Recent Terror in Egypt

This being August 11 and the 58th anniversary of Mr Jinnah`s finest speech:

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen!
I cordially thank you, with the utmost sincerity, for the honour you have conferred upon me - the greatest honour that is possible to confer - by electing me as your first President. I also thank those leaders who have spoken in appreciation of my services and their personal references to me. I sincerely hope that with your support and your co-operation we shall make this Constituent Assembly an example to the world. The Constituent Assembly has got two main functions to perform. The first is the very onerous and responsible task of framing the future constitution of Pakistan and the second of functioning as a full and complete sovereign body as the Federal Legislature of Pakistan. We have to do the best we can in adopting a provisional constitution for the Federal Legislature of Pakistan. You know really that not only we ourselves are wondering but, I think, the whole world is wondering at this unprecedented cyclonic revolution which has brought about the clan of creating and establishing two independent sovereign Dominions in this sub-continent. As it is, it has been unprecedented; there is no parallel in the history of the world. This mighty sub-continent with all kinds of inhabitants has been brought under a plan which is titanic, unknown, unparalleled. And what is very important with regards to it is that we have achieved it peacefully and by means of an evolution of the greatest possible character.

Dealing with our first function in this Assembly, I cannot make any well-considered pronouncement at this moment, but I shall say a few things as they occur to me. The first and the foremost thing that I would like to emphasize is this: remember that you are now a sovereign legislative body and you have got all the powers. It, therefore, places on you the gravest responsibility as to how you should take your decisions. The first observation that I would like to make is this: You will no doubt agree with me that the first duty of a government is to maintain law and order, so that the life, property and religious beliefs of its subjects are fully protected by the State.

The second thing that occurs to me is this: One of the biggest curses from which India is suffering - I do not say that other countries are free from it, but, I think our condition is much worse - is bribery and corruption. That really is a poison. We must put that down with an iron hand and I hope that you will take adequate measures as soon as it is possible for this Assembly to do so.

Black-marketing is another curse. Well, I know that blackmarketeers are frequently caught and punished. Judicial sentences are passed or sometimes fines only are imposed. Now you have to tackle this monster, which today is a colossal crime against society, in our distressed conditions, when we constantly face shortage of food and other essential commodities of life. A citizen who does black-marketing commits, I think, a greater crime than the biggest and most grievous of crimes. These blackmarketeers are really knowing, intelligent and ordinarily responsible people, and when they indulge in black-marketing, I think they ought to be very severely punished, because the entire system of control and regulation of foodstuffs and essential commodities, and cause wholesale starvation and want and even death.

The next thing that strikes me is this: Here again it is a legacy which has been passed on to us. Along with many other things, good and bad, has arrived this great evil, the evil of nepotism and jobbery. I want to make it quite clear that I shall never tolerate any kind of jobbery, nepotism or any any influence directly of indirectly brought to bear upon me. Whenever I will find that such a practice is in vogue or is continuing anywhere, low or high, I shall certainly not countenance it.

I know there are people who do not quite agree with the division of India and the partition of the Punjab and Bengal. Much has been said against it, but now that it has been accepted, it is the duty of everyone of us to loyally abide by it and honourably act according to the agreement which is now final and binding on all. But you must remember, as I have said, that this mighty revolution that has taken place is unprecedented. One can quite understand the feeling that exists between the two communities wherever one community is in majority and the other is in minority. But the question is, whether it was possible or practicable to act otherwise than what has been done, A division had to take place. On both sides, in Hindustan and Pakistan, there are sections of people who may not agree with it, who may not like it, but in my judgement there was no other solution and I am sure future history will record is verdict in favour of it. And what is more, it will be proved by actual experience as we go on that was the only solution of India`s constitutional problem. Any idea of a united India could never have worked and in my judgement it would have led us to terrific disaster. Maybe that view is correct; maybe it is not; that remains to be seen. All the same, in this division it was impossible to avoid the question of minorities being in one Dominion or the other. Now that was unavoidable. There is no other solution. Now what shall we do? Now, if we want to make this great State of Pakistan happy and prosperous, we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well-being of the people, and especially of the masses and the poor. If you will work in co-operation, forgetting the past, burying the hatchet, you are bound to succeed. If you change your past and work together in a spirit that everyone of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what is his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this State with equal rights, privileges, and obligations, there will be on end to the progress you will make.

I cannot emphasize it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community, because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish. Indeed if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free people long long ago. No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for this. Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this. You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State. As you know, history shows that in England, conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the Nation.

Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.

Well, gentlemen, I do not wish to take up any more of your time and thank you again for the honour you have done to me. I shall always be guided by the principles of justice and fairplay without any, as is put in the political language, prejudice or ill-will, in other words, partiality or favouritism. My guiding principle will be justice and complete impartiality, and I am sure that with your support and co-operation, I can look forward to Pakistan becoming one of the greatest nations of the world.

I have received a message from the United States of America addressed to me. It reads:

I have the honour to communicate to you, in Your Excellency`s capacity as President of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, the following message which I have just received from the Secretary of State of the United States:
On the occasion of of the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly for Pakistan, I extend to you and to the members of the Assembly, the best wishes of the Government and the people of the United States for the successful conclusion of the great work you are about to undertake.


http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/legislation/constituent_address_11aug1947.html

#203 by dost-mittar

[Romair#197:

”However, I get the feeling that most Indians, are not pushed about Kashmiris deaths at all. They don`t really care if Kashmiris are killed by anyone from Pakistan. They actually support their killings by Indian soldiers. They just want to use the deaths of Kashmiris to score political points against Pakistanis.”

You may be right on this score. Most Indians believe that they have the title to the land of Kashmir; they are also blind to human rights abuses committed by their security forces. I am not one of them. ]

Most Indians know that they SHOULD have the title of the land of their forefathers, but DON’T. We Indians cannot even buy a piece of land in Kashmir, bur Kashmiris have free access to all of India.

All this pretentious talk of human rights abuses is patent garbage. From both of you.

To begin with, it is hard to believe that a Pakistani is talking about this issue, given Pakis’ appalling record in their own provinces.

ANY country under the sun that has had to deal with terrorists hiding in the midst of the general populace, drawing succour and support from MANY of them, has had to deal with it JUST THE WAY India has. Absolutely impeccable surgical operations that do not touch a single strand of hair of the bystanders, but cleanly takes out the terrorists is an impossibility, and CAN NEVER HAPPEN. One option is to do nothing, and let innocent men, women and children be butchered by Romair’s pet terrorists. The other option is to do something, and cause collateral damage.

Also important to note is the following:

Romair’s claim is that Indian soldiers have gone into Kashmir and started killing innocent people, and the terrorists are JUST REACTING TO THAT.

The REALITY, of course, is that Indian soldiers had to suppress terrorist activity, causing some collateral damage.

So all talk by this Romair character on this issue is fake self-righteousness.

He is guilty, along with all the terrorists he supports.

I as someone whose forefathers came from Kashmir, want POK back. It was stolen from us because of the idiocy and incompetence of Jawaharlal Nehru. But we will get it back, when the time is right. Just like one day Tibet will be free.


[“If they were genuinely concerned, one would think they would be all for letting the Kashmiris speak out for their own rights. How can one talk against Kashmiri killings, yet support one`s own govt. and army`s killings of them? It defies logic............and is very opportunistic............”

India made a commitment to the people of Jammu and Kashmir which it has reneged upon. It has spent billions of dollars in subsidies for Kashmiris but has apparently failed to counter the pull of Islam for Muslims who are willing to lose everything to join the land of the pure and are willing to ethnically cleanse themselves of their `napaak` element to achieve that goal.]

That’s nonsense. India has not reneged upon anything. If it has, why don’t you give a list of what it promised, where it promised it, and how they have reneged on it?

Go on. Produce a list. I bet you won’t be able to.


[In return, India has only weakened itself morally and economically. So, it is in India’s interests to respect the desire of Muslim Kashmiris. But I am against a plebiscite as Kashmir seceding India as a result of Muslims voting against India may have negative repercussions for Indian Muslims.]

Self-interest, eh? Otherwise it would be okay, huh?

Who says the Indian Muslim ain’t patriotic?

#202 by hindvi

Normalization of relations creates a lobby that is against percipitious action like intensifying terrorism.

People from all walks of life like small traders,middle class professionals, industrialists will have a stake in normal relations with India if there is enough trade and commerce between the two countries.

This constrains the extreme options of the armed forces.

Romair#197:

Congratulations! You have finally succeeded in turning the discussion into your favourite topic. :-)

“In your value system, is a soldier killing civilians, whose land is occupied against their wishes, a murderer also. Or does he have carte blanche to kill as he pleases, as ordered by his govt.? This is usually where many value systems break down, and take a convenient U-turn......Which is why I have no respect whatsoever for such value systems.....Let`s see if yours breaks down also.........”

Are you talking about a land to which the person has a title or because he wants that title to be transferred from the current title holder of a different religion to someone else of his own? As regards soldier, it is his job to follow orders, as you should know more than anyone else; if he has moral objection to an order given to him, he should leave the army and be prepared to face a court martial as a conscientious objector; this is not just MY value system but of most people.

”India openly supported Muktin Bahani. It trained them, and sent in its soldiers with them, in disguise, across a national border. Not an LOC mind you. Mukti Bahni killed like crazy. Would you consider that an act of terrorism, on part of India?”

Mukti Bahini was a rebellious outfit, just like LTTE or Hizb in Kashmir (not LeT, or JeM) and, if it were killing civilians, it was a terrorist organization. However, Indian soldiers who went behind enemy lines were just following orders, just like the Pakistani soldiers during 1965 or 1998. I may not approve of either the Indian or the Pakistani government actions in those cases but wouldn’t call the soldiers terrorists.

“The number of people killed by the BJP, in a very organized manner in Ayodhya and Gujrat far outnumbers those ever killed by SSP. SSP is a political party. I consider SSP a terrorist party. Do you consider BJP one also? Do you consider SSP one?

BJP did not kill anyone in Ayodhya. BJP workers who participated in mob killings in Gujarat were terrorists but I am not aware if this was a policy of the national party. What Modi did was criminal negligence and worse, and he ought to be tried for his crimes. However, given the Indian legal system where a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, he has less chance of being found guilty than Bagri did in the Air India case. BJP is a political organization which is open to all Indians regardless of their religious affiliation; the only terrorist organization in India similar to SSP is an obscure organization called SIMI (Students Islamic Movement of India) which aims to achieve political ends by bombing its targets. RSS, Shiv Sena, Bajrang Dal are some other communal organizations who have an anti-Muslim agenda and whose members have instigated and participated in communal riots and killings. They are as bad or even worse for India as SSP is for Pakistan because they are more influential, even though their members do not carry guns and attack mosques to kill Muslims. Unfortunately, hate speech is not a crime in India and they cannot be prosecuted.

”My concern in Kashmir is for Kashmiris. If anyone is, ``murdering`` them, I consider that person a terrorist. I don`t care if they came from India, Pakistan, Russia, or the moon. What to talk of LeT etc., if Musharraf started killing them, I would consider him a terrorist. If Manmohan did so, I would consider him one, as well. If my own father killed them, I would consider him one, as well”

Your concern is for Muslims and Pakistan, not for Kashmiris as you have not displayed any affinity for Kashmiri language or culture or any other aspect of Kashmiriyat. No person who is interested in the well-being of Kashmir would contemplating handing over its control to a country which is eyeing its water resources (and please do not come back with let the Kashmiris decide what is good for them, Indian Muslims also voted for Pakistan because they thought it was good for them).

”To me, it is not an Indian-Pakistan thing.......I am for genuine self-determination and human rights........”

If you are concerned about human rights, ask your favourite Kashmiris to create the conditions for the return at least of the Pandits whom they ethnically cleansed from their midst, not to speak of those who were similarly pushed out from Kashmir which became ‘Azad’.

”However, I get the feeling that most Indians, are not pushed about Kashmiris deaths at all. They don`t really care if Kashmiris are killed by anyone from Pakistan. They actually support their killings by Indian soldiers. They just want to use the deaths of Kashmiris to score political points against Pakistanis.”

You may be right on this score. Most Indians believe that they have the title to the land of Kashmir; they are also blind to human rights abuses committed by their security forces. I am not one of them.

“If they were genuinely concerned, one would think they would be all for letting the Kashmiris speak out for their own rights. How can one talk against Kashmiri killings, yet support one`s own govt. and army`s killings of them? It defies logic............and is very opportunistic............”

India made a commitment to the people of Jammu and Kashmir which it has reneged upon. It has spent billions of dollars in subsidies for Kashmiris but has apparently failed to counter the pull of Islam for Muslims who are willing to lose everything to join the land of the pure and are willing to ethnically cleanse themselves of their `napaak` element to achieve that goal. In return, India has only weakened itself morally and economically. So, it is in India’s interests to respect the desire of Muslim Kashmiris. But I am against a plebiscite as Kashmir seceding India as a result of Muslims voting against India may have negative repercussions for Indian Muslims.

what i dont understand is what prevents pak from trading with india while maintaining kashmir as a core issue after all it would only strengthen pakistan. if the fear is that india would aquire a strangle hold on the pak economy than pakistan can make the trade conditional on india accepting fossil fuel pipelines originating from Iran and central asia across Pak. On thios issues I find even the most liberal pakistanis like hamidm intransigent.

why would a people willingly inflict injury worth more than billions of dollars a year on themselves is truly puzzling? does it stem from ignorance, i wonder.

#200 by sunlight

Now watch Captain Clueless do the disappearing act! Or he will pretend that this post was never addressed to him.

Re: # 185 by Romair
``Ayaz`s views are actually the views of the common Pakistani. He is against militarism. Recognizes Pakistan`s faults in it. But also recognizes other countries` faults in it, as well. Do keep in mind that he is one of the top two or three most popular politicians in his area of Chakwal in rural Potohar. When he writes articles, he expresses the views of his constituents, since his articles can be held against him, in an election. Which is why I keep saying that his views are just about right, when it comes to Pakistan``
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Since you have a military background, I think these posts clearly demonstrate a big difference between the views of people in the Pakistani Armed Forces and people like Ayaz Amir, who as you point out, is a democrat, and is very careful about what he writes. I am quoting from an article ``Grow up Pakistan`` (though I now wonder if he should have titled it ``Grow up, ISI``) up,http://www.newsline.com.pk/NewsJan2004/guestjan2004.htm

``Back in 2001, Pakistan`s permanent establishment (read army/ISI) was still riding the tiger of jihad and thinking that with the American connection restored, Pakistan could have its cake and eat it. It could carry America`s bags in Afghanistan and simultaneously sustain jihad in Kashmir.

As anyone could have told our bonzes, this was a huge fallacy. ``

``The utmost that India can afford to do is give some measure of autonomy to the Valley within the bounds of the Indian Union and the Indian constitution. Nothing more. The LoC is not going to change and if any geo-strategists in Pakistan (may their tribe increase) think otherwise, they need a serious reality check.``

``We do ourselves and our national cause no service when we say Kashmir is the ``core issue.`` The core issue is the mess we`ve made of our affairs, the militarisation, not so much of Pakistani society as of the Pakistani mind that we have managed to achieve. To secure some form of mental liberation, we have to rid ourselves of these shackles. Which won`t happen unless the geo-strategic community, serving and retired, straddling the broad wastes between `Pindi and Islamabad, defines Kashmir as a problem not a cosmic symbol and stops using it {Kashmir} as an excuse for the military`s continued dominance of Pakistan and its people.

We keep weeping about democracy without realising that in the Fortress Pakistan that we have created, with its high walls and fake geo-strategic theories, democracy is a plant that just can`t survive. ``

``By basing our entire foreign policy on hostility towards India, we have made ourselves vulnerable to other pressures. Why do we lick America`s boots every now and then? Because we think that by doing so, and by receiving small change for our efforts, we prime ourselves vis-a-vis India. What kind of brilliance is this?``

#195

1. Genesis of violence in Kashmir:
How many Indian soldiers were in Kashmir before 1989?

The current round of violence in Kashmir started in 1989 and was spearheaded by the JKLF.
Recently in a trip to POK Yasin Malik ``thanked`` Sheikh Rashid for this support to the Kashmir cause.

Dawn on June 14th, 2005 reported:

```Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed set up a camp where around 3,500 Jihadis were trained in guerrilla warfare, revealed Yasin Malik, the Jammu & Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) chairman``
Sheikh Rashid seemngly unnerved by the gratitude first denied completely, then weakly admitted to running a ``humanitarian`` camp. In a few days the then Pakistani army chief Gen Aslam Beg and then interior minister Brig. Naseerullah Babar confirmed that Sheikh Rashid under ISI supervision, ran a large ``jihadi training camp`` near Islamabad from 1989-92.

Now why is this important?
The role of the Pakistani jihadi ``tanzeems`` such as the HuA, LeT, JeM in Kasmir is well known. These groups were important 91-92 onwards.
Now we see clear evidence of Pakistani jihadi training being imparted from the earliest stages of the current violence.

2. Crimes of Indian soldiers in Kashmir
Kashmir is an undeclared war zone. Pakistan has pumped in enough small arms to equip a few brigades, tonnes of advanced RDX explosive, remote denonators, IED training etc etc. over 6 thousand Pakisanti terrorists and over 10 thousand Pakistani trained local terrorists have been killed in Kashmir.

Troops operate in a tough environement, and in a war zone innocents do get killed, I would split in following categories:

- Soldiers who commit crimes: murder, rape, loot.
I do have confidence that the Indian army manage to prosecute a large % in this category. But the paramilitary forces do not have the same systems and sometimes get away with it. Every time it happens it is a clear black mark against India.

- People picked up for intelligence purposes, torture and dissapearance.
Yes torture and ``dissapearance`` of innocents does occur. The most egregious case I remember is of the 4 people who were picked up and killed after the Chattisinghpura massacare. This is also a pure crime, the officer responsible must be puninished.

- collateral deaths during army operations
Depending on situation, it Army soldiers violate ``Rules of Engagement`` soldiers have been prosecuted. In some situations it is difficult to determine fault in this situation. The most important case I can remember is during the Amarnath Yatra where a lot of the hindu piligrims who died were from security forces bullets.

Pakistani and local Kasmiri terrorists have a deliberate policy of hiding among the local population and using the local population as a sheild. This is to provoke anger due to such deaths.

Most civilian casulties occur in this category.

- Genuine errors
Night operations, operations in crowded areas are genuine error prone, the soldier/officer who makes the mistake has to live with it the rest of his life.

- Soldiers not trained for crowd control
BSF soldiers early on in Kashmir, sometimes opened fire as they were not trained for crowd control.

But the crux is this, Indian armed forces must consistently strive to reduce deaths among all the above categories.

3. Communal violence
India`s inability to prosecute people for communal violence is a serious problem, no doubt about it. The cycle of communal violence cannot stop unless we have credible investigation and prosecution in each case of communal violence.
I personally have no problems with Modi and his ilk being tried in any international court of law (Milosevic-style). no matter how much it ``tarnishes`` Indian`s image.

Romair:

``I am more concerned about the cause.``

And your cause, if you are prepared to be honest, is Islam, not Kashmir. Because it is only an undetermined number of Muslim Kashmiris who are creating all the hungama. Not Dogras. Not Buddhists. Not Sikhs. Not Christians. Not Pandits. You repeatedly call for self-determination because of your smug belief that when forced to choose between the qur`an and kafir, the Muslim majority would vote for the former even if it means cultural and linguisic, if not economic, suicide.

Your concern for Kashmiris or Kashmiriyat is non-existent. Despite claiming to be a Kashmiri, in your thousands of thousand-word interacts, you have never displayed any allegiance to Kashmiri language or culture, as you do to Islam, pakistan, Urdu and even Punjabi. You have no pride in the Kashmiri language or culture. You have lost it all and you do not even show any sense of loss. Instead, you boast that you will gladly vote with both hands for those who robbed you of your culture and your language. All in the name of Islam. You are typical of those Kashmiris who shout ``Pakistan se rishta kya, la illaha l`il allah``.

Your concern for human rights is also selective. While I have consistently deplored human rights violations of Kashmiris by Indian security forces, and still do, you have never shed a tear for your fellow Kashmiris in Azad Kashmir who were ethnically cleansed from their lands. As I have frequently said before, Muzzaffarabad had a majority of Hindus and Sikhs before it was ``liberated`` by the same people whom you are supporting now. They have been completed obliterated; some of them are still alive in your liberated lands but only after they were willing to change their names and read the kalima. Who can support such freedom fighters?

Dost-mittar #196: ``any CIVILIAN who is willing to cross boundaries and kill anyone for whatever purpose is a criminal murderer. Period. I might make a concession about an Iraqi or an Afghan or even a Kashmiri fighting for his own cause; although I have always called LTTE militants terrorists, too.``

Fine. I agree with this.........

1. In your value system, is a soldier killing civilians, whose land is occupied against their wishes, a murderer also. Or does he have carte blanche to kill as he pleases, as ordered by his govt.? This is usually where many value systems break down, and take a convenient U-turn......Which is why I have no respect whatsoever for such value systems.....Let`s see if yours breaks down also..........

2. India openly supported Muktin Bahani. It trained them, and sent in its soldiers with them, in disguise, across a national border. Not an LOC mind you. Mukti Bahni killed like crazy. Would you consider that an act of terrorism, on part of India?

3. The number of people killed by the BJP, in a very organized manner in Ayodhya and Gujrat far outnumbers those ever killed by SSP. SSP is a political party. I consider SSP a terrorist party. Do you consider BJP one also? Do you consider SSP one?

My concern in Kashmir is for Kashmiris. If anyone is, ``murdering`` them, I consider that person a terrorist. I don`t care if they came from India, Pakistan, Russia, or the moon. What to talk of LeT etc., if Musharraf started killing them, I would consider him a terrorist. If Manmohan did so, I would consider him one, as well. If my own father killed them, I would consider him one, as well

To me, it is not an Indian-Pakistan thing.......I am for genuine self-determination and human rights........

However, I get the feeling that most Indians, are not pushed about Kashmiris deaths at all. They don`t really care if Kashmiris are killed by anyone from Pakistan. They actually support their killings by Indian soldiers. They just want to use the deaths of Kashmiris to score political points against Pakistanis.

If they were genuinely concerned, one would think they would be all for letting the Kashmiris speak out for their own rights. How can one talk against Kashmiri killings, yet support one`s own govt. and army`s killings of them? It defies logic............and is very opportunistic............

Romair:

In my value system (and in the value system of almost everyone not bound by what`s written in a certain book, which means over four-fifths of the world population), any CIVILIAN who is willing to cross boundaries and kill anyone for whatever purpose is a criminal murderer. Period. I might make a concession about an Iraqi or an Afghan or even a Kashmiri fighting for his own cause; although I have always called LTTE militants terrorists, too.

Bong-dongs #191: Now here are my questions. The reason I am asking these is because I think there is a hardcore effort to paint Kashmiri freedom struggle as a terorrist movement, on this site, and in India, in general. People try to show a lot of concern for the Kashmiris, while simultaneously suppressing their viewpoint:

1. In the past fifteen years, even according to conservate foreign estimates the Indian military has killed tens of thousands of innocent people in Kashmir. Just four days ago, three school kids were shot dead I can present proof from Amnesty Int`l etc. if you want. Do you think that is State terrorism?

2. Do you that the Kashmiris themselves should be asked to decide whom they consider to be a terrorist? Or do you feel you can speak for them?

3. The two biggest acts of terrorism in South Asia in the past 15 years, were the orchestrated killings of 2000 people at Ayhodhya. And the orchestrated killing of 2000 people at Gujrat. The total is equal to all the people killed in WTC.

Do you think those were acts of terrorism? They were carried out by the BJP high command. Do you think BJP is a terrorist party? Much like SSP, which has not killed even close to that many people.

I will be hoping for some honest straightforward answers from you. In this whole scenario, my loyalties are with the Kashmiris. Which is why I think they should get a chance to speak their mind.............

Bong-dongs #191: I will answer your questions, if you honestly answer mine:

1. ``Now tell me ROmair where does HuA lie on your spectrum:``

If your assertions are correct than it is a terrorist group.

2. ``Another example SSP (Sipahi Sahaba Pakistan) is usually blamed for ssectarian violence in Pakistan. SSP is just another name for LeT (Lashkar-e-Toiba) a Hanafi inspired group which is active not only in Kashmir but all over India. ``

You are incorrect here. SSP and LeT are two completely different groups. Perhaps the words Lashkar confused you. SSP is a political party, which is based in Jhang. It is an anti-Shia political party. It has a militant arm called Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, which targets Shias. Which is obviously a terrorist group, and is heavily targeted by the govt......

Dost-mittar #191: `` At the same time, unlike you, he also acknowledges that the same jihadis frequently wear different labels and it is impossible to destroy one type and encourage the other.``

No one is talking of destroying one type and encouraging the other. I don`t know where you got that from. So far the only person unwilling to discourage all types of militarism in Kashmir is you. Not me.

But there is definitely a difference between the case of Al-Qaeda, Taliban and Kashmir. I am surprised you don`t see the difference. I am quite sure Ayaz Amir does. He is openly pro-Kashmir by the way. Al-Qaeda is a terorist organization. Taliban are an extremely conservative fascist govt. in Afghanistan. And Kashmir is a freedom struggle against an occupation. You don`t have to take my word for it. Just ask the people in Afghanistan and in Kashmir. I am willing to accept their views, if you are.

I think there is an effort to paint Kashmir as an equivalent to Al-Qaeda, thereby portraying it as a terrorist cause. This is the same strategy Russia is using in Chechnya. I don`t think it is going to work. I think eventually one would have to ask the Kashmiris what they want.......

There should be no encouragement of any kind of militarism in Kashmir. All of which should be finished. I don`t know how frequently one group wears the hats of the other. I am more concerned about the cause. I am against Taliban and Al-Qaeda causes. However, as you know, I am pro Kashmiri self-determination.

DM saheb
SM Romair is in maidan conducting a qa`waid of new recruits... ;-) do not expect a reply soon...

Romair#185:

I look forward to your response to bongdongs` questions.

Both Irfan and Ayaz are at least as intelligent as you and I are..both know the difference as well as the LINKS between the various jihadist organization. So, while Ayaz talks about the excesses, such as bombings of Waziristan, by Musharraf, he is referring to the activities wrt Al Qaeda. At the same time, unlike you, he also acknowledges that the same jihadis frequently wear different labels and it is impossible to destroy one type and encourage the other.

Both of them are also aware that the majority of Pakistanis support certain types of jihadis, but unlike the majority, they are also able to discern the damage that support of these jihadis have done to the Pakistani society. Whether Indians like or dislike cross-border murderers carrying qur`an in their arms is a separate issue, you and I are here discussing the effect of such mujahideen on Pakistan.

#185

Another example SSP (Sipahi Sahaba Pakistan) is usually blamed for ssectarian violence in Pakistan. SSP is just another name for LeT (Lashkar-e-Toiba) a Hanafi inspired group which is active not only in Kashmir but all over India.

LeT of course as everyone knows, is a offshoot of Markaz-Dawa-ul-Irshad which is famous for its impressive campus at Muridke near Lahore.

now tell me how will you deal with SSP, while keeping LeT alive and fighting the Indian`s?

Capt Clueless: the indigenous Kashmiri freedom fighters are part of AQ...If you say they`re not, why did el-presidente bend over and ban them?

Jihad with that?

The holy war donation tins may have gone from the fast food joints
of Lahore but the president of Pakistan apparently still needs the
militants he is supposed to be rooting out, writes Declan Walsh


Monday August 1, 2005

A week ago a donations box for jihad sat on
the counter of the Subway sandwich restaurant in Gulberg, a bustling
middle-class suburb of Lahore. By Friday it was gone.

``Sorry, management ordered us to remove it,`` said the cashier behind the till.

The transparent box - one of hundreds in businesses across the city
- solicited contributions to Jamaat-ud Dawa, an Islamic charity widely
seen as a front for a jihadi militia fighting Indian forces in the
disputed territory of Kashmir.

The boxes were withdrawn as part of a wide-ranging crackdown on
domestic militants after allegations that the perpetrators of the
recent bomb attacks in London had contacts with at least two Pakistani
groups.

In the past week, the president of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, has
ordered a freeze on such fundraising, the arrest of more than 600
people and the expulsion of foreign students from madrasa religious
schools.

But President Musharraf has ordered several such sweeps since 2001,
only for the militant groups to spring up again after lying low for a
while. Sceptics are unsure whether there is
serious intent behind the present crackdown. ``If you want to make a
contribution, just wait a few months,`` the Subway cashier said. ``By
then the boxes should be out again.``


Diplomats and analysts say Mr Musharraf is reluctant to dismantle
the jihadi groups - which have waged a violent campaign in Kashmir
since the late 1990s - because they provide useful leverage in
negotiations with Pakistan`s old foe, India.

There was substantial progress towards peace between the two
countries earlier this year but the process has slowed over the past
month.

The worry for the west is that the groups
operating in Kashmir - fired up by Islamist ideology and anger over the
US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq - are lending their expertise in
violence to al-Qaida.

Bomb attacks on westerners, two assassination attempts on Mr
Musharraf and the murder of the American reporter Daniel Pearl have all
been attributed to Pakistani militants with al-Qaida links.

The London bombers appear to have moved in the
same militant circles. Last week, the New York Times reported that the
Circle Line bomber, Shehzad Tanweer, was trained at a camp north of
Islamabad run by the Kashmir militant outfit Jaish-i-Mohammad.

There are also unconfirmed reports that Tanweer visited a madrasa
run by Jamaat-ud Dawa. Since splitting from the militant group
Lashkar-i-Taiba in December 2001, Jamaat has claimed to prosecute jihad
through good works, not guns.

Jamaat tends to the sick of Pakistan using a fleet of 150
ambulances, 600 medical dispensaries and a team of doctors, said the
Pakistani information secretary, Mohammad Yahya Mujahid, in Lahore.


Wearing a long, scraggly beard of the type usually associated with
deeply conservative Muslims, Mr Mujahid said that the organisation runs
137 schools and 40 madrasas. It also sends a team of clerics to mosques
around the country to ``preach and discuss political issues facing
Islam``.

And, most importantly, according to Mr Mujahid, Jamaat has severed
all ties with the Lashkar-i-Taiba gunmen in Kashmir. ``That chapter is
completely closed,`` he said.

But few believe him, not least the Pakistani police. About 115
Jamaat members were arrested last week under anti-terrorist laws,
although more 75 of them have since been released.

``Our people are always arrested but the courts let them go,`` Mr Mujahid said confidently. ``We are law abiding citizens.``

Groups such as Jamaat-ud Dawa present a sharp dilemma for Mr
Musharraf. Although their madrasas do not train fighters, analysts say,
they provide a pool of indoctrinated young men from which the militant
wings can recruit.

The young jihadis are directed to a network of secret training
camps in a heavily forested area in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir. Some
of the same camps are allegedly linked to al-Qaida.

Two al-Qaida fighters captured recently told
investigators in San Francisco they were trained at a camp run by
Kashmir militants near Rawalpindi.

The claim remains unconfirmed, and the interior minister says such training camps do not exist.


Last week Mr Musharraf vowed to arrest every extremist ``bigwig`` in
Pakistan. But if he cracks down too strongly on the Kashmir groups, he
risks a backlash from powerful Islamic parties.

Nevertheless, diplomats say it is a step he must take to root out his country`s troubled association with al-Qaida.

``We need to see action across the board, a complete change of policy - not just selective actions,`` one diplomat said.

HuA (Harkat-ul-Ansar) is one of the main Jihadi groups in Kashmir. It is also known as HuM and HuJI (Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, Harkat-ul-Jihad-I-Islami, there is a convoluted history here but lets forget it for a moment).

HuA and its Amir Fazlur Rehman Khalil was one of the original signatories of Bin Ladens declaration against ``Christians and Crusaders``. Its members were active in Somailia in the early `90`s. HuA members were so trusted by Bin Laden as to form part of his core bodygaurds in Afghanistan. The US cruise missile strikes after the embassy bombings in E.Africa destroyed a HuA camp in Afghanistan. At one time it was closely related to Masood Azhar (before he formed Jaish-e-Mohammed) and like all Pakistani deobandi groups it is closely linked to various factions of the Jamait-E-Ulema-Islami (JUI, F and S).

Now tell me ROmair where does HuA lie on your spectrum:
- Is it a anti-Indian Kashmiri group?
- Is it a Pakistani domestic group?
- Is it a anti-western oriented ``Al-Queida`` group?

#186

I have a few minutes here ...

HuA (Harkat-ul-Ansar) is one of the main Jihadi groups in Kashmir, it is also known as HuM and HuJI (Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, Harkat-ul-Jihad-I-Islami, there is a convoluted history here but lets forget it for a moment).

HuA and its Amir Fazlur Rehman Khalil was one of the original signatories of Bin Ladens declaration against ``Christians and Crusaders``, its members were active in Somailia in the early `90`s. huA members wer so trusted by Bin Laden as to form prt of his core bodygaurds, the US cruise missle strikes after the embassy bombing destryed a HuA camp in Afghanistan. At one time it was closely related to Masood Azhar (before he formed Jaish-e-Mohammed) and like all Pakistani deobandi groups it is closely linked to various factions of the Jamait-E-Ulema-Islami (F and S).

Now tell me ROmair where does HuA lie on your spectrum:
- Is it a andti-Indian Kashmiri group?
- Is it a Pakistani domestic group?
- Is it a anti-western oriented ``Al-Quida`` group?

#185

Good post, in two simple paragrahs you expose the hypocrisy of the Pakistani establishment.

Dost-mittar #184: ``Ayaz Amir`s reference was to the fight against Al Qaeda. As you are well aware, Pakistani establishment makes a distinction between Al Qaeda, Taliban and jihad directed at IOK; there have been recent reports of how many in this establishment have decided to relieve the pressure of jihadis in the West by providing them an outlet in the East. Apparently, they are trying to convince Americans also of the soundness of their approach.``

The quotes from the article are right in front of you. I hope you can see a difference between his approach and Irfan Hussain`s..........

Not only the Pakistani establishment, but nearly every Pakistani (including Ayaz Amir) makes a distinction between the three. Because all three are actually different issues, with different motivations and different morals. There is a fourth one also, which is the Shia/Sunni violence. There have been attempts made to jumble them all together, as if they are one and the same.

This is where Ayaz Amir and Irfan Hussain are different, as well. Irfan does not differentiate between any of those. His views would be more in line with the views of most Indians. In fact, his views would find more traction in India, than in Pakistan (which may be why they appeal to you).

Ayaz`s views are actually the views of the common Pakistani. He is against militarism. Recognizes Pakistan`s faults in it. But also recognizes other countries` faults in it, as well. Do keep in mind that he is one of the top two or three most popular politicians in his area of Chakwal in rural Potohar. When he writes articles, he expresses the views of his constituents, since his articles can be held against him, in an election. Which is why I keep saying that his views are just about right, when it comes to Pakistan..........

I think people in Pakistan realize they have a militancy problem. And they realize that the part related to Shia/Sunni is totally Pakistan`s fault (with some support from Iran and Saudi Arabia). The Taliban problem is Pakistan`s fault (with some participation from USA and Saudi Arabia). However, the Al-Qaeda problem is primarily USA`s fault, and Pakistan has done more than its share to help the USA. It won`t be solved as long as USA/UK is in Iraq. And the Kashmir problem and the militancy there (both from the State and the civilians) is primarily India`s fault, with Pakistan coming in as an after-affect..........And it won`t be solved as long as Kashmir is militarized.........Both areas should be vacated of all soldiers and civilian militants...........

That is where most Pakistanis stand. From reading your comments, I get the feeling, you feel it is alright for the military forces to remain in Iraq and Kashmir. But the militants should stop their fighting. I am not sure any militant struggle can ever end like that. It always has to be a mutual withdrawl...............

Romair#182

Sunlight already gave the answer.

Ayaz Amir`s reference was to the fight against Al Qaeda. As you are well aware, Pakistani establishment makes a distinction between Al Qaeda, Taliban and jihad directed at IOK; there have been recent reports of how many in this establishment have decided to relieve the pressure of jihadis in the West by providing them an outlet in the East. Apparently, they are trying to convince Americans also of the soundness of their approach.

Re: # 182 by Romair

It is always good to put a pointer to the original URL, so people can verify from the original. This is from his July 22nd article http://www.dawn.com/weekly/ayaz/20050722.htm I think what he is saying is slightly different.

You summarized him as saying
``Pakistan has pretty much done all it can on the Al-Qaeda side. Now USA and UK are creating a mess in Iraq, for which they cannot keep blaming Pakistan``.

However, he also said (in the same article)
``A Pakistani connection to the London bombings is sad but at the same time understandable. After all, under military sponsorship and guidance, Pakistan took pride in being a laboratory of jihad for well over 20 years, there being no madness in Afghanistan in which we were not involved. With a legacy this long it takes time for all its manifestations to be eliminated.``

In other words, even though US and UK cannot blame Pakistan for their Iraq problems, Pakistanis are still involved in acts of global terrorism since the legacy of terrorism has not been cleaned up.

He believes that the military is not serious about tackling religious extremism (in the same article)
``Mosques and seminaries are raided, maulvis and madressah students are arrested and strong statements denouncing religious extremism are issued. Taken in by this sound and fury, many people are led to believe that the crackdown this time is for real.

Soon the fever subsides and it is back to business as usual, until the next alarm sounds and the government of Pakistan again bends to the necessity of rounding up the usual suspects.``

This is why he believes that the solution is democracy, and that economic growth under the military will not solve Pakistan`s problems.

Regarding
``But the point remains that if our conversion is genuine, and there is nothing to suggest it is not,...``
the conversion is a conversion of the heart, not the elimination of terrorist culture, since if terrorist culture had been eliminated, there would be no need to write
``But it is for America and Britain to clean up their mess. We have to clean up ours...``

Dost-mittar #171: ``...And this article is about Egypt, terrorists, Pakistan and Egypt blaming Pakistan for terrorist acts, not just about Egypt.``

OK......You have a point.........

``I only said that Ayaz and Irfan agree on Musharraf`s ambiguity in fight against terrorism, not on other subjects. I might add, however, that Ayaz is not always consistent and sometimes does have sober, second thoughts.``

I am not sure they agree. They are inherently different people. You may want to read their articles in more detail. And check out the backgrounds and careers. Ayaz Amir is much more of a nationalist and a grass-roots person. He lives in the tiny city of Chakwal. His solutions to Pakistan`s problem are based on the empowerment of middle-class Pakistanis. Irfan has a much more upper class demenaour. He lives in Karachi and I believe has a British wife and spends much of his time abroad. His solutions to Pakistan are based on staying on the good side of the West, and getting rid of maulvis (in any way possible). I cannot give you a better analogy than myself and hamidm.........

I have highlighted the differences in their views in the previous article. Here is what Ayaz Amir wrote about what Pakistan should do:

``Since then the Pakistan Army has fought pitched battles against suspected extremist elements along the Pakistan-Afghan border, suffering heavy casualties in the process........

All this shows that if in the past Pakistan was an exporter of religious extremism, it no longer is, having learned the hard way the consequences of creating a (Frankenstein) monster. There is nothing fake, therefore, about our conversion

But the point remains that if our conversion is genuine, and there is nothing to suggest it is not, why should Pakistan be put on the defensive when a Pakistani connection, strong or remote, is uncovered in any terrorist act across the globe? Why the need to play these games? If we are following a steady course and there is no dichotomy in our thinking, then there should not be any need for us to stage sound-and-light shows to impress outside opinion......

As for the Iraq angle to terrorism today, thankfully we have nothing to do with it . Just as we earned our terrorism spurs in Afghanistan, the United States and United Kingdom are earning theirs in Iraq.

how do we lick it? Not by parading the usual suspects when expediency so dictates but — and if this is not asking for too much — by recasting national policy to ensure the retreat of militarism and the primacy of democracy.`` (www.dawn.com)

He feels:

- Pakistan has pretty much done all it can on the Al-Qaeda side. Now USA and UK are creating a mess in Iraq, for which they cannot keep blaming Pakistan
- Pakistan should not put up, ``light shows`` everytime a bomb goes off in London
- Pakistan should solve the remaining problem of extremism (Shia/Sunni/Taliban) through democracy

All of this is what I am trying to state. Other than, on point three, I disagree. I think the solution is through economic growth, with or without democracy. Musharraf is, at the moment, at a point, where the USA is saying he needs to, ``do more`` (as are you) to satisfy the USA`s plans. While a majority of his own citizens (Ayaz Amir included) are saying that he has already gone overboard in giving the USA precedence over his own country (I am about to join that list, along with Ayaz, also).

Musharraf is in a damned if you do, damned if you don`t situation. Which way should he lean? Should he satisfy the citizens of the USA or should he satisfy his own citizens. I would hope the later...........

Musharraf should just follow legal procedures and prosecute anyone in Pakistan, he gets information about, from other countries. If it is foreigner, he should catch him, and send him back. The remaining GWOT problem lies in Iraq. That is the cause of the bomb explosions in London (according to 2/3rd of the Britishers, themselves). And that is the cause of OBL becoming more popular than he ever was. Pakistan did not create that problem. And, believe me, it is not in Pakistan`s interest to always divide its own society to satisfy others.......I have seen the long term consequences of the Afghan War on Pakistan.............

And, under no circumstance, should it ever jail its own citizens, without due process, at the request of any foreigner. Nothing can be more humiliating for a citizen of Pakistan. They will lose all faith in their own country. I hold this view for Pakistanis I hate as much as those I like.

Musharraf should now start listening to his own people. Not expats like me. But those who are in Pakistan. And Irfan Hussain is just one of them. He has a right to his view. But there are many others...........Musharraf should specifically listen to the ones, who are the majority and have no where else to go, but Pakistan.......Believe me, I have a lot of faith in their judgement.........Moreso than I do in the Chowk crowd`s judgement.....Otherwise, everyone Tom, Dick and Mittar will be blaming many of their self-created internal problems (be they Kashmir or Iraq) completely on Pakistan.........

Thanks to ArjunM:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=XJX5ZF3BO2WAPQFIQMFSM54AVCBQ0JVC?xml=/news/2005/08/01/wislam01.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/08/01/ixportaltop.html


Why tolerance is not on the curriculum in Pakistan
By Ahmed Rashid in Lahore
(Filed: 01/08/2005)

For almost 30 years the most famous words of Pakistan`s founder, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, have been absent from school and military college curricula.

``You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed - that has nothing to do with the business of the State,`` Jinnah told his countrymen in 1947 as Pakistan won its independence.


Cleric teaches the Koran in the family village of suspected London bomber Shehzad Tanweer
He clearly envisaged Pakistan as a democratic, not a theocratic state, but in the 1970s his words were blacked out by the military regime allied to Islamic fundamentalists helping the Afghans and Americans fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

Pakistan became an ``ideological`` Islamic state whose parameters were determined by the army in a bid to differentiate the country from secular India.

Since then the Islamic rather than the democratic and multi-ethnic character of Pakistan has been the thrust of the army and its main allies, the Islamic parties.

Last year Minoo Bandara, a bespectacled Zoroastrian businessman and member of the Pakistan national assembly, tried to reinstate Jinnah`s words through a parliamentary resolution.

His attempt failed to win support in parliament, even though in the post-September 11 era another military ruler, General Pervez Musharraf was advocating an enlightened and moderate interpretation of Islam.

Pakistan has been beset with an identity crisis since it came into being in 1947. No other country emerging from the British empire has faced the dilemma of whether it is secular or theocratic more acutely than Pakistan.

Although the fundamentalists have always been far weaker than the democratic forces, the backing they have received from the army has given them enormous power. What constitutes an ``ideological`` Islamic state has veered steadily from identity as Muslims in the 1970s to extremism and jihad in the 1990s as the pursuit of wresting control of Kashmir from India became less of a political struggle and more of a religious obligation.

The other determining factor for Pakistan has been its chronic sense of insecurity with India, with whom it has fought three major wars and several smaller ones. To counter India`s might the military used the fundamentalists to pursue a foreign policy based on supporting Islamic extremists in Kashmir, Afghanistan and Central Asia.

Pakistan became a national security state where modern reforms, education and public welfare took second place to building nuclear weapons and spending millions of rupees on funding mujahideen of all shades.

The United States shares a large part of the blame as it poured billions of dollars into the Pakistani military in the 1950s and 1960s to fight the Cold War and again in the 1980s to help fund the Afghan mujahideen and Arab extremists.

Saudi Arabia has also been a key ally, providing Pakistan with cheap oil and loans as well as funding for Pakistani extremist groups who were fighting in Kashmir and in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

Those groups funded by Saudi Arabia have promoted Wahhabism - an austere form of Islam practised in the desert kingdom - and been largely responsible for the massacres of Shia Muslims in Pakistan.

Gen Musharraf`s u-turn after September 11, when Pakistan dropped support for the Taliban and allied itself with the West in the war on terrorism, was considered to be a watershed, supposedly a historical moment when the army and the fundamentalists faced the new reality: that support for Islamic extremism was now considered a criminal offence by the rest of the world.

Gen Musharraf has cracked down hard on the foreign elements that constitute terrorism in Pakistan: Arabs, Central Asians and Afghans, and last week he promised to expel all foreign students from the madrassas.

Pakistan has handed over 500 members of al-Qa`eda to the Americans. But despite periodic crackdowns on Pakistan`s home-grown extremist groups, the domestic Islamic extremist infrastructure has remained intact.

The madrassas, or religious colleges controlled by militant groups, have neither been brought under government control nor shut down, the extremist parties have been banned only to re-emerge under new names and state schools have continued to teach archaic hate-filled texts.

The London and Egyptian bombings have demonstrated that extremism is still thriving in Pakistan.

As more details emerge it is almost certain that at least two of the four July 7 bombers were in contact with extremists in Pakistan. Since September 11 almost every senior al-Qa`eda figure captured has been seized in Pakistan. For many counter-terrorism experts Pakistan has now become ``al-Qa`eda central``.

However last week Gen Musharraf said it was ``absolutely and totally baseless`` that al-Qa`eda had its headquarters in Pakistan. The network was now ``a phenomenon`` and ``a state of mind`` among Muslims rather than an organisation.

Since September 11 the West has helped Pakistan broker a peace process with India and poured in billions of dollars in loans, aid and debt forgiveness, in the hope that Gen Musharraf will deliver by curbing extremism and in the fear that whoever might succeed him would prove less co-operative.

But there is an irresolvable contradiction. Despite his personal sincerity and liberal views, Gen Musharraf is still a military ruler who has stifled political activity, exiled or ousted secular political leaders and given the floor to the military`s old allies, the fundamentalists.

He frequently demands that the moderates mobilise under his banner and launch a jihad against extremism, but he forgets that in Pakistan a military ruler has never been able to win mass support or become a popular leader.

Pakistan`s problem is not just extremism, but the lack of democracy and the failure of its politicians and military to build democratic institutions. In the 1990s, the decade-long experiment with democracy in which one government was replaced by another, the country`s politicians emerged as rapacious and corrupt opportunists rather than visionaries.

But they were also beset by an all-powerful military which never allowed democratic institutions to take root or an elected government to be voted out of office.

Most Pakistanis are conservative Muslims, but the vast majority reject extremism. Many are deeply confused. America`s actions in Iraq, notably at Baghdad`s Abu Ghraib jail, and at Guantanamo Bay have convinced many that the West is waging a war against Islam.

Yet the car bombs and terrorist acts Pakistanis face at home have made them sick of the extremists. The contradictory statements by government officials about waging jihad in Kashmir but also cracking down on extremism only add to the confusion. For most people the main issue is not the interpretation of Islam, but what kind of governance and economic future they can expect.

Since 1977 no government text book or any of the 20,000 madrassas has taught Jinnah`s most famous words. For Jinnah the creation of Pakistan was a means to protect Indian Muslims, not a reason to impose a dictatorship of one religion or a theocracy.

The majority of Pakistanis are still waiting for Jinnah`s dream to be fulfilled. Only when the government and military have the courage to reintroduce Jinnah`s words into the education curricula can Pakistan make a decisive shift out of its confused state of mind.

Ahmed Rashid, one of the world`s leading commentators on militant Islam, is the author of the bestselling books Taliban and Jihad.

=== Interact Removed ===

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

Re: # 176
Prem,
Feroz Gandhi was not Khan, he was a Parsi. Gandhi adopted him as his son and gave his name. This info is incorrect.
Indira Gandhi stayed a Hindu, did not adopt her husbands religion.
Nehru on the other hand was a Kashmiri brahmin settled in allahabad.

Re: # 175
I knew that.

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

Delhiwallah,

This is what happens when you don`t follow the discussion.

Refer to the last few lines of Beejay`s post 57 ... he has since then withdrawn the claim. What he had said was that while Nehru also did not agree to his daughter marrying out of the faith she went ahead with it... where as according to Beejay Dina didn`t.

I corrected him on this... and he understood.

Re: # 169
I don`t think BJ said that Jinnah managed to stop this marriage.
What I know about this is from my elders who happen to know some people at that time who mattered in India.

It is clear that Jinnah was not happy that his only child was marrying outside his religion. I can understand his concern, I probably would feel the same. However, he tried to influence this match by threating to disown his daughter and tried to use his sister to convince Dina.

``Lekin, Mushaq-E-Mohabbat Chupee Naye hai Ankhay Sain Delhiyani``

She reminded Jinnah of own marriage to Rutti(a Parsi) and could not reason back with him.
Later on her Parsi husband tried to patch but of no avail.

This is the story that is very consistent with old timers of that time.

Thank you for listening, Now I have to attend to my bagle & Cream`n Cheese.

Re: # 172
Friend Sahib:
Thumbs Up wala Icon here.

#169
This was perhaps first article by Yaseer Latif Hamdani where he didn`t mention Jinnah. I thought that their was some hope.. However, this idiot keeps digging Jinnah`s corpse out of his grave. Jinnah mar gaya 58 saal pehle.. Fina some new icons for Pakistan..

Romair#167, 168:

I only said that Ayaz and Irfan agree on Musharraf`s ambiguity in fight against terrorism, not on other subjects. I might add, however, that Ayaz is not always consistent and sometimes does have sober, second thoughts.

...And this article is about Egypt, terrorists, Pakistan and Egypt blaming Pakistan for terrorist acts, not just about Egypt.

#158 by Romair on July 31, 2005 10:00am PT


These unwashed masses never wanted Pakistan to go all out and support the USA in the first Afghan War.


Or in the second war....you, OTOH, were wholly onboard...let`s not forget the heady days post-9/11 when you thought joe 6 pack would be stopping you on the street to thank you when he saw your t-shirt with a paki flag...then you wanted to quit IT and drop bombs on the afghans....

Re: # 166

BeeJay`s statement was that Jinnah managed to stop Dina from marrying Neville. This is not true. Even the La Pierre and Dominique don`t say this. Dina Wadia was married to Neville Wadia and their child is a leading businessman of India. Beejay accepted this point.

Dost-mittar #160: A few differences that I missed in the last reply:

Irfan Hussain is anti-OBL and anti-Hamas. Ayaz Amir is anti-OBL, but not anti-Hamas. Irfan Hussain is simultaneously pro-Palestine (only secular Palestine, though) and pro-Israel. Ayaz Amir is pro-Palestine (secular or non-secular) and anti-Israel. Irfan Hussain wants long-term peace with India, even if Kashmiris interests are ignored. Ayaz Amir also wants long-term peace with India, but not without the interests of Kashmiris being taken into account. Irfan Hussain is generally agains the military, as a whole. Ayaz Amir is against the Generals of the military. But he is very pro-lower ranks of the military, and basically pro-military in general (without its involvement in politics; which he abhors). Irfan Hussain is for totally reducing the miltiary. Ayaz Amir is for keeping a military deterence against India, without any other extravagent spending......

Both are anti-Musharraf, albeit it for different reasons. Irfan Hussain is against Musharraf, because he feels Musharraf hasn`t done enough against maulvis. Ayaz Amir is anti-Musharraf because he feels Musharraf has suppressed democracy, i.e. Irfan Hussain is ready to support a dictatorship if it goes after maulvis (much like I am ready to support a dictatorship if it makes the economy grow). Ayaz Amir does not support a dictatorship, regardless of what it does, or whom it goes after.

Dost-Mittar #160: ``I have written articles on India and interacted when the topic concerned that country.``

Point taken. I agree. The debate, in the replies, should be based on the article. And this article is not on India. Hence, India should not be debated. However, the article is not on Pakistan either. It is on Egypt. Yet you brought in Pakistan, Irfan Hussain and my lack of knowledge of the Pakistani press. I didn`t bring that in. You should be discussing Egypt.

``If you follow Ayaz Amir, you would know that his views are no different from Irfan`s in this matter. Ayaz believes that Musharraf should have been doing the things Ifran wants because they are good for Pakistan and not if and when the US puts a little pressure on him.``

Ayaz Amir`s and Irfan Hussain`s views are actually different on many issues. And both of their views are different from the Urdu press`s views. Within the context of this site, on most issues: the Urdu press`s views would fall in line somewhere along Urstruly`s/Naqshbandi etc. Irfan Hussain`s would fall in line somewhere along Hamidm`s/Godot/NazarHayatKhan/Mantolives (perhaps) etc. And Ayaz Amir`s would fall in line somewhere along mine/HisExcellency/Ahmadzai/Aslam644 etc. I may have slotted an odd name incorrectly............

Ayaz Amir is totally against Musharraf doing anything under US pressure. While Irfan Hussain, at the core of his arguments, somewhat sublty, sometimes openly, supports Pakistan being in line with the USA. Ayaz Amir was against Pakistan`s complete support to the USA in the Afghan War. He though Pakistan went overboard. Irfan Hussain was fully supportive of it. And wanted more support for the USA. They even argued against each other, in their articles. Ayaz Amir is fully against the Iraq war. And is a full supporter of the Iraqi resistance, much like Tariq Ali. Irfan Hussain is only partially against the Iraq War. Ayaz Amir thinks Musharraf has gone too far in giving up on Kashmir, vis-a-vis India, while getting nothing in return. Irfan Hussain thinks Musharraf needs to do more. Ayaz Amir is equally against Indian and Pakistani militancy in Kashmir. However, in principal, he does not consider the targeting of Indian troops by militants (Pakistani or Kashmiri) as jehadi terrorism, if the Indian troops are targeting Kashmiri civilians. Irfan Hussain considers all, ``jehadi`` militarism in Kashmir to be wrong, regardless of what Indian troops do there........

Both are against Islamic extremism and maulvis, albeit in different manners. Much like, myself and Hamidm are against maulvis; albeit in different manners. This is the point I am trying to explain...........

``From what I can gather Irfan would not like to throw 700 mullahs into jail without trial. But he and Ayaz would both like Musharraf to close Madrassahs imparting jihadi education and training; they believe that he was responsible for bringing Mullas to power in the two provinces.``

Irfan Hussain has openly written articles that he supports actions against the mullah brigade, even without judicial due process. He feels that is what the mullahs do to others. Hence they should get the same treatment. He is in support of throwing people in jail, with or without trial. As long as they are maulvis.

Nearly everyone in Pakistan would like Musharraf to close madrasshas imparting any kind of militant training. As would I. However, both Ayaz Amir and I would like that to happen in Pakistan`s interest, and in a judicial manner. Not random acts that round up people everywhere, the moment a bomb goes off in London.

You are correct in saying that both believe Musharraf was responsible for bringing mullahs in power. However, Irfan Hussain thinks Musharraf should clear them out, by hook or by crook. Ayaz Amir thinks he should go by the book and clear them out through elections........

BJ Yaar,
This story about Jinnah`s daughter and family dispute etc.
Yeh tau bacha-bacha jaanta hai, Manto tried to white wash it.

What do you think about it?

Even Dominique Laupier and some other British writers write about it.

Also, Koi ess Siyanay se poonche.

How come Dina Wadia never visited Pakistan till few yrs ago?

Do Aur Do Paanch nahee hotey.

Re: # 156
Dude,
He offered Sikhia that was comprised of East Punjab and parts of UP to Sikhs under the Pakistani dominion at a famous Sikh`s house in Delhi(I think he was brother of H S Malik, Civil Engg of Delhi in 1946). Sikhs at that time had their anger against Muslim atrocities committed against them in Amritsar and other Sikh places. Readers please note that first riots were initiated by Amritsari Muslims in 1945-46. They in their weird logic wanted to take the Gold off the Golden Temple and they killed many Sikh Police and civilians in Amritsar. What happened afterwards in history.

It could not have worked unless Sikhs had their own rule.

Re: # 159
Now that was a very interesting fact that I hope does not slip from Interactors short memory and ego trips.
Howcome then they hold the cards for eveyr major event. Could it be like Englsih were replaced by Brown Sahibs and Maulvis were the interface with the natives.

Re: # 160
DM Sir Jee,
You always have your facts straight. Chowkies can learn from you.

Re: # 142

Dost-ji,

George Bush & the neoconservatives believe in Armageddon just as much as the Islamists believe in Jihad.
The oil wildcatters like Bush & Cheney are ruthless people.
After 911 Bush made a ``Freuden slip`` & said ``Crusade``.

A Freudian slip is when a person lets slip out what he is thinking subconciously.

Bush likes Mushy cause he will do his bidding for the right amount of money.
Why do you think Republicans loooove compliant right wing dictators?
Boost their egos & praise them in public.
They`ll make sure American interests are carried out in their country

Does he TRUST Mushy?
GET REAL!!!!

Wanna bet what Bush tells pigs like Mushy & Prince Bandar in the privacy of his ``ranch``?

``I`m watching your 2 countries like a hawk...
If Al-Qeeda bursts 1 nuclear bomb in an American city...
If I find a Paki connection...I`ll bomb every city in Pakistan & let the Indians scavenge your radio-active wasteland...
If I find a Saudi connection...I wont have any qualms about about blasting Mecca & Medina...

If you guys want a jihad....I`ll give you a Crusade you wont believe``

Re: # 98

Top 6 things Romair will say if Mushy lets out a loud fart in the Oval office

1) He demonstrated to George Bush that Mushy`s sh#t stinks as much as Bushy`s

2) Mushy was extremely daring by demonstrating that Pakistan does`nt care what USA thinks of her.

3)Mushy was increasing Pakistani agricultural exports by giving Americans a whiff of the wholesome foods Pakistani farmers produce.

4) It was Pakistani miltry`s warning if Bushy didnt give him F-16s

5)Pakistanis are just as good as any redneck butthead in uniform

6) He wanted to demonstrate the secret weapon Pakistani scientists are developing to asphyxiate a billion Indians..

Even Murli`s doosra doesnt spin as well as Romair`s does....

Romair#154

If you follow Ayaz Amir, you would know that his views are no different from Irfan`s in this matter. Ayaz believes that Musharraf should have been doing the things Ifran wants because they are good for Pakistan and not if and when the US puts a little pressure on him.

From what I can gather Irfan would not like to throw 700 mullahs into jail without trial. But he and Ayaz would both like Musharraf to close Madrassahs imparting jihadi education and training; they believe that he was responsible for bringing Mullas to power in the two provinces.

As regards India, you may comment on the article posted by Saj81 in post 152. I have written articles on India and interacted when the topic concerned that country. I am not interested in playing the same-same game; in any case we cannot have any meaningful discussion as we would not agree with your premise that BJP in India is equivalent to SSP in Pakistan; one can only dismiss such statements with Arujun-m type one-liners.

Re # 158

May be this is the reason

``Unfortunately, these unwashed masses have never had a chance to directly present their views in Pakistani politics. Because it has been dominated by military and civilian feudal dictators.``

for this

``These unwashed masses, for all of Pakistan`s history, never voted a single maulvi into power.``

Saj1981 #150: ``This really is the dilemma for modern day Pakistan whether the 90% ``masses`` get into their misinformed heads or not....question is..what is Mushy going to do.``

Are you from Pakistan? What is your experience within Pakistan.

Actually, looking back, I have found the decision of the 90% masses of Pakistan to be the most accurate for Pakistan. It is the elitist decisions that have caused problems. The reasons are simple: the 90% Pakistanis may seem like the unwashed masses with, ``misinformed heads`` to you, but they have the most dediction to Pakistan, because they have nowhere else to go. While the elites have one foot in the West and one in Pakistan.

These unwashed masses never wanted Pakistan to go all out and support the USA in the first Afghan War. They did not want the Afghan refugees distorting the demographics of cities in NWFP. They also never wanted Pakistan to support the Taliban to the level that it did. At the same time, they never wanted Pakistan to completely ally itself with the USA, to bomb Afghanistan, at the levels it recently did...........

On all accounts, I think they were correct.......

82% of them, according to a poll by an Indian magazine, want a peaceful solution with India. However, close to an equal number don`t want that solution without India, first giving the Kashmiris their rights. These unwashed masses gave the Indian tourist during the cricket matches a welcome that Indians will never forget. Yet they did not let Pakistan to budge an inch, when India piled up all its forces on the Pakistan border....These unwashed masses also wanted Pakistan to test its nuclear bomb immediately after India did............

Again, looking back, on all accounts, I think they were correct..........

They gave Benazir a welcome of a lifetime when she arrived in Pakistan, during Zia days. However, not a single one of them will come out on the street to welcome her back now......

Once again, right on both counts...............

These unwashed masses, for all of Pakistan`s history, never voted a single maulvi into power. When the BJP was running India, these unwashed masses elected only 2 MMA members into the Pakistan National Assembly. However, when Musharraf went overboard in supporting the USA, these unwashed masses, for the first time in Pakistan`s history put the MMA into power in two provinces.........

Unfortunately, these unwashed masses have never had a chance to directly present their views in Pakistani politics. Because it has been dominated by military and civilian feudal dictators. However, whenever they have had a chance, I have found their decisions to be far more far-sighted than anything thrown up by the Irfan Hussains - on one extreme - and Qazi Hussains - on the other extremes.........

You are greatly underestimating the far-sightedness of the middle and lower-middle class Pakistani. Unlike most people on Chowk, I have actually had a chance to work with them. Many of their kids were my colleagues. Their views were quite a bit more practical about Pakistan than most views I have read on Chowk...........

Believe me, whenever the, ``misinformed heads`` of the masses of Pakistan have had a chance, they have delivered. It is (us) the elites, who have made the wrong decisions. This is why I have always been quite positive about Pakistan. Because I have a lot of faith in the unwashed masses. It was, after all, the unwashed masses, who created the country in the first place, without even being able to understand a word of Jinnah`s speeches. The secular and religious and English-speaking and understanding elite of that time, of Punjab, NWFP etc, did not even want Pakistan created.........

Musharraf would be well-advised to do what the unwashed masses of Pakistan want him to do. Regardless of what anyone else outside Pakistan (myself included) thinks. The Irfan Hussains of Pakistan wanted Pakistani soldiers in Iraq. It is the unwashed masses which stopped Musharraf from sending them there. Imagine what a mess that would have been...........

Re # 156

May I also add, as a tokenism, they were offered a law ministry here, a committee (consitutional or something) representation there, anthem writing somewhere. That is it.
No 14 points for them, only ``Equipoise`` (whatever that meant) for them.

Re # 79

If such a deal (14 points) was offered to Hindus and Sikhs by Mr. Jinnah and
Muslim League, I think Pakistan would have consisted of entire/unpartitioned
Bengal and Punjab.
Alas, what was good for Indian Muslim would not have been necessary for Pakistani Hindus and Sikhs, according to Mr. Jinnah and Muslim League!
It was ``Muslim`` League afterall, Hindus and Sikhs and Christians never figured in their equation, they just did not matter.

Re: # 147
Nice summation, you remind me of a professor at Kennedy School of Govt in Quincy, do you work there by any chance?

I used to dislike Pakistanis before, being raised on partition stories of rape, slaughter, gauging the eye-balls, infants tossed against walls etc. My mother`s family lost many members in Quetta. After coming to USA I realized that they are also people like us with similar likings/dislikings, love/hate, religious feelings and what not.

Enough talent and positive energy has been wasted by Pakistan and India for their respective causes with no fruitful result. None of the wars gained anything for anyone. Maybe Pakistan was a cumulitive looser on the whole due to 1971 but clearly War is no solution. I was reading Jane`s assessment of armament for Asian countries and realized that India/Pakistan can only fight a war for 2 weeks using the exisiting stockpile of ammunition.

Under the circumstances Manto is probably the best face of Secularism that I have ever seen. In my previous discussions with Pakistani they always quote from Khalifa days and treatment of Jews etc under Muslim rule as the closest thing to Secularism, that is so unaccepable in the modern day world.

Nice talking to you, hopefuly this dialogue will stirr someone`s feelings for the good, someone who matters, not aam-khaas Chowkies who are here instead of watching TV.

Adios!

Dost-mittar #151: `` do occasionally visit Jang`s Urdu website. So, I do not disagree with your observation that his views do not represent that of the majority nor, I think, would Irfan Hussain.``

Urdu Jang and English NEWS (two most popular English and Urdu dailys) are owned by the same company. (As is GEO TV). Yet, on many occassions, they write opposing articles. Basically, they cater to the crowd that buys each newspapers. I would say the person, who generally hits the nail on the head, is Ayaz Amir on foreign policy. And Cowasjee on domestic affairs.

If Pakistan were to follow Irfan Hussain`s suggestion 100% (they should be followed at about 50%), their would be a backlash and within a few years, Pakistan would have its version of BJP, in Pakistani politics. That is the last thing Pakistan needs......

``I notice however that you have not challenged Irfan`s contention about Musharraf`s duplicitous policy.``

The reason I have not challenged it, is because I don`t know if he is correct. He also stated that Stratford in Ontario is overflowing with book shops, when he visited here, and how Pakistan does not have any such areas. When, in fact, there are more bookshops in a dirty little corner of Urdu Bazaar, Pindi and Lahore than in Stratford.........

Most of his articles have some truth, but he rarily looks at the whole picture, and at all the factors invovled. His main aim is to rid Pakistan of maulvis, by hook or by crook. Including full support for any Western efforts, even if there long term consequences are bad in Pakistan. This is why, I assume, his articles appeal to you so much.........

To me, maulvis are a problem in Pakistan. And should be handled, within the boundaries of the law. At the same time, they are definitely not the biggest problem. I think most common Pakistanis would place all of us rich Pakistanis on Chowk as a bigger problem in Pakistan, than the maulvis. This is why I keep trying to tell you that if you want to understand Pakistan, you will not get much from Irfan Hussain and Chowk. They (we) tend to pass all our problems onto the maulvi, thereby not looking at other issues; including ourselves........Maulvis are a convenient punching bag, when in fact, they have never had any affluent positions in Pakistan............The solution to these problems, thus isn`t to just randomly put 700 of your own people in jail; even if they are maulvis........This is what Irfan wants. He has openly supported jailing relgious people without any trial, in Pakistan. Much like he openly supported outright bombing of Afghanistan, with full-fledged support to the USA......Something which resulted in the election of MMA in Baluchistan and NWFP............

In the end, Musharraf should be guided by what his own people want. Not what people in India or USA want. They will keep pushing all their problems (and solutions) and accusations on to Pakistan, without recognizing their own faults. The affects of that will be the polarization of the Pakistani society. Solutions to Al-Qaeda primarily lie in wrong US policies in Iraq. The solutions are not in Pakistan.......Solutions to Kashmir primarily lie in India`s incorrect policies in Kashmir. They do not lie in Pakistan, either............

I am willing to discuss all of this, with you, in a comprehensive context. Blaming all sides objectively. But not it one that repeatedly only looks at Pakistan, as the source of the problem, while ignoring other countries (including India)........If you only want to look at it as just Pakistan`s fault, then I am afraid you will need to discuss it with Irfan Hussain (and a few others on Chowk). You will find very few other takers in Pakistan (including me) for such a view, which repeatedly puts all the blame on Pakistan.........

Please read Ayaz Amir