A Good Reason To Cheer

RG:
Very powerful. Mini-Arundhati Royesque. Please keep writing on similar social issues.
PRK

Kar de shesh,

I thought about your proposal for a long time.

I spent quite a while mulling over the deeply spiritual issue of hacking off the foreskin.

I weighed my options. On the one hand, eternal happiness, minus the foreskin. On the other, outright rejection at the gates of heaven.

It was a very tough decision.

But I think I’ll pass.

Regards,

Ajeya

Re: # 190,
Ajeya,
OK, because you insisted, I have forwarded your request to the fundo recruiters. Your physical is scheduled for next month. The headdress is a good idea. At least you will have plenty for bandages when you undergo a sunta (sic).

Re#189 by shesh kar de

”Seriously, I will add your name to the Hindutva list.”

NO! Really? Please don’t! You mean, I can’t make it to any of the million “good” fundamentalist lists in Pakiland?

“Thanks for popping up and being counted. “
Of course, that is the main purpose for my existence.

“Now, please go change your dhoti”
Should I change into something more sophisticated? Like a 10-yard cloth wrapped around my head?

Alrighty then....

Re: # 186
Ayeja,
bus sirf ayeja. Arey yaar kabhi kabhi Chalejaya karo. Seriously, I will add your name to the Hindutva list. Thanks for popping up and being counted. Now, please go change your dhoti - it does not match your Armani coat.

#187 by harish_hyd on March 29, 2005 0:28am PT

There`s a pattern there....When pakiland ditched the taliban, they said they`re doing it out of the goodness in their hearts....before Uncle Sam leaned on musharraf, A.Q. Khan was the ``father of the Islamic bomb``....now that they`ve had to debrief him(which is a nice term for virginia farm boys getting him down to his briefs), they`re saying he was just a clerk in the nuke prog....

#174 by Romair

[People are, correctly in my opnion, accusing him of self-promotion and being a traitor. The self-promotion is obvious. He is everywhere. And his name has become far bigge than the name of the whole team. And the traitorship is something he, himself, admitted to on TV.]

This argument would have been more convincing if Pakistan had acted before the US put a gun up its a$$. After all, no one in the world believes that Khan used PAF C-130s to transport centrifuges and other nuclear material without the PAF knowing the contents of the plane. The Paki Army knew it and was trading nuclear technology and material to make money because the Paki economy was in dire straits. Khan is merely the fall guy. It will be better if Pakis own up to the fact rather than propagate some half-a$$ed theories about Khan being a traitor and a self-promoter.

Re Kardesh #132

``Ajeya,
I set your dhoti on fire with the remark about Modi`s rectum. Sorry, pal, didn`t mean to offend you and your poster hero. I am just making a list of the more notorious BJP/RSS/VHP/BD/SP/JS right-wing foaming at the mout right-wing Hindutva types and you popped up. Sorry to have rattled your cage, no go back to your lathi routine.``

Actually you didn`t. The smoke you see is Mushu blowing smoke up your Sherwani. If it tickles, don`t get too excited. Mushu is never going to deliver on the real thing. So stop bending over for him.

re:#170 by tahmed32
Tahmed Sahib,
I have no idea how Pak could be a democracy. I wish i had. I have some thoughts on the subject though.
Democracy is something that people need to wish passionately. Once majority of Pakistanis wish it to happen passionately and believe in it, it will happen.
The big questions is: do the people want democracy? I have seen Pakistanis applaud the military regime many times in the past (one eg is during the coup when Nawaz Sharief was overthrown) and many seem to believe that only a central authority like the Army chief can do something good for Pak. Pakistanis in general seem to abhor their politicians and seem to think better of Army Commanders.
Is it then possible that Pak`s solution actually lies with Army rule? Why should we even believe democracy is the solution to Pakistan? If Musharraf is able to take your country on the path of progress, why should one even bother about democracy? These are the things Pakistanis must think and debate.
India as a democracy stagnated for decades under a socialistic system and has been developing fast only in the last decade or so. A communist China, OTOH, realized the importance of freemarket and has adapted a unique system of tight centalized control over the economy but liberalization of foreign investments about 10 years ahead of India and is on a much faster growth curve. Singapore has yet another model that has worked well for that country. What model would be good for Pak? This is what Pakistanis must debate.
There are some caveats to remember:
1. Whatever model is chosen, it should be chosen by free debate and should have majority agreeing to it.
2. The model must have a place for the Army in the power structure. In what form, that is for the people to decide. Pak Army will not give up power easily. If Army is left out, Pak would continue to see Coups unleashed by the Army.
3. Whatever model Pak adopts, it is vital that peace with India is ensured. This should be inherent in the model. For eg, if the model of governance gives trade with India lot of importance, then peace will follow. Peace will lead to prosperity for both countries.
These are some of my thoughts.
Sridhar

bongdongs: Hard to respond to your point given that it is so vaguely stated. I assume you are referring to the fact that qadeer was not the only one in pakistan involved in his wheelings dealings, then i agree with you.

As for the party line, the only party line i try to follow is the one i have set for myself: i.e. one that meets the tests of being factual, logical, and consistent with basic values of respect for human life, all faiths, and peace and prosperity in particular for the long-suffering poor people in south asia. if this sounds self-flattering, please remember that this is what i am prepared to have everything i write judged against. Being human, i dont claim to get an A plus against this benchmark everytime, but at least i try most of the time to keep these benchmarks in mind whether it is for myself or when considering something written by someone else. i dont expect to improve my real life situation by writing posts on chowk, nor do i think it matters one bit what the handful of people on chowk think.

anyway, i appreciate your well-written posts, and thank you for your friendly and civilized manner which i hope i have reciprocated.

#182
``And the mess he created in the process - trying to peddle his junk to every tom, dick and gaddafi who was able and willing to cough up the cash``

I (very humbly) suggest you look at the contents of the documentation that came out of Libya and then place them in the context of AQK role in the Pak nuclear program and then draw your conclusions.

I know the party line right now is to blame AQK, but the contents of the Liyan expose reveal the true story.

I shall desist from following up with any more posts on this, as we will then start treading down well-worn paths.

bongdongs: He probably did speed up things a bit - and certainly provided a broader base for pakistan`s nuclear program by providing this second option. But was he worth the trouble to Pakistan? I doubt it. And the mess he created in the process - trying to peddle his junk to every tom, dick and gaddafi who was able and willing to cough up the cash - is something that no one fully knows. But certainly a far cry from the near veneration given to him by the mullahs of pakistan (and as i said to urstruly, no one ever accused these mullahs of having a brain).

#180
`` he was not even critical to that one step in the process (obtaining weapons grade material)``
I totally agree he is not the ``father of the bomb``, but where I would beg to differ is that AQK is critically important for the fact that Pakistan had the bomb in the mid `80`s and not the mid `90`s.

bongdongs: hey what do i know? to borrow from mr. urstruly`s phrase, we are all mr. laloo panjoos shooting the breeze on chowk! :-)
what seems quite clear is that pakistan had the ability to go the plutonium route, and paec was pushing that as a more cost effective route to go and one where we had the infrastructure. so, far from being the father of the pakistani nuclear bomb, he was not even critical to that one step in the process (obtaining weapons grade material). that is the only point i was trying to make to convince mr. urstruly on.

PINSTECH has been experimenting with a reprocessing plant for extraction of plutonium from spent fuel from the late `70`s. It managed to import part of a French solvent extraction plant before the US interruped the process. In the `80`s there were reports of PINSTECH managing to get a pilot scale plant running and various tests being carried out. In the `90`s this plant was expanded (or a new one built) probably in anticipation of the Khusab reactor.

But, it begs the question where would the spent fuel going to come from in the `80`s? Before Khusab PAEC did not have access to an unsafegraded facility. Building Khusab and the related heavy water plant has been a great success for PAEC but this is only in the `90`s.

bongdongs: nothing i have said on chowk on this issue is based on private contacts - this is public information previously reported in various newspaper or journal articles. Thus, I didnt know pinstech had extended the facility to develop the ability to extract weapon`s grade plutonium back in 1981 - I looked up the date on the internet. Even today`s Dawn carries an article about pinstech being further extended in various civil and defense related research areas.