Protest March on the 30th of March (no pun intended!)

Courtesy of ally from a chowk unplugged. Good one!!!

From www.thefridaytimes.com

I’ve chup karaowed everybody—The Old Bag, The Gruesome Twosome, Janoo, even Bush and his English chaprassi, Tony the Phoney, as Janoo calls him. I’ve chup karaowed them with my anti-Iraq war jaloos which has come on CNN, BBC, even Foxy. After all, five thousand women and children marching through Gulberg is no joke. And all khaata peeta, khandani types, who are not doing it for the 100 rupees the rent-a-crowd types get but for their principals. At first I wasn’t getting involved. I thought it would be just those ten or twenty khaddar posh WAF types, raising naaras and getting arrested. But then I went to a coffee party at Mulloo’s and everyone there was discussing keh who who is going and turns out almost everybody was. How could I be left out of the social scene? So on the day I plastered my face with sun blocked, donned my new cotton jora — can’t wear silk on jalooses I’m told, it gets very sweaty — put on my new Channel sunglasses with the tiny rhinestone Cs, and laced up the Nike boots I’d bought from Al Fatah the night before. The whole world shook when we marched through Liberty Market. When I got home, I strode into the sitting triumphantly and announced to Janoo where I’d been. He switched off the BBC, gave me a good long stare and finally asked, “Why?” So I glared at him and said with my head held high, “because mein Iraqis keh liye feel karti hoon.”

“Hmm interesting,” he said. “More than you’ve ever felt for Pakistanis, obviously”. And then he looked at my Nikes and said, “Marching against American imperialism in your new American shoes, I see? Still, I don’t mean to belittle your efforts. Well done.”

Only problem is where to go this summers. US is out of question. Poor Mullooo’s son who is at university in Taxes is having such a tough time keh poocho hi na. His parents have told him pretend you’ve got Larry-gitis so you can’t speak at all if anyone asks you who’s side you are on. And Kinky’s younger sister who is in an all girls college in Oh-hi! is wearing both a big cross round her neck and a bindi on her head so nobody thinks she’s Muslim. But look at that traitor, Tony! How will we go to London now? First thing is, will we get visas? Better buy a cottage in Nathia, just in case London is a no-go. Then we can all do a nice little jaloos there against Tony for spoiling our London plans. And I can wear silk becuase it won’t spoil in the cool of Nathia ...

..believe it or not...

Oregon Law Would Jail War Protesters as Terrorists

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030403/ts_nm/life_protests_dc_1

...hopefully, if america`s the country that it is, this sorry excuse of a bill won`t pass....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,927849,00.html

SameerJB: said ``The reason is that American ideals and Jeffersonian democracy are more attractive to me than Islamic ideals or khalifa or amir-ul-momineen stuff. `` Please explain to an ignorant fool like myself what the islamic ideals are for government that you detest so much.. You seem to be much educated about this since you are willing to judge one better than the other the two (Jeffersonian democracy and islamic ideals).
further u said.
``To me USA has overall done the best job in treating Muslims in the history of Muslims versus non-Muslim interactions.``
You seem to be an expert in history as well. Lets compare muslim history with that of American History. You pick the peak of US excellence and I will pick the peak of muslim excellence and we can compare the two!

Peace

nasah: The way you or saminashah understand the situation is not the same average person burning effigies and flags understand. Only a stupid will not understand the deviation of many of US foreign policy based actions from American ideals. Sometimes they run together and sometime ideals and actions are contradictory.

Even anti-Americanism is also fine and acceptable opinion. Most Muslims see it glass half-empty whereas I see glass half full. That is why I wrote an article, ``USA and Muslims`` at chowk after seeing it all coming. I objected to hiding anti-Americanism behind plight of Iraqi people and other issues.

I pointed out other examples of crimes against humanity by both Muslims and non-Muslims and no Pakistani raised their voice against the way they are opposing now. I pointed our two wrongs and Romair concluded that somehow I am suggesting ``two wrongs make it right``. No, two wrongs are two wrongs and based on moral convictions, voices should have been raised against Taliban, ISI, Islam (misinterpretation or not), Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria,............and Iraq. To the best of my recollection, only some shias in Pakistan ever raised slogans against Saddam Hussein. Here he had decades of violating basic human rights in the most brutal fashion imagined.

Whether you accept anti-Americanism or not, but perpetual anti-Americanism is part of the Muslim psyche. It is another matter that these rabid anti-Americans send their kids to USA for education and greencard.

I offered Pakistani anti-war protesters a choice by burning effigies of Bush, Mullah Omar, UBL and Saddam together But you know well, anti-Americans would not do this. I assure you that I am not a supporter of Bush, Wolfowitz, Islamic thugs, Islam, killings, invasions although you and I know well that invasions have shaped our present. You and I are Muslims because of Islamic thugs invasions and I have more recently became pro-American in this continous shaping of the destiny of humans through interventions - an American ``thug`` this time.

The reason is that American ideals and Jeffersonian democracy are more attractive to me than Islamic ideals or khalifa or amir-ul-momineen stuff. Most people are hanging on to Islamic ideals and consider misinterprtation a culprit for many of Muslim`s problems and current history. I also see many deviations of American ideals in the current history. Because of democracy, Bushism can be checked and overcome but no chance for Islamic ideals taking hold of Muslims and their leaderships. Therefore, in my opinion, working with and within America is better for decreasing the deviations of some actions from American ideals than trying to change them through adversial, antagonistic, hate-filled anti-Americanism. It actually helps neoconservative cause in USA. They can point to case after case of bad mouthing, flag burning bearded masses with headbands to convert more people in the government and in the public.

nasah, please don`t getangry with me for not supporting anti-Americanism as overtly as anti-war protesters would like. I respect right to dissent as long as it is clearly spelled out. If anti-Americanism plays a role, so make it clear. The leftists and commies did it always. What stops current breed of anti-Amricanismists from spelling it out?

To me USA has overall done the best job in treating Muslims in the history of Muslims versus non-Muslim interactions. This is not because some soft corner for Muslims in US governements but American idealism expects America to do certain things which benefit both America and the rest of the world. Bush is not going to be powerful more than 5 more years whereas current group of Islamic dictators will still be around. The American idealism will come to rescue America from the anti-American ideal policies of Bush or neo-conservatives much sooner than any other nation could turn around.

Romair: My priiorities would be much different from yours if we both go back to Pakistan and participate in activism. I would be only interested in home-based and Pakistani causes and no activism for Kashmir, Palestine, Iraq, Islam, Arab, Ummah etc. A country and its people with 500 per capita income do not have the luxury of fixing rest of the world problems. My top priority would be to replace Urdu with Panjabi in teaching in Panjab at primary school level. My second priority would be to promote roman alphabets replacing current twisted Arabic alphabets. My next priority would be for weaker center, weaker provincial governments and strongest district governments (Swiss model). Military would have to conquer not just Islamabad and provincial capitals but all district capitals to overthrow civilian set up and trample constitution. Next comes promotion of native cultures for inner peace and western culture for ``outer peace``. Western culture instead of Arab/ Islamic culture. No more sherwani, shalwar-kameez, pajama and topi culture for men in offices. No smoking in public places.

I would leave Kashmir, Iraq, Islamic re-re-mis-mis-interpretations, Palestine, Arab dictators and monarchs for you to handle.

i salute those ladies who took part in peace rallies.

SameerJB #14: When the only argument that can be presented is that, ``Two wrongs make a right,`` then it means there isn`t much of an argument to present.

There is really one criteria for deciding whether this war is an act of humanism or state terrorism. And that is, ``Do the people of Iraq want the US to invade their country?`` If they do, it is a humane war. If they do not, then it is state terrorism. In the later case, what to talk of Iraqi civilians, even if only Iraqi soldiers get killed, it is still state terrorism (after all aren`t soldiers innocent human beings?). So far everything indicates that the Iraqi people hate the US and consider it an invading force. So case closed.

You are correct there is an element of anti-Americanism in this war, in Pakistan, and specially in the Arab world. But don`t you think there is good reason for that? Is it a sin for someone to be anti-American? Hasn`t the US screwed over the Middle East completely? It would be one thing if the Middle East despotic kings screwed it over, but what about a democratic country, thousands of miles away, screwing it over? Isn`t there a lot of anti-Saddamism and anti-Arabism and maybe even anti-Muslimism amongst the US majority that supports this war on Iraq? So what is wrong with anti-Americanism? It is not a crime. There must a lot of things you are, ``anti`` of. You have every right to be, as long as you only demonstrate against them, and do not practically harm the people who believe in them.

The part you are correct on is that there should be equal criticism of Taliban and civilian killings by Muslims (you have incorrectly put Musharraf`s coup in here, perhaps due to your own dislikes. That coup was with extremely popular public support, and not a single person was killed).

Pakistanis definitely need to speak out against the killings by these Muslim rulers also. Many of us actually have. I have been writing against Saddam, agaisnt Saudi kings, against Taliban, etc. for a long time. You can check my replies. Infact, even now I find a great deal of hypocricy in the US stance. It supports or supported at one time all the names I have mentioned, while calling for democracy in Iraq now. I think the Kurds should have their own country, not only in Iraq, but in Turkey and Iran also. More than 50% of them live in Turkey. How many US leaderships have opposed the Turkish killings of Kurds?

The problem I have with your arguments is that they are based on a black and white distinction along religion and secularism. Anything having anything to do with religion is wrong. While anything having anything to do with secularism is correct. For some reason, I have a feeling you would chose a secular rapist over a religious philanthrapist. Just like I have a feeling that most Islamic religious party leaders will chose a religious rapist over a secular philanthrapist. Hopefully, I am wrong on both cases.

Such black and white arguments, in a world which is grey, lead to strange contradictions. One group starts thinking that all religious (read Muslim) groups, countries etc. are evil in every respect, i.e. they never do anything good. The other group starts thinking that everything about the West (read USA) is wrong and it has nothing good to offer.

The actual situation is obviously different. There are good and bad things about Muslims and good and bad things about Americans. What is important is to base one`s stance on a principal of human rights, without any bias to the ethnicity, religion, secularism, nationality of the people whose actions are being considered.

Based on such a rule, what the Taliban were doing was wrong and what the US is doing is wrong. However, the Taliban were quite weak and hence have only a limited scope in which it can do wrong. The US can do wrong in evey country in the world, if it wants. Hence there will always be a worldwide reaction against what the US does, since it is involved in every country, in some manner.

In any case, if you ever go to Pakistan and initiate a demonstration against the following or more:

- Northern Alliance in Afghanistan
- Taliban in Afghanistan
- Feudalism in Pakistan
- Misdirected Islamic laws in Pakistan
- Iraqi violation of Kurdish rights
- Turkish violation of Kurdish rights
- Saudi despots in the Middle East
- Saddam`s historic actions in Iraq
- Misguided theocracy in the Islamic world
- Kingdoms in the Muslim world
- Long term Army involvement in Pakistani politics
- Short term military involvement by Musharraf in politics

Please send me an invitation, and I will make sure I attend every single one, except the last one.

If however, you are unwilling to go to Pakistan and initiate such demonstrations, based on yours (and mine in this case) convictions, then I am afraid you have to blame yourself first and admire the maulvi brigade for having the energy to initiate demonstrations on things they believe in (however right or wrong they maybe).

here is the inimitable acid tongue Maureen Dowd on the crowd and the cabal of hanger ons and PARASITES -- who have BRAINWASHED the Stupido from Texas who is deep in an infantile Oedipal struggle with his own father about his own inadequacies -- acting like a Disoriented Drunken BULL destroying all the values and relationships that the US has assiduously built over the decades around the world and at home.


Warring Tribes, Here and There
By MAUREEN DOWD


WASHINGTON

The president and his war council did not expect so much heavy guerrilla resistance in Iraq. And they really did not expect so much heavy guerrilla resistance at home.

But you can`t have transformation without provocation.

This was a war designed to change the nature of American foreign policy, military policy and even the national character — flushing out ambivalence and embracing absolutism.

As two members of the pre-emptive Bush doctrine`s neo-con brain trust, Bill Kristol and Lawrence Kaplan, argued in a book-length call for battle, ``The War Over Iraq``:

``Well, what is wrong with dominance, in the service of sound principles and high ideals?``

So it should not be a surprise that the troubled opening phase of the war has exacerbated territorial and ideological fissures in the administration and the Republican Party.

Democrats are muter than mute.

But a dozen days of real war in the desert has turned the usually disciplined Bush crowd into a bunch of schismatics:

there is internecine warfare between the ``hold out a hand`` Bush I team and the ``back of the hand`` Bush II team.

There`s a feud between Donald Rumsfeld and some of his generals and ex-generals, and animosity between the Pentagon — where Rummy, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith spin schemes for intimidating the world and remodeling the Middle East — and the State Department. Colin Powell and his deputies wince as old alliances shatter and the Arab world seethes, and mutter that there had to be a way to get rid of Saddam without making everyone on the planet despise America.

The Washington Post reported on Monday that moderate Republicans were trying to do an intervention with the president to show him that hawks were giving him ``bum advice.``

The article was clearly referring to the Bush I realpolitik crowd of James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, Lawrence Eagleburger and Mr. Powell and his acolytes at State.

These pals of Poppy Bush are alarmed that the Hobbesian Dick Cheney — who has been down in his undisclosed locations reading books about how war is the natural state of mankind —

the flamboyantly belligerent Rummy and the crusading neo-cons have mesmerized the president with their macho schemes.

``There is a behind-the-scenes effort by former senior Republican government officials and party leaders to convince President Bush that the advice he has received from Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz . . .

has been wrong and even dangerous to long-term U.S. national interests,`` The Post said.

One former senior Republican official noted: ``The only one who can reach the president is his father.

But it is not timely yet to talk to him.`` This raised the odd specter of the president`s being dragged off from running a war and taken to Kennebunkport for a Metternichian outing in the family cigarette boat.

Mr. Scowcroft and Mr. Eagleburger could pin W. down while Bar steered and Poppy explained the facts of international life.

The Oedipal struggle of the Bushes — a father who was an ambassador to the U.N. and an envoy to China, a globe-trotting vice president and an internationalist president, and a son who was a Texas governor with little knowledge of the world — was bound to be aggravated by an invasion of Iraq not sanctioned by the U.N.

Here was a son acting to correct his father`s ``mistakes`` in the first gulf war, when his father did not think he had made a mistake, but rather a great contribution to history.

Bush 43 is busy trying to do something his dad thought he`d done. The title of Bush 41`s book: ``A World Transformed.`` (NYT)

_______________________________________________
so all this killing and squandering of tax payers money -- for an INADEQUATE SON to PROVE to his ADEQUATE father -- that the Senior made some serious mistakes and that the Junior will correct the mistake of his dad –

this President needs to be in a Presidential asylum for mentally inane and insane -- ASAP -- definitely by November 2004!

what really was the point of this article? i understand that we all feel strongly about the quagmire/crisis/hellhole/drama/bad-movie in iraq and need to express ourselves ... but THIS!!!
i don`t really want to know what you did at the march or what you wore and what you shrieked and what abeera`s mom, mahgul, taimur, mehru, rema blah blah blah said, what you said back, how they retorted etc. and childish crap of such a nature.
something insightful would be nice ... your vignette, sadly, was anything but.

what really was the point of this article? i understand that we all feel strongly about the quagmire/crisis/hellhole/drama/bad-movie in iraq and need to express ourselves ... but THIS!!!
i don`t really want to know what you did at the march or what you wore or what you shrieked or what abeera`s mom, mahgul, taimur, mehru, rema blah blah blah said, what you said back, how they retorted etc. and childish crap of such a nature.
something insightful would be nice ... your little piece, sadly, was anything but.

what really was the point of this article? i understand that we all feel strongly about the quagmire/crisis/hellhole/drama/bad-movie in iraq and need to express ourselves ... but THIS!!!
i don`t really want to know what you did at the march or what you wore and what you shrieked and what abeera`s mom, mahgul, taimur, mehru, rema blah blah blah said, what you said back, how they retorted etc. and childish crap of such a nature.
something insightful would be nice ... your anthropological vignette, sadly, was anything but.

sameerjb -- anti-americanism IS NOT IN PLAY -- for heavens sake

do I have to tell YOU what is in play -- ok here is what is PLAYING these days in the US and on Chowk:

ANTI BUSHISM IS IN PLAY -- anti stupidism is in play -- anti texan dementism is in play -- anti bob jones university`s redneckism is in play

anti Perle-wolfowitz`s zionist-nazism is in play

anti rumsy-billycrystal, aschcroft`s fascism in play

anti Cheney`s Halliburtonism is in play

anti rightwing christian (born-again-to-murder) fundamentalist extremism -- is in play

what is playing is not anti-americanism -- it is anti White House Mongoloidism -- that is in play

and remember sameerjb -- all those above mentioned SCOUNDRELS AND THEIR SCOUNDRELISMS -- and the true AMERICANISM -- are NOT -- One and the Same -- for crying out loud

or do YOU THINK they are?

SameerJB #14: When the only argument that can be presented is that, ``Two wrongs make a right,`` then it means there isn`t much of an argument to present.

There is really one criteria for deciding whether this war is an act of humanism or state terrorism. And that is, ``Do the people of Iraq want the US to invade their country?`` If they do, it is a humane war. If they do not, then it is state terrorism. In the later case, what to talk of Iraqi civilians, even if only Iraqi soldiers get killed, it is still state terrorism (after all aren`t soldiers innocent human beings?). So far everything indicates that the Iraqi people hate the US and consider it an invading force. So case closed.

You are correct there is an element of anti-Americanism in this war, in Pakistan, and specially in the Arab world. But don`t you think there is good reason for that? Is it a sin for someone to be anti-American? Hasn`t the US screwed over the Middle East completely? It would be one thing if the Middle East despotic kings screwed it over, but what about a democratic country, thousands of miles away, screwing it over? Isn`t there a lot of anti-Saddamism and anti-Arabism and maybe even anti-Muslimism amongst the US majority that supports this war on Iraq? So what is wrong with anti-Americanism? It is not a crime. There must a lot of things you are, ``anti`` of. You have every right to be, as long as you only demonstrate against them, and do not practically harm the people who believe in them.

The part you are correct on is that there should be equal criticism of Taliban and civilian killings by Muslims (you have incorrectly put Musharraf`s coup in here, perhaps due to your own dislikes. That coup was with extremely popular public support, and not a single person was killed).

Pakistanis definitely need to speak out against the killings by these Muslim rulers also. Many of us actually have. I have been writing against Saddam, agaisnt Saudi kings, against Taliban, etc. for a long time. You can check my replies. Infact, even now I find a great deal of hypocricy in the US stance. It supports or supported at one time all the names I have mentioned, while calling for democracy in Iraq now. I think the Kurds should have their own country, not only in Iraq, but in Turkey and Iran also. More than 50% of them live in Turkey. How many US leaderships have opposed the Turkish killings of Kurds?

The problem I have with your arguments is that they are based on a black and white distinction along religion and secularism. Anything having anything to do with religion is wrong. While anything having anything to do with secularism is correct. For some reason, I have a feeling you would chose a secular rapist over a religious philanthrapist. Just like I have a feeling that most Islamic religious party leaders will chose a religious rapist over a secular philanthrapist. Hopefully, I am wrong on both cases.

Such black and white arguments, in a world which is grey, lead to strange contradictions. One group starts thinking that all religious (read Muslim) groups, countries etc. are evil in every respect, i.e. they never do anything good. The other group starts thinking that everything about the West (read USA) is wrong and it has nothing good to offer.

The actual situation is obviously different. There are good and bad things about Muslims and good and bad things about Americans. What is important is to base one`s stance on a principal of human rights, without any bias to the ethnicity, religion, secularism, nationality of the people whose actions are being considered.

Based on such a rule, what the Taliban were doing was wrong and what the US is doing is wrong. However, the Taliban were quite weak and hence have only a limited scope in which it can do wrong. The US can do wrong in evey country in the world, if it wants. Hence there will always be a worldwide reaction against what the US does, since it is involved in every country, in some manner.

In any case, if you ever go to Pakistan and initiate a demonstration against the following or more:

- Northern Alliance in Afghanistan
- Taliban in Afghanistan
- Feudalism in Pakistan
- Misdirected Islamic laws in Pakistan
- Iraqi violation of Kurdish rights
- Turkish violation of Kurdish rights
- Saudi despots in the Middle East
- Saddam`s historic actions in Iraq
- Misguided theocracy in the Islamic world
- Kingdoms in the Muslim world
- Long term Army involvement in Pakistani politics
- Short term military involvement by Musharraf in politics

Please send me an invitation, and I will make sure I attend every single one, except the last one.

If however, you are unwilling to go to Pakistan and initiate such demonstrations, based on yours (and mine in this case) convictions, then I am afraid you have to blame yourself first and admire the maulvi brigade for having the energy to initiate demonstrations on things they believe in (however right or wrong they maybe).

It is very approriate for people to stand up on the basis of convictions. It is self satisfying if nothing else. The problem is that most of the times public convictions are used by self appointed leaders to further their own agenda. second problem is that most of the convictions come easy. They do not necessarily backed by complexity of the modern world order. The convictions are based on simplified version of the universe, world, nature,...........and geopolitics.

In this instance, the case against war had to pass basically few simple principles such as human rights, non-intervention in the internal affairs etc and it sails through easily. The emotions are added to the mix such as plight of Iraqis - children, women, elderly -and it becomes unbeatable plank. since it has mass appeal across the board - illiterate and educated alike - makes it a matter of belief and no longer subject to any meaningful discussion with the inclusion of additional parameters which are subject to time, place, people, nations, religions etc etc. However, the broad parameters applied in favor over all places and time can not be proven to be the only or major parameters in modern world. The modern world order is long way from ``love thy neighbor`` type parameters drowning all else parameters. The importance and values of parameters are variable in modern world and ``love thy neighbor or thou shalt not kill`` can no longer drown the scholarships based upon parameters from various disciplines.

World history is full of events where love thy neighbor and thou shalt not kill were drowned repeated as near as our backyard and at home in the form of Taliban, Kashmir, massacres, sectarian violence and so on. It does not make them right but they happen indifferent to higher moral values because some people (both in religions and political history) somewhere came up with parameters that override these values.

No sane human being can support the killing of innocents or even guilty (as I am against capital punishment) although most Muslims nations love to hang, behead or shot criminals and innocents alike. Looking only at the human miseries in the currnt situation and opposing it is irrefutable. But that is not the whole picture. It is self serving for many to look at that part of the picture that justifies their convictions. The fact is that Iraqi children are not any more precious than Afghan children. When Taliban were killing left and right, many of the same people were making excuses about society being tribal or Islam is the sole supreme parameter or that misinterpretation of Islam etc. Please show me the events where Mulla Omar or UBL effigies were set on fire in large demonstrations anywhere in Pakistan? When did any Pakistani burned Afghan flag. Did Pakistan burn Saudi flag when they beheaded hundreds of rebels occupying Kaaba? A recent massacre of 13 teen age girls in Saudi Arabia did not even made news in Pakistan. These girls rushed out of school because school was on fire and the wahabi guards pushed them back in the school for not wearing hijab and they perished.

I honor feelings expressed for the sufferings of humanity but please prove to me that anti-Americanism is not at play as much as the sufferings of Iraqi children here. Please do express basic human goodness above and beyond built-in biases for and against selected groups of people or nations. When did Pakistanis burn effigy of Musharraf in military uniform for what he has done to democracy and constitution. Please burn effigies of Abdali and Taimur instead of naming missiles and children after those suckers. If you like to burn the effigy of Bush, please make another effigy for Saddam and lit them together in order to be honest and unbiased.

MMA did not lose election in the past because Taliban were butchering in Bamyan and elsewhere but won on the sympathy wave for Agghans dying by US bombing. Is this fair?

somehow marches in our city aren`t really publicised.
Caution: Vigilance must be exercised at all times.
i-am-the-cheese, yup the world is one global village. As for the traffic jam, didn`t encounter one.

always,
hira.
p.s. thankyou all for the positive feedback. =)