make up their mind, made the mistake of pulling Sonia in. Stalwart politicians from Congress like P.V and Pawar were sidelined and some dynamic leaders never got a chance... This I guess is the biggest mistake congress has ever made.

Anyway.. Indian politics is going through an era of coalition politics and congress has proven itself a bad coalition partner... so for some time we wont have to answer the question ....

Bact to the original article under whose umbrella we are discussing this.

The absence of uniform civil code is an example of appeasement politics these self styled protectors of the minority play. The congress I would say gets a major portion of the blame. In the absence of Uniform Civil Code the phrase ``equality before law`` is a mirage.

Luv,
Cosmic Citizen

This is a chain letter said to be written by Rajdeep Sardesai of NDTV.
I am an optimist and I would like to see this as sign of the Indian conscience.I had posted it in another discussion but this is where it belongs

---

My dear Narendrabhai, Firstly, many congratulations on
your famous
victory in Gujarat. Elections are often only about the
end result, the means do not matter, only the ends do.
Let’s be honest. You ran a strategically brilliant
campaign, one that was based on whipping up public
emotion and stirring a religious identity. I still
remember the classic ad that you ran on voting day.
The Congress campaign ad was a long sermon by
Shankarsinh Vaghela on the development of Gujarat,
written in small type, and with very little that we
hadn’t heard of in the last 55 years. Your ad was
simple and direct.

In bold type, you just reminded the reader of the old
Haqueeqat
classic, “Ae mere vatan ke logon” and asked the voter
of Gujarat to treat their franchise as a homage to the
dead. No specific mention of Godhra or Akshardam, as
per election commission rules, but a clear recall of
recent events. Little wonder then that the next ad
club function should honour you and your faithful ally
Arun Jaitley with the copywriter of the year award.

I also remember your campaign pitch on the last day of
campaigning.
While a complacent Congress was relishing the concept
of cashing in on the anti-incumbency mood, you were
waving a news item that you claimed was a religious
fatwa asking the Muslims of Gujarat to vote hundred
per cent for the Congress.

Of course, you didn’t have to tell the voter the
entire truth: that
there was no real “fatwa”, that all that had happened
was that some unknown Muslim cleric in faraway Uttar
Pradesh had issued an appeal to voters to support the
Congress, and that the advertisement in Gujarati
newspapers had been inserted by members of the sangh
parivar. The fatwa worked, and you were able to ensure
that Hindus came out in large numbers to vote for you
and your party.

I will also not forget the manner in which you were
able to successfully use the demonisation of Mian
Musharaff as a vote-gathering technique. We all
dislike the Pakistani general, and his refusal to end
cross-border terrorism in Kashmir, but you were able
to translate anti-Pakistani sentiment into a potent
state election issue.

What Musharaff had to do with the Gujarat elections is
unclear, but
somehow you were able to convince the voter that
Islamabad was monitoring every move in Gandhinagar.
“If I win, the entire country will celebrate, if the
Congress wins, crackers will be burst in Pakistan.” It
was yet another classic one-liner, designed to stir
the kind of jingoism that may not end the
low-intensity conflict on the border, but will
certainly add to your unique brand of macho politics.

As a representative of the pseudo-secular English
language media in
particular, I admired the manner in which you were
able to blame the
media for virtually everything that had gone wrong in
the state, from the killing of innocents on the
Sabarmati express, to the loot and mass murders that
followed to the large-scale exodus of Muslim families
from their homes.


Let me also say that I will never forget the manner in
which you were
able to use the Godhra incident for political benefit
for months on end, and suggest that somehow all
Muslims in the state were linked to an act of villainy
by a group of criminals from the minority community. I
distinctly remember how you had posters put up all
over the state of the burning train compartment. I
also remember how you got a family member of one of
the Godhra victims to be present at the inauguration
of your party office.

I remember your yatra to Godhra where you shared the
anguish of the
people who had lost their loved ones in the train
tragedy. Somehow, I don’t recall you ever reaching out
to those living in the Shah Alam camp, or Naroda-Patia
or the numerous other refugee camps in the state. Nor
did I ever see you in the company of Muslim children
who saw their entire families being burnt alive before
their eyes.

I must also admire the manner in which you were able
to use the Vishwa
Hindu Parishad cadres in the political campaign. Until
now, we were always told that the VHP was a
socio-cultural organisation that had little to do with
day-to-day politics. You made sure that the VHP
fiction was buried once and for all, and that Praveen
Togadia was transformed from surgeon to a political
rabble-rouser.

Finally, I must salute you for the way you stood up to
virtually anyone
who questioned the politics of Moditva. I will not
forget how you even put the prime minister in his
place.

When Mr Vajpayee asked you to follow the rajdharma,
you quietly
listened to him, and then went about doing your own
thing. A weakened Vajpayee was reduced to being your
self-appointed advocate by the end of the elections.
Indeed, in the last few election meetings, I didn’t
even see a single poster of Vajpayee or even of the
original Hindutva mascot, L K Advani. This victory
then is yours and yours alone.

While you celebrate your triumph, may I leave you with
a final thought?
Now, that you’ve won the battle, will you win the war?
Could you become the chief minister of each and every
one of the five crore Gujaratis, Hindus and Muslims,
you now claim to represent?

You could perhaps start with paying a weekly visit to
the homes of
those who still live in fear and despair. It may not
fit in with your worldview, but it would at least
convince some of us that Gujarat’s Chote Sardar is
more than just a hero of hatred.

Affectionately yours,
Rajdeep Sardesai.

The writer is managing editor, NDTV

urbashi:
We are not that far apart. Her role in Bofor, her motivations for various acts of omission and commission, the legitimacy of dynastic rule, are all fair game for people to ask her as to any other politician. Our only point of departure is her Italian origin. To me this is immaterial. And this is not my position, this is the position of the Indian constitution which does not distinguish between an Indian by birth and by domicile (unlike the US where only a born American can become its President).

I think I didn`t make myself clear enough. Whether Sonia Gandhi`s really Indian or not shouldn`t matter to us if she were a private citizen - then it would matter only to her immediate family. But since she has launched herself as a Prime Ministerial candidate (forget about the irony at this point!) her background and possible motives do become of some relevance. Fine, she looks after her own interests and those of her family (her Italian relatives included), and why not, but if these interests include the Indian polity, as they do, then they need closer scrutiny. I object to her calling herself an Indian when she never thought of becoming an Indian until Rajiv came next in line to the throne, and to her using the known Indian response to white-skin condescension to ensure that the raj-gaddi goes to her children.
Anyway, I think the topic`s over and done with as far as I`m concerned.

dost-mittar, I think we should just agree to disagree. I object to Sonia Gandhi calling herself an Indian for the sake of votes, i.e., for the sake of power and MONEY for herself and her children and relatives abroad, you don`t. If she were just a nobody on the political horizon, and had no political ambitions, I feel we could overlook these things, and even perhaps the fact that it was her Italian friends who were allegedly behind the Bofors kickbacks. But since her aim is to become India`s Prime Minister (interesting, isn`t it, that it was she who was supposed to object to Rajiv`s entry into politics, but once he did begin to ``help mummy`` in the family business she became the power behind the throne) I feel we have to keep that in mind. Is India in fact her in-law` jagir, by the way? And who among them sacrificed anything for India? Nehru himself did pretty well out of his contribution to the freedom struggle, didn`t he? Have we forgotten Lohia`s famous statement about the contents of Nehru`s will? But I do agree that Nehru was in fact the founder of today`s India - whatever`s right and wrong with India today goes right back to him.
And I`m certainly no supporter of the BJP or what they call the Sangh Parivar. I believe they`re completely anti-women, among other things. If Hindutva is just another name for Indianness, as they would like us to believe, why is it that they can`t accept that plurality is the basis of both Hinduism and the Indian identity?
But I respect your right to your opinions, just as I assume you respect mine.

urbashi#178
[I wrote Nehru hang-up because somehow Nehru seems to come into everything, whether you agree with him or not!]
I plead guilty. All I can say in my defence is that India owes to Nehru, more than to anyone else, what it is today - good, bad , beautiful and ugly.

[The point is not just her shortcomings (her lack of awareness of Indian mores, her apparent involvement with dubious smuggling rackets, etc, etc - who would deny Laloo his Indianness?), but the way she`s managed to manipulate her citizenship (condescending to it only because it would help her immediate family, and so on) for personal gain.]
...If doing something for the family is a sin, is she the only sinner?

[why does she insist on making a parade of something she has no commitment to simply to show her Indian credentials for the sake of votes?]
..every politician does that, and not just in India.

[The utter cynicism and vote-politics that Sonia encourages shows how far she is from the Indian/South Asian ethos. Remember the saying about the ``fine Italian hand``? How long are we to remain slaves to our worship of the white skin?]
This utter cynicism is very much a part of the Indian political ethos today, isn`t it? We should not remain slaves to the worship of the white skin, but let us not hold anyone`s white skin against her, either.

I wrote Nehru hang-up because somehow Nehru seems to come into everything, whether you agree with him or not!
And I still think her foreign origin is an issue, because of when and how she chose to become an Indian. I wouldn`t say Nellie Sengupta`s , or Mirabehn`s, foreign origin an issue, nor that of the numerous Christian missionaries and priests who have lived in India so long that they`ve forgotten what it was like back home. The point is not just her shortcomings (her lack of awareness of Indian mores, her apparent involvement with dubious smuggling rackets, etc, etc - who would deny Laloo his Indianness?), but the way she`s managed to manipulate her citizenship (condescending to it only because it would help her immediate family, and so on) for personal gain. And it`s a mark of an incorrigibly patriarchal society that just because a woman has married an Indian we have to regard her as one too. First let her want to become a part of her husband`s family/tribe/clan/country/etc because she`s married him, and not because that`s the only way she can cling on to her husband`s family`s ``virasat``.
I also object to the way she`s indulging in what is now called ``soft Hindutva``. When Digvijay Singh of MP does it so shamelessly for the sake of votes at least there`s no doubt about his ``Hinduness``, but when she doesn`t profess any religion, or so it appears - whenever asked about her religious beliefs she`s studiously silent (not that`s any disqualification, one can be an atheist/agnostic/Christian/whatever and be a good Indian, the agnostic Nehru had his faults too, and terrible ones at that, but was resolutely an Indian) - why does she insist on making a parade of something she has no commitment to simply to show her Indian credentials for the sake of votes? The Nehruvian brand of ``pseudo-secularism`` has no doubt led India into this ``Hindutva`` mess, as dost-mittar points out, but at least there was no cynicism behind it. They were stupid, but they meant well. And with all their excesses they were less dangerous than the fundamentalist goons of whatever denomination or ``relgious`` belief.The utter cynicism and vote-politics that Sonia encourages shows how far she is from the Indian/South Asian ethos. Remember the saying about the ``fine Italian hand``? How long are we to remain slaves to our worship of the white skin?

What has happened to our Dost-m itter? Praising Shahin`s analyses which thrives on Pakistani understanding of Secularism by mixing truth with lies. This is what propoganda is about!!!

Policy of Encirclement - It only a response to the on going war on India since 1971 ``surrender`` which the Paki Generals wants to avenge.(they blame all the losses to Pakistan`s weak and incompetent political machinery).

``issue of Iran, that its ties with Tehran are non-negotiable`` this has always remained as the Indian position.
``In return for the Phalcon radar system and sensitive intelligence reports on terrorism, for instance, Israel asked India to disavow anti-Israel resolutions in the UN and other multilateral bodies. ``
I am sure this story must have been planted by the Paki propoganda machinery- How can this guy have access to such quid-pro-quo (if there is any) understandings between India and Isreal????

``Hindu fundamentalists called the Sangh Parivar abide by the Hindutva philosophy of ``cultural nationalism``, which looks at the world Muslim community as one nation``

This two nation theory is actually the Paki postion. Indian constitution has rejected any talk of nationhood, nationality, citizenship or person of indian origin being determined by a person`s professed religious faith. Another piece of propoganda.!!!

``The idea of a Muslim monolith is so deeply ingrained that even if they try to do so, Hindutva ideologues confess that they are unable to distinguish an Indian Muslim from a Pakistani or that of any other nationality. ``
The position of Indian muslims as distinct entities (including the categories of Bengali muslims, wahabi muslims, ahmedi muslims etc.) is well understood.

``Then the term used for Muslims by top Hindutva politicians is invariably jihadi or terrorist. This is essential if an irrational fear of Muslims has to be instilled in the largely secular Hindu majority nurtured for millennia on the eclectic and large-hearted Hindu philosophy that never closed its doors on new ideas or religions.``
What do you men by ``top``??? You mean the BJP spokesman?? This is again a piece of propoganda to re-inforce the stereo-types??

``Secularism is the foundation of the Indian constitution and its democratic system, but one can almost daily watch on television Hindutva leaders railing against the so-called secularists and reiterating their vow to root out secularism from the country. But this Hindutva vision of a terrorist Muslim monolith oppressing the world, including India, runs into a direct clash with India`s mature conduct of its foreign policy aims based on its perception of its national interest and requirements of realpolitik. The BJP`s Hindutva ideology, for instance, would demand that it go the whole hog with Israel and the United States in destroying Iran, the second destination, after Iraq, in President George W Bush`s war against his ``axis of evil.``
All lies about Indian ``secularism`` and Indian understanding of the Islamic countries . A typical paki understanding of what seularism is about in India. This is what I meant when I said something to the effect that that Dost-mitter has all his intellectual inputs from PTV.
The fact remains that india understands the fragmented nature of the so called ``Ummah`` and understands that it is not pan-islamism that is a problem on the contrary pan-islamism is a welcome thought. It is the extremists who want to use guns and bombs to enforce their brand of pan-islamism that is a problem beacuse they threaten the existence of non-muslim brothers by assuming identities like ``Ghazis``, ``Ghaznavis`` Kafir-killers, Mujahedeens out to kill if they cannot persuade conversion to their faiths.

[Shahin Sultan`s brilliant analysis of India`s relaionship with the Muslim world. Worth reading every word of it.]


South Asia

India sticks with Iran, for now
By Sultan Shahin

NEW DELHI - Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon`s recent visit to India and Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee`s present trip to Turkey have brought to light the complicated balancing act India is forced to play in its foreign policy. Israel, Turkey and, more important, the United States are all unhappy with India`s close strategic ties with the Islamic fundamentalist regime in Iran. But if India has to continue to pursue its policy of encirclement of Pakistan, it needs to maintain close ties with Iran, Afghanistan and other Central Asian countries bordering Pakistan.

New Delhi has, therefore, made it clear to the Israeli leader, who raised the issue of Iran, that its ties with Tehran are non-negotiable. India could accommodate Israeli concerns on some issues, but not on its ties with Iran. India has not initiated anti-Israeli resolutions in the United Nations on the question of Palestine for several years, as it used to do during the Cold War era; Israeli leaders have noted this fact with satisfaction. But India could not completely abandon Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat or support Israel`s stated desire to eliminate him, even by killing him.

Similarly, India agreed not to pass Israeli defense technology on to Iran. Sharon was assured of this at the highest level. But India could not give up its strategic ties with that country, he was also told. This was in response to Sharon demanding from India what he called ``reciprocity``. He insisted that this must constitute the basis of Indo-Israeli ties. In return for the Phalcon radar system and sensitive intelligence reports on terrorism, for instance, Israel asked India to disavow anti-Israel resolutions in the UN and other multilateral bodies. More significant, it also asked India to be mindful of Israel`s security concerns before developing even closer ties to Iran.

If Israel, with its superior military prowess, known nuclear capability and unquestioning support of the sole superpower is so wary of growing India-Iran ties, then the latter has even more reason to be wary of growing India-Israel ties. Since 1981, when Israel destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak, Iran, possibly with its own nuclear-weapon ambitions in mind, has been particularly fearful of a similar Israeli attack on its reactors. Israel has signed a treaty with Turkey that allows it to take advantage of its air bases. It has also developed relations with Azerbaijan. This has given Israel the possibility of coming closer to the Iranian borders, heightening security concerns in Tehran with regard to its northern and northwestern borders.

No wonder Iran is making all-out efforts to improve its air-defense capability against air raids by the Israeli air force. But after it had started breathing somewhat easily after testing its Shahab-3 missiles in July 2000, as these missiles can threaten Israel directly, it now finds itself surrounded by the chief Israeli patron, the United States, on both sides. In its perception, the predatory US imperialism on the rampage in the region represents an even greater danger than the Israeli presence.

Iran is thus bound to feel more concerned than ever. The difference in US attitude and behavior toward North Korea, suspected to have already developed a few nuclear weapons, and Iraq, which was known to have no nuclear capability, and perhaps also known to US and British intelligence to have no other weapons of mass destruction, could not have escaped the notice of the ruling clerics in Tehran. In this situation the development of an India-Israeli-US nexus cannot but heighten their worries. But apparently India has told them that its relationship with Israel and the United States, too, is equally non-negotiable.

India`s close strategic ties with Iran worry other friends of India as well, as does its developing relationship with Israel. Saudi Arabia, for instance, is a Sunni Wahhabi fundamentalist country that spawned al-Qaeda. Though a US ally, it is no friend of Israel. It could not possibly be pleased with India coming closer to a Shi`ite fundamentalist country like Iran, which considers the Sunni Wahhabi Taliban to be Islamic deviants. During the Vajpayee visit to Iran a couple of years ago, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, in fact, made an entirely unsolicited reference to growing ``terrorism, violence, rebellion and narcotics trafficking`` in the then Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, and added that he was ``deeply regretful that such crimes are committed in the name of Islam``.

He also condemned the destruction of the Buddha statues at Bamiyan in Afghanistan and regretted the misuse of Islam by the Taliban forces. This could not have been music to Saudi ears, but India managed to maintain its close relations with both countries.

Similarly, despite its closeness with Iran, forged first by the then prime minister Indira Gandhi with the Shah of Iran, Reza Shah Pahlavi, in the 1970s, and renewed with the fundamentalist regime by then prime minister Narasimha Rao in early 1990s, India continued to maintain close ties with Iraq under Saddam Hussein. A secular dictatorship, Iraq was the only Muslim country to support India unhesitatingly on the question of Kashmir or in its war against Pakistan in 1971 for the struggle that resulted in the creation of Bangladesh.

India is, of course, not the only country that has to walk a tightrope in maintaining friends with widely divergent and sometimes entirely contradictory or even hostile perspectives. Many countries, or perhaps all countries, do so at one time or other, in one case or another. This has particularly been the case since the end of Cold War. But India is faced with unique problems in maintaining its relations with Iran because this relationship does not only expose inconsistencies in its foreign policy, but also contradictions in its domestic political dynamics.

India`s coalition government is led by the Hindu fundamentalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The BJP`s mentor, the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), and sister organizations such as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP or World Hindu Forum) and Shiv Sena (Shivaji`s Army) etc that constitute the extended family of Hindu fundamentalists called the Sangh Parivar abide by the Hindutva philosophy of ``cultural nationalism``, which looks at the world Muslim community as one nation.

Hindutva`s cultural nationalism predates Samuel Huntington`s ``clash of civilizations`` theory by almost a century. The idea of a Muslim monolith is so deeply ingrained that even if they try to do so, Hindutva ideologues confess that they are unable to distinguish an Indian Muslim from a Pakistani or that of any other nationality. Then the term used for Muslims by top Hindutva politicians is invariably jihadi or terrorist. This is essential if an irrational fear of Muslims has to be instilled in the largely secular Hindu majority nurtured for millennia on the eclectic and large-hearted Hindu philosophy that never closed its doors on new ideas or religions.

Secularism is the foundation of the Indian constitution and its democratic system, but one can almost daily watch on television Hindutva leaders railing against the so-called secularists and reiterating their vow to root out secularism from the country. But this Hindutva vision of a terrorist Muslim monolith oppressing the world, including India, runs into a direct clash with India`s mature conduct of its foreign policy aims based on its perception of its national interest and requirements of realpolitik. The BJP`s Hindutva ideology, for instance, would demand that it go the whole hog with Israel and the United States in destroying Iran, the second destination, after Iraq, in President George W Bush`s war against his ``axis of evil``.

A nuclear-powered Islamic fundamentalist country that supports terrorist organizations in Lebanon, Palestine and Pakistan would be a greater danger to the world and should obviously be stopped before it acquires nuclear weapons. A Muslim Turkey run by an Islamic party - in all but name - might help Israel and the US encircle and destroy Iran, or at least its nuclear reactors when the time comes, which may be sooner rather than later. Yet an India run by Hindutva ideologues is maintaining ever-growing close strategic ties with that country and considers its relations non-negotiable. And this at a time when even the majority of Iranian people want to get rid of Islamic fundamentalists and go back to secular democratic governance denied to them by the greatest proponent of democracy in the world, the United States, which overthrew the democratically elected Mossadeq government in 1953 and installed a king.

A Hindutva-run India has also no problem in maintaining close relations with Saudi Arabia, another fountain of Islamic fundamentalism. This, of course, is demanded by India`s national interests, as perceived by nearly all political parties. India`s Iran policy, too, has bipartisan support. In fact most of the initiatives of Indian foreign policy as it exists today were embarked on by the secular Congress party now in opposition and by and large followed by socialist and communist parties that had influence in the central government before the BJP came to power.

This is deeply embarrassing for the Hindutva politicians. But they cannot run a foreign policy as dictated by the situation India finds itself in today if they treat the Muslim ummah (world Muslim community) as one terrorist monolith. They were pleasantly surprised last year when, after the large-scale massacres of Muslims in Gujarat, in which the BJP state government was directly implicated, the only countries that did not criticize India were Muslim. While the Christian West spoke up and denounced the government in no uncertain terms, asking it to provide justice to the thousands of victims and rehabilitate the millions of uprooted, the world Muslim community remained silent.

As pre-election communal cleansing of minorities constitutes an essential part of election strategies of ruling parties - the main opposition Congress party, too, thought so while it ruled, but seems to disagree now - and as the BJP moves inexorably in this direction in the election year ahead, it can only count on the support of Muslim countries and Israel: the rest of the world will denounce another communal conflagration in equally severe terms if the number of killed again starts going beyond a thousand, the benchmark the West seems to follow in such situations.

The BJP still recalls with gratitude the response of the Muslim world, particularly Iran, to the demolition of the 16th-century Babri mosque in December 1992, a joint Congress-BJP operation conducted by a Congress-run central government and a BJP-controlled Uttar Pradesh (UP) state government. While the country was still nursing the wounds inflicted by the demolition and the widespread massacres that had followed, the then Iranian president Rafsanjani visited UP`s capital city Lucknow and declared that he had full faith in India`s secularism and the ability of its constitutional system to safeguard its Muslims.

It goes to the credit of Hindutva leaders that they did not allow their ideological proclivities to cloud their vision and have pursued a foreign policy that by and large has near-unanimous support from the entire political spectrum. Despite Pakistani pretensions of leading the Muslim world, India has maintained and further developed close ties with almost all Muslim countries, while remaining firm on its stance on Kashmir and Pakistan. This is no mean achievement and the credit should go to Vajpayee, who succeeded in doing this in a very difficult situation. He obviously learned well the lessons of his first stint as minister in 1977-79 when he handled the external affairs portfolio with great aplomb.

But this complicated and fascinating balancing act that is the conduct of Indian foreign policy is soon going to get even more complex. That Iran is seeking to build nuclear weapons is not proved yet, but apparently UN inspectors suspect it. They have found hidden reserves of enriched uranium at Iran`s gas-centrifuge project at Natanz, being ostensibly developed as a civilian nuclear power plant. Since the declared intent for Natanz` single-centrifuge ``test stands`` was to optimize centrifuge designs, which normally involves the enrichment of trace amounts of uranium, the question is naturally being asked: where did the extra radioactive material come from? The Iranian explanation that the damning uranium probably found its way to the site ``inadvertently`` from an overseas supplier has only swung the needle of suspicion still more its way.

Iran knows, as does the world, that its survival as an independent country depends on how fast it develops nuclear weapons. Right now may be the best time. The United States is stuck in quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan, on both sides of its borders, unable to move to invade and occupy, as Iran justly fears. Even if Iran agrees to all of the nuclear watchdogs` conditions - by October 31 - it would still not stop the country from trashing the Non-Proliferation Treaty at some point and going ahead with its weapon-building project, if it indeed has one. So, to take the worst-case scenario, or the best case, depending on which side of the fence you are, Iran could have a nuclear weapon or two ready within a year.

It is inconceivable that Israel would allow this to happen. It may not have much time left to engage in an Osirak-like attack against Iranian nuclear reactors. But will Iran use its Shahab-3 missiles then to rain mayhem and destruction on Israel? And will the United States then wait for further proof of Iranian ``evil`` to march next door from its sanctuaries in Iraq and Afghanistan? India must be ready with its response to such not very unlikely scenarios.

(Copyright 2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)

re 170 Sonia Gandhi

Sonia Gandhi has more than her share of shortcomings but her origin is not one of them. From where most of us subcontinentals come from, the accepted fact is that a woman, upon marriage, becomes part of the family, clan, tribe, nation etc of her husband. Calling her a `foreigner`, in this case, goes against some pretty basic tenets of our culture and customs. It is a pity that the BJP, which prides itself on upholding traditional values, seems to intentionally ignore this facet of culture.

Ref Urstruly #168

[harimau

I wish you were not such a defensive and scared person, I could have learned a thing or two from you.]

You still can, by reading my posts.

Just because I carry a 2x4 and bash everybody in sight -- those who are unable to think for themselves, that is -- doesn`t mean that I am scared.

Dost Mittar,

Why bother...

-YLH

bandhook_ram#171
``But subsidising their trips to Haj. Or preventing the construction of a Ram temple at Ayodhya. These are totally unacceptable.``
These are two separate issues. I have in one of my posts recommended that haj and other such subsidies should be gradually eliminated.

Nobody is preventing the construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya. It is the construction of the temple at the very site where the Babri masjid stood that is being opposed. Here, the law of the land must be respected by everyone, including the VHP and its assorted support groups.

dost mittar

Because that is the sign of a tolerant society. Most democratic societies have constitutions which protect minorities from the potential tyranny of a majority.

Tolerating the minorities and being pro-minority are two different things. Hope you see the difference.

Tolerating as in I dont mind if they worship the way they do. I dont mind the kind of schools they have. I dont mind the way they dress. I dont mind the number of wifes they have.

But subsidising their trips to Haj. Or preventing the construction of a Ram temple at Ayodhya. These are totally unacceptable.

``I do admire your Nehru hang-up.``
It`s ironic that you say that. In my circle and here at chowk, I am more of a Nehru-baiter than Nehru lover. Even in this article, I am clearly suggesting that the first phase of secularism, led by Nehru, sowed the seeds of the second phase.

Re. Sonia Gandhi, I agree that she did not commit to India until her husband became the PM. It is a well known fact that she tried her best to prevent her husband from getting into politics and succeeded until Sanjay died in an accident.
However, that was then. Now, she is an Indian citizen. She agreed to lead the party only after the party went begging to her to lead it. Since then, she has given every indication that she is fully committed to her party and the country. Whether one should support her or not for the top job of the country should depend only on whether she is fit for the job, her race, or foreign origin should not enter into the equation.

#121 dost mittar
Sorry I came in late! I do admire your Nehru hang-up. (Not that Nehru wasn`t somebody to be admired himself, but that`s another matter.) It even extends to his granddaughter-in-law Sonia. Sure, technically she`s an Indian, and legally allowed to become an MP, etc., etc. But how about seeing when she did become an Indian citizen? And checking out what she and her husband (with their two children, no doubt) did after the Congress was defeated in the post-Emergency elections and the witch-hunt against Indira Gandhi`s acquisitions and possessions began? Took refuge in the Italian Embassy, no less, because she was still an Italian citizen, and Rajiv had the right to settle in Italy because his wife was Italian. Why doesn`t someone also check out where all that money comes from? And I`m not referring to allegations about smuggling etc here.
I know, of course, that this is really a thread about something else entirely, and it was fascinating to read the same old things again and again every time. That`s why I refrain from responding to various posts in chowk these days. But I must draw the line at including Sonia Gandhi in any of these discussions.

harimau

I wish you were not such a defensive and scared person, I could have learned a thing or two from you.

For all those who want to know what Ram Rajya might mean, here is a newsflash.

BBC reports that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi has introduced a new world currency to fight poverty. It is named Raam and each Raam is worth 10 euros. The currency has a picture of Lord Rama on it and has been put into circulation in the Netherlands where the Maharishi`s international headquarters is located. Local businesses such as ice cream parlors, coffee shops, beauty parlors, etc. (small businesses who stand to lose the most should the Raam fail) accept the Raam in exchange for goods despite the Netherlands` central bank`s warning about it.

Now you know what Ram Rajya might mean. Atheists such as Soysauce will probably choke on the thought that finally there is a currency with Lord Rama`s picture on it, which might be at least one good thing that might come out of this.

This thread is almost at an end. I thank everyone for a civilized discussion and not letting this degenerate it into another hindu-muslim, Indo-Pak slugfest.
I have noticed that Muslim Indians have been conspicuous by their absence on this board. This is not a case where silence should be considered as half-consent. Most likely, the analysis does not resonate with their feelings on this issue.

pennarthur:
Bhugidar Singh usually sticks to light-hearted bantering on chowk ``unplugged``. He is neither Indian nor Singh. No Sikh will give himself a nick of Bhugidar (For those who do not know, gidar means jackal in Panjabi).

Bandhook_ram#155:
``First, I do not why the author almost applauds separate civil code for muslims.``
I do not. What I do say is that it something which primarily affects Muslims (except in cases involving religious conversion when things can get murky!).

``Second, Why should anyone be pro-minority? I dont mind tolerating the minorities, but why be pro-minority.``
Because that is the sign of a tolerant society. Most democratic societies have constitutions which protect minorities from the potential tyranny of a majority.

Thank you hindu ppl, for educating me.

plats8,
I don`t know if there are enough Hindus left in Bangladesh to overwhelm the border districts and much of Calcutta. If they had been Hindus and the Marxists didn`t think they could be persuaded to vote for them, I think they`d be heading back across the border, where they belong; no one would be trying to get them Indian ration cards and fake school certificates. I`m not saying Hindus should be welcomed with open arms. We do have a high commission in Dhaka....just use it,guys!!! I know,though-these are poor,illiterate,people etc, but too bad, we have enough of our own. In the meantime, I am mystified as to how our brethren on the other side of the border energised themselves enough to get the Hindus out. Most unusual.
What makes you think Hinduism is a mature religion and so should be quiet? That`s a very Bengali thing to think by the way...my grandmother goes into shock whenever she attends North Indian weddings, which of course have been getting more and more showy by the day. All the `gaan baajna`, why can`t they play the shehnai for a few hours like everyone else? Anyway,with millions of people in tiny spaces,you cannot avoid the noise,what do you think,we`re all well-behaved WASPS?. I cannot remember a time,even before Ramayana, when Ganesh Chaturthi and Durga Puja were not noisy -if you can, you`re probably older than me:) Come to think of it, even my mother can`t but my grandmother says the British were very strict about noise during festivals. That, and there couldn`t have been mass-produced loudspeakers in the 40s.
dost mittar saheb,
I`ve heard of all those songs.I`m now wondering if I saw the film in the early days of Doordarshan`s Sunday evening films,so long ago that I can barely remember.
soysauce,
Leave sridhar`s profession out of this please. I don`t know whether he is clinical or research, but getting a postgrad place in any discipline in medicine is hard. I love the way the original Mr Mandal ,Weepy Singh won`t have dialysis in India,after he wrecked our medical colleges-but that debate belongs to another time and place. You have no idea of the blood,sweat and tears that go into the making of doctors..for some reason,it seems to be harder in India than in the West,because while they are expected to show understanding of key facts,we are expected to regurgitate huge quantities of material learnt by rote.

Ref Sudalaimuthu #158

[#151 Sure you didn`t do your postgraduation in some slum in madras where such language is par for the course?]

You can be sure for the simple reason he is NOT a quota candidate like you; he necessarily has to rely on his brains to get into the MD program in Chennai where 87% of all professional seats are reserved for BCs, MBCs, SC/ST, etc.

By the way, I was recently introduced to the Chennai Mathematics Institute whose 3-year B.Sc. graduates get admitted to the doctorol program at places like the universities at Sorbonne and Paris. I was quite shocked to hear that CMI is affiliated to Bhoj University in distant Madhya Pradesh as opposed to the conveniently local University of Madras for its BSc and MSc degrees. The explanation is that Bhoj University does not put any conditions such as reservations for quota candidates like you who think that a stamp from CMI would get them into Sorbonne and thus exempts CMI from pressure from local politicians so that only meritorious candidates can gain admission to CMI. Put that in your pipe and smoke it for a while before you talk about any FC`s educational qualifications or merit.

Bhugidar Singh,

I am not sure if you are a Sikh or just another agent provocateur venting his bile. Whatever your persuasion it is pretty clear that either you are one of those woolly-headed ``Sikh-Americans/Britons (the latter have formed their own political party!) or just another Rush Limbaugh locked up in a soundproof box with a mike in hand.

The much maligned RSS has for all its existence maintained a very cordial and understanding position toward all Sikhs. This even when Khalistani terrorists used to target RSS shakhas in Punjab during the height of the terrorist menace in the early 1990s. That is why the RSS is back in full force in Punjab today. And in any case if you haven`t taken a cab in NYC lately hop in ASAP. Your friendly Sardar will tell you why he is very happy to be called an Indian cabbie - those Pakis were all terrorists - good riddance. With Hindu and Sikhs continuing to maintain their cordial relations in India it doesn`t matter one whit what Sikhs in other parts of the world want to holler about- Khalistan or Lotastaan - it makes no difference.

#158
While he may have lost his temper - he had a valid point : why did u address him by his (assumed) cast, when he had made no such assumption for u?

Urstruly,

``what is an Iyer? Oh god i hope it is not a donkey or something...``


Might be a related species...research is ongoing ;) The education of pakistanis like yourself being foremost in our minds...your humble request is herewith entertained.

You may perhaps be knowing that there are many different species of brahmins to be found all over this holy land called Bharat Varsha. Near the chennai region (formerly called madras) are two interesting species called Iyer and Iyengar. They are easily distinguished by distinctive markings on the forehead.

While the Iyengar sports a vertical stripe (one or more)...the Iyer has horizontal ones.

The Iyengar considers himself as the `real` brahmin and generally looks down upon the Iyer...mainly on account of his looks.The Iyengar, it has to be admitted, is generally of an Iranian or european fairness and features. The Iyer has more of a local brand look...indistinguishable from your normal chennai madrasi, with few exceptions.

The Iyengar is often given to reminding people to `never trust a black brahmin`.

The tussle between these two groups is the stuff of legend down south. Nearly everything of note arising from this region (poetry, music, science, noble prizes etc) is from these two species. (Except the wonderful kural I think...which was written by a fisherman or so).

Hope that helps you somewhat.

Ref Urstruly #154

[oops my apologies to all the indian donkeys if they felt insulted by my remarks below. As a matter of Indians did it to a dog and not a donkey.]

Anything to avoid getting raped by an Islamist thug like you.

RefUrstruly #153

[what is an Iyer? Oh god i hope it is not a donkey or something, cuz last year you guys did that to a girl in india.]

It`s my last name and a red rag to Soysauce. At least, it isn`t something like Ali which means `eunuch`. Chew on that for a while.

#151
Wow, such erudition and eloquence not to mention a stupendous comprehension of the written word! You ``answered`` the wrong question boyo! Too bad you are consigned to the back bench as a postdoc rather than be a clinician telling your patients how they have their brains in their balls! Sure you didn`t do your postgraduation in some slum in madras where such language is par for the course?

Only Sikhs used to raise the slogan of Hindu-Sikh unity. Our leaders also did this. Our Hindu brethren held a conference here. They raised slogans of ``Hindu-Hindu Bhai Bhai`` (Hindus are brothers to one another). There was no mention of the Sikh. Some time back, slogans: ``Kachh, Kara, Kirpaan; Ehnoon bhejo Pakistan`` (The shorts, the steel bangle, the sword - symbols of the Sikhs - send these to Pakistan); and ``Dukki tikki khehan nahin deni, sir te pagri rehan nahin deni`` (we are not going to let any second or third group exist, we are not going to let a turban remain on any head) were shouted here. A Hindu shouting these slogans is a patriot but if a son of a Sikh gets up on a stage and says: ``We have to get justice for our (murdered) brothers``, he is a criminal. This is one of the true faces of Indian secularism.

Ref Sudalaikkannu #144

[#141 Dear Sridhar Iyengar,
This was new information to you? You mean you didn`t know that vaishanavism was founded & visishtadhvaitam prpounded mainly in tamil nadu and vaishnavism was spreading like wild fire until the saivaites doused it with some cold theological water centuries ago?]

He thanked me on your behalf for the information which I provided YOU, since you do not have the courtesy to thank anybody who has done you a good turn.

In case you think Vaishnavism is the property of Iyengars only in Tamil Nadu, you forget that Naidus and Mudaliars proudly wore on their foreheads the Vaishnavite srichoornam (naamam to you ignorant idiots) but that was when people weren`t ridiculed for being Hindus. Times were when people were more afraid of God than of a man named Thanthai Periyar whose stormtroopers used to wander around Tamil Nadu attempting to erase religious symbols from people`s foreheads. Try doing THAT in Pakistan, you frikking idiot!

[The resentment of the vaishnavites towards the saivites is so strong that to this day some orthodox vaishnavites would not dine even with saivite brahmins.]

On the other hand, I take pride in the fact that I wouldn`t let YOU into my house, let alone give you water to slake your thirst.

[If you were an orthodox iyengar you wouldn`t go anywhere near harimau iyer, altho it`s good in general to keep away from that rapid, deranged character...]

Yes, my replies are rapid, though I suspect the word you were looking for was `rabid`. Sigh..... such a decline in standards..... this is what happens when the Maasanamuthus and Sudalaimuthus attempt to learn foreign languages such as English, Tamil, Hindi, etc.

This was the first phase of Indian secularism: noble, tolerant, and pro-minority.

Most asinine observation.

First, I do not why the author almost applauds separate civil code for muslims.

Second, Why should anyone be pro-minority? I dont mind tolerating the minorities, but why be pro-minority.

It is these clueless secularists who are responsible for the rise of hindutwadis. I say more power to the hindutwadis just to get rid of those clueless jokers.

oops my apologies to all the indian donkeys if they felt insulted by my remarks below. As a matter of Indians did it to a dog and not a donkey.

http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00000888&channel=chaathouse&start=0&end=9&page=1&chapter=1

what is an Iyer? Oh god i hope it is not a donkey or something, cuz last year you guys did that to a girl in india.

``Heck, my cousin in Delhi has married a Punjabi girl! ``
...Right. And my Panjabi niece married an Iyer. With the blessings of the parents of both!

re:#144 by soysauce
To answer your question, i am not orthodox. Did i say anywhere in my previous posts that i was even an Iyengar? You are just assuming things. Looks like you got brains in your balls.
I am a Delhite, born and brought up in Delhi. Our family used to visit Madras once a year. I went to Madras for my post-graduation many years ago. That is the extent of my link with Madras.
You are wrong about the rivalry between the Iyers and Iyengars. Now-a-days Iyers and Iyengars are intermarrying. Heck, my cousin in Delhi has married a Punjabi girl! Get the drift? What are you, a frikking moron ?
Sridhar

ballukhan#145
I did not consciously choose to ignore your question. It was not as clearly stated as in this post.

``Can we discuss why secularism cannot be thrown out from Indian Polity because no one (no mai ka lal!!!) can tamper with the Indian Constitution``

Actually, Indian constitution has been amended more than 40 times, more than half of them during Nehru`s time itself. It is more difficult to amend now than before when the Congress party had a steamroller majority in both the States and the Centre. Still, it is not impossible. When the BJP came to power, they constituted a panel of experts to go into the question of amending the Constitution, not for changing its Secular character but to make governments more stable. Its report must by lying in the same place where most committees`s reports end up in Delhi- File thirteen. The reason secularism cannot be thrown out from the Indian Polity, in my opinion, is that there is no demand or support for it in any quarter.
I am less knowledgeable about Pakistan. But here is my two-cents` worth. The pre-eminent position of the Pakistani army is primarily because Pakistanis, in general, are not willing to give up the option of using force - covert or overt - to change the status-quo in Kashmir against a much bigger enemy. As long as this situation continues, the army will continue to influence politics. In my opinion, the only solution is the one proposed by Musharraf, i.e., to accept this de facto reality into a de jure one via a National Security Council, with a permanent role for the army in it. This would be following the Turkish model whereby the politicians have accepted that the army would have a veto over them in certain area (secular character of Turkey) while not intervening in others.

``Religion was formally introduced as a political cause for the first time during the creation of Pakistan - directly or implied. ``


Very inaccurate... by 1937 religion was very much the issue in politics... even then the Muslim League only spoke about the political issues of a minority which happened to be based on a religious identity.... theology of religion was never the point!!! I suppose Mr. Nazar Hayat Khan has never heard of Khilafat Movement, Shudhi Sanghtan Movements, the Moplah uprising, and before that the religio-political reform movements of Sir Syed and Ram Mohan Roy...



But when you are amazing historian like NHK who thinks Wali Khan is the `secularist` in Pakistani history despite his support for radical Islamic elements... and his collusion with the most fanatical right wing Islamic groups time and again, and his famous slogan of `Nizam-e-Mustafa` (the system of the Holy Prophet), his support for Mufti Mahmood, and his wonderfuly `progressive` role in shooting down the `Honor-killing resolution` ... can one really put anything past people like Nazar Hayat Khan ?

-YLH

If ever there applied the famous saying `little knowledge is dangerous`, it applies most perfectly on Nazar Hayat Khan... Despite appeals by everyone he has shamelessly refused to atleast read before he writes absolute drivel... Now the `Nizam-e-Mustafa` totting, sharia honking, PNA-leading, Zia-colluding Wali Khan is a secularist....

Sigalph 325

Thanks again for standing for the facts... now NHK is going to take you apart for too Pakistani... Nazar Hayat Khan has once again showed us his utter and complete ignorance of history.

Here are Some other facts for Nazar Hayat Khan who tends to be `stark naked with truth`:

Bacha Khan aka Abdul Ghaffar Khan, his support for Gandhi notwithstanding, colluded with the Fakir of Ipi in the late 1940s to overthrow the government of Pakistan and establish the rule of Sharia in NWFP... and according to Nazar Hayat Khan he was a genuine secularist.

In 1977 Bacha Khan`s son, Wali Khan, joined the PNA and agitated under the slogan `Nizam-e-Mustafa` against Zulfikar Ali Bhutto... is this SECULARISM for Nazar Hayat Khan? Ofcourse Sigalph has shown us the pathetic stance of Bacha Khan`s `secular` party on the Honor killings resolution. Also Bacha Khan`s son Wali Khan was a major colluder with Zia ul Haq is a known fact. In 2003, the ANP, Pakistan`s most `secular` party according to the brilliant scholar NHK, voted in unison with the MMA for the establishment of Sharia in NWFP.... Some secularism!!!


If supporting Gandhi, Nehru and Congress at the time of partition in 1947 is the only criterion for `secularism`, then here are some other `secularists` for the brilliant PAF hero NHK : 1) Maulana Ata ullah Shah Bukhari (his legacy is kept alive by Masood Azhar today) 2) Ahrar Party 3) Jamiat-e-Ulema-Hind and Darul-uloom Deoband

-YLH

Harimau:

``As to Ram Janma Bhoomi, I think you need to leave it to the people. I don`t think we need to accept YOUR analysis of what we need. ``

As far as I know, we all constitute the people. Yogiraj Patil is one of the people as well.

So, who do you really look up to? Your themes of collective punishment remind me of a certain individual - Reinhard Heydrich of the SS. Not a very admirable role model, I am afraid.

Dost Mittar, you have consciously chosen to ignore my earlier post at #81 by ballukhan on September 15, 2003 9:22pm PT.
Can we discuss why secularism cannot be thrown out from Indian Polity because no one (no mai ka lal!!!) can tamper with the Indian Constitution. On the contrary, Pakistan`s problem is that by putting Islam (i.e the Islamic books and its practices) as the foundation of its constitution it un-wittingly empowered the mullahs, the interpreters of Islam and any damn person who can say something about Islam as the interpreters of it`s constitution. It created extra-constitutional structures which can be used to tamper and amend its constitution by any one who can claim to be an Islamist. It all depends whether you are the powerful and influential person in your community or not , you can force an interpretation of Islam and also the Pakistani Constitution in your favour. Zia did this, Bhutto did this- and now our guy Mush is in the line.
I again reiterate- Secularism is the solution to Pakistan`s problem because Pakistan requires a stable Constitution and its rigorous implementation. For doing that only, Pakistan has to forget about basing it`s constitution on the so called foundations of Islam (or for that matter any religion). Only them you will dis-empower the mullahs and Islamist. Otherwise, the aggressive (literal) interpreters of Islam are sure to capture the Assembly and then they would change the constitution and trampel upon your (the moderates) freedoms like Taliban did in Afghanistan. You can then say goodbye to Chowk after that.

#141 Dear Sridhar Iyengar,
This was new information to you? You mean you didn`t know that vaishanavism was founded & visishtadhvaitam prpounded mainly in tamil nadu and vaishnavism was spreading like wild fire until the saivaites doused it with some cold theological water centuries ago? The resentment of the vaishnavites towards the saivites is so strong that to this day some orthodox vaishnavites would not dine even with saivite brahmins. If you were an orthodox iyengar you wouldn`t go anywhere near harimau iyer, altho it`s good in general to keep away from that rapid, deranged character...

roohi@134:
Women performing havans is now not that uncommon among Panjabis. This is another example of Hinduism`s flexible approach in these matters.
On aartis to Allah and Isa Masih, I agree with your husband. This is hailarious! But this could be perceived in two wasy: to hindus, it is an example of their tolerance but to a Sikh or a Muslim it could be the amorous Hindu trap that must be avoided to retain their pure identity.
....and I wont be surprised if after aarti to allah and Isa, they go out and vote for the BJP!

re:#122 by harimau
Thanks for the informative post.
Sridhar

Roohi ``- he already listens to you guys Mehmaan Ji (right?) `` - Yep Mehmaan Ji is right. Well, well so people actually listen in...you can hear it at http://www.brisvaani.com/downloads/MASTI.html (not my favourites but at least they are there). So when does he come on air? Must listen in.

subroto - he actually doing a show ... don`t know when it airs - seems to be enjoying it so far Mum says (can`t speak for his audience !) - he already listens to you guys Mehmaan Ji (right?)

Re Harimau #135 : Sure more schools are required in Uttranchal are but the literacy rate there is 72.28% (Source: Census of India; Economic Survey of India) substantially higher than Bihar`s 47%. Quite surprisingly the literacy rate for UP is 70%. And second only to Kerala is Meghalaya with 88.49% literacy. Another surprise Chandrababu Naidu`s cyber state has only 61.11% literacy.


Re Roohi #134 well if he can tune in 10:30 am this Saturday he`ll find a reason not to listen to it anymore :-)

Dost Mittar , NazarHayat, Mantolives, SR ji

---

Can you answer this question raised in the previous posts???

````Why the bane of confrontation has not been properly analysed and why right lessons not been learned from past experiences of political polarisation?

Three important aspects of the bane of confrontation between the government and the opposition which can threaten the country`s survival are one way or the other related to the failure of army and the political parties to redefine each other`s role. First, army as an institution in Pakistan has not accepted the fact that it should be subservient to the civilian rule. Since the death of the country`s first Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan till today, army has always tried to prove that it is more responsible and better than the political parties because the latter are corrupt and inefficient. But, in the process of criticising political parties, the army has overlooked the basic fact that because of its interference in politics and its consistent effort to rule either through a proxy or directly, political process in the country has not taken roots. Hence, only politicians cannot be held responsible for various debacles because they were not allowed by the army to rule effectively. Even the governments of Z. A. Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, who were considered to be strong civilian regimes, became a victim of army`s intervention and were subsequently overthrown.````

re nhk 130

``Only Wali Khan & party with their 80 year history are genuine secularist . ``

Is that the reason why all the senators (I beieve there were 5 or 6 of them) of ANP voted against a resolution to condemn honor killings in 1998?

(And please none of that `honor killing is tradition not Islam` theme)

Naqshbandi #132,

What would you do with someone who out-danda`s you ? Seriously, with friends like
you, the Indian muslims need no enemies.

By the way, what is the role of secular Muslims in all of this ?

Dost Saab,

I went to a friends house for a Pooja recently - a Nav Graha Havan performed by her mother-in-law freshly arrived from Delhi just for the event. I`ve never seen a full fledged Havan performed by a woman as priest, with her son and daughter-in-law assisting. The book and tape they gave away with khara-prasaad had in it an Aarti to Gods of practically every religion!

Allah ki Aarti, Isa Masi ki Aarti, Buddham Sharnam Gachaami, Mahavir, Guru Nanak as well as ``Nirankar`` ki Aarti and ``Onkar`` ki Aarti. Also hymns to Hari and Shridi Sai Baba (but no Ram or any Devi). The Allah Ki Aarti was set to the music of ``E Watan, E Watan hamko teri kasam`` and went ``Ya Allah, Ya Allah tere rehmo karam something something`` in chaste hindi, sung quite melodiously, by very earnest young girls to new age sounding music ... and the Christ one was a long chant of ``Isa Masi Namo Namah`` repeated over and over.

They are very normal upper-middle-class Punjabi Dilli-wallahs. They did get their house-plan approved by a Vaastu-Shastra practitioner in India before they bought it though! The whole thing was very strange (my husband thinks it is hilarious !!) ... is this something one should expect to see and hear in India now ...? What does it mean …? I`m going on a visit after a long - long time ...

Subroto ... Guess what ... my father is on BV too now ... if you guys can get back on the air!

Ref yogiraj #133

[Take this from me. We DO NOT need a RAM Janmabhoomi temple. We need schools for every one. We need hospitals for every one. We need play grounds.... We need ....]

We don`t need schools for everyone in Kerala -- it is as close to 100% literacy as feasible. We need them in Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, UP, Uttaranchal, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Orissa. West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Punjab and Haryana are doing okay with regard to schools, thank you.

As to Ram Janma Bhoomi, I think you need to leave it to the people. I don`t think we need to accept YOUR analysis of what we need.

``#43 by saminshah on September 15, 2003 1:32pm PT
to = #26 by yogiraj on September 15, 2003 9:23am PT
I know about Hinduism is only one thing it is very tolerant religion. now you ask how.
I told you simple way you don’t have to be rocket scientist to know this.
India is secular because of Hindu and Hindu only. how ?.because hindu consist 83 % to 85 % population of India .after shahbano case or after 1992 break down of babari mosque there were
Three national election. if Hindu voted for bjp then bjp can get 345 sits in locksabha easily
And after that Hindu can get ram mandir and Hindu state and death of secularism. Get it.

Saminshah..

Madam/Sir.

I was insulted :) On every single front. I was never accused of what is called as even semblance of intelligence. ``Rocket scientist``??? Forget about it. I do not even know how spell my ABCs

Let me openly appologize. I missed your mail. No excuse.

Take this from me. We DO NOT need a RAM Janmabhoomi temple. We need schools for every one. We need hospitals for every one. We need play grounds.... We need ....

But ..well the ground reality is ...

In short, we need to be lesser pathetic than what I am. That is what BJP is. Pathetic but lesser. I openly admit. Please do not blame BJP. Blame me. OR even blame??

You said BJP may win. They may. And yes I will vote for them. BJP is about keeping our nation together. Mushy and those idiots around thought we are easy prey. And they thought they know the works. Look what Mushy and the works did for us. Kargil. What he did and doing as a victor in nation called P is his problem. And what he and the works is doing now? They are begging to talk to us. Only single thing these idiots are asking is talk... all they will say we want to talk...we want to talk....And what do they do when they say this?

Even our tolerence has a limit. Why don`t you understand??.

For Indians no matter who you are, I have only one standard. Whatever is wrong is wrong. And yes Saminshah, I DO GET YOUR message.

For others. especially you know who.. I am an openly Hyde and Jac...

Yogiraj Patil

Romair # 104

The Pakistani politicians are not exactly SHOUTING for secularism.

Only Wali Khan & party with their 80 year history are genuine secularist . But our Urdu media has hounded them as traitors for last 56 years. Only recently, they have vindicated themselves after our famous U-Turn - something they have been advising for years.

Other genuine secular party is PPP. But they also add `Islam` in the end just as a precaution. Benazir never utters the word Secularism - but I am glad that the PPP lower leadership now openly states Secularism as their policy on TV - so all my future votes are for PPP. I do not care if they have nade a few billions - the national focus & direction is more important.

There are also a few smaller Baluchi & Sindhi Nationalist parties which openly talk of secularism - most of all - MQM is 100% secular & hates Mulla - they are now on the perfect path of wisdom and assimilation.

So you are partly right - but this small whisper of Secularism must become a rallying cry to have an impact.

SameerJB # 80

(Indian civilization is the real glue that binds India (flag bearer of Indian civilization) and Hindu ethos or Hinduism is the best representation of Indian civilization. same is true on the other side of the border. Islam is the glue that binds diverse nationalities of Pakistan.)

Your analysis after 1947 is good except that everyone added `Islam` to be on the safe side and not to miss out on the vote of an emotional poor man - who has nothing with him other than a vote & a faith.

But I think many people will not agree to use religion as glue to bind people. Centuries of history of South Asia saw the Rajas, Maharajas, Ashokas, Mughals, Marhattas, Ghoris, Suris, Tughlaqs ......... all fighting for temporal power, territory or wealth. Even Mahmood Ghazanvi came for diamonds - and not for higher ideals. Religion was never an issue. The people belonged to this landmass and had a South Asian flavour to them - dress, food, customs, festivals, arts, lanuages, history -

Religion was formally introduced as a political cause for the first time during the creation of Pakistan - directly or implied. Bangla Desh has already opted out - Pakistan remains confused. No where in the world religion is used as a glue to bind people.

India, if I am correct, developed a secular Indian ethos comprising multi-culturalism and a muti-religious society. This BJP - RSS - VHP radical streak is a recent phenomenon.

The same phenomenon that Pakistan went through about 30 years back when the religious parties made a lot of noise but got got only 3-4 seats in the parliament. But many factors such as military rule made the things go from bad to worse - and the system failed to re-correct itself.

Both India & Pakistan need to find the common grounds through their centuries of past history - and animosity should give way to cooperation. Only then these religious ethos, as pointed out by you, have some chance of getting subsided. (Incidently, this animosity is primarily at the government (read Army for Pakistan), foreign office and politics level)

Exploitation of religion in Pakistan has already proved disastrous. It should certainly not happen in the case of India - their problem is still at the infancy stage - and they have strong institiuons in place to remedy such blurps.

As I have said before on Chowk the future for the Muslims of Hindustan looks increasingly bleak--expect another Bosnia in the next decades--unless the world islamic community can make the hindu fascists see sense. Unfortunately the only language the Hindu (not including secular hindus in this) understands is the danda. Those determined to bring the HINDU in Hindustan to prominence are happy to slaughter Muslims.

Because India is a big market for Western companies the so called civilised nations also wont do anything about it. No, the only ones who can do anything are the Muslims themselves. May Allah protect them. ameen.

**
YLH your analogy is wrong because the ideal of Pakistan was for all the Muslims of United India to be in Pakistan. Unfortunately what happened was only half of them became Pakistanis. You can say the surgery did not go according to plan.

Good article dost-mittar.

[Does anyone know if this is in conformity with the Hindu religion? I know it is against the traditional Hindu way of life where the bahoo is the lynchpin of the parivaar.]

India faces key marriage ruling
An Indian man is planning to appeal after a landmark ruling in the Calcutta High Court that he has no right to force his wife to live with his family.

Women in Rajasthan
Women would be able to choose who they live with
Ashis Ghose says he will ask the Supreme Court to overturn the judgement.

He was speaking a day after two judges ruled that his wife should live with him, but separately from her in-laws.

Correspondents say if the Supreme Court upholds the ruling, the case will go down in legal history in India where women traditionally live with their husband`s family after marriage.

Mr Ghose and his wife, Kakoli Das, married in 1994 and had a son in 1996.

Soon after, however, relations between Kakoli Das and her in-laws became strained.

Court order

When her husband refused to move out she sued him in a lower court, with the request that he be legally compelled to stay with her.

When the lower court turned down her request, she took the case to the High Court.

There Justice Ajoynath Roy and Justice Pradipto Roy said a wife had the right to live separately with her husband, and could refuse to live with his parents and relatives.

They ruled that Mr Ghose will now have to make the necessary arrangements so that his wife can live separately with him.

Legal experts say this judgement could have a huge impact on conjugal relations in India`s male-dominated society since it would be used as case law if not overturned by the Supreme Court.

ballukhan#125
Re. Why Secularism could never survive in Pakistan, by Ishtiaq Ahmad

Thanks for posting this interesting article. It has succinctly supported a stance that I have frequently taken at chowk re. Pakistan. It is fashionable among Pakistani chowkies to blame Zia for the islamisation of their country. I have always held that he is being treated as a fall guy to hide from the fact that Pakistanis, by and large, were quite comfortable with the Islamisation of their country from the very beginning. There was a steady progression towards an Islamic state from the very start. When Jinnah`s speech to the constituent assembly was censored/removed from official documents or when the objectives resolution was passed, there was hardly any serious opposition in Pakistan.
In a perverse way, I think that Bhutto and Zia are the founders of the modern secular movement in Pakistan. When Bhutto introduced the Ahmadiya legislation, it was a wake-up call for the moderates in Pakistan of the direction in which their country was headed. And Zia, by banning their liquor and imposing piety on the non-practising Muslims, brought Islam into their dailly lives. They had been indifferent to the earlier ideological measures directed at making Pakistan an Islamic state where Allah was the sovereign and not the people because they did not realize where it would lead them. The cold shower of Zia`s changes brought them face to face with the reality, thereby giving an impetus to an active secular movement.

The above analysis may be simplisitic but not far from reality.

bigot here: from the NEws of today:

Tackling the Indo-Israel nexus by Burhanuddin Hasan


``Should Pakistan recognise Israel, Pakistani Muslims will be able to visit Baitul Maqdas and offer prayers at their Qibla-e-Awwal. Pakistan has diplomatic relation with many countries, which do not believe in one God, or do not believe in any God, then why not Israel, which believes in one God? If Pakistan can have diplomatic relations with India, which is an idolater nation and with which it has its major territorial dispute on Kashmir, then what is wrong in having diplomatic relations with Israel?``

Ignorance, is said to be the required passport for The News!

The bane of confrontation

Dr Moonis Ahmar

The writer is Professor,

Department of International Relations, University of Karachi

amoonis@hotmail.com

``The political situation in Pakistan does not call for drastic action such as dissolving the assemblies or packing up the government. The disturbing sign is the bickering between the government and the opposition but it does not call for a drastic action.``

--President, General Pervez Musharraf

As the government-opposition confrontation on contentious issues is reaching a decisive stage, some structural contradictions in Pakistani society tend to expose the fragility of the country`s political system. After three years of direct, but quasi military rule in Pakistan, the country gradually moved into the direction of a democratic path. From November last year when the new government at the Centre was formed as a result of October elections till the present, one can see sustained confrontation between those civilian actors who rendered their support to General Musharraf`s legal framework order (LFO) and his holding the position of the Chief of the Army Staff and those who are against the manner in which the military is not ready to relinquish power and accept a subordinate role in the realm of governance.

The bane of confrontation in Pakistan`s politics is not a new phenomenon. Since the 1950s, the history of Pakistan`s politics is replete with examples of squabble between the political parties and also between the army and the political forces. As a result of such a confrontation, the overwhelming majority of the people of Pakistan are unable to play a significant role in the strengthening of the political process, economic development and cultural harmony. The present polarisation between the government and the opposition is merely a continuation of a process of monopolising power by all means while denying the opposition its legitimate role. Some of the characteristics of ongoing government-opposition confrontation are not new. These include taking contradictory positions on issues of vital nature, ridiculing each other in order to satisfy their ego-centric approach, highlighting non-issues, taking advantage of political ignorance of people, using religion and ethnicity for the accomplishment of their vested interests, exaggerating external threat perception, threatening to wrap up the system by force and using media for pursuing negative political agendas. What President Musharraf has been saying in the last couple of months about LFO and not stepping down as Chief of the Army Staff is nothing new. Every military ruler in Pakistan has tried to keep his hold over power by all means and has been able to get the support from a bunch of opportunists and psychopaths for the perpetuation of his rule. It happened in case of Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Zia-ul-Haq and the same game is being played today with few modifications. The question is what has been the implications and price of the confrontation and political polarisation which is going on in Pakistan today between the establishment`s backed political parties on the one hand and those who are out of power on the other. Why the bane of confrontation has not been properly analysed and why right lessons not been learned from past experiences of political polarisation?

Three important aspects of the bane of confrontation between the government and the opposition which can threaten the country`s survival are one way or the other related to the failure of army and the political parties to redefine each other`s role. First, army as an institution in Pakistan has not accepted the fact that it should be subservient to the civilian rule. Since the death of the country`s first Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan till today, army has always tried to prove that it is more responsible and better than the political parties because the latter are corrupt and inefficient. But, in the process of criticising political parties, the army has overlooked the basic fact that because of its interference in politics and its consistent effort to rule either through a proxy or directly, political process in the country has not taken roots. Hence, only politicians cannot be held responsible for various debacles because they were not allowed by the army to rule effectively. Even the governments of Z. A. Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, who were considered to be strong civilian regimes, became a victim of army`s intervention and were subsequently overthrown. Moreover, the nexus between the army and the opportunist class of politicians is also a cause of instability in the country because when the army needs to secure its hold over power it creates a ``King`s party``. Second, instead of highlighting and resolving issues which are of a critical nature like illiteracy, poverty, lack of basic facilities like water, electricity, health and education, exploitation of women and minorities, religious and ethnic extremism, one can see the politics of non-issues being promoted. In the present government-opposition confrontation also, little effort is made to address issues which are of a critical nature and require their immediate resolution. Consequently, an ordinary person whose life has been made miserable because of adverse socio-economic conditions has lost his or her interest in politics. Most important, there also exists a serious credibility crisis not only for the army but also for the politicians because of their failure to address issues which concern the survival of the majority people of their country. Despite the claims made first by the Musharraf regime and now by his successor government that some betterment has taken place for the people of Pakistan, the ground realities are different.

For instance, the country Director of World Bank in his address before the seminar organised by the National Reconstruction Bureau pointed out the fact that corruption has permeated to an alarming rate in judiciary, police, health, education, land administration and other important departments. According to him, 19% people of Pakistan earn only one dollar and 65% earn only two dollars a day which is lower than its neighbouring countries. Had the army and the politicians taken cognisance of the situation and been serious in addressing the real issues, the quality of life of the people of Pakistan would have improved substantially and the country would have been secure economically, politically and strategically. But, unfortunately, despite the claims made by the government that the foreign exchange reserves have gone up to around 11 billion dollars the rate of poverty has increased to a higher proportion.

Finally, in the process of government-opposition confrontation, there is no force which can play a mediatory role between the two. The lack of confidence and trust between the two tend to expose the fault lines of Pakistani politics particularly because of the absence of a political figure who can act as a buffer as far as the ongoing confrontation between the army`s backed politicians and the opposition parties is concerned. In the past also, one can see a situation when the country was in the brink of a civil war but there was no personality or a group capable enough of mediating between political antagonists. The agitation led by the political parties against Ayub Khan in 1968 resulted into the imposition of martial law. The history repeated itself in 1977, when the opposition parties on account of their allegation of rigging, launched agitation against the government of Z. A. Bhutto which resulted into the imposition of martial law. Zia`s eleven years of military dictatorship further widened polarisation between the army and the political forces. The two tenures each of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif from 1988 to 1999 also witnessed the lack of tolerance and accommodation resulting into the seizing of power by the army on October 12, 1999.

In the present situation also, there is no individual or a political force who can play a role in bridging the gap between those who are in power and those who are out. Some of the issues which form the core of confrontation between the two can be resolved provided there is political will, determination and interest from both sides and there is someone who can play a mediatory role. The way out from the bane of political confrontation is the exercise of political maturity and tolerance on the part of warring political groups and parties, limitation of army`s role to its professional duties and the role of civil society to che