Bhaiya, Malhar Sunao

Oh my Lord. What happened here?

Stuka. You can cuss me out as much as you can. All that tells me is that hindus in India, are as fuc..ked up as you are. And really without any doubt, I think they should be totally removed from the face of this earth. One more reason for Pakistan to Nuke you guys. If I become the president of Pakistan, without even asking a question send you whole family and girls over so I can use them. Else your a.s is nuked, and you will only have charred burned remains of Muslims to whack off on.

Now balluKhan. I think you are an insecure failure. Neither are you a good musician ( I think you are a third rate musician), nor an intelligent one. rais khan, can sing Ghazals, and Thumris, and songs and play sitar because he can. And he does whatever he does good. Now you on the other hand, are a sorry-a.s individual. Nobod knows what you do. Play, sing, whack off? What? >???????? Well, an advice, become a shagird of rais Khan, as he wil gladly accept you and learn. rather than talking about things you don`t know, learn. And then write what you want to say. Onthe other hand, I perfectly well know how to play sitar, and sing. So I don`t need your stupid advice, on how to play. On the other hand I might be able to teach you a couple of things if you want. No just stop with you whining. Rais Khan is beyond your reach, so admit it.
In Pakistan, yes he doesn`t play a lot of concerts, but every year he comes to USA and plays. Millinos of people, even spies of Ravi Shankar and other stupid people, come and listen to him. His techniques and baaj is beayond everybody. So no need to discuss that. Produce one recording of sitar like him and then come out and say what you say.
Now ana, please DO NOT under any circumstances think I apologised to you. I just said that I lowered myself to your filthy level, and I apologised to people for my usage. I still think the same thing for you.
Why don`t you and stuka get together and raise an army/family of patriotic Indian MusHinds? Something you can definetly work on.

Hamid_81,

Another pearl from you...

``You do know beef is very important if you want to keep playing those taans.``

Darn, someone should`ve mentioned this to Allauddin Khan.

malik99. . .

i think you need to read my interacts a little more carefully. . .or not read things that are not there before you begin preaching. advocating for sensitivity does not equal denial. and people including myself are talking about how to ensure another gujarat does not happen again. . we have been talking about this since it happened. these talks on communal harmony are happening here, and what pakistanis like you AND me need to realize is that this is happening in india as well.

and please, let us also address the issues in our own country. let us create conditions where both hindus and christians feel that they don`t have to leave a country they have considered to be a home for generations and generations. let us sincerely talk and pray and ensure that another gujarat never happens again, but let us stop the state apparatuses, the individual people who persecute hindus, and destroy a christian village, and kill christians in jail and `khhule aam maiN`. let us address the communal and religious violence muslims are perpetrating upon each other in our country. let us let those christians who lost their homes, and our hindu brothers and sisters in OUR country, malik, in OUR country, know that it isn`t only our muslim brothers and sisters whose images are etched in our minds. .that it isn`t only our muslim brothers and sisters our hearts bleed for.

let us do that, before you tell me what i as a christian pakistani am in denial about. thank you.

Malik99 #93,

The compassion some Pakistanis feel for Indian Muslims is touching, I say. The
sanctimony that accompanies it is also of prime quality.

``I, to this very day, have the image etched in my mind of an Indian Muslim whose
picture I saw in a US newspaper. He had his hands clasped in front of him, he was
crying, and begging the hindu mob to spare his life. His hair were dirtied with mud, a
s if he had been dragged for miles. According to the picture`s caption, he was burned
alive a few minutes after the picture was taken.``

Let me cut and paste something I had written earlier on this board about this very
picture which brought our sensitive author to tears as well.

``By the way, the picture you keep pointing out (for deeply humane reasons, I am
certain) is that of Qutbuddin Ansari. He is alive and relatively well, and has relocated
to Calcutta (which I really wish he didn`t have to). You may want to look up these
url`s. His case was actually followed widely across the Indian press.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/525354.cms
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20021212/nation.htm``

Now let me ask you - did the US newspaper really say that he was burnt alive ?
Is it possible to get a reference for it - I`d like to have it corrected.

#67 by plats8

There may be many facts about Gujarat that I am not aware of. I may be right or I may be wrong depends on what I opted to believe and same is the case for you. It was a human tragedy and people who blame Godhra for Gujarat are as hateful as people who justify Godhra for any reason.
The point in my post was that writing about Gujarat should not be a cause of yanking an article as your post that I referred to appeared to suggest.

Literary merits or demerits are part of the writings. If you believe that it was not worth your time you should have ignored it instead of asking for its removal.

#71 by dost-mittar

Dost mittar Sahib,

You held back but I would point out to you that lies and Gujarat have a difference. Ignorance is bliss but just to clear up for you, many of my Hindu friends in Pakistan have married Indian girls and brought them to Pakistan. That tradition still continues. Similarly many Pakistani marry in India. Borders don’t take relations and families away. People will continue to move back and forth for many social reasons.

Indian Muslims are an oppressed religious minority in India. Everybody has a right to speak out on their behalf. If the Hindu majority in India considers that a cause for more oppression than it is the meanness of the religious majority. It is a humanitarian problem and every conscious person in the world has a right a say what they feel right about it.
I have no problem when you discuss problems in Pakistan and I would always welcome a discussion with you as I don’t think you have any malice or mean bones in your body.

#70 by ana

Your response was predictable. Sometimes people lose perspective and get down on themselves so much that they start believing Farzana’s advise as if she has a PhD in psychology. I hope, someday she will sort of her own problems that show clearly in her articles. Anyway, I am not going to waste my sweat on her.

Let’s talk about “that woman” too. I knew you would bring that up. That woman in her own screwed up little world, considered all Pakistanis in particular and Muslims in general, enemies, hateful and hated them with all her might. Her posts, littered on this site would bear testimony to that and this site still reeks of her foul body odor. An enemy is an enemy and since she never shot worrying about her sex and posted her hateful messages about enemies (Pakistanis) gleefully, why would anybody expect me to hold my fire because she was a woman?
She was a persona of hate and she got what she deserved. I promise you if the situation is presented again, I would do the same thing and I know many agree with me on that.

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

Urstuly:

Oye instead of arming them why don`t you come and fight for them? Why shoot from the shoulders of others? Mard key bacchey hau tau come and fight.

But when does your hijra Fauj fight in open battle? Last time they fought openly they had their butts kicked and Jarnails were surrendering openly. Only place where Pakistani Fauj has shown mardangi is in fighting against Bangladeshi and Baluchi civilians. Now your Fauj is using Helicopters and Rockets against fellow Pakistanis in Wana. HAHAHA!!

IN 20 YEARS ON INSURGENCY, INDIA NEVER USED THE IAF INSIDE KASHMIR.

Oye Hamid 81:

Any idiot can jerk off on fantasies. I dunno when u will become President of Pakistan. Till then hopefully you will get a to share the sun and sand with your cousins at GITMO. Yes, all Hindus are like me. BWAHAHAHA...Good thing your cowardly family ran away. Now hopefully they will be shot by Pakistan Rangers as suspected MQM Sympathizers. BWAHAHA!!!

mallick

``Lets talk about how we can ensure that Gujarat is never repeated, that the women do not have to hide in their houses which are later torched, that the mosques are not destroyed, that the grown men don`t have to cry and beg for their lives. ``

i dont have a simple and short answer for how to improve the muslim (and many other dispossed groupings) and others economic power etc (stuka thiks offer reservations .. maybe). But we must avoid Godhra at all costs so that Gujrath does not happen.

ana #100 - you wrote ``and please, let us also address the issues in our own country.``

ana, ALL of your points are valid points. And they do need to be talked about. But that is for another board. We cannot possibly talk about all the injustices in the world on this very board. I ask you to write an article about the injustices in Pakistan, and we will discuss it then.

At this moment, lets keep the focus on the treatment of Muslims in India. That is the theme of the article by Hamid_81 - lets try to stay on topic here.

Pls do read this too. It will broaden your perspective.

Genocide in Bangladesh, 1971
Summary

The mass killings in Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) in 1971 vie with the annihilation of the Soviet POWs, the holocaust against the Jews, and the genocide in Rwanda as the most concentrated act of genocide in the twentieth century. In an attempt to crush forces seeking independence for East Pakistan, the West Pakistani military regime unleashed a systematic campaign of mass murder which aimed at killing millions of Bengalis, and likely succeeded in doing so.

The background

East and West Pakistan were forged in the cauldron of independence for the Indian sub-continent, ruled for two hundred years by the British. Despite the attempts of Mahatma Gandhi and others to prevent division along religious and ethnic lines, the departing British and various Indian politicians pressed for the creation of two states, one Hindu-dominated (India), the other Muslim-dominated (Pakistan). The partition of India in 1947 was one of the great tragedies of the century. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed in sectarian violence and military clashes, as Hindus fled to India and Muslims to Pakistan -- though large minorities remained in each country.

The arrangement proved highly unstable, leading to three major wars between India and Pakistan, and very nearly a fourth fullscale conflict in 1998-99. (Kashmir, divided by a ceasefire line after the first war in 1947, became one of the world`s most intractable trouble-spots.) Not the least of the difficulties was the fact that the new state of Pakistan consisted of two ``wings,`` divided by hundreds of miles of Indian territory and a gulf of ethnic identification. Over the decades, particularly after Pakistani democracy was stifled by a military dictatorship (1958), the relationship between East and West became progressively more corrupt and neo-colonial in character, and opposition to West Pakistani domination grew among the Bengali population.

Sheikh Mujibur Rahman
Catastrophic floods struck Bangladesh in August 1970, and the regime was widely seen as having botched (or ignored) its relief duties. The disaster gave further impetus to the Awami League, led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. The League demanded regional autonomy for East Pakistan, and an end to military rule. In national elections held in December, the League won an overwhelming victory across Bengali territory.

On February 22, 1971 the generals in West Pakistan took a decision to crush the Awami League and its supporters. It was recognized from the first that a campaign of genocide would be necessary to eradicate the threat: ``Kill three million of them,`` said President Yahya Khan at the February conference, ``and the rest will eat out of our hands.`` (Robert Payne, Massacre [1972], p. 50.) On March 25 the genocide was launched. The university in Dacca was attacked and students exterminated in their hundreds. Death squads roamed the streets of Dacca, killing some 7,000 people in a single night. It was only the beginning. ``Within a week, half the population of Dacca had fled, and at least 30,000 people had been killed. Chittagong, too, had lost half its population. All over East Pakistan people were taking flight, and it was estimated that in April some thirty million people [!] were wandering helplessly across East Pakistan to escape the grasp of the military.`` (Payne, Massacre, p. 48.) Ten million refugees fled to India, overwhelming that country`s resources and spurring the eventual Indian military intervention. (The population of Bangladesh/East Pakistan at the outbreak of the genocide was about 75 million.)

On April 10, the surviving leadership of the Awami League declared Bangladesh independent. The Mukhta Bahini (liberation forces) were mobilized to confront the West Pakistani army. They did so with increasing skill and effectiveness, utilizing their knowledge of the terrain and ability to blend with the civilian population in classic guerrilla fashion. By the end of the war, the tide had turned, and vast areas of Bangladesh had been liberated by the popular resistance.

The gendercide against Bengali men

The war against the Bengali population proceeded in classic gendercidal fashion. According to Anthony Mascarenhas, ``There is no doubt whatsoever about the targets of the genocide``:

They were: (1) The Bengali militarymen of the East Bengal Regiment, the East Pakistan Rifles, police and para-military Ansars and Mujahids. (2) The Hindus -- ``We are only killing the men; the women and children go free. We are soldiers not cowards to kill them ...`` I was to hear in Comilla [site of a major military base] [Comments R.J. Rummel: ``One would think that murdering an unarmed man was a heroic act`` (Death By Government, p. 323)] (3) The Awami Leaguers -- all office bearers and volunteers down to the lowest link in the chain of command. (4) The students -- college and university boys and some of the more militant girls. (5) Bengali intellectuals such as professors and teachers whenever damned by the army as ``militant.`` (Anthony Mascarenhas, The Rape of Bangla Desh [Delhi: Vikas Publications, 1972(?)], pp. 116-17.)
Mascarenhas`s summary makes clear the linkages between gender and social class (the ``intellectuals,`` ``professors,`` ``teachers,`` ``office bearers,`` and -- obviously -- ``militarymen`` can all be expected to be overwhelmingly if not exclusively male, although in many cases their families died or fell victim to other atrocities alongside them). In this respect, the Bangladesh events can be classed as a combined gendercide and elitocide, with both strategies overwhelmingly targeting males for the most annihilatory excesses.

Bengali man and boys massacred
by the West Pakistani regime.
Younger men and adolescent boys, of whatever social class, were equally targets. According to Rounaq Jahan, ``All through the liberation war, able-bodied young men were suspected of being actual or potential freedom fighters. Thousands were arrested, tortured, and killed. Eventually cities and towns became bereft of young males who either took refuge in India or joined the liberation war.`` Especially ``during the first phase`` of the genocide, he writes, ``young able-bodied males were the victims of indiscriminate killings.`` (``Genocide in Bangladesh,`` in Totten et al., Century of Genocide, p. 298.) R.J. Rummel likewise writes that ``the Pakistan army [sought] out those especially likely to join the resistance -- young boys. Sweeps were conducted of young men who were never seen again. Bodies of youths would be found in fields, floating down rivers, or near army camps. As can be imagined, this terrorized all young men and their families within reach of the army. Most between the ages of fifteen and twenty-five began to flee from one village to another and toward India. Many of those reluctant to leave their homes were forced to flee by mothers and sisters concerned for their safety.`` (Death By Government, p. 329.) Rummel describes (p. 323) a chilling gendercidal ritual, reminiscent of Nazi procedure towards Jewish males: ``In what became province-wide acts of genocide, Hindus were sought out and killed on the spot. As a matter of course, soldiers would check males for the obligated circumcision among Moslems. If circumcised, they might live; if not, sure death.``

Robert Payne describes scenes of systematic mass slaughter around Dacca that, while not explicitly ``gendered`` in his account, bear every hallmark of classic gender-selective roundups and gendercidal slaughters of non-combatant men:

In the dead region surrounding Dacca, the military authorities conducted experiments in mass extermination in places unlikely to be seen by journalists. At Hariharpara, a once thriving village on the banks of the Buriganga River near Dacca, they found the three elements necessary for killing people in large numbers: a prison in which to hold the victims, a place for executing the prisoners, and a method for disposing of the bodies. The prison was a large riverside warehouse, or godown, belonging to the Pakistan National Oil Company, the place of execution was the river edge, or the shallows near the shore, and the bodies were disposed of by the simple means of permitting them to float downstream. The killing took place night after night. Usually the prisoners were roped together and made to wade out into the river. They were in batches of six or eight, and in the light of a powerful electric arc lamp, they were easy targets, black against the silvery water. The executioners stood on the pier, shooting down at the compact bunches of prisoners wading in the water. There were screams in the hot night air, and then silence. The prisoners fell on their sides and their bodies lapped against the shore. Then a new bunch of prisoners was brought out, and the process was repeated. In the morning the village boatmen hauled the bodies into midstream and the ropes binding the bodies were cut so that each body drifted separately downstream. (Payne, Massacre [Macmillan, 1973], p. 55.)
Strikingly similar and equally hellish scenes are described in the case-studies of genocide in Armenia and the Nanjing Massacre of 1937.

Atrocities against Bengali women

As was also the case in Armenia and Nanjing, Bengali women were targeted for gender-selective atrocities and abuses, notably gang sexual assault and rape/murder, from the earliest days of the Pakistani genocide. Indeed, despite (and in part because of) the overwhelming targeting of males for mass murder, it is for the systematic brutalization of women that the ``Rape of Bangladesh`` is best known to western observers.

In her ground-breaking book, Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape, Susan Brownmiller likened the 1971 events in Bangladesh to the Japanese rapes in Nanjing and German rapes in Russia during World War II. ``... 200,000, 300,000 or possibly 400,000 women (three sets of statistics have been variously quoted) were raped. Eighty percent of the raped women were Moslems, reflecting the population of Bangladesh, but Hindu and Christian women were not exempt. ... Hit-and-run rape of large numbers of Bengali women was brutally simple in terms of logistics as the Pakistani regulars swept through and occupied the tiny, populous land ...`` (p. 81).

Typical was the description offered by reporter Aubrey Menen of one such assault, which targeted a recently-married woman:

Two [Pakistani soldiers] went into the room that had been built for the bridal couple. The others stayed behind with the family, one of them covering them with his gun. They heard a barked order, and the bridegroom`s voice protesting. Then there was silence until the bride screamed. Then there was silence again, except for some muffled cries that soon subsided. In a few minutes one of the soldiers came out, his uniform in disarray. He grinned to his companions. Another soldier took his place in the extra room. And so on, until all the six had raped the belle of the village. Then all six left, hurriedly. The father found his daughter lying on the string cot unconscious and bleeding. Her husband was crouched on the floor, kneeling over his vomit. (Quoted in Brownmiller, Against Our Will, p. 82.)
``Rape in Bangladesh had hardly been restricted to beauty,`` Brownmiller writes. ``Girls of eight and grandmothers of seventy-five had been sexually assaulted ... Pakistani soldiers had not only violated Bengali women on the spot; they abducted tens of hundreds and held them by force in their military barracks for nightly use.`` Some women may have been raped as many as eighty times in a night (Brownmiller, p. 83). How many died from this atrocious treatment, and how many more women were murdered as part of the generalized campaign of destruction and slaughter, can only be guessed at (see below).

Despite government efforts at amelioration, the torment and persecution of the survivors continued long after Bangladesh had won its independence:

Rape, abduction and forcible prostitution during the nine-month war proved to be only the first round of humiliation for the Bengali women. Prime Minister Mujibur Rahman`s declaration that victims of rape were national heroines was the opening shot of an ill-starred campaign to reintegrate them into society -- by smoothing the way for a return to their husbands or by finding bridegrooms for the unmarried [or widowed] ones from among his Mukti Bahini freedom fighters. Imaginative in concept for a country in which female chastity and purdah isolation are cardinal principles, the ``marry them off`` campaign never got off the ground. Few prospective bridegrooms stepped forward, and those who did made it plain that they expected the government, as father figure, to present them with handsome dowries. (Brownmiller, Against Our Will, p. 84.)
How many died?

The number of dead in Bangladesh in 1971 was almost certainly well into seven figures. It was one of the worst genocides of the World War II era, outstripping Rwanda (800,000 killed) and probably surpassing even Indonesia (1 million to 1.5 million killed in 1965-66). As R.J. Rummel writes,

The human death toll over only 267 days was incredible. Just to give for five out of the eighteen districts some incomplete statistics published in Bangladesh newspapers or by an Inquiry Committee, the Pakistani army killed 100,000 Bengalis in Dacca, 150,000 in Khulna, 75,000 in Jessore, 95,000 in Comilla, and 100,000 in Chittagong. For eighteen districts the total is 1,247,000 killed. This was an incomplete toll, and to this day no one really knows the final toll. Some estimates of the democide [Rummel`s ``death by government``] are much lower -- one is of 300,000 dead -- but most range from 1 million to 3 million. ... The Pakistani army and allied paramilitary groups killed about one out of every sixty-one people in Pakistan overall; one out of every twenty-five Bengalis, Hindus, and others in East Pakistan. If the rate of killing for all of Pakistan is annualized over the years the Yahya martial law regime was in power (March 1969 to December 1971), then this one regime was more lethal than that of the Soviet Union, China under the communists, or Japan under the military (even through World War II). (Rummel, Death By Government, p. 331.)
The proportion of men versus women murdered is impossible to ascertain, but a speculation might be attempted. If we take the highest estimates for both women raped and Bengalis killed (400,000 and 3 million, respectively); if we accept that half as many women were killed as were raped; and if we double that number for murdered children of both sexes (total: 600,000), we are still left with a death-toll that is 80 percent adult male (2.4 million out of 3 million). Any such disproportion, which is almost certainly on the low side, would qualify Bangladesh as one of the worst gendercides against men in the last half-millennium.

Who was responsible?

``For month after month in all the regions of East Pakistan the massacres went on,`` writes Robert Payne. ``They were not the small casual killings of young officers who wanted to demonstrate their efficiency, but organized massacres conducted by sophisticated staff officers, who knew exactly what they were doing. Muslim soldiers, sent out to kill Muslim peasants, went about their work mechanically and efficiently, until killing defenseless people became a habit like smoking cigarettes or drinking wine. ... Not since Hitler invaded Russia had there been so vast a massacre.`` (Payne, Massacre, p. 29.)

There is no doubt that the mass killing in Bangladesh was among the most carefully and centrally planned of modern genocides. A cabal of five Pakistani generals orchestrated the events: President Yahya Khan, General Tikka Khan, chief of staff General Pirzada, security chief General Umar Khan, and intelligence chief General Akbar Khan. The U.S. government, long supportive of military rule in Pakistan, supplied some $3.8 million in military equipment to the dictatorship after the onset of the genocide, ``and after a government spokesman told Congress that all shipments to Yahya Khan`s regime had ceased.`` (Payne, Massacre, p. 102.)

The genocide and gendercidal atrocities were also perpetrated by lower-ranking officers and ordinary soldiers. These ``willing executioners`` were fuelled by an abiding anti-Bengali racism, especially against the Hindu minority. ``Bengalis were often compared with monkeys and chickens. Said Pakistan General Niazi, `It was a low lying land of low lying people.` The Hindus among the Bengalis were as Jews to the Nazis: scum and vermin that [should] best be exterminated. As to the Moslem Bengalis, they were to live only on the sufferance of the soldiers: any infraction, any suspicion cast on them, any need for reprisal, could mean their death. And the soldiers were free to kill at will. The journalist Dan Coggin quoted one Punjabi captain as telling him, `We can kill anyone for anything. We are accountable to no one.` This is the arrogance of Power.`` (Rummel, Death By Government, p. 335.)

The aftermath

On December 3, India under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, seeking to return the millions of Bengali refugees and seize an opportunity to weaken its perennial military rival, finally launched a fullscale intervention to crush West Pakistani forces and secure Bangladeshi independence. The Pakistani army, demoralized by long months of guerrilla warfare, quickly collapsed. On December 16, after a final genocidal outburst, the Pakistani regime agreed to an unconditional surrender. Awami leader Sheikh Mujib was released from detention and returned to a hero`s welcome in Dacca on January 10, 1972, establishing Bangladesh`s first independent parliament.

In a brutal bloodletting following the expulsion of the Pakistani army, perhaps 150,000 people were murdered by the vengeful victors. (Rummel, Death By Government, p. 334.) The trend is far too common in such post-genocidal circumstances (see the case-studies of Rwanda, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, and the Soviet POWs). Such largescale reprisal killings also tend to have a gendercidal character, which may have been the case in Bangladesh: Jahan writes that during the reprisal stage, ``another group of Bengali men in the rural areas -- those who were coerced or bribed to collaborate with the Pakistanis -- fell victims to the attacks of Bengali freedom fighters.`` (``Genocide in Bangladesh,`` p. 298; emphasis added.)

None of the generals involved in the genocide has ever been brought to trial, and all remain at large in Pakistan and other countries. Several movements have arisen to try to bring them before an international tribunal (see Bangladesh links for further information).

Political and military upheaval did not end with Bangladeshi independence. Rummel notes that ``the massive bloodletting by all parties in Bangladesh affected its politics for the following decades. The country has experienced military coup after military coup, some of them bloody.`` (Death By Government, p. 334.)

Malyck:

I am busy taking Pangas with Hamid_81 on this board. Let me however digress on the issue you raised of the Hindu-Muslim issue being a valid issue. Yes, you are right, it is a vlaid issue. So why the knee jerk response from Indians?

1. You are Pakistani. Pakistan was based on TNT which subscribes to Hindus and Muslims not being able to live together in one country. That why you formed your own country. As per Hindu perception, since the basis of Pakistan is TNT and the theory that Hindus and Muslims cannot live together and Pakistan deliberately chose to be an Islamic Republic and indulged in ethnic cleansing of Hindus in East Pakistan in 1971. Hence, Hindu-Muslim relations inside India are an issue to be discussed by all Indians and well meaning foreigners. Pakistanis I am afraid are not considered well meaning in a Hindu-Muslim context because they have their own nationalist theory agenda to grind.

Feel free to comment on corruption inside India. There may still be defensiveness but not a knee jerk response. Some indiviuals have said that Indians talk about Pakistan all the time. Tthe issue of Jjehaids Mullahs etc. Yes, only because they affect us. If Mullahs wanted to bring Nizam e Mustafa to Pakistan and have nothing to do with India, damn right we would support him.

2. Now let us look at this individual Hamid. How can u ask me to think of him as well meaning? Read his ilogs and his comments on Hindus. Should I consider him well meaning? Would Jews have considered Hitler well meaning?

3. Why do Indian Muslims not look to Pakistan as a source of succour? What can Pakistan give to Indian Muslims? You can give them arms but can u give them refuge? Fact is better or worse, all of us are together for a common future. Barring a few Dawood Ibrahimn types, most Muslims and Hindus are in it togehter.