Uproar over a Cartoon?
Nauman Nisar May 15, 2005
#29 Posted by arjun_m on May 17, 2005 8:39:24 am
#28 by Urstruly on May 17, 2005 6:51am PT
nothing hurts my feelings....you can post pictures of pakis standing on the US flag all you want...I hope you aren`t bothered by images of marines with shoes in a mosque(right before they go out and whack a bunch of jihadis...all with your tax $$)...
nothing hurts my feelings....you can post pictures of pakis standing on the US flag all you want...I hope you aren`t bothered by images of marines with shoes in a mosque(right before they go out and whack a bunch of jihadis...all with your tax $$)...
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#28 Posted by Urstruly on May 17, 2005 6:51:55 am
Re: # 22 arjun
Thank you arjun for the picture; but don`t you see that it is just the carpet they are standing on. Going by the logic in this article and through the interacts from the people who are custodians of western interests in our lands, I don`t see a difference if you address your brother in law as b/chod or father as m/chod because that is what in fact they are. We are all bhonsri.../ke since that is where we all come from (I was a scissarian by the way). A hindu man when committs a sexual congress with his niece, is addressed as mamon/ mama in India by the woman, and other address him as bhaanji ke. These are all words.
Thank you arjun for the picture; but don`t you see that it is just the carpet they are standing on. Going by the logic in this article and through the interacts from the people who are custodians of western interests in our lands, I don`t see a difference if you address your brother in law as b/chod or father as m/chod because that is what in fact they are. We are all bhonsri.../ke since that is where we all come from (I was a scissarian by the way). A hindu man when committs a sexual congress with his niece, is addressed as mamon/ mama in India by the woman, and other address him as bhaanji ke. These are all words.
#27 Posted by vagabond78 on May 17, 2005 4:44:53 am
What`s idiotic and offensive there? It`s the ultimate endorsement of your loyalty to Uncle Sam. So all you cousin fuckers should be proud of yourself.
#26 Posted by ntsyed on May 17, 2005 4:18:51 am
Re: # 10
ferozk,
Please note my arguments as well to see that there are exceptions to the rule you describe. However, thank you for reinforcing my point with ``The FOX NEWS is often refered to the ``junkyard dog of the Republican Party`` because it zealously guards the interests of the Republican Party.``
While I too think that the depiction of Pakistan (as an active partner in war on terrorism) is right on the dot, the point expressed/implied (whichever way one wishes to look at it) in the cartoon may be that FOX or Pakistan do not have a mind and/or an agenda of their own viz always following the orders of his master not thinking where it may lead.
What American public and administration think of Pakistan; what Pakistani inept politicians think of their relationship with the US or about their position the bigger scheme of things; how the general Pak populace percieves this relationship; etc, etc, at the end of the day, it`s all politics....dirty game to exploit people. People simply do not have anything else they can do but to protest, agitate, vent...whatever else you want to call it.
I forget who, but someone here made a very pertinent point that may be they`re testing the temperature.
Same thing with desecration of Quran story in the Newsweek. Such incidents have reported by many high-profile newspaper many times in the recent past as you can see here. May be wanted to see how the entire Muslim nation would react globally, or if there would be call for jihad :-)~~
As for the uproar, in every situation different people respond differently becuase they receive the message differently, and seldom one is able to prove the other. I think most of the offended are upset at their own leadership, more so than the Americans, for their support for the latter.
ferozk,
Please note my arguments as well to see that there are exceptions to the rule you describe. However, thank you for reinforcing my point with ``The FOX NEWS is often refered to the ``junkyard dog of the Republican Party`` because it zealously guards the interests of the Republican Party.``
While I too think that the depiction of Pakistan (as an active partner in war on terrorism) is right on the dot, the point expressed/implied (whichever way one wishes to look at it) in the cartoon may be that FOX or Pakistan do not have a mind and/or an agenda of their own viz always following the orders of his master not thinking where it may lead.
What American public and administration think of Pakistan; what Pakistani inept politicians think of their relationship with the US or about their position the bigger scheme of things; how the general Pak populace percieves this relationship; etc, etc, at the end of the day, it`s all politics....dirty game to exploit people. People simply do not have anything else they can do but to protest, agitate, vent...whatever else you want to call it.
I forget who, but someone here made a very pertinent point that may be they`re testing the temperature.
Same thing with desecration of Quran story in the Newsweek. Such incidents have reported by many high-profile newspaper many times in the recent past as you can see here. May be wanted to see how the entire Muslim nation would react globally, or if there would be call for jihad :-)~~
As for the uproar, in every situation different people respond differently becuase they receive the message differently, and seldom one is able to prove the other. I think most of the offended are upset at their own leadership, more so than the Americans, for their support for the latter.
#25 Posted by Subedar on May 17, 2005 2:35:00 am
Ssaleemi sahib:
Calling Pakistani generals and for that matter Pakistani ruling class dog would be a gross affront of the loyalty of dogs. Producing such disloyal, corrupt and shameless dogs would take much more of genetical engineering than what is available to human race at the moment.
Sorry to remind you, though you definitely have right to have your opinion, insulting cute dogs goes beyond your democratic rights.
Calling Pakistani generals and for that matter Pakistani ruling class dog would be a gross affront of the loyalty of dogs. Producing such disloyal, corrupt and shameless dogs would take much more of genetical engineering than what is available to human race at the moment.
Sorry to remind you, though you definitely have right to have your opinion, insulting cute dogs goes beyond your democratic rights.
#24 Posted by omar_r_quraishi on May 17, 2005 2:01:06 am
Dawn, May 17, 2005
The great cartoon turmoil
By Omar R. Quraishi
THE fact that much of Pakistani society could do with a good dose of tolerance, reason and realism was never in doubt. However, the recent publication of a cartoon in an American newspaper and the near-hysterical reaction of many Pakistanis, especially the members of the National Assembly and assorted politicians drives the point home once again with renewed emphasis.
Consider what happened in the first week of May, after the capture of Al Qaeda’s operational commander Abu Faraj Al Libbi. Bill Garner, editorial cartoonist for the conservative and right-of-centre Washington Times, drew a cartoon showing Pakistan as a dog holding Al Libbi in his mouth, while a US soldier says to the dog: “Good boy! Now let’s go find [Osama] bin Laden”.
The news of the cartoon was published in various Pakistani newspapers, prompting the National Assembly, which was in session at the time, to devote several hours of debate to the offensive cartoon. Politicians of the six-party ARD alliance and from the treasury benches unequivocally condemned the Washington Times and said that the cartoon was proof of the slave-like relationship that Pakistan had come to form with the US.
This line of reasoning fitted in well with the attitude of the critics of the Musharraf government’s policy of cooperation with the US in the war on terror. Among them Tehrik-i-Insaf chief Imran Khan and the leader of the opposition in the National Assembly, JUI chief Maulana Fazlur Rahman, were in the forefront of the attacks on the US-Pakistan alliance.
Mr Khan spoke quite severely of the relationship and proposed that Pakistan should deny US forces’ use of bases on its soil. The minister of state for religious affairs, Aamir Liaquat Hussain, joined in saying that the government would take up the matter with the US government. Eventually, much to everyone’s satisfaction, the National Assembly ended up passing a unanimous resolution asking the federal government to take up the issue of the cartoon with the US government.
Following this, even the Foreign Office spokesman got into the act saying that the cartoon was “highly derogatory” and that Pakistan had asked the US government to investigate whether the cartoon was a “deliberate attempt to ridicule the country”.
Then, on May 10, the newspaper itself, in an editorial titled ‘A dog’s life (and times)’, said that the Pakistani embassy in Washington had told the newspaper that the cartoon was “an insult to the sentiments of the people of both Pakistan and the United States as it strengthens the hands of the extremists”. The editorial further said that “this imputes more power to a mere newspaper than any newspaper deserves, but we take the embassy’s point and offer the assurance that no insult was intended.” Quite clearly part of the problem in this case was a lack of understanding of the cultural image of dogs in this country and the West.
There is no denying that the cartoon was indeed offensive and that its timing, appearing just when Newsweek magazine had reported that US soldiers were deliberately desecrating the Holy Quran while interrogating prisoners at Guantanamo Bay detention centre, couldn’t have been worse. But the over-reaction seen in Pakistan is clearly not justified. First, the cartoon appeared in a private publication and to ask the US government to take the matter up with the newspaper’s management seemed to make little sense, reflecting a lack of understanding of how the print media works in the US.
Some of the main critics of the cartoon, especially Imran Khan, have lived in the West and should be aware of the fact that the media there often pokes fun, sometimes in poor taste, at prime ministers, ministers, other domestic politicians, royalty, entertainers and various public personalities. As already pointed out quite aptly in a Dawn editorial the other day, British newspapers routinely show their own Prime Minister Tony Blair as George Bush’s pet dog.
However, neither did Mr Blair’s government order a crackdown on the offending newspapers or ‘take the issue up with the management’ of the newspapers, nor did the House of Commons pass a resolution against any such portrayal of the prime minister.
One argument used by those who have huffed and puffed about the cartoon is that it reflects the very poor opinion that the newspaper has of the US-Pakistan relationship. These people should have known that the Washington Times is a very conservative newspaper which makes no bones about its political and ideological leanings and its editorial content generally reflects its reactionary views. And as the newspaper itself indirectly admitted in its editorial, the unanimous resolution passed by the National Assembly seems to have given the Washington Times and its cartoonist far more importance than the matter warranted.
Also, what exactly is the US government expected to ‘take up’ with the newspaper given that lampooning and ridiculing domestic politicians, especially presidents, is quite common in America. Mr Bush can perhaps express anger and frustration in private with the constant ridiculing he receives at the hands of many a prominent late-night talk show host (and indeed from many cartoonists and stand-up comics as well) but his administration cannot really extract an apology from the management of a newspaper or a TV network, unless libel or defamation is involved.
For their part, the members of the National Assembly (who must be feeling quite happy and content for passing the resolution) should perhaps devote equal time and attention to other pressing matters. For instance, not a single member of parliament could find the courage to express even shock and outrage at the recent lynching of a man in Nowshera by an enraged mob after he was accused of blasphemy or to take on the self-styled guardians of public morality who recently attacked a women’s race in Gujranwala.
Similarly, when incidents of harassment and violence against women, children or religious minorities happen inside Pakistan — quite regular occurrences — one never sees any MNA or senator huffing and puffing or proposing resolutions against the discrimination or demanding that the federal government arrest and punish the perpetrators.
In fact, how many members of parliament have found the time to debate issues and provide solutions to problems that are close to the heart of most Pakistanis such as provision of clean drinking water, combating rising environmental pollution, providing cheap and affordable public transport, or having schools that have walls and teachers and basic health units which actually have doctors, nurses and medicines at government subsidized rates.
For example, instead of promising that the government would take follow-up action on the cartoon insult, the minister of state for religious affairs would have done better if he had, instead, chosen, for example, to inform parliament of the progress, if any, on the registration of madressahs and the measures, if any, being taken to modernize their curriculum.
When they are not absenting themselves from the house, something that is quite the norm given the frequent adjournments that happen because of lack of quorum, they are busy making fiery speeches and passing unanimous resolutions on non-issues like a cartoon appearing in a country thousands of miles away.
Email: omarq@cyber.net.pk
The great cartoon turmoil
By Omar R. Quraishi
THE fact that much of Pakistani society could do with a good dose of tolerance, reason and realism was never in doubt. However, the recent publication of a cartoon in an American newspaper and the near-hysterical reaction of many Pakistanis, especially the members of the National Assembly and assorted politicians drives the point home once again with renewed emphasis.
Consider what happened in the first week of May, after the capture of Al Qaeda’s operational commander Abu Faraj Al Libbi. Bill Garner, editorial cartoonist for the conservative and right-of-centre Washington Times, drew a cartoon showing Pakistan as a dog holding Al Libbi in his mouth, while a US soldier says to the dog: “Good boy! Now let’s go find [Osama] bin Laden”.
The news of the cartoon was published in various Pakistani newspapers, prompting the National Assembly, which was in session at the time, to devote several hours of debate to the offensive cartoon. Politicians of the six-party ARD alliance and from the treasury benches unequivocally condemned the Washington Times and said that the cartoon was proof of the slave-like relationship that Pakistan had come to form with the US.
This line of reasoning fitted in well with the attitude of the critics of the Musharraf government’s policy of cooperation with the US in the war on terror. Among them Tehrik-i-Insaf chief Imran Khan and the leader of the opposition in the National Assembly, JUI chief Maulana Fazlur Rahman, were in the forefront of the attacks on the US-Pakistan alliance.
Mr Khan spoke quite severely of the relationship and proposed that Pakistan should deny US forces’ use of bases on its soil. The minister of state for religious affairs, Aamir Liaquat Hussain, joined in saying that the government would take up the matter with the US government. Eventually, much to everyone’s satisfaction, the National Assembly ended up passing a unanimous resolution asking the federal government to take up the issue of the cartoon with the US government.
Following this, even the Foreign Office spokesman got into the act saying that the cartoon was “highly derogatory” and that Pakistan had asked the US government to investigate whether the cartoon was a “deliberate attempt to ridicule the country”.
Then, on May 10, the newspaper itself, in an editorial titled ‘A dog’s life (and times)’, said that the Pakistani embassy in Washington had told the newspaper that the cartoon was “an insult to the sentiments of the people of both Pakistan and the United States as it strengthens the hands of the extremists”. The editorial further said that “this imputes more power to a mere newspaper than any newspaper deserves, but we take the embassy’s point and offer the assurance that no insult was intended.” Quite clearly part of the problem in this case was a lack of understanding of the cultural image of dogs in this country and the West.
There is no denying that the cartoon was indeed offensive and that its timing, appearing just when Newsweek magazine had reported that US soldiers were deliberately desecrating the Holy Quran while interrogating prisoners at Guantanamo Bay detention centre, couldn’t have been worse. But the over-reaction seen in Pakistan is clearly not justified. First, the cartoon appeared in a private publication and to ask the US government to take the matter up with the newspaper’s management seemed to make little sense, reflecting a lack of understanding of how the print media works in the US.
Some of the main critics of the cartoon, especially Imran Khan, have lived in the West and should be aware of the fact that the media there often pokes fun, sometimes in poor taste, at prime ministers, ministers, other domestic politicians, royalty, entertainers and various public personalities. As already pointed out quite aptly in a Dawn editorial the other day, British newspapers routinely show their own Prime Minister Tony Blair as George Bush’s pet dog.
However, neither did Mr Blair’s government order a crackdown on the offending newspapers or ‘take the issue up with the management’ of the newspapers, nor did the House of Commons pass a resolution against any such portrayal of the prime minister.
One argument used by those who have huffed and puffed about the cartoon is that it reflects the very poor opinion that the newspaper has of the US-Pakistan relationship. These people should have known that the Washington Times is a very conservative newspaper which makes no bones about its political and ideological leanings and its editorial content generally reflects its reactionary views. And as the newspaper itself indirectly admitted in its editorial, the unanimous resolution passed by the National Assembly seems to have given the Washington Times and its cartoonist far more importance than the matter warranted.
Also, what exactly is the US government expected to ‘take up’ with the newspaper given that lampooning and ridiculing domestic politicians, especially presidents, is quite common in America. Mr Bush can perhaps express anger and frustration in private with the constant ridiculing he receives at the hands of many a prominent late-night talk show host (and indeed from many cartoonists and stand-up comics as well) but his administration cannot really extract an apology from the management of a newspaper or a TV network, unless libel or defamation is involved.
For their part, the members of the National Assembly (who must be feeling quite happy and content for passing the resolution) should perhaps devote equal time and attention to other pressing matters. For instance, not a single member of parliament could find the courage to express even shock and outrage at the recent lynching of a man in Nowshera by an enraged mob after he was accused of blasphemy or to take on the self-styled guardians of public morality who recently attacked a women’s race in Gujranwala.
Similarly, when incidents of harassment and violence against women, children or religious minorities happen inside Pakistan — quite regular occurrences — one never sees any MNA or senator huffing and puffing or proposing resolutions against the discrimination or demanding that the federal government arrest and punish the perpetrators.
In fact, how many members of parliament have found the time to debate issues and provide solutions to problems that are close to the heart of most Pakistanis such as provision of clean drinking water, combating rising environmental pollution, providing cheap and affordable public transport, or having schools that have walls and teachers and basic health units which actually have doctors, nurses and medicines at government subsidized rates.
For example, instead of promising that the government would take follow-up action on the cartoon insult, the minister of state for religious affairs would have done better if he had, instead, chosen, for example, to inform parliament of the progress, if any, on the registration of madressahs and the measures, if any, being taken to modernize their curriculum.
When they are not absenting themselves from the house, something that is quite the norm given the frequent adjournments that happen because of lack of quorum, they are busy making fiery speeches and passing unanimous resolutions on non-issues like a cartoon appearing in a country thousands of miles away.
Email: omarq@cyber.net.pk
#23 Posted by ssaleemi on May 17, 2005 1:25:38 am
We ordinary Pakistanis firmly believe that it would be much much closer to the reality and truth if the word PAKISTAN on now that famous dog of Washington Times should be considered and read PAKISTANI GENERALS instead. Yeah, RULERS would be more appropriate but RULERS = Generals. More or less same crap. Hats off to the Washington Times that calls thing with their true names. Please be sure that 90 % Pakistani civilians think like this.
#21 Posted by arjun_m on May 16, 2005 10:46:42 pm
#18 by nauman9 on May 16, 2005 8:11pm PT
Please see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1454897.stm. However, that is not what Indians believed when the burned the effigy of George W. Bush. They were taken for a free ride by the Indian politicians, just like their Pakistani counterparts.
How many people were killed in the Indian protests? Did the Indian parliament pass a resolution against Dubya`s cat?
No...? Then it`s not the same....nice try, but no cigar....
Please see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1454897.stm. However, that is not what Indians believed when the burned the effigy of George W. Bush. They were taken for a free ride by the Indian politicians, just like their Pakistani counterparts.
How many people were killed in the Indian protests? Did the Indian parliament pass a resolution against Dubya`s cat?
No...? Then it`s not the same....nice try, but no cigar....
#20 Posted by nauman9 on May 16, 2005 9:38:18 pm
The other cartoon mentioned in the article:
Stephane Peray
Stephane Peray
#19 Posted by hamzaad on May 16, 2005 9:35:18 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#18 Posted by nauman9 on May 16, 2005 8:11:33 pm
Re: # 16
Thanks for your constructive critique. I really appreciate that.
[To be honest, the impact of this cartoon is virtually none on Pakistan and most likely, Pakistan was not even the intended target. In fact, the target audiences for this cartoon probably were the Americans. One can interpret this cartoon as strong anti-Bush.]
I used the words “probably” and “most likely” to provide another viewpoint. However, some readers may not agree with that inference. I used the newspaper’s ranking and strength of its subscriber base as the basis to reach that conclusion.
I have to admit that I, myself, have never read Washington Times before. This newspaper is a small regional newspaper and on its own, could not have reached the Pakistani masses. Most of the Pakistanis were offended after seeing the issue dragged in the Pakistan National Assembly by inept politicians.
A formal protest was neither required not necessary in this case as it was by far the most accurate depiction of the US-Pakistan relationship with regard to war on terrorism.
PS. Bush family owns a cat named “India”, (not a dog).
The name in fact, has nothing to do with India. The cat was actually named after a former Texas Ranger baseball player, Ruben Sierra, who was called ``El Indio”. Please see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1454897.stm. However, that is not what Indians believed when the burned the effigy of George W. Bush. They were taken for a free ride by the Indian politicians, just like their Pakistani counterparts.
Nauman Nisar.
Thanks for your constructive critique. I really appreciate that.
[To be honest, the impact of this cartoon is virtually none on Pakistan and most likely, Pakistan was not even the intended target. In fact, the target audiences for this cartoon probably were the Americans. One can interpret this cartoon as strong anti-Bush.]
I used the words “probably” and “most likely” to provide another viewpoint. However, some readers may not agree with that inference. I used the newspaper’s ranking and strength of its subscriber base as the basis to reach that conclusion.
I have to admit that I, myself, have never read Washington Times before. This newspaper is a small regional newspaper and on its own, could not have reached the Pakistani masses. Most of the Pakistanis were offended after seeing the issue dragged in the Pakistan National Assembly by inept politicians.
A formal protest was neither required not necessary in this case as it was by far the most accurate depiction of the US-Pakistan relationship with regard to war on terrorism.
PS. Bush family owns a cat named “India”, (not a dog).
The name in fact, has nothing to do with India. The cat was actually named after a former Texas Ranger baseball player, Ruben Sierra, who was called ``El Indio”. Please see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1454897.stm. However, that is not what Indians believed when the burned the effigy of George W. Bush. They were taken for a free ride by the Indian politicians, just like their Pakistani counterparts.
Nauman Nisar.
#16 Posted by rsridhar on May 16, 2005 6:35:40 pm
re: the article
This author makes some contradictory statements. Consider these:
``To be honest, the impact of this cartoon is virtually none on Pakistan ....``
``Still, most Pakistanis consider it a direct blow under the belt. Cultural differences are not enough to soothe their inflamed pride or to take the edge off that message that was bluntly conveyed to them via this cartoon.``
So, which is true? Were most Pakis offended or were they not?
Then, the author says the cartoon was not intended for Pakistan at all.
That is laughable.
To a layman like me (and i am sure the cartoon was intended for the public and not for Bush and party alone), the message was clear: Pak was being castigated for not doing enough to catch the prized catch viz OBL.
Of course, it is understandable why Pakis have their undies in a knot.
A ``dog`s like`` in the subcontinental context means: a miserable life. The same in US could mean: a comfortable life. A dog in US is well cared for, not so in South Asia.
Anyway, i think Indians in India too got upset one time when they learnt that George Bush has a dog by name India!
Sridhar
This author makes some contradictory statements. Consider these:
``To be honest, the impact of this cartoon is virtually none on Pakistan ....``
``Still, most Pakistanis consider it a direct blow under the belt. Cultural differences are not enough to soothe their inflamed pride or to take the edge off that message that was bluntly conveyed to them via this cartoon.``
So, which is true? Were most Pakis offended or were they not?
Then, the author says the cartoon was not intended for Pakistan at all.
That is laughable.
To a layman like me (and i am sure the cartoon was intended for the public and not for Bush and party alone), the message was clear: Pak was being castigated for not doing enough to catch the prized catch viz OBL.
Of course, it is understandable why Pakis have their undies in a knot.
A ``dog`s like`` in the subcontinental context means: a miserable life. The same in US could mean: a comfortable life. A dog in US is well cared for, not so in South Asia.
Anyway, i think Indians in India too got upset one time when they learnt that George Bush has a dog by name India!
Sridhar
#15 Posted by jay on May 16, 2005 4:15:49 pm
Pakistani reaction to the cartoon is a reaction to the relity of pak situation. for a long time the educated of pakistan have tried to state that pakistan has changed its postion on taliban because of a change in the values of pak society, a realisation about the consequences, But the truth is that the change was forced on pakistan, the call from Colin Powell. The cartoon is a true reflection of what the world thinks of pakistan, and the pakistnis are jolted by the truth, they hve seen their face in the mirror, the dogs face, listening to the one who feeds it.
That is why such strong reaction, no different from the reaction of pakistanis to my posts. The truth is a frightening to most pakistanis.
That is why such strong reaction, no different from the reaction of pakistanis to my posts. The truth is a frightening to most pakistanis.
#14 Posted by Godot on May 16, 2005 1:13:37 pm
Pakistan’s reaction to the Washington Times’ cartoon is nothing but a reflection of Pakistan’s deep-seated insecurities. Pakistan is not a mature country, the maturity that comes with a country’s economic development followed by intellectual development of its large middle-class – the middle-class that forms the backbone of a stable country.
Pakistan is not strong and secure enough to laugh at itself. It is an economically very weak and emotionally very vulnerable country. Given where Pakistan stands today vis-à-vis the fast moving world around it in general and the Unites States in particular, that reaction is not surprising at all.
Very nice and a thoughtful article, Nauman...except that people like you are not part of the Pakistani group that is deeply hurting because of the weakness and vulnerability of its country. Your thoughts represent the intellectually mature and emotionally secure middle-class of a developed country, not of people of Pakistan.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- Eklavya: OK, other than omprakash... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- tahmed32: Eklavya: please dont split... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- tahmed32: GF #83: while india's... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- Eklavya: tahmedji and harish A correction:... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- tahmed32: om prakash #75 agreed.... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- Goldfinger: harish_hyd, also this: www.rediff.com/news/2008/nov/nov28mumterror-rescue-efforts-badly-planne d-says-israel.htm?zcc=rl India's... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- rf786: Re: # 61 Like I... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- shoaib_daniyal: “We in Pakistan understand... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
