The King’s Gambit: Chapter 1 (The Immigrant)
RSaxena
re: 12-head
{Thats because they counted me as ``Indian ethnic Group``}
that would give indians the lowest average IQ..that`s clearly not the case...
SUX SENA
YOu are A.c.COUNT .TANT,what would you know about the mind biology ?Intelligence Quotient is not INCOME AVERAGING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by
Glen
Jan 10, 2002 09:23 pm
#: 31 RSaxena
re: 12-head
{Thats because they counted me as ``Indian ethnic Group``}
that would give indians the lowest average IQ..that`s clearly not the case...
SUX SENA
YOu are A.c.COUNT .TANT,what would you know about the mind biology ?Intelligence Quotient is not INCOME AVERAGING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
America’s Responsibility
http://www.dailypioneer.com/secon2.asp?cat= edit1&d=Edits
India considers Arafat who, according to Israel is doing little to control terrorism, to be a friend. Equally, Israel`s stand on talks with Pakistan is slightly softer than India`s.
Posted by
Glen
Jan 10, 2002 02:03 am
YLH if it rocks your boat to know Israelis are with you so be it ....http://www.dailypioneer.com/secon2.asp?cat= edit1&d=Edits
India considers Arafat who, according to Israel is doing little to control terrorism, to be a friend. Equally, Israel`s stand on talks with Pakistan is slightly softer than India`s.
The King’s Gambit: Chapter 1 (The Immigrant)
Guys dont let such dubious news let you fool.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/secon2.asp?cat= edit1&d=Edits
India considers Arafat who, according to Israel is doing little to control terrorism, to be a friend. Equally, Israel`s stand on talks with Pakistan is slightly softer than India`s.
Posted by
Glen
Jan 10, 2002 02:03 am
Guys dont let such dubious news let you fool.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/secon2.asp?cat= edit1&d=Edits
India considers Arafat who, according to Israel is doing little to control terrorism, to be a friend. Equally, Israel`s stand on talks with Pakistan is slightly softer than India`s.
Night of Burning Terror
Lets be objective........
Br. Nafisul Hasan has provided a news clipping (TOI 24 Dec 2001) on
information about UP govt`s decision to issue an ordinance for qualitative &
quantitative improvement in Madrasas. He expressed his optimism on, `` a good
step forward toward minorities welfare`` followed by a dig at the Ulemas
asking them whether they are pleased or amused with this decision.
The Islamic education in general & the Deeni madaris in particular are the
subject of discussions & debates in our country now a days. The 11 Sept
attack on US, the Afghan war which eliminated the Taliban, then the recent
attack on our parliament has provided further vigour to this debate.
Prior to these incidents, the ruling political formation in our country was
gunning for the madrasas with a sustained campaign projecting madrasas as
the dens of terrorists. However, all these claims were without any back-up
but surely succeeded to an extent to demonise the madrasas to discredit the
religion & the Muslim community.
In a recent meeting our Home Minister resolved to crackdown on the illegal
madarasas which according to the Home Ministry report, ``pose a threat to
national security``.
The vicious campaign by the BJP government in UP is known to everyone. The
Sangh Parivar`s perception of Islam, Muslims & their seminaries are well
known which is full of venom & hatred. It is undoubtedly their agenda to
either finish each & every school of religious teaching or transform these
institutions by way of intimidation where Islam can be Indianised.
Don`t forget, they are talking about Indianisation of Islam, cultural
transformation of Muslims in India & even asking to interpret Quran & Islam.
There are even elements within the Muslim fold who think that the highly
respected institution like Deoband is promoting puritanical brand of Islam.
Puritanical means practising or affecting strict religious & moral
behaviour.
So, what they mean by asking to Indianise the Islam or dump the puritanical
brand of Islam?
Do they want the Muslims to dump the Hadith & Sunnah of the Prophet (PUB)?
Do they want the Muslims to earn through Usury?
Do they want the Muslims to marry non-Muslims without converting?
Do they want the Muslims to create a replica of Kaba in India & perform Haj
there?
Do they want Muslim girls to give up hijab & indulge in all those social
activities which are recognised as not immoral by the so-called civilized
society?
Do they want Muslims to not ask for their personal law?
Do they want Muslims to stop growing beard?
Do they want Muslims to Hindunize & accept everything against their faith?
The list & demands are unending.
In fact anything bears the name of Islam & Muslims would be unacceptable to
these fascist forces or they may even accept it provided it is corrupted,
distorted & concocted. In a nut shell, the message is clear - you can be
anything but Muslims.
Against this backdrop, the latest in the series of the vicious campaign
which would be defined by the hawks as ``constructive engagement`` is the
aforesaid so-called UP government ordinance, to bring in qualitative &
quantitative improvement in madrasa education should be seen.
Are we so naive? Do we still could imagine (not believe) that the BJP or for
that matter the Sangh Parivar could think something constructive for the
Muslims?
At the time while there are two hardcore hawks sitting in the cabinet
occupying two important ministries namely Home & HRD, who are doing
everything possible at their command to kill the aspirations of Muslims,
design, develop & implement long term plans which could harm the Muslims,
can we believe that the present government is sincere about our issues. A
big NO.
Let`s look at the new ordinance & how the so-called Madrasa Education Board
(MEB) is going to be constituted.
Prior to this ordinance one needs to know that in 1994, the Union Government
(not the state Government) launched the scheme promoted by HRD Ministry
where the govt assists madrasas with one or two teachers of modern subjects
like science, Maths and English. Many universities now accept the
certificates issued by such madrasas. In UP alone 700 madrasas are covered
under this scheme while in West Bengal And Assam, there is the
Madrassa-e-Alia stream which include most of the subjects taught in
mainstream schools and is recognised by universities.
In these schemes, there is nowhere an interference nor the authority of the
madrasas is tampered with. This experiment at the best could be revitalized
& reviewed to make it more constructive & result oriented.
The recent ordinance says the Arabic & Farsi Education Board will be
dissolved and merge with MEB.
What would be the shape of the MEB?
1. Headed by - noted educationist having long experience in traditional
madrasa education.
The track record of the BJP is dubious. For them the best available
historians in the country are those who were long time clerks, but
affiliated to the VHP, were brought in to head the NCERT & The Indian
History Congress. Both the gentlemen created a havoc with the fullest
support from the HRD Minister by changing the curriculum & re-writing the
history. The internationally recognised historians of our country are
described by our HRD Minister as intellectual terrorists who are more
dangerous than the Taliban.
One can imagine a person chosen by the Sangh Parivar to head the MEB & his
credibility who will only serve to achieve the objectives of the Hawks as
mentioned above.
Mind well you will have no choice & no say at all.
2. Director - Minority Welfare.
Not necessarily be a Muslim and not even necessarily be a secular Hindu as
well. A person within the bureaucracy having affiliation to VHP & BD would
be the best choice for this post.
You have no choice & no say at all.
3. One member each from Sunni & Shia sects to be nominated by UP
legislature.
This will be the political appointment. We have persons like Syed Shahnawaz
& Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi to fill these slots. However, this move seems to be
initiated to create more frictions between these two sects rather than
justify the sectarian balance.
You have no choice & no say at all.
4. Principal of Government Oriental College Rampur.
This is little amusing. However, the person can be retired & replaced with
anybody who subscribe to the hidden agenda.
You have no choice & no say at all.
5. Registrar.
A typical babu, sitting behind the desk who could be
easily dictated & directed or well briefed prior to his appointment.
The scenario is crystal clear & one can understand the deceptive nature of
this political announcement.
Showing optimism & giving a benefit of doubt to the Rajnath Singh government
will be suicidal & shows a complete mental block syndrome.
In the meantime, there are reports that the community is opposing this move
with its leaders describing it as an interference in the religious affairs.
Lastly, asking the Ulemas whether they are pleased or amused with this
decision is an act of over smartness. It is derogatory, as their own brother
is taking a dig at them at this crucial juncture.
Surely, the Ulemas are more wise than those who pose such questions to them.
They are perfectly capable to understand the design, so, are not pleased or
amused but surely, they are concerned for the developments taking place & of
course for those too, who enjoy by taking a dig at them.
However, the question of modernization & reform at the Madrasa education is
still valid & need an urgent attention.
There are some attempts & efforts underway towards this direction. There are
some institutions, NGOs & individuals working hard for this. There are some
Madrassas already initiated applying modern education.
All these attempts & efforts could be only successful when the community,
whole heartedly support these endeavours without asking silly questions. We
discuss the pathetic condition of Deeni Madaris but we do not accept our
responsibility towards it.
How best they can be supported, how best we can contribute to it from our
hard & halal earnings. It is a gigantic task & deserve equally huge
mobilization – resource & thought as well. Unfortunately this does not come
under our priorities but we still reserve our right to question somebody’s
wisdom.
Let us do it together, sincerely & religiously because it is our & only our
problem & we only should solve it – I am sure, we can – Inshallah.
May Allah purify our thoughts.
Jazakallah.
Posted by
Glen
Jan 10, 2002 02:03 am
Lets be objective........
Br. Nafisul Hasan has provided a news clipping (TOI 24 Dec 2001) on
information about UP govt`s decision to issue an ordinance for qualitative &
quantitative improvement in Madrasas. He expressed his optimism on, `` a good
step forward toward minorities welfare`` followed by a dig at the Ulemas
asking them whether they are pleased or amused with this decision.
The Islamic education in general & the Deeni madaris in particular are the
subject of discussions & debates in our country now a days. The 11 Sept
attack on US, the Afghan war which eliminated the Taliban, then the recent
attack on our parliament has provided further vigour to this debate.
Prior to these incidents, the ruling political formation in our country was
gunning for the madrasas with a sustained campaign projecting madrasas as
the dens of terrorists. However, all these claims were without any back-up
but surely succeeded to an extent to demonise the madrasas to discredit the
religion & the Muslim community.
In a recent meeting our Home Minister resolved to crackdown on the illegal
madarasas which according to the Home Ministry report, ``pose a threat to
national security``.
The vicious campaign by the BJP government in UP is known to everyone. The
Sangh Parivar`s perception of Islam, Muslims & their seminaries are well
known which is full of venom & hatred. It is undoubtedly their agenda to
either finish each & every school of religious teaching or transform these
institutions by way of intimidation where Islam can be Indianised.
Don`t forget, they are talking about Indianisation of Islam, cultural
transformation of Muslims in India & even asking to interpret Quran & Islam.
There are even elements within the Muslim fold who think that the highly
respected institution like Deoband is promoting puritanical brand of Islam.
Puritanical means practising or affecting strict religious & moral
behaviour.
So, what they mean by asking to Indianise the Islam or dump the puritanical
brand of Islam?
Do they want the Muslims to dump the Hadith & Sunnah of the Prophet (PUB)?
Do they want the Muslims to earn through Usury?
Do they want the Muslims to marry non-Muslims without converting?
Do they want the Muslims to create a replica of Kaba in India & perform Haj
there?
Do they want Muslim girls to give up hijab & indulge in all those social
activities which are recognised as not immoral by the so-called civilized
society?
Do they want Muslims to not ask for their personal law?
Do they want Muslims to stop growing beard?
Do they want Muslims to Hindunize & accept everything against their faith?
The list & demands are unending.
In fact anything bears the name of Islam & Muslims would be unacceptable to
these fascist forces or they may even accept it provided it is corrupted,
distorted & concocted. In a nut shell, the message is clear - you can be
anything but Muslims.
Against this backdrop, the latest in the series of the vicious campaign
which would be defined by the hawks as ``constructive engagement`` is the
aforesaid so-called UP government ordinance, to bring in qualitative &
quantitative improvement in madrasa education should be seen.
Are we so naive? Do we still could imagine (not believe) that the BJP or for
that matter the Sangh Parivar could think something constructive for the
Muslims?
At the time while there are two hardcore hawks sitting in the cabinet
occupying two important ministries namely Home & HRD, who are doing
everything possible at their command to kill the aspirations of Muslims,
design, develop & implement long term plans which could harm the Muslims,
can we believe that the present government is sincere about our issues. A
big NO.
Let`s look at the new ordinance & how the so-called Madrasa Education Board
(MEB) is going to be constituted.
Prior to this ordinance one needs to know that in 1994, the Union Government
(not the state Government) launched the scheme promoted by HRD Ministry
where the govt assists madrasas with one or two teachers of modern subjects
like science, Maths and English. Many universities now accept the
certificates issued by such madrasas. In UP alone 700 madrasas are covered
under this scheme while in West Bengal And Assam, there is the
Madrassa-e-Alia stream which include most of the subjects taught in
mainstream schools and is recognised by universities.
In these schemes, there is nowhere an interference nor the authority of the
madrasas is tampered with. This experiment at the best could be revitalized
& reviewed to make it more constructive & result oriented.
The recent ordinance says the Arabic & Farsi Education Board will be
dissolved and merge with MEB.
What would be the shape of the MEB?
1. Headed by - noted educationist having long experience in traditional
madrasa education.
The track record of the BJP is dubious. For them the best available
historians in the country are those who were long time clerks, but
affiliated to the VHP, were brought in to head the NCERT & The Indian
History Congress. Both the gentlemen created a havoc with the fullest
support from the HRD Minister by changing the curriculum & re-writing the
history. The internationally recognised historians of our country are
described by our HRD Minister as intellectual terrorists who are more
dangerous than the Taliban.
One can imagine a person chosen by the Sangh Parivar to head the MEB & his
credibility who will only serve to achieve the objectives of the Hawks as
mentioned above.
Mind well you will have no choice & no say at all.
2. Director - Minority Welfare.
Not necessarily be a Muslim and not even necessarily be a secular Hindu as
well. A person within the bureaucracy having affiliation to VHP & BD would
be the best choice for this post.
You have no choice & no say at all.
3. One member each from Sunni & Shia sects to be nominated by UP
legislature.
This will be the political appointment. We have persons like Syed Shahnawaz
& Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi to fill these slots. However, this move seems to be
initiated to create more frictions between these two sects rather than
justify the sectarian balance.
You have no choice & no say at all.
4. Principal of Government Oriental College Rampur.
This is little amusing. However, the person can be retired & replaced with
anybody who subscribe to the hidden agenda.
You have no choice & no say at all.
5. Registrar.
A typical babu, sitting behind the desk who could be
easily dictated & directed or well briefed prior to his appointment.
The scenario is crystal clear & one can understand the deceptive nature of
this political announcement.
Showing optimism & giving a benefit of doubt to the Rajnath Singh government
will be suicidal & shows a complete mental block syndrome.
In the meantime, there are reports that the community is opposing this move
with its leaders describing it as an interference in the religious affairs.
Lastly, asking the Ulemas whether they are pleased or amused with this
decision is an act of over smartness. It is derogatory, as their own brother
is taking a dig at them at this crucial juncture.
Surely, the Ulemas are more wise than those who pose such questions to them.
They are perfectly capable to understand the design, so, are not pleased or
amused but surely, they are concerned for the developments taking place & of
course for those too, who enjoy by taking a dig at them.
However, the question of modernization & reform at the Madrasa education is
still valid & need an urgent attention.
There are some attempts & efforts underway towards this direction. There are
some institutions, NGOs & individuals working hard for this. There are some
Madrassas already initiated applying modern education.
All these attempts & efforts could be only successful when the community,
whole heartedly support these endeavours without asking silly questions. We
discuss the pathetic condition of Deeni Madaris but we do not accept our
responsibility towards it.
How best they can be supported, how best we can contribute to it from our
hard & halal earnings. It is a gigantic task & deserve equally huge
mobilization – resource & thought as well. Unfortunately this does not come
under our priorities but we still reserve our right to question somebody’s
wisdom.
Let us do it together, sincerely & religiously because it is our & only our
problem & we only should solve it – I am sure, we can – Inshallah.
May Allah purify our thoughts.
Jazakallah.
The Significant Unit of War
RSRIDHAR``Believe it or not, the only thing that holds India is not Pak`s nuclear deterrence (this has already been factored in during past and present military exercises)but India`s democracy and accountability to its people. BJP`s political future is at stake. Hence, all diplomatic options will be exhausted including scrapping the Indus treaty, naval blockade etc. These are very extreme measures akin to declaring war.``
Its true it will take india FOREVER to think of aTTACKING ,it not only needs guts ,which essentially is a will to fight & motivation & determination ,reason & convinced beyond doubt mind set
Forever ---it will never be easy convincing the world for india to open undisputed border without losing face in the intl. Comunity
Attacking --For india to attack there is no specific target .I think they cannot attack nuclear instillation not only there is mutual treaty but America & world dont want total nuclear warfare for there own allies & there own safety
Will to fight --What other motivation other the pay check & some money like Gorkha Neplese hired guns have to fight .Not more than thugs looting bank when there is no bank across the LOC in Kashmir .Pakistan is relatively green with plants NOT THE KIND OF GREEN BANIYAS LIKE ,the $$ kind.!!
GUTS --comes from true ,just & dear to heart believes.Pakistan has 54 years of atroceties by Indian army to justify there anger .What is the source of occupying forces anger? except? to give the land up to the locals lets return back to Abdhra, Tamil,Keral & Kannada home uselessly seperated from families
ALL THE FIERCENESS OF MOTIVATION ,WILL TO FIGHT REASONS & JUSTIFIED CAUSE IS ABSENT ON INDIAN SIDE.
Just as glibly as you utter ``we have factored in nuclear attack`` as if it was the silly algebra equatio in your SAT test ,its not your equation that balanceses in your favour.We just as well can, non chantantly utter we have determined the endurance of constant nuclear rain & factored it in ....there you go .!!!!!!!!!
Posted by
Glen
Jan 9, 2002 03:40 pm
#179RSRIDHAR``Believe it or not, the only thing that holds India is not Pak`s nuclear deterrence (this has already been factored in during past and present military exercises)but India`s democracy and accountability to its people. BJP`s political future is at stake. Hence, all diplomatic options will be exhausted including scrapping the Indus treaty, naval blockade etc. These are very extreme measures akin to declaring war.``
Its true it will take india FOREVER to think of aTTACKING ,it not only needs guts ,which essentially is a will to fight & motivation & determination ,reason & convinced beyond doubt mind set
Forever ---it will never be easy convincing the world for india to open undisputed border without losing face in the intl. Comunity
Attacking --For india to attack there is no specific target .I think they cannot attack nuclear instillation not only there is mutual treaty but America & world dont want total nuclear warfare for there own allies & there own safety
Will to fight --What other motivation other the pay check & some money like Gorkha Neplese hired guns have to fight .Not more than thugs looting bank when there is no bank across the LOC in Kashmir .Pakistan is relatively green with plants NOT THE KIND OF GREEN BANIYAS LIKE ,the $$ kind.!!
GUTS --comes from true ,just & dear to heart believes.Pakistan has 54 years of atroceties by Indian army to justify there anger .What is the source of occupying forces anger? except? to give the land up to the locals lets return back to Abdhra, Tamil,Keral & Kannada home uselessly seperated from families
ALL THE FIERCENESS OF MOTIVATION ,WILL TO FIGHT REASONS & JUSTIFIED CAUSE IS ABSENT ON INDIAN SIDE.
Just as glibly as you utter ``we have factored in nuclear attack`` as if it was the silly algebra equatio in your SAT test ,its not your equation that balanceses in your favour.We just as well can, non chantantly utter we have determined the endurance of constant nuclear rain & factored it in ....there you go .!!!!!!!!!
The Significant Unit of War
#173
Gymnasophyst
With Blair declaring Pakistans position more strong than Indias ,Hindians would ever admit or like anyone to know about?,There is more awareness about Kashmir NOW than ever in 33 years prior to 89 insurgency or ever could have been possible without he blood & suffering of Mujahdeen & Kasmiris who suffered there end approx from 6000 to upward of 50000 by conservative estimate .
If any ppl. is more deserving of FREEDOM it is Kashmiris after Anti Freedom movement SPY likeAtalji Vajpayee (atal bihari vAjpayee was a MOLE of British & fingered many indian freedom fighters labelled as terrorist....like chandra Sekhar Singh & Bhagat Singh Azad)is eating the fruit of freedom given by british as charity.
I ran across the article below in the International Herald Tribune - I think it is pertinent:
``Independence for Kashmir Could Have Advantages for India
Philip Bowring International Herald Tribune Monday January 7, 2002
BUT ALSO READ ABOUT BRUTALITY OF HINDIANS SO CALLED NON VIOLENT ...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A Border Security Force (BSF) jawan allegedly set ablaze a youth and deserted the force soon after commiting the macabre crime on Saturday in Baramulla district of Kashmir, prompting authorities to lauch a massive hunt to apprehend him.
The jawan, Goarknath, belonging to 88th BSF battalion, also set afire his uniform, his bullet-proof vest, helmet and shoes apparently to mislead the authorities that he is dead, official sources said here.
They said Goraknath apparently thought that the authorities on seeing the youth`s charred body and his burnt uniform would presume him to be dead which will earn him a huge compensation, amounting to lakhs of rupees, paid to security force personnel who die while serving in Kashmir.
The sources said the jawan allegedly set the youth ablaze inside BSF camp at Damnu near the Sopore bus stand, some 55 kms from here.
They said Goraknath picked up 18-year-old Nazir Ahmad Mir of Naidkhai village during routine frisking and took him inside his room at the camp.
Within minutes, the youth was seen in flames by locals as he jumped out of the building. He was immediately rushed to SMHS hospital here.
Doctors said Nazir had received 100 per cent burns. ``It is difficult to say whether he will survive.``
Nazir told police that the jawan took him inside the camp, poured oil on him and then set him on fire.
``I jumped out of the window and what happened afterwards, I can`t remember,`` he said.
``We have have alerted our forces in Kashmir and other parts of the country to nab Gorakhnath,`` a BSF officer said.
Posted by
Glen
Jan 9, 2002 03:40 pm
#173
Gymnasophyst
With Blair declaring Pakistans position more strong than Indias ,Hindians would ever admit or like anyone to know about?,There is more awareness about Kashmir NOW than ever in 33 years prior to 89 insurgency or ever could have been possible without he blood & suffering of Mujahdeen & Kasmiris who suffered there end approx from 6000 to upward of 50000 by conservative estimate .
If any ppl. is more deserving of FREEDOM it is Kashmiris after Anti Freedom movement SPY likeAtalji Vajpayee (atal bihari vAjpayee was a MOLE of British & fingered many indian freedom fighters labelled as terrorist....like chandra Sekhar Singh & Bhagat Singh Azad)is eating the fruit of freedom given by british as charity.
I ran across the article below in the International Herald Tribune - I think it is pertinent:
``Independence for Kashmir Could Have Advantages for India
Philip Bowring International Herald Tribune Monday January 7, 2002
BUT ALSO READ ABOUT BRUTALITY OF HINDIANS SO CALLED NON VIOLENT ...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A Border Security Force (BSF) jawan allegedly set ablaze a youth and deserted the force soon after commiting the macabre crime on Saturday in Baramulla district of Kashmir, prompting authorities to lauch a massive hunt to apprehend him.
The jawan, Goarknath, belonging to 88th BSF battalion, also set afire his uniform, his bullet-proof vest, helmet and shoes apparently to mislead the authorities that he is dead, official sources said here.
They said Goraknath apparently thought that the authorities on seeing the youth`s charred body and his burnt uniform would presume him to be dead which will earn him a huge compensation, amounting to lakhs of rupees, paid to security force personnel who die while serving in Kashmir.
The sources said the jawan allegedly set the youth ablaze inside BSF camp at Damnu near the Sopore bus stand, some 55 kms from here.
They said Goraknath picked up 18-year-old Nazir Ahmad Mir of Naidkhai village during routine frisking and took him inside his room at the camp.
Within minutes, the youth was seen in flames by locals as he jumped out of the building. He was immediately rushed to SMHS hospital here.
Doctors said Nazir had received 100 per cent burns. ``It is difficult to say whether he will survive.``
Nazir told police that the jawan took him inside the camp, poured oil on him and then set him on fire.
``I jumped out of the window and what happened afterwards, I can`t remember,`` he said.
``We have have alerted our forces in Kashmir and other parts of the country to nab Gorakhnath,`` a BSF officer said.
The Significant Unit of War
``Bismillah ur-Rahman Ur-Rahim``.
Its vast difference in meaning instead of sayin `bissmillah ir rehman nir rahim`which is the correct quote ,which you should not incorrectly when not necessarry.
Kashmir is a dispute which BLAIR ,and you cant accuse the British ,of not knowing the facts ,b/c you & i know they made the rules by which we still play specially of a game like Kashmir which despite manty Extra Times has not seen the end of the Innnings.
EnoUgh has been written from all sides in thousand of journals & news papers discussion boards but the fact remainsd ,if it was a Done deal for india you would not need whole countries eskewed efforts military & material for mere 10 millions of people in a billion that makes it 1% roughly.
BRITISH BROAD CASTING (BBC) FORUM ON KASHMIR
The topics discussed in this forum were:
Background to the dispute
Is the accession of Kashmir to India complete?
International border
Referendum
Role of the outside world
Military option
Ethnic cleansing
Pan-Islamic groups
Background to the dispute
Bridget Kendall:
Adjit Singh, India asks: Please explain to us what the main issues are that both countries have their dispute?
Jill McGivering:
Certainly the comments that are made most here in India focus on what India sees as a sovereign claim to the whole of the territory of Kashmir. That is basically back to the time of partition when the then Maharajah of the Jammu and Kashmir territory had to make a decision whether he wanted accession to the new Pakistan or to India and after some deliberation chose India. Pakistan never really accepted that decision but India clings to it very much as a basis for its claim and has done over the last more than 50 years.
Since then we have had a lot of debate, a lot of changes and of course a lot of conflict as well over Kashmir. At the moment a lot of the focus really is on the role that India feels that Pakistan is playing in supporting militancy inside the two-thirds of the territory of Kashmir which is Indian Kashmir. A lot of what we`re seeing at the moment, in terms of the possibility of dialogue about how they settle who has the best claim to the territory of Kashmir as a whole is also to do first with whether or not Pakistan is still giving a large amount of support to those militants who India accuses of being involved in long-running terrorism and what steps it is prepared to take to stop cross-border terrorism.
Bridget Kendall:
Victoria, is that the way that Pakistan sees this conflict?
Victoria Schofield:
It is a little more complicated. Jill is of course right. In 1947, the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir was given the choice of choosing between India and Pakistan. However, it was a disputed claim because the Maharajah only acceded under duress because he was being troubled by a rebellion both within his state. Both India and Pakistan agreed at the time of the accession that the issue would be put to a plebiscite. This is really the problem, it is not so much if it had been a clean, simple act of accession, it is the fact that both India and Pakistan agreed that they would put the issue to the people. This was further endorsed by the United Nations, who agreed that both countries should accede to what they had agreed to do and unfortunately they never managed to put the issue to a plebiscite and so it has never been laid to rest. This is really from which arose the insurgency in the 80s, early 90s.
Bridget Kendall:
Anu Anand, you were born in Kashmir. How does this dispute today seem from the point of view of people in Kashmir?
Anu Anand:
I think the issue of the plebiscite is very central because the Kashmiris themselves have never had a voice really in any of this. Especially now - we see Tony Blair meeting with the Indian Prime Minister, meeting with the Pakistani Prime Minister - at least on the Indian side of Kashmir, the Kashmiri leaders have not had a partnership in any of this process, they have been sidelined by the Indian Government.
Also there are the very basic day-to-day issues in Kashmir. Things have improved over the last few years than they were when Delhi was directly ruling Kashmir. But there is no economic opportunity in Kashmir - the Indian Government hasn`t fulfilled the sorts of promises and the kinds of things that were bandied about so long ago. Even during the recent elections and a few years ago there was so much talk about economic development, about opportunity - there hasn`t really been much movement and I think the Kashmiris feel sidelined and squeezed by all of the powers who perhaps use Kashmir as something of a political football depending on what the objective of the day is.
Return to the top of the page
Is the accession of Kashmir to India complete?
Bridget Kendall:
Shraddha Chauhan, India asks: From a pure United Nations and official standpoint is the accession of Kashmir to India complete? What would happen if, for example, President Musharraf were to agree to everything and terrorism across the border would stop? What do you think would be the options for India then?
Jill McGivering:
In a sense the premises of the first part of that question seems to be an assumption that the United Nations does endorse India`s claim that basically the next process would be the accession of the whole territory of Kashmir to India. Obviously that`s not the case. We`ve seen a slight shifting in the United Nations` position over the last 50 years, focusing initially on the plebiscite. But certainly the position at the moment - we had it restated quite recently with Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, coming to both Pakistan and India in March and addressing this issue publicly and quite forcefully. He was saying that now the United Nations` position is that the only way this can be achieved is through peaceful dialogue between the two countries.
In terms of the issue of stopping cross-border terrorism and what impact that would have - we have just been hearing from Anu Anand about the impact on ordinary people of these years and years of militancy, unrest and difficulties in Indian Kashmir. I suppose the hope would be that in the short-term at least it would be an opportunity for people to start to rebuild normal lives. Every time I go to that part of the world that you meet so many widows, so many young children who`ve had to become the heads of their households because the breadwinner perhaps been lost through some sort of militancy or terrorist activity. It would give a chance to people to try and recover a little both psychologically and also practically in economical terms - perhaps, for example, to start to revive international tourism which has pretty much been killed in the last 10 years of militancy.
Return to the top of the page
International Border
Bridget Kendall:
Sanjay, United Kingdom asks: Could a solution to the dispute be if, the line of control between the two countries - which is the de facto border but is not in fact an international border - were to be made into an international border? Would that be a solution?
Jill McGivering:
That is something that`s often raised as being the most realistic solution in the sense that it is in many ways it is already a de facto border for ordinary people on the ground. It was essentially a temporary measure that was sanctioned by the United Nations very early on as a ceasefire line at a time when they were trying to stop an outbreak of fighting between Indians and Pakistanis. So it wasn`t ever devised as being a possible border. I think one of the difficulties would be in trying to persuade both sides to accept that as an international border and in so doing essentially renouncing their claim to the whole of the territory. Certainly at the moment, with the constraints and pressures that leaders in both countries face from their own domestic constituencies - it is hard not to over-emphasise how passionate and emotional an issue this is - so it looks unlikely as though they would be willing to renounce their claims in that way and make it possible to have that become the border.
Bridget Kendall:
Victoria, is that the same in Pakistan do you think - this question of making the line of control an international border?
Victoria Schoefield:
I think it would be far more palatable for India. Up until the latest outbreak of insurgency that was what India thought had unofficially occurred in 1972 in Shimla. This was very much the feeling that India keeps what they`ve got, Pakistan will keep what they`ve got - which is approximately one-third of the territory including what they call Asad Kashmir and the northern areas. I think India would have very little difficulty in accepting that ironed out with some minor inconsistencies and probably withdrawing themselves from the Siachin Glacier which they occupied in 1984 and which they really don`t want to have. However, the sticking point has always been that Pakistan has not been prepared to accept it and in a way it feels cheated of the plebiscite and the only reason why they stopped fighting at the ceasefire line was on the understanding that they would have the opportunity for the people to choose.
We have also the issue of what the people themselves would want and they are not really unanimously behind one or the other. You`ve got people in Ladakh in India who are happy with the status quo. You`ve also got the people in Jammu, predominately Hindu, who are happy with the status quo and then you`ve got people in northern areas who would like to have formalised being part of Pakistan and the same with Asad Kashmir. So what you are really only talking about is the status of the valley and this has always been the core issue. The valley - predominately Muslim - and making up probably the majority of the population if you put the whole state together. But Pakistan somehow to accept the line of control now as the official border, after 50 years of saying it`s not good enough - they`ve got to have something more to offer to their people.
Return to the top of the page
Referendum
Bridget Kendall:
M. Choudhury, UK asks: Why is India so opposed to having a referendum in Kashmir to let the citizens decide in which country they wish to be aligned?
Anu Anand:
I think they are afraid of the outcome. India in the very, very beginning I think there was a certain amount of good faith. They genuinely wanted Kashmir to be a part of the union. But in I way I think it`s a jewel - a possession - and a referendum means they have to open up the question of letting the Kashmiris decide if they want to be a part of India. Essentially for 50 years and especially in the last few decades, the Indian policy in Kashmir, especially under the BJP government, has been to contain this problem because it is a part of India and no more discussion about it. If there is a substantial change in the status of Kashmir, it has very serious repercussions throughout the rest of India and other Muslim communities.
I that is essentially the problem that the Indian Government is afraid of what the answer to that question would be and that just fuels the resentment endlessly. Also the Indian policy in Kashmir - not allowing political dissent to have a voice, not allowing political parties to mature and to be equal partners, not having human rights controls, not checking up on the Indian army to make sure that Muslims aren`t being brutalised - these are all the core questions. This is where I think India has failed in not addressing these core questions and I think even Indian leaders themselves would admit that they really have failed to bring stability, prosperity and peace to the part that they do in effect control.
Return to the top of the page
Role of the outside world
Bridget Kendall
Jill in Dehli, we`ve just had Tony Blair visiting the Indian Prime Minister - he is now in Pakistan. A question from Sondi in the UK: I would like to know why the United Nations, the US, the UK and Russia cannot force India and Pakistan to come to a diplomatic solution on Kashmir. They can try to impose tougher sanctions etc. What about the role of the outside world?
Jill McGivering:
Obviously various members of the international community have tried their best to exert pressure in certain directions. At the moment we`re seeing a lot of pressure on Pakistan precisely on this issue of the support of cross-border terrorism, partly because the political landscape has changed since September 11th. If there is a lot of success then it may be possible that we reach a stage where the two sides are willing and able to sit down and reopen dialogue and that could be a positive step.
But certainly I think the United Nations in particular has been quite cautious about how heavy-handed a role it would be appropriate or helpful to play in all this. When we talk about some of the United Nations resolutions - for example the one involving the plebiscite - those weren`t enforceable resolutions, they weren`t binding - they were much weaker than that. As I said earlier, the Secretary-General quite recently made it very clear that although the international community was watching very carefully and was eager to try and play a part - if that was appropriate - it also recognised that the only real way to lasting peace had to be that both governments were able to sort out their differences themselves and come to some sort of agreement. Obviously if they wanted some sort of mediation, then the international community would be very willing and probably eager to try to provide it. But certainly India, in particular, has always seen this as a bilateral issue and hasn`t wanted any sort of intervention, which it would see very much as interference.
Return to the top of the page
Military option
Bridget Kendall:
Giri, India asks: If this crack down of extremist elements in Pakistan turns out to be a temporary affair, would India exercise the military option?
Jill McGivering:
It is a very frightening question. Obviously a lot of people here have watched with alarm as we`ve seen a tremendous build-up, militarily, along the international border and also along the line of control and have been concerned about what that might mean - either in terms of strategy by either government or even in terms of a mistake of the tension becoming so high that one isolated incident, for example, sparks another and we end up getting into a conflict that wasn`t necessarily intended.
We have heard both leaders, including the Indian Prime Minister, Mr Vajpayee, in the last few days, although sounding very tough, also repeatedly saying in public that they don`t want war, they don`t things to escalate, they don`t want things to come to that pitch. I think that is something that`s very much echoed, certainly by the ordinary people that I meet here. Many of them are concerned that there has been an increase in tension - a sort of brinkmanship at the moment - and they can`t really see how that can be resolved. Although President Musharraf has made signs towards trying to curb some of the activities of some of the groups that India has accused of involvement in terrorism most recently in the attack on India`s parliament - a lot of those gestures have been very cautiously received by India and even described as cosmetic. So it`s hard to see at the moment how the two positions can be bridged peacefully.
Return to the top of the page
Ethnic cleansing
Bridget Kendall
Anu, if I can come to you now, having been born in Kashmir and lived there part of your life, we`ve got a question from Rupert here in England and he asks: I often see stories of the specific killing of Hindus in Kashmir. Is this ethnic cleansing and why is no one highlighting it?
Anu Anand:
I think it is highlighted - I think it is highlighted endlessly, for example, by the Indian Government. My family are Hindus in the predominately Hindu part of Kashmir and Jammu. If you go to Jammu, you find thousands and thousands of Hindus who`ve had to leave the valley over the last few decades because of the instability and I think they would like to go back. They feel that they`ve lived side by side with Muslims for many years but things have become so unstable and because of, what they call, foreign militants - people coming over from, for example, Afghanistan or outside - that everyone is a target.
We had the massacre of Sikhs in Kashmir - a small minority but very significant why they should be targeted and that coincided with Bill Clinton`s visit. If you speak to the Indian Government they say this is the problem we are faced with. If you speak to the Pakistanis they say the Indians organised this to embarrass us when Bill Clinton was visiting. So I think it is highlighted. The problem in Kashmir, I think, boils down to being able to quantify and to really pin down who is doing what - there are so many groups and there are so many agendas that it is very difficult to get a clear picture of why certain people are being targeted and who is responsible for it.
Return to the top of the page
Pan-Islamic groups
Bridget Kendall
Some recent experts have suggested that some of the militantancy is now becoming less to do with territory and more to do with a religious and Islamic agenda. Victoria, We have a question from TLJ in Austria: Is it true that over 70% of the captured or killed Kashmiri freedom fighters or terrorists are not in fact Kashmiris but are Arabs, Pakistanis, Chechyns and Afghans and doesn`t that point to a connection with pan-Islamic groups like Al-Qaeda?
Victoria Schoefield:
I think there has definitely been a change in the complexion of the movement since it began in 1989. We have got two issues: one is the territorial dispute, which goes back to 1947 between India and Pakistan and had it been resolved swiftly, we might not have seen the events that we`ve seen now. The other issue has been the situation in the valley for how the Indian Muslims felt they were treated which gave rise to the insurgency movement in the late 80s and 90s.
But subsequent to that it is true that the movement has in a way been hijacked, partly because the indigenous movement was very severely repressed by the Indian Government and it coincided at a time with the end of the Afghan war - you had the training that was provided for the pan-Islamic militants. We had militants coming from other countries to fight in Afghanistan so it was in a way a natural progression - they would then turn their attention to Kashmir. I`ve certainly talked to a lot of Kashmiris who say this isn`t exactly what we want. We want to live in peace with the Hindus. What we were fighting for was better rights, better civil liberties within the political status we already had. They may have thought they`re not particularly happy with the way things turned out. They may have preferred to have been given the choice with the plebiscite. But in a way, since the movement began it has almost been taken hold of itself by this extraneous element.
In addition to which, it is very difficult to say, when you are talking about a Kashmiri - we traditionally talk about Kashmiris as being those people of the valley who are both Hindus and Muslims and those people who essentially have a culture in common. But you`ve got now what are called the Asad Jammu Kashmiris - and Pakistan insists on keeping the name Jammu even though the Jammu region is within India. They call themselves Kashmiris - actually they are from Mayapore or they`re from different districts - they don`t even speak the Kashmiri language. They say, number one, we don`t recognise the line of control because we feel we`re all part of the state and number two, we therefore feel we are entitled to go and fight for our brethren. A lot of the people of the people who came over to fight were from the Asad Jammu Kashmir region but were not really having very much in common with the Kashmiris. This is why it`s become so complicated because you don`t quite know whose fighting for what and you`ve got the political parties with different objectives. Some say that they would they would like to reunite the whole area with Pakistan - others say in the events that have happened with the break up of the Soviet Union, that`s not what we want any more - we would like our independence. So the whole issue breaks down again because independence of what particular part - whether it`s the whole state, whether it`s a part of the state?
Return to the top of the page
Posted by
Glen
Jan 9, 2002 01:31 pm
GYMNASOPHYST #173``Bismillah ur-Rahman Ur-Rahim``.
Its vast difference in meaning instead of sayin `bissmillah ir rehman nir rahim`which is the correct quote ,which you should not incorrectly when not necessarry.
Kashmir is a dispute which BLAIR ,and you cant accuse the British ,of not knowing the facts ,b/c you & i know they made the rules by which we still play specially of a game like Kashmir which despite manty Extra Times has not seen the end of the Innnings.
EnoUgh has been written from all sides in thousand of journals & news papers discussion boards but the fact remainsd ,if it was a Done deal for india you would not need whole countries eskewed efforts military & material for mere 10 millions of people in a billion that makes it 1% roughly.
BRITISH BROAD CASTING (BBC) FORUM ON KASHMIR
The topics discussed in this forum were:
Background to the dispute
Is the accession of Kashmir to India complete?
International border
Referendum
Role of the outside world
Military option
Ethnic cleansing
Pan-Islamic groups
Background to the dispute
Bridget Kendall:
Adjit Singh, India asks: Please explain to us what the main issues are that both countries have their dispute?
Jill McGivering:
Certainly the comments that are made most here in India focus on what India sees as a sovereign claim to the whole of the territory of Kashmir. That is basically back to the time of partition when the then Maharajah of the Jammu and Kashmir territory had to make a decision whether he wanted accession to the new Pakistan or to India and after some deliberation chose India. Pakistan never really accepted that decision but India clings to it very much as a basis for its claim and has done over the last more than 50 years.
Since then we have had a lot of debate, a lot of changes and of course a lot of conflict as well over Kashmir. At the moment a lot of the focus really is on the role that India feels that Pakistan is playing in supporting militancy inside the two-thirds of the territory of Kashmir which is Indian Kashmir. A lot of what we`re seeing at the moment, in terms of the possibility of dialogue about how they settle who has the best claim to the territory of Kashmir as a whole is also to do first with whether or not Pakistan is still giving a large amount of support to those militants who India accuses of being involved in long-running terrorism and what steps it is prepared to take to stop cross-border terrorism.
Bridget Kendall:
Victoria, is that the way that Pakistan sees this conflict?
Victoria Schofield:
It is a little more complicated. Jill is of course right. In 1947, the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir was given the choice of choosing between India and Pakistan. However, it was a disputed claim because the Maharajah only acceded under duress because he was being troubled by a rebellion both within his state. Both India and Pakistan agreed at the time of the accession that the issue would be put to a plebiscite. This is really the problem, it is not so much if it had been a clean, simple act of accession, it is the fact that both India and Pakistan agreed that they would put the issue to the people. This was further endorsed by the United Nations, who agreed that both countries should accede to what they had agreed to do and unfortunately they never managed to put the issue to a plebiscite and so it has never been laid to rest. This is really from which arose the insurgency in the 80s, early 90s.
Bridget Kendall:
Anu Anand, you were born in Kashmir. How does this dispute today seem from the point of view of people in Kashmir?
Anu Anand:
I think the issue of the plebiscite is very central because the Kashmiris themselves have never had a voice really in any of this. Especially now - we see Tony Blair meeting with the Indian Prime Minister, meeting with the Pakistani Prime Minister - at least on the Indian side of Kashmir, the Kashmiri leaders have not had a partnership in any of this process, they have been sidelined by the Indian Government.
Also there are the very basic day-to-day issues in Kashmir. Things have improved over the last few years than they were when Delhi was directly ruling Kashmir. But there is no economic opportunity in Kashmir - the Indian Government hasn`t fulfilled the sorts of promises and the kinds of things that were bandied about so long ago. Even during the recent elections and a few years ago there was so much talk about economic development, about opportunity - there hasn`t really been much movement and I think the Kashmiris feel sidelined and squeezed by all of the powers who perhaps use Kashmir as something of a political football depending on what the objective of the day is.
Return to the top of the page
Is the accession of Kashmir to India complete?
Bridget Kendall:
Shraddha Chauhan, India asks: From a pure United Nations and official standpoint is the accession of Kashmir to India complete? What would happen if, for example, President Musharraf were to agree to everything and terrorism across the border would stop? What do you think would be the options for India then?
Jill McGivering:
In a sense the premises of the first part of that question seems to be an assumption that the United Nations does endorse India`s claim that basically the next process would be the accession of the whole territory of Kashmir to India. Obviously that`s not the case. We`ve seen a slight shifting in the United Nations` position over the last 50 years, focusing initially on the plebiscite. But certainly the position at the moment - we had it restated quite recently with Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, coming to both Pakistan and India in March and addressing this issue publicly and quite forcefully. He was saying that now the United Nations` position is that the only way this can be achieved is through peaceful dialogue between the two countries.
In terms of the issue of stopping cross-border terrorism and what impact that would have - we have just been hearing from Anu Anand about the impact on ordinary people of these years and years of militancy, unrest and difficulties in Indian Kashmir. I suppose the hope would be that in the short-term at least it would be an opportunity for people to start to rebuild normal lives. Every time I go to that part of the world that you meet so many widows, so many young children who`ve had to become the heads of their households because the breadwinner perhaps been lost through some sort of militancy or terrorist activity. It would give a chance to people to try and recover a little both psychologically and also practically in economical terms - perhaps, for example, to start to revive international tourism which has pretty much been killed in the last 10 years of militancy.
Return to the top of the page
International Border
Bridget Kendall:
Sanjay, United Kingdom asks: Could a solution to the dispute be if, the line of control between the two countries - which is the de facto border but is not in fact an international border - were to be made into an international border? Would that be a solution?
Jill McGivering:
That is something that`s often raised as being the most realistic solution in the sense that it is in many ways it is already a de facto border for ordinary people on the ground. It was essentially a temporary measure that was sanctioned by the United Nations very early on as a ceasefire line at a time when they were trying to stop an outbreak of fighting between Indians and Pakistanis. So it wasn`t ever devised as being a possible border. I think one of the difficulties would be in trying to persuade both sides to accept that as an international border and in so doing essentially renouncing their claim to the whole of the territory. Certainly at the moment, with the constraints and pressures that leaders in both countries face from their own domestic constituencies - it is hard not to over-emphasise how passionate and emotional an issue this is - so it looks unlikely as though they would be willing to renounce their claims in that way and make it possible to have that become the border.
Bridget Kendall:
Victoria, is that the same in Pakistan do you think - this question of making the line of control an international border?
Victoria Schoefield:
I think it would be far more palatable for India. Up until the latest outbreak of insurgency that was what India thought had unofficially occurred in 1972 in Shimla. This was very much the feeling that India keeps what they`ve got, Pakistan will keep what they`ve got - which is approximately one-third of the territory including what they call Asad Kashmir and the northern areas. I think India would have very little difficulty in accepting that ironed out with some minor inconsistencies and probably withdrawing themselves from the Siachin Glacier which they occupied in 1984 and which they really don`t want to have. However, the sticking point has always been that Pakistan has not been prepared to accept it and in a way it feels cheated of the plebiscite and the only reason why they stopped fighting at the ceasefire line was on the understanding that they would have the opportunity for the people to choose.
We have also the issue of what the people themselves would want and they are not really unanimously behind one or the other. You`ve got people in Ladakh in India who are happy with the status quo. You`ve also got the people in Jammu, predominately Hindu, who are happy with the status quo and then you`ve got people in northern areas who would like to have formalised being part of Pakistan and the same with Asad Kashmir. So what you are really only talking about is the status of the valley and this has always been the core issue. The valley - predominately Muslim - and making up probably the majority of the population if you put the whole state together. But Pakistan somehow to accept the line of control now as the official border, after 50 years of saying it`s not good enough - they`ve got to have something more to offer to their people.
Return to the top of the page
Referendum
Bridget Kendall:
M. Choudhury, UK asks: Why is India so opposed to having a referendum in Kashmir to let the citizens decide in which country they wish to be aligned?
Anu Anand:
I think they are afraid of the outcome. India in the very, very beginning I think there was a certain amount of good faith. They genuinely wanted Kashmir to be a part of the union. But in I way I think it`s a jewel - a possession - and a referendum means they have to open up the question of letting the Kashmiris decide if they want to be a part of India. Essentially for 50 years and especially in the last few decades, the Indian policy in Kashmir, especially under the BJP government, has been to contain this problem because it is a part of India and no more discussion about it. If there is a substantial change in the status of Kashmir, it has very serious repercussions throughout the rest of India and other Muslim communities.
I that is essentially the problem that the Indian Government is afraid of what the answer to that question would be and that just fuels the resentment endlessly. Also the Indian policy in Kashmir - not allowing political dissent to have a voice, not allowing political parties to mature and to be equal partners, not having human rights controls, not checking up on the Indian army to make sure that Muslims aren`t being brutalised - these are all the core questions. This is where I think India has failed in not addressing these core questions and I think even Indian leaders themselves would admit that they really have failed to bring stability, prosperity and peace to the part that they do in effect control.
Return to the top of the page
Role of the outside world
Bridget Kendall
Jill in Dehli, we`ve just had Tony Blair visiting the Indian Prime Minister - he is now in Pakistan. A question from Sondi in the UK: I would like to know why the United Nations, the US, the UK and Russia cannot force India and Pakistan to come to a diplomatic solution on Kashmir. They can try to impose tougher sanctions etc. What about the role of the outside world?
Jill McGivering:
Obviously various members of the international community have tried their best to exert pressure in certain directions. At the moment we`re seeing a lot of pressure on Pakistan precisely on this issue of the support of cross-border terrorism, partly because the political landscape has changed since September 11th. If there is a lot of success then it may be possible that we reach a stage where the two sides are willing and able to sit down and reopen dialogue and that could be a positive step.
But certainly I think the United Nations in particular has been quite cautious about how heavy-handed a role it would be appropriate or helpful to play in all this. When we talk about some of the United Nations resolutions - for example the one involving the plebiscite - those weren`t enforceable resolutions, they weren`t binding - they were much weaker than that. As I said earlier, the Secretary-General quite recently made it very clear that although the international community was watching very carefully and was eager to try and play a part - if that was appropriate - it also recognised that the only real way to lasting peace had to be that both governments were able to sort out their differences themselves and come to some sort of agreement. Obviously if they wanted some sort of mediation, then the international community would be very willing and probably eager to try to provide it. But certainly India, in particular, has always seen this as a bilateral issue and hasn`t wanted any sort of intervention, which it would see very much as interference.
Return to the top of the page
Military option
Bridget Kendall:
Giri, India asks: If this crack down of extremist elements in Pakistan turns out to be a temporary affair, would India exercise the military option?
Jill McGivering:
It is a very frightening question. Obviously a lot of people here have watched with alarm as we`ve seen a tremendous build-up, militarily, along the international border and also along the line of control and have been concerned about what that might mean - either in terms of strategy by either government or even in terms of a mistake of the tension becoming so high that one isolated incident, for example, sparks another and we end up getting into a conflict that wasn`t necessarily intended.
We have heard both leaders, including the Indian Prime Minister, Mr Vajpayee, in the last few days, although sounding very tough, also repeatedly saying in public that they don`t want war, they don`t things to escalate, they don`t want things to come to that pitch. I think that is something that`s very much echoed, certainly by the ordinary people that I meet here. Many of them are concerned that there has been an increase in tension - a sort of brinkmanship at the moment - and they can`t really see how that can be resolved. Although President Musharraf has made signs towards trying to curb some of the activities of some of the groups that India has accused of involvement in terrorism most recently in the attack on India`s parliament - a lot of those gestures have been very cautiously received by India and even described as cosmetic. So it`s hard to see at the moment how the two positions can be bridged peacefully.
Return to the top of the page
Ethnic cleansing
Bridget Kendall
Anu, if I can come to you now, having been born in Kashmir and lived there part of your life, we`ve got a question from Rupert here in England and he asks: I often see stories of the specific killing of Hindus in Kashmir. Is this ethnic cleansing and why is no one highlighting it?
Anu Anand:
I think it is highlighted - I think it is highlighted endlessly, for example, by the Indian Government. My family are Hindus in the predominately Hindu part of Kashmir and Jammu. If you go to Jammu, you find thousands and thousands of Hindus who`ve had to leave the valley over the last few decades because of the instability and I think they would like to go back. They feel that they`ve lived side by side with Muslims for many years but things have become so unstable and because of, what they call, foreign militants - people coming over from, for example, Afghanistan or outside - that everyone is a target.
We had the massacre of Sikhs in Kashmir - a small minority but very significant why they should be targeted and that coincided with Bill Clinton`s visit. If you speak to the Indian Government they say this is the problem we are faced with. If you speak to the Pakistanis they say the Indians organised this to embarrass us when Bill Clinton was visiting. So I think it is highlighted. The problem in Kashmir, I think, boils down to being able to quantify and to really pin down who is doing what - there are so many groups and there are so many agendas that it is very difficult to get a clear picture of why certain people are being targeted and who is responsible for it.
Return to the top of the page
Pan-Islamic groups
Bridget Kendall
Some recent experts have suggested that some of the militantancy is now becoming less to do with territory and more to do with a religious and Islamic agenda. Victoria, We have a question from TLJ in Austria: Is it true that over 70% of the captured or killed Kashmiri freedom fighters or terrorists are not in fact Kashmiris but are Arabs, Pakistanis, Chechyns and Afghans and doesn`t that point to a connection with pan-Islamic groups like Al-Qaeda?
Victoria Schoefield:
I think there has definitely been a change in the complexion of the movement since it began in 1989. We have got two issues: one is the territorial dispute, which goes back to 1947 between India and Pakistan and had it been resolved swiftly, we might not have seen the events that we`ve seen now. The other issue has been the situation in the valley for how the Indian Muslims felt they were treated which gave rise to the insurgency movement in the late 80s and 90s.
But subsequent to that it is true that the movement has in a way been hijacked, partly because the indigenous movement was very severely repressed by the Indian Government and it coincided at a time with the end of the Afghan war - you had the training that was provided for the pan-Islamic militants. We had militants coming from other countries to fight in Afghanistan so it was in a way a natural progression - they would then turn their attention to Kashmir. I`ve certainly talked to a lot of Kashmiris who say this isn`t exactly what we want. We want to live in peace with the Hindus. What we were fighting for was better rights, better civil liberties within the political status we already had. They may have thought they`re not particularly happy with the way things turned out. They may have preferred to have been given the choice with the plebiscite. But in a way, since the movement began it has almost been taken hold of itself by this extraneous element.
In addition to which, it is very difficult to say, when you are talking about a Kashmiri - we traditionally talk about Kashmiris as being those people of the valley who are both Hindus and Muslims and those people who essentially have a culture in common. But you`ve got now what are called the Asad Jammu Kashmiris - and Pakistan insists on keeping the name Jammu even though the Jammu region is within India. They call themselves Kashmiris - actually they are from Mayapore or they`re from different districts - they don`t even speak the Kashmiri language. They say, number one, we don`t recognise the line of control because we feel we`re all part of the state and number two, we therefore feel we are entitled to go and fight for our brethren. A lot of the people of the people who came over to fight were from the Asad Jammu Kashmir region but were not really having very much in common with the Kashmiris. This is why it`s become so complicated because you don`t quite know whose fighting for what and you`ve got the political parties with different objectives. Some say that they would they would like to reunite the whole area with Pakistan - others say in the events that have happened with the break up of the Soviet Union, that`s not what we want any more - we would like our independence. So the whole issue breaks down again because independence of what particular part - whether it`s the whole state, whether it`s a part of the state?
Return to the top of the page
A New Year Eve In Kabul’s Ruins
Tuesday, 8 January, 2002, 12:54 Fury over Mecca castle demolition
Turks say the Saudis are destroying Ottoman heritage
Turkey has accused Saudi Arabia of a ``cultural massacre`` following the reported demolition of an historic Ottoman castle near the holy city of Mecca. Ankara says it is lodging a protest with Unesco - the United Nations organisation responsible for the preservation of cultural relics.
This is a crime against humanity ... and cultural massacre
Turkish Culture Minister Istemihan Talay
It compared Riyadh`s actions to the destruction of the giant statues of Buddha by the ousted Taleban in Afghanistan last year. The Saudi authorities are said to have agreed to pull down the al-Ajyad Castle to build a housing complex to accommodate Muslim pilgrims visiting the holy shrines every year. The BBC`s Roger Hardy says the dispute is straining the normally close ties between two pro-Western Muslim states. The castle - on a hill overlooking the Grand Mosque - was built in 1780 by the ruling Ottomans to protect the city and its Muslim shrines from invaders. `Massacre` Turkey`s Culture Minister Istemihan Talay said his country wanted Unesco to condemn the Saudis. ``There is a similarity between the Taleban`s destruction of the Buddha statues in Afghanistan and the Saudi authorities` enmity toward this legacy of the Ottoman era,`` Mr Talay told the Associated Press news agency.
``This is a crime against humanity and Unesco should expose this disgraceful and ugly destruction and cultural massacre,`` the minister said. The Saudi authorities have not confirmed the destruction of the fort. The Turkish Government says it was given assurances last year that the castle would be preserved. Anger Reports of the castle`s destruction angered many in Turkey. ``The Saudis appear to have made destroying Ottoman relics their goal,`` AP quoted Orhan Arslan, deputy chairman of the pro-Islamic Great Unity Party. ``Ottoman cultural heritage is being eradicated.`` The Turkish media followed suit.
There is a similarity between the Taleban`s destruction of the Buddha statues in Afghanistan
Turkish Culture Minister Istemihan Talay
``King Fahd is erasing Turkish footprints,`` Hurriyet newspaper said in a front-page headline. Ottoman Turks once ruled a vast empire ranging from the Arabian peninsula to the Balkans and north Africa. The empire finally disintegrated at the beginning of the 20th Century - when modern Turkey was set up as a secular state. Ankara says everyone should protect the cultural legacy of the Ottoman empire. The Turks suspect that the Saudis saw the fort as an unwelcome reminder of Turkish rule. ``Cultural heritage in every country is everybody`s common property, no matter what their origin or the period they belong to,`` the Turkish culture minister said.
See also:
05 Mar 01 | Middle East
Hajj perils, ancient and modern
05 Mar 01 | Middle East
Pilgrims killed in Mecca stampede
05 Mar 01 | Middle East
In pictures: Death at the Hajj
12 Mar 01 | South Asia
Outcry as Buddhas are destroyed
Internet links:
Hajj Information Centre
Saudi Arabia Information Resource
Turkish culture ministry
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
Top Middle East stories now:
Fury over Mecca castle demolition
Iranian dissidents` trial begins
Pakistan agree neutral venue
Arms ship captain acted `under ord
Posted by
Glen
Jan 8, 2002 07:39 pm
ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1748000/1748711.stmTuesday, 8 January, 2002, 12:54 Fury over Mecca castle demolition
Turks say the Saudis are destroying Ottoman heritage
Turkey has accused Saudi Arabia of a ``cultural massacre`` following the reported demolition of an historic Ottoman castle near the holy city of Mecca. Ankara says it is lodging a protest with Unesco - the United Nations organisation responsible for the preservation of cultural relics.
This is a crime against humanity ... and cultural massacre
Turkish Culture Minister Istemihan Talay
It compared Riyadh`s actions to the destruction of the giant statues of Buddha by the ousted Taleban in Afghanistan last year. The Saudi authorities are said to have agreed to pull down the al-Ajyad Castle to build a housing complex to accommodate Muslim pilgrims visiting the holy shrines every year. The BBC`s Roger Hardy says the dispute is straining the normally close ties between two pro-Western Muslim states. The castle - on a hill overlooking the Grand Mosque - was built in 1780 by the ruling Ottomans to protect the city and its Muslim shrines from invaders. `Massacre` Turkey`s Culture Minister Istemihan Talay said his country wanted Unesco to condemn the Saudis. ``There is a similarity between the Taleban`s destruction of the Buddha statues in Afghanistan and the Saudi authorities` enmity toward this legacy of the Ottoman era,`` Mr Talay told the Associated Press news agency.
``This is a crime against humanity and Unesco should expose this disgraceful and ugly destruction and cultural massacre,`` the minister said. The Saudi authorities have not confirmed the destruction of the fort. The Turkish Government says it was given assurances last year that the castle would be preserved. Anger Reports of the castle`s destruction angered many in Turkey. ``The Saudis appear to have made destroying Ottoman relics their goal,`` AP quoted Orhan Arslan, deputy chairman of the pro-Islamic Great Unity Party. ``Ottoman cultural heritage is being eradicated.`` The Turkish media followed suit.
There is a similarity between the Taleban`s destruction of the Buddha statues in Afghanistan
Turkish Culture Minister Istemihan Talay
``King Fahd is erasing Turkish footprints,`` Hurriyet newspaper said in a front-page headline. Ottoman Turks once ruled a vast empire ranging from the Arabian peninsula to the Balkans and north Africa. The empire finally disintegrated at the beginning of the 20th Century - when modern Turkey was set up as a secular state. Ankara says everyone should protect the cultural legacy of the Ottoman empire. The Turks suspect that the Saudis saw the fort as an unwelcome reminder of Turkish rule. ``Cultural heritage in every country is everybody`s common property, no matter what their origin or the period they belong to,`` the Turkish culture minister said.
See also:
05 Mar 01 | Middle East
Hajj perils, ancient and modern
05 Mar 01 | Middle East
Pilgrims killed in Mecca stampede
05 Mar 01 | Middle East
In pictures: Death at the Hajj
12 Mar 01 | South Asia
Outcry as Buddhas are destroyed
Internet links:
Hajj Information Centre
Saudi Arabia Information Resource
Turkish culture ministry
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
Top Middle East stories now:
Fury over Mecca castle demolition
Iranian dissidents` trial begins
Pakistan agree neutral venue
Arms ship captain acted `under ord
Caste, Technology and Religious Conversions in India
Are you happy or sad by such sentiment.
If happy then ,you succeed
If not ,then for sake of commongood ,dispell your ignorence & you will be a better man.
LIVE BROADCAST 9:00am - 10:00am Pakistan Time (+5.00 GMT) MON - SAT
http://paknews.com/live
News Flash December 23
http://paknews.com/newsflash
Hate Rally in India, Indians Burn Pakistan Flag - 2001-12-23 01:32:57
Posted by
Glen
Dec 24, 2001 02:41 am
HARIMOUAre you happy or sad by such sentiment.
If happy then ,you succeed
If not ,then for sake of commongood ,dispell your ignorence & you will be a better man.
LIVE BROADCAST 9:00am - 10:00am Pakistan Time (+5.00 GMT) MON - SAT
http://paknews.com/live
News Flash December 23
http://paknews.com/newsflash
Hate Rally in India, Indians Burn Pakistan Flag - 2001-12-23 01:32:57
Reaction
Posted by
Glen
Dec 23, 2001 03:35 pm
I dunno b/c i am not in the same boat .But those neophyte arrogantly calling themselves AMERICAN teen Paki ,Indian,Chinese,Korean...dont forget that they are afterall hyphenated Paki -American ,Indian -American ,Chinese -American ...etc.NO MATTER HOW MISSGUIDEDLY ASHAMED THEY MAY FEEL ABOUT THERE HERITAGE THROUGH THE PRISM OF AMERICANA.
Caste, Technology and Religious Conversions in India
harimau
Ref Glen #: 11
[The reason only 2 % indian are christian b/c you will NEVER find a muslim converting to Christianity as a rule .]
I will not let pathetic pea-brained idiots like you twist the truth on a public forum like this. Tell the world proudly that Islam prescribes death as punishment for trying to convert out of Islam and that you will be the first to enforce this religiously-prescribed punishment. Come on; tell the world the truth.
LOOK WHO IS PEA BRAINED TO BRING ISLAMIC LAW E.G. IN SECULAR DEMOCRATIC INDIA ,THE AREA IN DISCUSSION.
[By the time British reached India through East India co .India already was 37 % muslim.]
Again, you will not be allowed to lie and cheat your way out of historical truths. History records that the apostle St. Thomas arrived in India, converted Indians to Christianity and in fact died in India and is buried in Madras. So, Christianity had a great headstart on Islam and still did not reach more than 2%, even after the British arrived and literally hundreds of missionaries swarmed all over India trying to convert Hindus. The reason is simple: the British government would not allow the missionaries to give people the choice between being beheaded or becoming a convert as opposed to the Muslim sultans.
WAS MOHOMMED ALI COERCED TO CHANGE FROM CASSIUS CLAY ?WAS CAT STEVENS THREATENED INTO CHANGING TO YUSUF ISLAM?MANY THOUSAND SUCH e.G.MAGE ISLAM THE FASTEST GROWING RELIGION.WHAT CAN HINDU JELOUS LIKE YOU DO .NOTHING!
Jews landed in Kerala in 279 AD. While not engaging actively in conversion, history records that whatever slaves they purchased, they freed and made them into Jews. Thus India has native Jews known as Black Jews and immigrant Jews commonly known as White Jews. But despite the freedom from slavery given by Jews, Hindus did not convert en mass to Judaism.
JEWS IN INDIA WERE TOKEN PRESENCE LIMITED TO KERALA REGION.IM GLAD YOU INFORMED US ABOUT THERE EVIL & LESS THAN MUSLIM kINGS ,PRACTICE OF making slave of HINDU .ATLEAST MUSLIMS MADE HINDU WIFE (jodha bai )Cin C MAN SINGH ,Singer of court TAN Sane....
[As to your contention ludicurous as it is ,if even 5 % of the muslims were FORCED muslims ,there should have been drop in Muslim %
Again, your pathetic attempt to whitewash the crimes of Islamist thugs will not be allowed to pass unhindered. The mullahs knew fully well that Hindus will revert back and will be accepted back into the fold of Hinduism unless they committed an unpardonable sin. The Hindu scriptures do provide one unpardonable sin; that of eating beef. This sin cannot be washed away by any number of expiation ceremonies. Thus, the first thing forced down the throat of converts after the Kalima was beef.
YOUR ESTEEMED BRAHMIN & PUNDITS LIKE ARUN SHOURIE,KAK,KOENRAD ELSTD,F.gOUTHIER NEVER FAIL TO INFORM US THAT BEEF EATING WAS PART OF HINDUISM FROM THE TIME OF SUMIRITI !!DONT SPREAD RUMOURS ,I HAVE NEVER SEEN SHAHADA (THE OPROCESS OF EMBRACING ISLAM)AMONG HUNDREDS THAT I M WITNESSED TO IN WHICH BEEF EATING WAS EVEN MENTIONED.THIS IS TYPICAL OF HATE MONGERING OF SANGH PARIVAR THAT WE SHOUT ABOUT!!
Just about a decade ago, a very large group of people converted to Islam in a village called Meenakshipuram. A month later, they all renounced Islam. Unfortunately for you, the Sharia is not the law of the land in India now and so they are alive.
EXACTLY MY POINT .AND THE CAUSE WAS THRETENED BY HINDU SANGH PARIVAR GOVT OF LOSING THERE RESERVATION OF SHUDRA QUOTA ETC.HERE IS EXACTLY THE COERCION,HAEGONOMY & PRESSURE AGAINST FREE CONVERSION TO ISLAM PRACTICED BY YOUR OWN HINDUTVA GOVT. CALLING ITSELF SECULAR DEMOCRATIC ..HA HA HA HA
[I am sure the wretched condition most of the indian muslims are due to neglect ,]
Neglect, let me tell you, is better than the active hunting down and converting or killing, as practiced by Islamist thugs.
YOU ARE LOSING YOUR MIND .IRRELEVENT TO FLOW OF THAUGHT & DISCUSSION AS FAR AS I SEE UNRELATED .WHATS YOUR POINT
[if they were unreal or grudgingly ,muslim,why would they choose to be persecuted or Atleast accept 2nd level citizenshiop ,when they could easily call them selves Hindu ,]
No, they cannot call themselves Hindu. In the village, they know exactly who you were before you attempted to change your name from Rahim to Ram. Once a Rahim, always a Rahim. You are not the only fcukers to demand exclusive allegiance to your god; we can do it too.
``We have enough Hindus in India who acted honorably and did not forsake their religion for their personal safety or livelihood in a thousand years and there is no reason to take these cowards back into our fold.``
THERE GOES YOUR HINDUTVA PROPOGANDA OF MUSLIM OVERTAKING HINDU POPULATION.YOU YOURSELF ADMIT ENOUGH HINDU DID NOT CONVERT ,THEN WHY RAISE FALSE ALARM OF PARANOIA SO AS TO CAUSE THREATENING CROWD OF HINDUS AGAINST WEAK NEGLECTED MINORITY OF MUSLIMS OF INDIA,?
[& neither would they have to keep Roza nor peray 5 times & memorise foreign arabic sura & koran!]
Try not praying 5 times a day in Pakistan or try to eat in public during Ramzan and let us see what happens. The mullah will be right there with a mob ready to stone you to death.
yOU ARE LOSING YOUR MIND AS I SAID BEFORE .WE ARE TALKINH ABOUT VOLUNTARY EMBRACING ISLAM,MUSLIMS OF INDIA WHO DSPITE PERSECUTION & ADVERSE POLICY AGAINST THERE RELIGION CONTINUE TO PRACTICE ISLAM IN INDIA.WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT AFGHANISTAN NOR PAKISTAN .
Posted by
Glen
Dec 23, 2001 03:35 pm
Reply #: 14 harimau
Ref Glen #: 11
[The reason only 2 % indian are christian b/c you will NEVER find a muslim converting to Christianity as a rule .]
I will not let pathetic pea-brained idiots like you twist the truth on a public forum like this. Tell the world proudly that Islam prescribes death as punishment for trying to convert out of Islam and that you will be the first to enforce this religiously-prescribed punishment. Come on; tell the world the truth.
LOOK WHO IS PEA BRAINED TO BRING ISLAMIC LAW E.G. IN SECULAR DEMOCRATIC INDIA ,THE AREA IN DISCUSSION.
[By the time British reached India through East India co .India already was 37 % muslim.]
Again, you will not be allowed to lie and cheat your way out of historical truths. History records that the apostle St. Thomas arrived in India, converted Indians to Christianity and in fact died in India and is buried in Madras. So, Christianity had a great headstart on Islam and still did not reach more than 2%, even after the British arrived and literally hundreds of missionaries swarmed all over India trying to convert Hindus. The reason is simple: the British government would not allow the missionaries to give people the choice between being beheaded or becoming a convert as opposed to the Muslim sultans.
WAS MOHOMMED ALI COERCED TO CHANGE FROM CASSIUS CLAY ?WAS CAT STEVENS THREATENED INTO CHANGING TO YUSUF ISLAM?MANY THOUSAND SUCH e.G.MAGE ISLAM THE FASTEST GROWING RELIGION.WHAT CAN HINDU JELOUS LIKE YOU DO .NOTHING!
Jews landed in Kerala in 279 AD. While not engaging actively in conversion, history records that whatever slaves they purchased, they freed and made them into Jews. Thus India has native Jews known as Black Jews and immigrant Jews commonly known as White Jews. But despite the freedom from slavery given by Jews, Hindus did not convert en mass to Judaism.
JEWS IN INDIA WERE TOKEN PRESENCE LIMITED TO KERALA REGION.IM GLAD YOU INFORMED US ABOUT THERE EVIL & LESS THAN MUSLIM kINGS ,PRACTICE OF making slave of HINDU .ATLEAST MUSLIMS MADE HINDU WIFE (jodha bai )Cin C MAN SINGH ,Singer of court TAN Sane....
[As to your contention ludicurous as it is ,if even 5 % of the muslims were FORCED muslims ,there should have been drop in Muslim %
Again, your pathetic attempt to whitewash the crimes of Islamist thugs will not be allowed to pass unhindered. The mullahs knew fully well that Hindus will revert back and will be accepted back into the fold of Hinduism unless they committed an unpardonable sin. The Hindu scriptures do provide one unpardonable sin; that of eating beef. This sin cannot be washed away by any number of expiation ceremonies. Thus, the first thing forced down the throat of converts after the Kalima was beef.
YOUR ESTEEMED BRAHMIN & PUNDITS LIKE ARUN SHOURIE,KAK,KOENRAD ELSTD,F.gOUTHIER NEVER FAIL TO INFORM US THAT BEEF EATING WAS PART OF HINDUISM FROM THE TIME OF SUMIRITI !!DONT SPREAD RUMOURS ,I HAVE NEVER SEEN SHAHADA (THE OPROCESS OF EMBRACING ISLAM)AMONG HUNDREDS THAT I M WITNESSED TO IN WHICH BEEF EATING WAS EVEN MENTIONED.THIS IS TYPICAL OF HATE MONGERING OF SANGH PARIVAR THAT WE SHOUT ABOUT!!
Just about a decade ago, a very large group of people converted to Islam in a village called Meenakshipuram. A month later, they all renounced Islam. Unfortunately for you, the Sharia is not the law of the land in India now and so they are alive.
EXACTLY MY POINT .AND THE CAUSE WAS THRETENED BY HINDU SANGH PARIVAR GOVT OF LOSING THERE RESERVATION OF SHUDRA QUOTA ETC.HERE IS EXACTLY THE COERCION,HAEGONOMY & PRESSURE AGAINST FREE CONVERSION TO ISLAM PRACTICED BY YOUR OWN HINDUTVA GOVT. CALLING ITSELF SECULAR DEMOCRATIC ..HA HA HA HA
[I am sure the wretched condition most of the indian muslims are due to neglect ,]
Neglect, let me tell you, is better than the active hunting down and converting or killing, as practiced by Islamist thugs.
YOU ARE LOSING YOUR MIND .IRRELEVENT TO FLOW OF THAUGHT & DISCUSSION AS FAR AS I SEE UNRELATED .WHATS YOUR POINT
[if they were unreal or grudgingly ,muslim,why would they choose to be persecuted or Atleast accept 2nd level citizenshiop ,when they could easily call them selves Hindu ,]
No, they cannot call themselves Hindu. In the village, they know exactly who you were before you attempted to change your name from Rahim to Ram. Once a Rahim, always a Rahim. You are not the only fcukers to demand exclusive allegiance to your god; we can do it too.
``We have enough Hindus in India who acted honorably and did not forsake their religion for their personal safety or livelihood in a thousand years and there is no reason to take these cowards back into our fold.``
THERE GOES YOUR HINDUTVA PROPOGANDA OF MUSLIM OVERTAKING HINDU POPULATION.YOU YOURSELF ADMIT ENOUGH HINDU DID NOT CONVERT ,THEN WHY RAISE FALSE ALARM OF PARANOIA SO AS TO CAUSE THREATENING CROWD OF HINDUS AGAINST WEAK NEGLECTED MINORITY OF MUSLIMS OF INDIA,?
[& neither would they have to keep Roza nor peray 5 times & memorise foreign arabic sura & koran!]
Try not praying 5 times a day in Pakistan or try to eat in public during Ramzan and let us see what happens. The mullah will be right there with a mob ready to stone you to death.
yOU ARE LOSING YOUR MIND AS I SAID BEFORE .WE ARE TALKINH ABOUT VOLUNTARY EMBRACING ISLAM,MUSLIMS OF INDIA WHO DSPITE PERSECUTION & ADVERSE POLICY AGAINST THERE RELIGION CONTINUE TO PRACTICE ISLAM IN INDIA.WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT AFGHANISTAN NOR PAKISTAN .
The Passion of The Pacifist
Zafar Al-Talib-------Reply Glen # 11
``Why dont we see a islamised version of hinduism in the form of reformed hindu``
``More currently, Hindutva ideology seems like a pretty Talibanised version of Hinduism to me...whether that is an Islamic influence or not, is open to dispute.``]]
Plz o tulba -e- momin is taleban ISLAM ?.Its like saying Vidhyarthi is hinduism.They both name STUDENT ,u Al-Taliib ,should know you were named one --
PS Why did you pick the name Glen? Glen kaun hai? Kam se kam kuchh interesting sa naam chunthe, like Anarkali.
Concentrate on my MESSAGE .Just as a hijabi woman wants you to concentrate on her MIND rather than anything else of her .Dont bother what im called .In an Anonymous board its immaterial .
Posted by
Glen
Dec 23, 2001 03:35 pm
#: 29 Zafar Al-Talib-------Reply Glen # 11
``Why dont we see a islamised version of hinduism in the form of reformed hindu``
``More currently, Hindutva ideology seems like a pretty Talibanised version of Hinduism to me...whether that is an Islamic influence or not, is open to dispute.``]]
Plz o tulba -e- momin is taleban ISLAM ?.Its like saying Vidhyarthi is hinduism.They both name STUDENT ,u Al-Taliib ,should know you were named one --
PS Why did you pick the name Glen? Glen kaun hai? Kam se kam kuchh interesting sa naam chunthe, like Anarkali.
Concentrate on my MESSAGE .Just as a hijabi woman wants you to concentrate on her MIND rather than anything else of her .Dont bother what im called .In an Anonymous board its immaterial .
- Glen
- Interacts: 88
- iLogs: 0
- Gallery: 0
- Page views: 273
- Last visitor: guest
- Member since: Dec 16 2001
- Last signin: Dec 1 2008
- Send a message
- Add as friend
- Add to ignore list
- Add to block list
