Country Visa, City Visa

malik saheb

You would know the names `sufis` gave to different groups of Hindus better than I do.

Wasn`t Jinnah supposed to be a `khoja` or `Ismaili?`

Re: # 73
Fully agree with you.
Politicians on both sides have created a general paranoia among people for their own benefits and have used media and religeon very ``effectively``.Common people fall prey to the artificially created cognitive distortions.

I can recall a small incident here-I had to go to Bangalore(from Punjab) for one month in 1989/90.Bangalorians were wondering how people were surviving in Punjab as their notion was as if terrorists were just roaming freely in the streets and killing people.I think some Indians have the same notion about Jihadis in Pakistan.Only free intermingling of people can correct these false assumptions.

This is much more easier than taking up individuals for ``Cognitive Behaviour Therapy``.

kaalchakra:

I mostly agree with you. Jinnah had evisioned a secular pakistan probably because he was aware of the absurdities of religion. As he said, `muslims will cease to be muslims and hindus will cease to be hindus`.

But you know what, I think partition minus riots minus bad relations wouldn`t be such a harmful event. But seems like polarity always breeds extremism. But I have every reason that it is only about time as people in both countries become educated and intermingled and governments get matured (specially pakistani). Religion will die it`s own death. Sad thing is, we wont be around at that time.

At this moment, I am having a craving to belive in hindu reincarnation.
;-)

mj

harish:

Don`t take me wrong but your understanding of pakistan as a unit is not completely correct. I can tell you from my own experience that the people I have been living with all my life, almost none of them had any interest in any such aggression against India or some other country (perhaps one or two peopel whome I remotely known to be showing interest in jihaad in kashmir).

Let me state my understanding here. Pakistan as a unit has a jumble of dimensions to it. But since pakistan and india have observed a *complete* isolation (because of that the current generations don`t really know indians as people), not all of the dimsions of pakistan are visible to indians. Now the jihadis are expedition loving people. They raise charity, motivate people and carry out their expeditions with a great zeal. These are the people who make themselves visible because this is what they do. Common man, who earns his bread and wants peace hasn`t been let to interact. Believe me, Jihadis are very very small in number and are kinda alien to normal pakistani people too (I hope you will apprecaite that I have no reason to lie). Am I talking sense here?

It is true that there a lot of anti india propaganda in acedamics, but the reason to it is as secualar as it can be. A piece of land and some arrogance. And my perceptions tells me that there is a strong reason why indian government and press also need some propaganda (even very little) to convince the masses so that the armies can confront any threat to pakistan.

The problem with your line of thinking is that you put Islam as the first cause to the problem where it is not. The primary cause has been this notorious land conflict. Islam is just one stupid force which can be used by the power dwellers for anything they have an interest in. Poor Jihaadi isn`t really convinced that there is a good to harm an indian. He is only convinced that he must carry out the command of his religous mentor.

I stronly think that Pakistani muslims would have been much like indian counterparts, even better had there been no conflict like kashmir for the only reason that they would have intermingled more (imagine cross highways on the long border that we share) and would have seen the better sides of each other as well.

So?

drlokraj #69,
Non-Punjabis are smarter. They dont take decisions based on emotions, thats why they dont involve themselves in mass slaughter.

re: malikjahanzeb # 61

``problems with muslims are a product of historical processes and are understandable but are to be dealt with a profound process.``

Malik Saheb

This is itself very profound, although you will let me present a little twist to it. Surely, history has not been kind to us, but subcontinental Muslims are NOT a different `problem people` to be dealt with (I know you didn`t mean it in that sense).

What I see is profound misunderstanding on the parts of both Hindus and Muslims about who both of us are, what our sincerest, deepest beliefs are, and what we find intellectually compelling, spritually uplifting, and humanly attractive.

This is not an attempt to eliminate all differences, or to claim that everyone is the same. We are different, but not in the way that is so often assumed.

My craziest idea is that in our subcontinental case, Hindu-Muslim labels are both completely wrong. This will surely get many people very offended, angry, and some would suggest a few visits to the mental clinic. Yet I repeat: we are not `classical` Hindus nor `classical` Muslims.

Unlike people, religious ideas can be/must be evaluated for what they are. In that, `Hinduism` and `Islam` are no doubt sworn enemies and totally incompatible ideologies. But we are not religions or ideologies. We are people, of the middle, not all that different IF we do not become emotionally too hung up on labels, and if our religions are willing to clearly recognize that obvious fact.

Perhaps, I made no sense! Sorry! LOL

Please keep the `faith.` Many peeople come to chowk and end up hating the very people they should be closest friends with. Its hard to be sensitive to others` emotional make up, but that is what is needed. If we do that, we won`t fall into the trap of not recognizing who is with us, and who is not. That much is doable, and in our common interest.

Catch you gentlemen and ladies later.

drlokraj #69

`` I remember having written while interacting on some other similar article,that the restrictions,rules and regulations are always for common people.Terrorists,smugglers and other anti-social and anti-national elements dont use these routes,hence these donot apply to them.So why common people are being made scapegoats? ``

14 of the 18 Sep-11 hijackers entered US legally. So much for open-ness !!!

I remember having written while interacting on some other similar article,that the restrictions,rules and regulations are always for common people.Terrorists,smugglers and other anti-social and anti-national elements dont use these routes,hence these donot apply to them.So why common people are being made scapegoats?

It is mostly non-punjabis (and may be non-bengalis )who are opposing openness between the two countries because they dont find anything common with pakistanis.Lot of Punjabis,on the other hand still consider Punjab to be one on some level and crave to visit the other side.

Governments on both sides need to simplify the visa/immigration procedures and let people meet.People will not allow the tremendous atmosphere generated by reunion to be spoilt by hanful of trouble mongers.

#67 by malikjahanzeb

[dear, pakistanis are a very segregated society. you want me to take the responsibility of a bearded mullah? or you want the mullah to take the responsibility of a `patriotic` general?]

Malik Sahib, you got me wrong. The common refrain we hear from most Pakis is that Jihad is happening because the Muslim population in India is oppressed (which is far from the truth), and the Jihadis are trying to free them. This notion has been embedded into the Paki psyche (notwithstanding a few guys like you) for far too long to go away easily. Unless there are Pakis who are willing to confront this reality, any change of heart will be at best, superficial. This is where the Paki govt. can play a role. If it can enforce its writ over the Mullahs and Jihadis, there is no reason why things can`t change. But when the Paki govt. makes feeble excuses as to how it cannot control these rampaging Mullahs, it doesn`t meet with any opposition from the moderates like you. You guys must put the fear of god in your govts. That`s what I want to emphasize here.

[note the fact that there are ample jihadis in india and there is no need to import them from anywhere. you got to think outside the box.]

Disgruntled Muslims yes, but Jihadis in India? Can you be a bit clearer?

Re: # 65 dear, pakistanis are a very segregated society. you want me to take the responsibility of a bearded mullah? or you want the mullah to take the responsibility of a `patriotic` general? note the fact that there are ample jihadis in india and there is no need to import them from anywhere. you got to think outside the box.

Approximately 34 pakistan nationals who visited Chandigarh/mohali for the cricket match went missing after the match.They were unaccounted for.A little relaxation by the immigration dept. and see what happens!!.You never hear of indians visiting pakistan and never returning.It always is , in the case of pakistanis.Better safe than sorry!.I think the visa regime should continue.

#64 by malikjahanzeb

[The fact is, for the most part, ball remains in your court. Either one has to act as a big brother.]

With due respect, I humbly beg to disagree. Pakistanis must take responsibility for their actions and not blame it as a reaction to whatever is happening outside their nation. Just think, wouldn`t it be a shame if minorities in India are treated as second-rate citizens just because Pakistan treats its minorities shabbily?

Re: # 62 Agreed. The fact is, for the most part, ball remains in your court. Either one has to act as a big brother.

#55 by Romair

[I think Musharraf has literally hung everything out for peace. He has risked his own military leadership, his political career and even his own life, for it.]

Duh! On his own, Mushy was just fine with the long-standing Paki policies. Remember, at the height of the cold war, he was training Afghan Mujahideen to fight the Soviets and in 1988 ruthlessly crushed a Shia revolt in the Northern Areas (specifically Gilgit) using Osama`s men and tribals from the NWFP. Of course, Kargil is too recent for anyone to forget. It was only when Colin Powell made that famous midnight call that Mushy suddenly decided to ditch the Taliban and the Kashmir policy.

Two things amaze me:

1. Some Pakis believe (or pretend to) that Mushy did it out of goodness of heart.

2. They expect Indians to believe this cr@p.

#61 by malikjahanzeb

[let`s say in india, if you have an incident that you subdue a muslim in a certain area by force, this event itself will create a demand for the sellers of jahadism regardless of any attraction it has to offer. on the other hand, if there is no `garbar` for a long time, the sellers will find their dukaans going out of business.]

Not that it is right, but then, the percentage of Muslims (and Hindus) who are affected by such riots is at best, miniscule. Even during the Gujarat violence, riots did not spread to any other part of India. This attests to a more important fact, a fact that does not find mention in a media perpetually looking for sensational stories, and that is an overwhelming majority of Hindus and Muslims do live peacefully. Their lives are so intertwined that no disturbance can affect just one community. The other community stands to lose as well.

Re: # 57 kalchakri and harish,

i think basic security is a right for you guys from downright jahadis (in fact I am concerned about my security too :-) ). but the thing is, for a better tomorrow one must have a policy which is geared towards those higher objectives. i think india is in a position to do better than merely respond to events in a crude way.

talking about that policy, first there is a need to seperately view the buyers and sellers of jahaism in the muslim world. the buyers are common people who only buy when certain conditions are met. let`s say in india, if you have an incident that you subdue a muslim in a certain area by force, this event itself will create a demand for the sellers of jahadism regardless of any attraction it has to offer. on the other hand, if there is no `garbar` for a long time, the sellers will find their dukaans going out of business.

so, as a policy, i will suggest that indians should make their security a surety but at the same time, avoid any tendency towards voilance. only this attitude over a long time will slowly change things forever.

problems with muslims are a product of historical processes and are understandable but are to be dealt with a profound process. i hope you guys will agree.