Parents and the Pill

The comments r more interestin in most of the cases instead of the article.

Ms. Rizvi,

What a poignant and delightful read :). Had I known such gems were being produced on Chowk I would frequent it more often instead of once every eon or so.

The relating of your interaction with your Abbu is entirely precious (and comical). My dad (whom I adore) would count himself as among the most liberated of desi parents but I can’t imagine approaching him about topics such as this.

I would venture a guess that most desi young men and women feel that way. So, your point about there being a “no-talk zone” on anything and everything related to sex definitely reverberates.

Re:rsridhar#520

Ba$tard ugly madraasi....sala noodle-dicked impotent dravidian a$$hole. Tu apne wife ko satisfy nahin kar sakta.... sala kala-kaloota bhangi, chamaar....go to hell!!

re:#519 by amit

``No wonder even your wife dumped your madraasi a$$.``
Actually, she caught me in the act with your wife.
How about that, you north indian mofucker?
Sridhar
P.S: Itna kaafi hai ki aur theree gaand maroon?

Re:rsridhar #515

Just shut up and get lost, you patronizing scumbag. Who cares about you either? No wonder even your wife dumped your madraasi a$$.

Re: 513 by amit

[I believe that Indo-Pak relations are evolving as we speak. If India is smart and puts its emotions aside, it can capitalize on the current thaw in relations to clean up a major irritant in its backyard, that hinders us from reaching our true potential as a nation. In 5 years, the contours of Indo-Pak relations will be totally different from what it is today. If we remain hawkishly attached to the past, the status quo will continue which is not in our best long-term interest. While it is true that we are outpacing Pakistan in everything, still it is a nuisance to have a hostile neighboring country.

I guess, at the end of the day, all I am saying is that the battle is over. We have pretty much won the fight for dominating the subcontinent. The other side is now trying to work out a face saving truce. Why should we continue fighting anymore?]

I forgot to mention the most important thing of all.

WHY SHOULD WE MAKE OVERTURES TO PAKISTAN NOW?


Now that India is succeeding, in spite of Pakistan’s best efforts to bloody our nose, to begin to succeed in the world, why should we?


Let them carry on ANY WAY THEY WANT.

THERE WILL BE NO COMPROMISE. ON KASHMIR, OR ANYTHING ELSE.

LET THE TYPES LIKE ALI_1 AND ECHOBOOM KEEP WAGING JIHAD.

LET’S SEE WHO WINS IN THE END.

WE ARE WINNING NOW. AND WILL CONTINUE TO WIN.

THERE WILL BE NO COMPROMISE UNTIL THE OTHER SIDE SURRENDERS.

AS SIMPLE AS THAT.

LEFTY BA$TARTDS CAN GO TO HELL.

re: Are Hindus and Pakistanis related by blood
I asked a question some posts ago: How many Pakistanis think they are converts from Hindus and have hindu blood flowing in their veins? Nobody, not even Amit`s best friend on Chowk Tahmed, has answered my query.
Should i just presume they are just embarassed? ashamed? don`t care?
Whatever the reason, this should be an eyeopener for Amit.
Sridhar

re: Is Pak`s Mushy a changed man?
Arun Shourie has some pearls for mentally challenged people like Amit.
Pak has not changed. Mushy was forced to change his stance towards India due to change in ground realities.
http://www.sulekha.com/news/nhc.aspx?cid=423737
(Has Musharraf’s heart changed? And why?
While US is looking at India to counter the growing power of China, Beijing is making overtures to ensure that New Delhi is not available to Washington as an instrument to ‘contain’ it. The result is the Musharraf of the changed heart.
The collapse of the Soviet Union threw our foreign and defence policies into a spin. With great, and invisible, skill Narasimha Rao landed these on their feet. He initiated the first steps for India to ‘‘look East’’. He strengthened relations with Iran. He opened a line to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan...

But as a sort of iron-ball tied to the legs, Pakistan continued to hold both our foreign and defence policies down. Not just that: even as it continued to send terrorists to kill and maim in India, it continued to be propped by its patrons — the US, China, Saudi Arabia. This immobility is what confronted Atal Behari Vajpayee and his senior colleagues as they took office. They saw that as long as India remained tied down to Pakistan it would not be able to play any significant role in world affairs — that whatever it said even on Pakistan, for instance about cross-border terrorism, was liable to be discounted — ‘‘Oh, that is the usual stuff — just India and Pakistan making allegations against each other.’’

They decided on a many-pronged response:

• Accelerate growth, in spite of what Pakistan is doing — apart from other things, this will in the end register with the people of Pakistan.

• Strengthen relations with a number of other countries and regions — Central Asian Republics, ASEAN, others.

• Ensure continued military superiority so that, should Pakistan lunge at India, it can be roundly defeated.

But the backing that Pakistan received from the US and China remained — of course, it also got much succor and morale boosting from countries in the Middle East: but these would in the end be influenced by what the US did. It was, therefore, necessary not just to outgrow and out-gun Pakistan, India had to outflank it. Three judgements, and a set of fortuitous events set the course.

The first point was evident: Pakistan is a dependent State. It cannot function without the help of the US, China, etc. The second insight seemed more of a conjecture at the time: while the US today remains transfixed by China, the reasoning went, sooner or later it will begin to see that the main threat to it 15-20 years hence will come from China — it will, therefore, look for possible counters to the growing power of that country. The third point concerned China itself: ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, its apprehensions have centered around the US — it has long been convinced that the US is out to ‘‘contain’’ it, and that countries like India are the ones the US will yoke as instruments for this purpose.

Hence, the reasoning went,

• Engage the US.

• That will get China to re-examine its stance towards South Asia.

• These tectonic shifts will narrow Pakistan’s options.

The fortuitous events that helped were 9/11, and the continuing attacks by Pakistani terrorists in India. The US experienced first hand what India had been saying for so long — that Pakistan had become the University of Terrorism, that Taliban and terrorists of other hues were not the cause of what was happening; they were the result of the progressive Talibanisation of Pakistan’s State and society over 50 years. We had been repeating all this for years. To little avail. Secure in distant lands, American policy-makers couldn’t care two hoots. I well remember, and the day is not that long ago, when visiting diplomats and security and intelligence personnel from the USA, told about the way Pakistan was arming, training, financing, giving sanctuary to terrorists to kill and maim in India, would ask, ‘‘But where is the proof?’’

I would sigh with the poet,

Ai baad-e-balaa unko bhi zaraa, do chaar thapede halke se

Jo log abhi tak saahil se toofan kaa nazaaraa karte hain...

(Oh, strong and contrary wind, a blow or two, gently, to them too, Who from the comfort of the shore survey the storm...)

9/11 changed the standards of proof that were necessary!

As a result, events have taken the course that was envisaged by Vajpayee and his core team. Over the last five years, important segmets of the US policy establishment have begun to voice the apprehension that 15-20 years from now China will indeed be a potential threat to US interests, and that a country like India is among the few that can be a counter-weight in this region to an ever-stronger China — Mapping the Global Future put out by the National Intelligence Council1 is representative of such assessments.

On the other side, the steps that the US and India took towards dialogue and cooperation indeed registered in Beijing. It has in turn made a few overtures to ensure that India does not make itself available to the US as an instrument in the way that, in China’s assessment, it had made itself available to the USSR.

The result is the Musharraf of the changed heart. ‘‘Phir wohi dil nahin laya hoon,’’ he said during his visit to Delhi in April 2005. ‘‘Main naya dil laya hoon.’’

Our press was, as usual, swept off its feet: ‘‘Man of the match: Musharraf’’; ‘‘Laid bare: Perrez’s ‘new heart’’’; ‘‘Sunday win for both, one-day win Pak bonus’’; ‘‘General peaces it together’’; ‘‘Musharraf hits it out of Kotla.’’

This was customary hyperbole. But there was some incidental confirmation — from the ideologues of jihad in Pakistan, even from some of the mainline commentators.

Musharraf ‘‘has crossed all limits in appeasing India’’, Professor Hafiz Saeed, the founder of the Lashkar-o-Toiba told Nawaiwaqt and the staff of his own Jama’at ud-Dawa. The so-called confidence building measures that Musharraf is taking depart from the ‘‘principled position’’ that Pakistan has maintained on the Kashmir issue all through, he charged. The statement that Musharraf has agreed to disregard the UN Resolutions which have been the very foundation of Pakistan’s stand on Kashmir. Apart from everything else, the steps to build confidence and the statement foment distrust between the Kashmiri and Pakistani people, Saeed maintained. Building confidence with India while fomenting distrust with our own people is not wisdom, he said.

Four militant groups declared in a statement that Musharraf has ‘‘sold out Kashmir for trade and tourism’’. ‘‘This is the first time in Pakistan’s history that a Head of State has given in to India,’’ they declared. ‘‘We will not give up jihad till Kashmir becomes free.’’

General Hamid Gul was as upset. He declared: ‘‘The Indo-Pak joint statement indicates that our Government has lost its destination and position on the Kashmir issue. The text of the statement says that we are ready to hand over even Azad Kashmir to India instead of acquiring Kashmir. It seems that Azad Kashmir will be destroyed... We have deviated from our position. It will yield a dangerous result...

‘‘It is very sad for us that this decision has been taken by a ruler who is an Army man. This is the Army which has kept the Kashmir issue alive to achieve self-determination. But by ignoring the sacrifices of the Pakistani Army and the Kashmiri people, pro-Indian decisions are being accepted now. This declaration neither represents the aspirations of the Kashmiri people nor does it reflect the sentiments of the Pakistani people. It is nothing but a fraud.’’

Aijaz Afzal, the head of the Jama’at-e-Islami in POK was no less minatory. He said that ‘‘Musharraf plans to finish the National Kashmir Policy... One man is handing Kashmir to India without seeking confidence of Parliament.’’ Parliament’s Kashmir Committee should explain what Pakistan’s policy on Kashmir is, he demanded. The millat of Pakistan has had no role in the change of policy that Musharraf has engineered, he pointed out, and warned, ‘‘If political parties remain silent for sake of power, then accession of Kashmir to Pakistan will be very difficult.’’

Afzal maintained that ‘‘India has come to the negotiating table because of the sacrifices of and determination of the Kashmiri people. It is neither a miracle of Musharraf nor is it a diplomatic achievement.’’ ‘‘If we neglect the role of the mujahideen, past record shows that India will consider cunning and lie-telling as sacred deeds,’’ he declared. Options such as joint control and division of Kashmir are products of Musharraf’s imagination. They are impractical as well as dangerous...

The Jasrat, affiliated to the Jama’at-e-Islami, gave ‘‘credit’’ to ‘‘India’s successful policy and defence of its stance so much so that, without displaying the slightest flexibility, India has managed to push Pakistan away from its principled stand on Kashmir.’’

The Nawaiwaqt complained, ‘‘Pakistan is willing to accept any and every step that is in India’s interest, every step which will push Kashmir into the background, and transform the ‘‘core’’issue into the ‘‘korrh’’ (leprosy stricken) issue...’’

Even some mainstream commentators were furious. Much to the surprise of readers in India, Ayaz Amir lamented in Dawn, ‘‘Going to war over Kashmir? Of course not. Folly in the past, it is not even an option now. But saying farewell to Kashmir like this, and dancing to India’s tune in the process, abandoning the Kashmiris to their fate, and getting nothing in return — not even an undertaking to settle Siachen or solve the dispute over the Baglihar Dam, this surely is a novel way of waging peace.

‘‘We may have beaten India in cricket but the self-inflicted thrashing Pakistan is receiving in the diplomatic field is a higher plane of endeavour altogether. Musharraf needn’t have gone all the way to Delhi to be told there could be no ‘‘re-drawing of borders in Kashmir’’. That’s the Indian line, always has been, much before Manmohan Singh’s baptism as Prime Minister.

‘‘While India is entitled to take what position it likes, there should have been no compulsion for a Pakistani leader to go along without even a whimper about the UN resolutions calling for a plebiscite in Kashmir, the basis, after all, of our Kashmir policy. Drive a stake through the plebiscite/ self-determination principle and Pakistan is left with no leg to stand on as far as the Kashmir dispute is concerned.

‘‘But time to ‘think outside the box’, Pakistan’s soldier-President advises. Excellent if this was a two-way process, if not only Pakistan but India too was ready for the same walk. What do we see instead? Pakistan under military guidance doing all the visionary thing by itself: not only thinking outside the box but frantically jumping out of it, consigning the carcass of its Kashmir policy to the waters of the Arabian Sea, even as India sticks resolutely to its own box, not prepared to give so much as a centimetre either way.

‘‘Why did Musharraf invite himself to Delhi? What gates of Somnath was he hoping to bring back? What he has achieved is a lesson in Indian diplomacy: Manmohan Singh mincing no words in restating the Indian position that Kashmir geography was set in stone and that the utmost to be hoped for lay in the new mantra of ‘porous borders’.’’

From our point of view, these are high testimonials. So, has Musharraf’s heart changed? Is it prudent to rely on a change of heart in one man?)
End of article.
Look to the continuation of this article by Arun Shourie.
If there are those there who think Pak has suddenly changed because some angel whispered into Mushy`s ears or its Awaam suddenly found the Indoos not Kaafir enough, they are mistaken.
It is just realpolitik guys.
Pak has lost the jehad. It is losing out on Kashmir. Mushy is making the best of a bad situation. That`s all.
Sridhar

re:#511 by amit
Oh, really.
So, u had some Tam Brahm friends and u know everything about them.
Well, i am one Tam Brahm and i am telling u:
You are full of Bull!
Get that!
I thought i will be nice to u. YOu are not just full of Bull, you are a fukcing racist.
Now go back to your Paki A$$-licking, which is the only thing u are good at.
Sridhar
P.S: Who the fukc wants to have a dialogue with a moron like u?

Re: #513 by amit

I will illustrate once again here how everything you say is such utter nonsense:

[Re:Ajeya 512

The point of having an argument or a discussion is that while we have our own views, we are also willing to listen to the other side and analyze what the other side is saying.]

“willing to listen”

Not only did I listen, I did one better. I took each and every line you wrote, every time, and showed why each of those lines were wrong.

Every time, on all threads, at the end, you had NOTHING to refute my agrgument.

[You have already made up your mind and are unwilling to listen to any other opinion. ]

ONCE AGAIN. This is an ad-hominem attack. And of course, untrue.

[You believe that Pakistan is our eternal enemy and that is that. Anyone against that belief is against India etc.]

AGAIN MORE RUBBISH.

I NEVER SAID THAT YOU ARE AGAINST INDIA.

[It is kind of surprising to me that someone with such strong views against Pakistan is such a keen visitor to chowk, but that is something I notice among all the hardliners. ]

WATCH ME REFUTE THIS ONE.

As I have mentioned before, on another post on Chowk, THE ONLY REASON I VISIT THIS SITE AND TRY TO REFUTE YOUR PATHETIC ARGUMENTS IS BECAUSE THERE IS AN INTERNATIONAL AUDIENCE TO ALL THIS, AND THIS AUDIENCE NEEDS TO KNOW THE TRUTH.

INTERNATIONAL OPINION ABOUT INDIA IS EXTREMELY CRUCIAL TO INDIA’S WELL-BEING.


[I believe that Indo-Pak relations are evolving as we speak. If India is smart and puts its emotions aside, it can capitalize on the current thaw in relations to clean up a major irritant in its backyard, that hinders us from reaching our true potential as a nation. In 5 years, the contours of Indo-Pak relations will be totally different from what it is today. If we remain hawkishly attached to the past, the status quo will continue which is not in our best long-term interest. While it is true that we are outpacing Pakistan in everything, still it is a nuisance to have a hostile neighboring country. ]

NOPE! WRONG AGAIN.

AMERICA DEVELOPED JUST FINE WITH THE USSR AS ITS ARCH ENEMY, A MAJOR IRRITANT. AND CUBA ON ITS DOORSTEP.

[I guess, at the end of the day, all I am saying is that the battle is over. We have pretty much won the fight for dominating the subcontinent. The other side is now trying to work out a face saving truce. Why should we continue fighting anymore?]

WHO’S FIGHTING? EXCEPT THE JEHADIS? AND THEIR SUPPORTERS?
I AGREE WITH YOU. THE BATTLE IS OVER.
BUT I DISAGREE ABOUT ONE THING. THE ONLY PEOPLE LEFT WHO NEED TO CHANGE THEIR PERSPECTIVES ARE THE JEHADIS AND THEIR SUPPORTERS. NOT US.

Re:Ajeya 512

The point of having an argument or a discussion is that while we have our own views, we are also willing to listen to the other side and analyze what the other side is saying. You have already made up your mind and are unwilling to listen to any other opinion. You believe that Pakistan is our eternal enemy and that is that. Anyone against that belief is against India etc. It is kind of surprising to me that someone with such strong views against Pakistan is such a keen visitor to chowk, but that is something I notice among all the hardliners.

I believe that Indo-Pak relations are evolving as we speak. If India is smart and puts its emotions aside, it can capitalize on the current thaw in relations to clean up a major irritant in its backyard, that hinders us from reaching our true potential as a nation. In 5 years, the contours of Indo-Pak relations will be totally different from what it is today. If we remain hawkishly attached to the past, the status quo will continue which is not in our best long-term interest. While it is true that we are outpacing Pakistan in everything, still it is a nuisance to have a hostile neighboring country.

I guess, at the end of the day, all I am saying is that the battle is over. We have pretty much won the fight for dominating the subcontinent. The other side is now trying to work out a face saving truce. Why should we continue fighting anymore?

Re: #511 by amit

The worst thing about people like yourself is that you do not have the integrity to admit it when you are wrong. When you have reached the end of the line in your arguments. On all the threads of arguments, you had nothing to refute what I said. But you just shut up and continue in the same vein with avenger, sridhar, mahesh etc.

Selective amnesia.

Kind of like the Pakistanis on this board. When they have nothing more they can say, they just start talking to someone else, along exactly the same lines as I was arguing with them which they were unable to defend. As if they had never talked about those topics with me before.

This is another thing that makes me wonder if you really don’t have any Pakistani affiliations. (I do believe, of course, that you don’t. But it’s just a strange coincidence).


Anyways. Have fun. Carry on. And just restate the same things over and over again.

Re:rsridhar#510

If you want to have a dialogue with me, get rid of your condescending, patronizing attitude. If I express an opinion, I am pontificating, while you can expound on every topic under the sun be it Indo-Pak relations, music or what not?

I have lived in India for most of my formative years and next door to Tam Brahms. Also I have friends from IIT Delhi who are Tam Brahms. So I know a lot more than you think.

re:#502 by amit
You are stepping on unchartered territorry here. My advice is that u should read up a little on the Tam Brahms before u start to pontificate.
``It is their casteist attitudes in the past, that resulted in the fierce backlash from the DMK, so much so that Brahmins cannot get admission or jobs in Tamil Nadu.``
The backlash has to do with total dominance in all spheres by brahmins in T.N until the 50sand a political party promising the voters (nonbrahmin) that it would create a level playing field. After DMK came to power, it put into effect the most stringent affirmative action seen anywhere in the world.
It is not as if brahmins can`t get into a govt job but it is much harder. When i went for my postgraduate course in Madras (through an All India merit based quota) many years ago, some local candidates were brahmins but they said it was much harder. The brightest of the lot were also from this category (you got to be good to get selected with so much pitted agains u, right?).
This has resulted in many brahmins moving away from the state, many branching into other areas. My own uncles are into business and are doing very well in Pondicherry. In other words, a salutatory effect was less dependence on govt jobs. I do not think brahmins have suffered in the end. The level of competence in areas of higher learning (without a merit based selection) in T.N is just abysmal.
AS far as looks dept is concerned, i do not think u can generalize.
Sridhar

Avenger,

You are just showing your low class upbringing. I feel sorry for your parents. I have enough respect for women not to curse your family members.

Amit....continuing on the matter of your great expertise - comparisons between Pakis , north Indians , south Indian brahmins and rest of south Indians , could you please consult your no doubt experienced Mrs. and enlighten us as to the relative lund size of each group ?

(Although it must be said that Mrs.Amit is no match for her husband as far as knowledge of paki lunds are concerned , despite her best efforts. Amit way ahead of the game there...)