The Indo-Pak Symbiosis: Brothers or Neighbors?

this is a nice thought, but if we try to reverse the 1947 partition, it will result in more tumult, upheaval and anarchy than what took place in 1947.

the trouble with south asia is that there are several identities within one identity, struggling with each other. its just like several alike cats in bag fighting and scrambling at each other within the bag.

but ironically, a further sub divison of the subcontinent or any of the countries in it will not help- it will leave it vulnerable and identity less.

pakistan zindabad.

Urstruly
Pakistani Army thought those Yemenis, Afghans, Uzbeks and Chechens were atoot ang.

#Dedicated to my friend Urstruly

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_18-3-2004_pg3_5

Why are only Muslims incensed when the French have banned all religious symbols from schools, including the Jewish skull cap, including large versions of the Christian cross? If Jews have no problem, if the Christians have no problem, why do Muslims have a problem?

What the devil did the Spanish do to deserve the train bombs that killed many hundreds of innocent people in Madrid the other day, babies, children and old folk among them? We do remember do we not, that the Spanish were vociferously against the invasion of Iraq? We do remember do we not, that despite the support their government led by former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar gave to George Dubya, the people of Spain came out in millions to protest that dishonestly conceived war. Why then were they attacked in such a cold-blooded and vicious manner? What did the terrorists gain by making this wholly unprovoked attack, other than to turn the world even more against Muslims?

Isn’t this yet another example of the loonies doing the absolutely wrong thing? Of making the Muslims more enemies, as if their actions had not made us enough already? What in the world is wrong with this lot, for heaven’s sake; that they should behave in the most bizarre fashion all of the time? In this particular case, not only were the Spanish people against the Iraq war, the mass of them have been most welcoming to the poor from Muslim countries. Why then did the terrorists act in this inexplicably stupid, and incredibly cruel, manner?

Indeed, the attacks on the Spanish are not isolated attacks but seem part of a new campaign to attack European countries in general and France in particular. France? Well, why France too, when that country loudly opposed the US-led attack on Iraq, particularly that country’s arrogant unilateralism? We are told that there is now a written threat to the French by an hitherto unknown terrorist group that it will soon attack targets within France because of the banning of the Muslim headscarf in schools, and because the French are ‘swine-eaters and alcohol drinkers’!

Well, while I have a definite opinion on the banning of the scarf, first the proposition that the French are swine eaters and alcohol drinkers, and that therefore they should be blown up. Well, so what if the French eat pork and drink alcohol; what skin off the noses of the holy ones? How can they, cold-hearted terrorists and murderers, arrogate to themselves the right to speak down to someone else, indeed to determine what they should eat and drink?

As for the French banning Muslim girls from wearing the headscarf, it is their country, is it not? Should they not apply any law that pleases them, whether any foreigner likes it or not? Will those who agitate so at this act of the French be honest and answer this question: What if foreigners in this country asked that because it is not against their religion, pork should be served openly to them in restaurants and hotels and PIA flights?

In any case, why are only Muslims incensed when the French have banned all religious symbols from schools, including the Jewish skull cap, including large versions of the Christian cross? If Jews have no problem, if the Christians have no problem, why do Muslims have a problem? Must we always try and prove the point that we are a unique people, unlike all other people? Standing alone and completely apart from the rest of the world?

Why don’t those that threaten innocent French people and their children with death and destruction, those who like other of their compatriots and brothers-in-Islam in other European countries use (and misuse and abuse) the benefits provided by their ‘swine eating and alcohol drinking’ hosts, get out of these dens of sin? And migrate back to Algeria or Morocco, or Egypt, or Syria or wherever they came from in the first place? Even back to the Land of the Pure? In which case they will not have to be part of the secular and therefore rotten European culture they so detest, and live more fulfilling lives in the cradles of Islam that are the countries they sprang from, practising freely what they consider are the tenets of their religion?

Whilst the fault is mainly of those that bite the hand that feeds them, the Western states who opened their doors to all comers when they needed unskilled and semi-skilled workers to run their factories and buses and trains after the World War need to answer a question, too: Why didn’t they take cognisance of the antics of Muslim militant organisations within their own countries when they first began to poison the minds of young Muslims? Why did they not take action at the very time that these young and marginalised immigrants first began to show their teeth by actually invading British university campuses, for example? And spout the height of incendiary nonsense in the name of Islam?

Why didn’t these governments take a hard look at these militant organisations, let’s name one: the Hizb ut-Tahrir, formed in Palestine in 1953, now headquartered at 56, Gloucester Road, SW 7? Why didn’t these so-called ‘advanced’ countries pay any heed to the demarches and verbal requests of other countries, that the Hizb be stopped from advocating the overthrow (by any means) of the governments of countries as diverse as Turkey, Libya and Pakistan? Nobody listened then, for they were all sitting on their high horses: the only countries in the line of fire were other countries. Well, just deserts now, what!

It should be understood that the poison is spread far and wide now. Indeed, Britain is one of the countries most exposed. Let me here add my voice to that of my friend Irfan Husain, who whilewriting on these pages on the Guantanamo Five just a few days ago asked why these young men were in Afghanistan at all? This is not gainsaying the fact that they were probably most horrendously treated by the Americans; but what the devil were they doing in Afghanistan in the first place? Irfan is also right when he says that wanton acts such as the one in Madrid can only serve to put at great risk innocent Muslim immigrants in Europe, most of whom abhor terrorism like any other half-way decent human being.

Let me end by saying that during both the One-day matches there was this great big lump in my throat, and a tear in the old eye, when I saw the camaraderie and the bonhomie between the cricket fans, supporters of both the teams, Indians and Pakistanis. The slogan painted on many banners “We Want Peace” should send the message to our leaders loud and clear.

Oh, and kudos to General Musharraf for appearing at the Rawalpindi match looking so sure of himself, so cheerful. This is the only way to stare down his enemies.

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

from the CHOWK Archives...



Listen South Asia


Listen to the leaves in the wind

The gentle cry of the myna bird

And smell the mustard

On the breath of spring


I ask not for your silence now

As you plan the atomic future so well

While I cradle the past

With the firmness of the desperate


Your work never rests

Mine is all but forgotten but

Who knows why we cannot

Together weave common rope?


Listen to the children cry

Can you hear them?

Muslim or Hindu, all children

We often claim to be deaf yet

Hear their hunger

As our children cry


by

Ras H. Siddiqui

An email from an Indian professional after his vist to Pakistan for the first one day match in Karachi. Floating around in certain e-groups.
Subject: Pakistan

Folks,

This mail has nothing to do with work. just wanted to share certain very overwhelming experiences. Had been to karachi for the 1st one dayer on saturday.

1. Imagine 39,990 Pakistanis & 50 of us Indians cheering lustily `for` each other, throwing chocolates at us!!. Quite a few were carrying the flags of both countries imaginatively stitched together. Then they all stood to give a standing ovation to the Indian cricket team!

2. Guy on the street selling `bhuttas` refused to accept money saying that we were `mehmaan` in their country !!

3. people rushing to shake our hands on the streets & asking us to come to their home for dinner

4. Restaurant owners refusing to accept the bill payment after coming to know that we were from India

5. Everybody we met & we met quite a few, had some relative staying in India.

6. Star plus is the most favourite channel in Karachi

7. There was a TV star called Heena ?? who was sitting in the stadium, one pakistani put up a impromptu banner saying ``heena, will u marry me ?``!!

8. Shops gave us 40 to 50% discount...........India again

9. Taxis, autos, army guys......the list is endless.......everywhere loads of courtesy, respect.....more than we would get in our own country
!!!!!

It is really sad that we have an impression of that country that is so negative. I shudder to think of the plight of pakistanis who would come to india when the Indo-pak matches will happen here.

Sad, that we consider ourselves `secular` & yet will spare no thought before making negative statements on that country. It`s sad but true , this experience teaches one that......``Perception is not reality``.

Thank u for sparing your time.

Have a lovely day.

Warm Regards

satyamvada #47 I see you have avoided taking up my challenge to cut and paste the post where I wrote that ``it is ok to kill non-innocents``. If you put attribute something to me, you better be prepared to back it up. Or else stand exposed as a liar.

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

mohar11 #20
``The point is the ideas behind nations``

There is another essential difference between India and Pakistan. The state in Pakistan at some point of time seems to have declared itself as an ideological state.

BJP and the Sangh Parivar have attempted to follow suit by casting India, too as an ideological state(ideology of the Sangh of course). They have attempted to make it the norm to tag all Indians` points of view with their respective ideological distance from Sangh`s ideology, which Sangh claims is synonymous with the state, Indianness, patriotism etc. ALL THE MORE REASON BJP/SANGH NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT DOWN MANY PEGS.

Anyway, this problem has been around for longer in Pakistan. Underlying every contentious discussion is a tussle about who understands/represents the ideology of the state better.

Who has seen this thing called ideology of the state anyway? Do Bush or John Kerry ever say they represent `Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness` better than their opponent? No. Because it is understood that every American and his views are equally representative of the state, and this essential equality is not questioned(except in the McCarthy days, for example).

Claiming one has a closer adherence to purported `real ideology/intent` of the state makes for meaningless wrangling over pecking order.

So my suggestion to neighbouring country is to outlaw raising the ideology of state in discussions. There is apparently enough of it in the Constitution and the textbooks.

If some people advocate a particular role for religion in public affairs, let them do so under the understanding others have equal right to disagree. If people want to project certain other values in legislation or certain political positions in internal/external affairs, let them do so without their opponents measuring their purported distance from the mythical ideology of state.

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

Tahmed,
There is no need to start calling names. calm down.

No, you did not say that it is ``ok to kill innocents``

But, just like Musharraf you say ``it is ok to kill non-innocents``.
Now that is a distinction right ?

I would like to request you to consider the following questions ?
- Are kafirs - innocent or non-innocent ?
- Is it ok to kill Kafirs ? - because clearly ``the book`` says that kafirs must
be eliminated.
- Is Musharraf right in implying that it is ok to kill non-innocents ?
- who decides who is innocent and non-innocent ?
- is using the statements in ``the book`` for creating laws good or bad ?

The answers to these questions, which the majority of Pakistanis give,
- will dictate to a great extent the future of Pakistan.

A mature commentary in sharp contrast to the silly, sentimentality of this Mr. Bhaiyya.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_621691,00120001.htm

Our external relations look relatively calm. Our elections will be determined by other matters; and with the only power that can affect the world where it chooses also immersed in domestic preoccupations (Iraq excepted), what in international affairs needs any particular thought? Apart from watching out for the surprises the world has a habit of springing, we in India need to think more seriously than is our wont about the issues our next government must soon face. Pakistan and the US are not the be-all and end-all of our foreign policy. But they bring these issues into focus.

India today stands better placed globally than even the most carping critics can deny. That this should happen, to the surprise of many and the chagrin of some, under a party long considered narrowly inward-looking and, for all its great-power rhetoric, limited in its horizons, is essentially due to governments, even in democracies as loud-mouthed as ours, having far more latitude in foreign affairs than they themselves recognise. It has thus been possible for a handful in office — literally countable on the fingers of an incomplete hand — to take the appropriate decisions.

Since the glamour of summits wholly overshadows the sherpa-work that usually makes for their success or failure, the Islamabad meeting has obscured our national security advisor’s immediately-followed talks in Beijing — although this government’s attempts to get out of old ruts may in the long run be even more important vis-à-vis China than in almost any other external context. The two challenges that could have created excruciating difficulties — the American-led reaction to our nuclearisation and the Pakistan-led terrorism against our very nationhood — if not exactly things of the past, have been contained, the former even allowing for the continued search for more meaningful cooperation and the latter now seemingly set to do likewise.

Not that some things couldn’t have gone better — as always. Whether our full deployment against Pakistan last year (difficult to avoid given domestic pressures) served our interests as well as other responses might have will always remain debatable. Our on-off decision-making ways have unconscionably complicated the imperative dialogue with Kashmiris. And it evidently needed the PM’s recognition of public feelings to overcome some surprisingly strong urge to send troops to Iraq — but only after Washington had been allowed to expect we were going to. Such individual errors of omission or commission apart, our international situation looks at least fair enough to be spared electoral one-upmanship. Vain thought! Still, we must look further into the challenges ahead, the two described above as having been contained requiring particular examination.

Since the Indian public is persuaded that resuming India-Pakistan cricket ties is next-best to settling Kashmir, the games are on. Never mind that the world over, sports provoke the most virulent outbursts of chauvinism (consider Europe during football fever) — and that India-Pakistan hockey and cricket battles provide those rare occasions when all of India feels truly nationalist. The slogan of the day is that people-to-people contacts promote peace. Sports are a lively and popular form of contact, therefore they must do good.

It is such superficial attitudes that land us in trouble. No doubt real interaction between peoples — such as getting together constructively over common concerns including disputes — can mitigate the negativism often colouring official approaches, and dispel the ogre-images built up through decades of propaganda and lack of contact. But we will never get any significant easing of tensions, much less solutions of issues, by mindless reliance on fashionable platitudes — either friendly or hostile. What we need to fathom is what has happened to turn yesterday’s intransigent confrontation into the current hopefulness.

Guarding against our twin weaknesses — wishful thinking and modish cynicism — the objective reality is surely that both sides have found it convenient to take a breather to deal with other priorities. Alternative explanations lack both factual evidence and theoretical credibility. Of course, America urged talks. But it has put no real pressure. And to suppose that Islamabad has overnight decided that its age-old policy of confrontation was doing Pakistan more harm than good would be premature at the least.

The rise of terrorism within Pakistan has doubtless shocked its establishment into realising the need for drastic, if as yet unclear, domestic action. Indirectly the pressures Islamabad faces from Washington, both on the nuclear revelations and for doing more against al-Qaeda, add to the usefulness of détente with India — along with improving Pakistan’s international standing for re-entering the Commonwealth or joining the ARF. On our side, perhaps a deft handling of external relations adds to a leader’s general stature, even when such marginal benefits are hardly needed, as in the present case. More plausibly, seeking détente with Pakistan is intended to make the BJP family look less dubious about our own Muslims.

Unquestionably, the commitment to leave India-Pakistan relations moving towards full amity, long a major purpose of our prime minister, has also stimulated the current peace-search — though he is too much of a realist not to see the obstacles that remain so entren-ched. All in all, both sides really are taking time off.

Which implies, of course, not only that bad times can come again, but also that both sides still have to figure out how to tackle the basic issues. An impression is being fostered by outsiders that India’s agreement to discuss Kashmir derives from a decision to make concessions that could lead to a settlement. Anything that helps reduce tension is in principle welcome, provided false expectations are not engendered, to haunt us later.

Fundamentally, the maximum concessions India can make fall well short of the minimum Pakistan seeks. That could undoubtedly change one day — through various causes. But the only basis for enduring satisfactory change can be radical alterations of the maximum-minimum equation. When existing circumstances do not permit a solution, one must work to change the circumstances rather than devise ingenious formulae which we fool ourselves into considering as pathways to solutions.

Franco-German rapprochement, often cited to us for emulation, does carry unconsidered lessons. It worked because both sides felt a common threat, were helped by a common ally and, above all, had leaders determined to build upon the sentiment that they had had enough of conflict and must be friends. India-Pakistan relations lack all three compulsions. The more instructive, if indelicate, example is that of the US and the Soviet Union. Their former hostility — which incidentally always included a search for specific understandings sadly missing between India and Pakistan — might not quite have been succeeded by milk and honey. But there is widening cooperation, all because one side simply could not keep up with the other and decided the game was not worth the candle.

Pakistan would consider this very thought another example of India’s hegemonism. But it is a growing reality that India’s technical and economic potential is changing power balances. That potential faces two real threats: terrorism from Pakistan and small-mindedness among ourselves. The latter is beyond my scope, the former involves wider issues to be addressed in tomorrow’s article.

satyamvada #43 Like that other illustrious hindutva pal of yours - jay - I find you misquoting me. In other words, you are a liar.

So to you too I toss the challenge to prove you are not a liar by cutting and pasting anyplace where I said it is OK to kill innocent people.

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

Musharaff repeats what tahmed says - ``Islam prohibits killing of non-innocents``

http://www.dawn.com/2004/03/17/top3.htm

But of course, kafirs (like hindoos) can be killed as they are non-innocent.
The reason honor-killing is legal because the victim was really a non-innocent.

What Mushy does not state is that , the decision as to who is innocent or is not-innocent
is by what is stated in ``the book``.

This, my friends, is the difference between India and Pakistan.
Eating similiar types of naan and playing cricket does not mean anything.