Lighting The Nuclear Fire Ras Siddiqui #168

Dear Mr. Siddiqui:

it is apparent that you and some others are unwilling to acknowledge that socialism was a disaster for Pakistan (not arguing that the Military Regimes were a benefit). Remember, Z. A. Bhutto was just a man - the cult of personality some, including I have to say, you (based on what is have read of yor writing) is certainly regrettable.

As a wordsmith and analyst, people do look to you to offer a measure truth and foresight; If we do not have a Chinese minority, does that mean we shall not seek rediscover the ``VALUES`` that enable the entrepeurial ethic? you will agree that the entreprenurial ethic is not compatible with socialism, will you not? Entreperneurship has been the engine of prosperity and innovation -The entrepreneurial ethic is a collection of values and is also a result of those values - Ought we in Pakistan to promote these values, or should we promote socialism? Should citizens have the right to own property and the expectation of its protection?

Nuclear weapons? If the basis of security in our times is an economy characterized by transparency and market economics - will you argue continue to that Mr. Bhutto was the best thing to happen to Pakistan? Will you continue to ignore the ethics of State appropriation of citizens property?

I urge you to reconsider, to reevaluate and to view crticism offered by thoughtful posters as constructive. Chowk interlocutor, Fuzair, had recommended the work of scholar Dr. Mancur Olson -I assure you that you will find ``Power and Prosperity - Outgrowing Communist and Capitalist Dictatorships``, illuminating.

Lighting The Nuclear Fire ``Terrible dangers lie ahead`` Duh? ``It may rain somewhere today``

In the insanity that Mr. Bush has unleashed in response to the insanity of 9/11 - all the rest of the world is invite to participate - just in case you didn`t get the message, American and allied armed might will be you motivation to participate -

Mr. Musharraf has done well to announce a cessation to any infiltration into captive Kashmir - and he should continue this policy.

These events should also make it clear to Pakistanis to take the threat India is to humanity. Pakistan should continue to invite India to the table of negotiations - because of the one thing we can all be sure of is that things change - it ought to be our national project to ensure how they may change tomorrow will be a decision Pakistanis may take.

For a while Indian posters on Chowk have been huffing, ``righteous indignation`` - not at the needless, senseless, preventable deaths of more than 1000 Indians by heat - but by kashmiris fighting Indian occupation troops - Now a call to war with Pakistan? really? No! Pakistan must not war with India, now, nor should it give Indians or any others any excuse to trap or impose war upon it.

Unaware, as these Indian posters on Chowk are of the implications of the Americans in Afghanistan and the prevailing ideas in the power circles of the West, these Indian posters do not yet realize, a new colonialism, is being developed and the ``conditions`` or rules will apply to those who today display a childish naie daulat attitude. I invite all posters to take reasoned and informed stances and help us look beyond the next one or two years. All actions taken in the atmosphere of coersion are like hiding the dirt under the carpet - we, Pakistan, Indian and captive Kashmir and other nationalities in India have to realize that if we do not make agreements with each other, the international powers will be only to happy to ensure that the only consciousness we can have ambition to attain will be local and at the discretion of international powers.

The Last Crusade Nasah

It for people such as you (for whom conscience, liberty, is a source of pride and challenge) that I have posted the article of Dr. kwaja Masud - because it is persons such as yourself who will understand it, and persons such as yourself who will derive joy, in the affirmations, in a seeming madness, there are growing Islands of Reason, Liberty and Faith, reclaiming to itself, one at a time, those previously lost to it. In these affirmations you are witness: Liberty is consciences natural right and that this is an ``open universe``, and that the mystery and challeneg of faith is like that of longing of the lover for the beloved - like moths to the flame, it is an invitation and we are all the guests of honor, it an invitation to ``be``, an invitation to criticize. So won`t you please be lion hearted with those of us, who understand not, that this ``Saghi`` and this ``jaam`` belong in a Meikhaneh, what to speak of this Chowk.

The Last Crusade Chowkies - Mubarak!

Let this Eid e Milad, in these terrifying and trying time, serve to remind us that it is FAITH, not Emuluation, that is our true course:

``Islam demands loyalty to God, not to thrones...The ultimate spiritual basis of all life, as concieved by Islam is ETERNAL and reveals itself in VARIETY and CHANGE. A society based on such a conception of REALITY, must RECONCILE, in its life, the categories of PERMANCE and CHANGE.`` - Allahmah, Mohammad Igbal Lahori

Esteemed Professor, benevolent scholar, Dr. Khawaja Masud, offers for our consideration:

``The Holy Prophet and Permanent Revolution

Prof Khwaja Masud

The writer is a former principal, Gordon College, Rawalpindi - kmasud@isb.sdnpk.org

And thus he carries his brothers,

His treasures, his children,

All tumultuous with joy

To their waiting Parent`s bosom.

-Goethe

Goethe devotes a magnificent poem to the Holy Prophet (PBUH) in which as the very epitome of mankind, he is compared to a mighty river. The rivulets and streams, his children, call on him to help them reach the sea, which is waiting for them. Majestic, triumphant, irresistible, he draws them onwards.

Carlyle puts him among the heroes of mankind, who are blessed with the spark of divinity. Comte de Boulainvilliers, early in the 18th century, hailed him as the creator of a religion of Reason. Revolutionaries claim him for their own. Indeed, his largesse is universal. Everyone partakes of it to his heart`s content.

As the Turkish dervish, Sulayman Chelebi, in his celebrated poem, sings so appropriately about the birth of the Prophet (PBUH):

All things created joyfully acclaimed him,

Sorrow was done, new life the world was flooding

The atoms joined in mighty chorus,

Crying with sweetest voices: welcome, welcome!

O source of knowledge, thou art welcome!

Welcome, to him, who knows the Lord of Pardon,

Welcome, who knowest from truth no deviation,

Welcome, the rebel`s only place of hiding,

Welcome, the poor man`s only sure confiding.

Thus in the compassionate heart of the Prophet are found the persecuted and harassed rebels along with the wretched ones of the world to whom the Qur`aanic verses serve as a clarion call to rise and claim what rightfully belongs to them.

The eternal message of the Holy Prophet proclaims: Islam is a permanent revolution. It destroys all false gods whether they be of power, wealth or pride. Islam is not a closed system, providing set answers to ALL problems which crop up during the onward march of mankind. Islam`s universality abhors final solutions. Rather, Islam is a faith in God, which provides mankind anew the riches whereby it may solve the new problems itself.

The spirit of Islam culture, according to Iqbal, regards the universe as dynamic and evolving. The Qur`aan recognises change as ``a sign of God``. ``Everyday doth some new work employ Him``, says the Qur`aan. To exist in real time, in the words of Iqbal, is not to be bound by serial time, but to create from moment to moment, and to be absolutely free and original in creation.

Thus the true spirit of Islam is irreconcilably opposed to dogmatism and priesthood which regards itself as the only repository of religious knowledge. Islam overflows all definitions, because it is open at one end to the immeasurable greatness of the Divine and it relates itself at the other end to the immeasurable diversity of the humankind. This indeed, is the significance of the Prophet`s title as Rehmat-ul-lil-alamin`` (Blessing for all the worlds). In Islam prophecy reaches perfection; and, therefore, stands abolished. Henceforth man is thrown on his own sources for full consciousness. From this follows the necessity for the abolition of priesthood (as the repository of divine knowledge) as well as the abolition of hereditary kingship and arbitrary dictatorship (as the source of power). This, according to Iqbal, is the meaning of the concept of the finality of prophethood, which implies that all personal authority, claiming supernatural origin, has come to an end in the history of man.

The Prophet of Islam (PBUH) seems to stand between the ancient and the modern world``, says Iqbal; because, ``insofar as the source of his revelation is concerned, he belongs to the ancient world; insofar as the spirit of the revelation is concerned, he belongs to the modern world.``

The birth of Islam is the birth of inductive intellect, which regards reason and experience as the instrument of knowledge together with nature and history as the source of knowledge. The Holy Prophet (PBUH) ushers in the modern scientific world whose weapons of discovery are observation, experimentation and generalisation. Though the Greeks scaled the sublimest heights of speculative thought, too much dependence on deduction and their aversion to experimentation almost closed the door on any scientific advancement. Induction is a great gift of Islam to humanity.

The foundation of the Islamic society the Prophet established was Tauhid -- unity of ultimate reality. The Prophet (PBUH), as the example for the ummah, showed practically through his life that the belief in Tauhid has its logical extension in the social plane. Therefore, Iqbal emphasises: ``The essence of Tauhid as a working idea is equality, solidarity and freedom.`` The Holy Prophet (PBUH) not only preached equality, solidarity and freedom, but actually practiced them. He is the spark that glows forever inspiring mankind to achieve the great ideals of freedom, equality and solidarity. In the context of modern history these ideals cannot be achieved unless the Muslims forge a united front against imperialism, which is a stumbling block in the realisation of freedom, equality and solidarity. The battle against imperialism cannot be successful unless it is simultaneously waged against the exploitative system, which is responsible for the stagnation and retardation of the ummah.

Islam is not a bundle of rites, ceremonies and dogmas. Islam is an act of perpetual sacrifice. ``People think it is easy to be a Muslim,`` says Iqbal, and adds, ``It is to bear the cross in love.`` We seek easy way to salvation and forget: ``Strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leadeth unto heaven.``

While we talk vociferously about Islam, our actions belie our proclamations. We tenaciously cling to the form of religion but throw its spirit to the wind. We think that Islam can be imposed by legislation. The Qur`aan declares unequivocally: ``There is no compulsion in religion.`` No diktat can bring about spiritual transformation, nor can moral awakening take place by legislation. The way to spiritual revolution is the Prophet`s way, who was the unique combination of ``iman and amal``. As Iqbal emphasises, ``Iman is not merely a passive belief in one or more propositions of a certain kind. It is creation of divine attributes in man, whose supreme example is the Holy Prophet.``

Islam`s determination to maintain its authenticity is in no way incompatible with its sincere desire to collaborate with all those forces, which are working for peace, progress and social justice. As the Holy Prophet (PBUH) said, ``All creatures form part of the family of God and the most beloved of God is he who best services his family.`` Indeed it is this very determination to maintain its authenticity as the dynamic force for permanent revolution, which enhances Islam`s capacity to enrich humanity by struggling steadfastly for mustazafeen, who were so close to the heart of the Holy Prophet (PBUH).``

The Last Crusade

More Than 1000 Indians have been killed by a heat wave - that`s right, more than 1000 - right, by a heat wave - apparently they could not find a way to keep cool.

Think about it for a minute - more than 1000 persons have died from a heat wave - And yet, on Chowk, Indians want war - Pakistan should keep her cool, her armed forces poised, invite iternational observers and press to see the situation for themselves and invite Indians to talk. Indians ought to reconsider their hostile attitude - They are not now, nor will they be in the forseeable future, in a position to do much about Pakistan - better to talk, better to negotiate, better to effect reliable change with talks, than to simply raise tensions every three months.

think, if capability nor will, exists to prevent needless deaths of more than 1000 persons - from just heat - should we not reconsider capabilities required for war making? and what afterwards? and what about Peace making? - reconsider, negotiate.

The Last Crusade Tahmed

``This is the depth of shame and insanity to which the evil of religious fanaticism, the lust for power, the absence of reason and honesty and truth, have brought us.`` Karachi Gujjrat bangaya,

Baat kahan se kahan phohnoj gaieei.

Indeed, I share with you the sense of shame, of increduculous absence of reason, honesty and truth.

I would remind you that we differ with regard to Captive Kashmir only on a strategy: to ``bite the bullet`` all at once or to take into account other political realities that would suggest a deeper, slower course. We both agree that a change in the Kashmir policy will have to be effected - we disagree in that this need not means the capitulation, the denial, of what the Kashmiri has sacrified for.

The Last Crusade Tahmed 321

If you see my post as gentlemanly, it is because you see yourself reflected. All are agreed that deaths are an injury to all of us - but this must not mean that those who have died or are dying struggling for a free kashmir - really did not want a free Kashmir or that the desire to be free is artificial, the work of Directorate of ISI. It apparently does matter to these Kashmiri and their supporters which Flags they wish to see in Kashmir.

Pot and Kettle - would this apply to all countries? of course not, if it did it would make the notion of nation states meaningless. Would you like to be an Indian citizen in Gujjrat? even Zafar seek to avoid that. Even the post modern states, see themselves as nation states and it seems most would agree, black has shades.

In my opinion, were Pakistan to say to the Kashmiri to cease their struggle - it would be meaningless, it is not a struggle Pakistan initiated or created, certainly they used it to their advantage (or not) but it`s a difficult case to make that it has kept the sentiment for freedom in Kashmir alive for the last 54 years.

Hari Inder

If you will review my previous post to you, you will note that nowhere have I used any figures. If we shall see negotiations as being between Pakistan and India, we shall be overlooking the Kashmiri.

I think you may have misunderstood my post calling for a negotiated settlement. The call for negotiations is not the call to arrive at a solution, right away - it is to initiate a process - as conditions for this process, the evacuation of occupation forces and armed insurgency shall end. We need not arrive at any ``solutions`` prior to negotiations. The very fact that negotiations will be held, in my opinion, will effect the nature of the armed insurrection. It will allow for a more reasoned process of selection to the Kashmiri to decide which ideas would shape the freedom struggle. It, negotiations, may allow the opportunity to change (not all at once, but incrementally) the nature of relations between Pakistan and India.

If we should say that there is no such thing as a freedom struggle, we shall be denying reality and negating the rationale for negotiation - and I suggest this would senseless.

The Last Crusade Progressive

I have taken the opportunity to respond and I do hope you will not find me repetative in this matter. I very much agree That Shariah, as was originally concieved, was the social core of the Muslim experience - but I would suggest that we consider an alternate view, especially with reagrd to the conceptual position asserted in your post:

``Being God-given, the Sharia’ah is the manifestation of His infinite mercy``

You will agree that human faculty of reasoning is God-given - if we should look upon Sharia`ah history, we cannot fail to note the entirely human contribution it`s conceptual development has had, can we? Similarly, we cannot fail to be cognizant of the fact that the body of knowledge scholars have brought to sharia`ah is a reflection of the knowledge available at any given time and the knowledge, the presuppositions any particular scholar brings to the understanding of any text - We shall not impune the integrity or the intention of any of the benevolent scholars who have sought to bring the light of their knowledge and their understanding to human affairs - we only assert their humanity and the fact that any human knowledge is a function both the knowledge available in that time and it`s past and that this knowledge is interpreted by scholars who are trained - that is they have a point of view.

CLearly, we cannot argue that the body of knowledge, Laws and Rituals that are the Sharaia`ah are Revealed knowledge, the equivalent of Quran - that would be base arrogance, would it not? Gibrael, upon His command, did sing the Revelation to His beloved and this Revelation is the Quran, His word. Can the same be said truthfully, reasonably, of Sharia`ah? The very fact that human knowledge, human endeavor has developed Sharai`ah suggests that like all things temporal, even as inspired by the word of God, is subject to change as knowledge changes, as points of view change. It is not the word of God that changes, but as the foundation has been laid of the nature of knowledge, it is the knowledge, even language, with which we interpret the word changes.

We need to be very clear about what exactly ``God-given`` means in the post you have offered - of this we are clear, that it must not mean that it is the Revealed word of God, for that is the Quran. Consider did God not give Musa and Eissa his Revealed word? Can anyone truthfully argue that Sharia`ah is such as these?

Confessions of a BJP Supporter CHOWKIES - ran across this gentle story about a gentle peoples, thought you may enjoy it as well:

``Pakistan still shining through the crisis

By MORT ROSENBLUM

AP Special Correspondent

PESHAWAR, Pakistan (AP) – Twenty years ago, this ancient frontier town only felt like Dodge City. True, men with fierce mustaches carried fiercer knives. But they were far too polite to cut your throat.

Then the Afghans began to pour in, hundreds of thousands of them in waves, until they quickly surpassed a million. Their Pakistani brothers welcomed them with Muslim charity. But also trepidation.

The big news around in Peshawar, when I arrived in 1981, was an incident in a refugee camp. I checked the story with relief workers and they confirmed it.

An Afghan implored a Pakistani paramedic to help his ailing wife. The young man did. When he emerged from the Afghan`s tent, angry mullahs stopped him. After a hurried council, they stoned him to death.

It was a frightening case of East meets East, seemingly similar countries which share a religion and some history but, on the whole, look at life in totally different ways.

Those particular Afghan mullahs had a clear code: A man does not enter a woman`s tent unless he is married to her. Simple medical necessity was beside the point.

These days the neighboring countries remain centuries apart. Pakistanis still welcome Muslim brothers. But with great trepidation.

At a hospital in Quetta, Dr. Akhlaq Hussain struggles to save victims of a deadly virus spread by a tick, which could get out of hand if Afghan refugees stream into +Pakistan+ with their sheep and goats.

After an admirable career in public health, at 59 the medical director of a specialist hospital, he earns dlrs 300 a month and counts himself lucky. Orderlies make less than dlrs 50.

Pakistan has stretched itself to the breaking point to accommodate 2 million Afghans over the past 20 years, and now it is paying yet again.

``There`s no business in the cities, tourism is zero, and if we leave the country we are harassed as possible terrorists,`` Hussain says, smiling nonetheless. ``We have become the front line. Everyone is afraid.``

I had not returned to +Pakistan+ since 1981. Before coming back, scenes on television worried me. Had Pakistanis lost their great warmth and charm? Were they really now all fanatic anti-Western zealots?

Minutes off the plane, I was happily reassured. Islamabad, the capital, is still a pleasant leafy place where life would seem normal no matter what happened along the Afghan border.

The extremists seem to be a small minority in the context of a nation of 140 million. Even in Peshawar, these days a real Dodge City with enough weaponry to give any marshal nightmares, the atmosphere is still the old Pakistan.

At pro-Taliban rallies, wild-eyed organizers chant slogans demanding death to America. But, periodically, they glance with concern at American newspeople to be sure they aren`t offending their honored guests.

Pakistan was carved from a colonial map of India, mainly to separate Muslims from Hindus when British colonial rule ended in 1947. The border with Afghanistan split large tribes in half. Pakistan itself consisted of two chunks of land on either side of India until 1971, when the secessionist eastern portion became Bangladesh.

Pakistan has had a tough time of its 54 years of independence, what with military coups, assassinations, poverty, corruption and troublesome neighbors on every side. And yet, Pakistanis make the best of it.

Karachi, Pakistan`s monster city, has a population soaring over 10 million people, most of whom are far too busy scraping together a meal to worry about America`s problems with terrorism.

Lahore, the British jewel, clings to some of its old character in spite of urban sprawl, with intellectuals, gangsters, artists and jet-setters.

And then there was the distinguished-looking man hovering in the background while I talked to students at the University of Balochistan.

He turned out to be a senior professor of social sciences, married to a woman who loved America, where both had gone to college.

He said he wasn`t surprised to see young Pakistanis becoming radical Muslims, when the country`s education system had so little money and Islamic schools were free.

``Look,`` he said, pulling up aside his voluminous outer shirt to reveal a tattered wool sweater with huge holes in it.

The senior professor made dlrs 200 a month and spent 85 percent of it to educate his three children in schools that teach something besides the Quran and Islamist supremacy.

This amiable man, too modest to let his name be used, may not turn up on television burning George W. Bush in effigy, but he too is emblematic of Pakistan – the one of 20 years ago and the one of today

On the Nature of the Principal Civic Contracts Cemmendtaur

``you can say that the lives of modern human beings are spent under two canopies of protection, one canopy encompassing the other. The outer cover we humans live under is that of a country, and the inner cover is that of a government.`` You will note that increasingly, more established countries afford to third world governments and not countries. The difference between ``Modern`` and ``Postmodern`` states.

An excellent piece; Thank you. Can we move further by suggesting that If we shall not move in the direction of Liberty - most certainly the clashes of similar values will assume dangerous, lethal proportions.

Today, a refusal to negotiate keeps us mired in the the ``modern``. Indian thinker and Foreign Service Officer, writing in ``The Hindu`` newspaper has highlighted the danger of remaining mired as ``modern`` states and has contrasted the ``modern`` state and the ``post-modern`` state.

Cemmendtaur, Would you be open to the suggestion that we take present day ``self-determination`` struggles out of the equation, could the article then be characterized as dealing primarily with how societies do and or should deal with change, political change?

In your opinion, is it correct to suggest that in the case of Pakistan and India, that it is the notion of realizing a blueprint, the reconstruction of society wholesale, (Islamization and Hindutva and socialism and pure market mechanism) that is at the core of the misunderstanding of change and of social dissonance? An alternate view of your assertion ``The contracts that are drawn with eyes looking far ahead in the future survive the test of the times``

If it is true that any approach to politics that begins from a blueprint that has to be realized will end up being an arrested society,in the imposition of tyrrany how does the ``idealist without illusions`` proceed?

On Chowk, it is widely held both by those who describe themselves as ``secularists`` and all others including those who may be (a liberty) as fundamentalists of sorts, that before this or that can be changed, society must be changed or before one can change anything, one has to change everything. Then there are others and I include myself in this group, that argue that for any change to be meaningful, in must be rooted and directed towards actual existing circumstances and that regardless of any action taken, there will unintended consequences that may be at odds with the Blueprint (Realists).

Blueprints usually call for sweeping changes to society and we cannot claim rationality for these changes because we cannot claim a degree of detailed sociological knowledge - a knowledge we cannot possess. Can we have required knowledge of society that is continuously changing? As soon as you know what you know, the object of observation has changed. We cannot even talk of means and ends as utopian blueprints call for - it would be misleading would it not? Means would a set of events closer in time to us and ends, more distant set of events - but this would be meaningful only if history stopped - afterall, the distant set of events would only be followed by successive set of events, in an endless chain of events.

What is clear is that the events closer in time to us (for utopians, the means) have a greater chance of being realized in the form envisaged, than any other more distant set of events - making means and ends meaningless. That is to say the more we are oriented to a distant future, the further away we shall be from it?

On ``Problems arise when the form of a government in a country changes, bringing it into direct conflict with the aspirations of the creators and the people of that country. In such instances, when a group of people controlling power has negated the idea of a representative government, then that group has in fact violated the initial contract.``

We can be reasonably sure that people differ on the kinds of society they want and that whatever the nature of the group in power, so long as a blueprint is to be realized, it is incumbent on this group to render opposition to this blueprint, ineffective - though such an eventuality is an impossibility in a ``open`` society - because a ``open`` society simply does not tolerate the imposition of a common social purpose, that a blueprint by definition represents - Gentle Indian readers, do take note of this characteristic of ``open`` society.

What then are the implications, if proceeding to realize a blueprint cannot but be an arrested society, a tyranny - How can change in society be effected? Piece meal changes are the best that we can expect if we are a Liberty loving people.

The Last Crusade Hari Inder

You have not offered any reason short of a strategy for dealing with a combatant - a negotiating partner chnages the entire framework -I encourage you to consider this.

Why does anybody think India needs to be bled by a thousand cuts? Because it is a combatant - it refuses to acknowledge the disputed status of the territory and it refuses to negotiate and it continues to kill kashmiris who struggle against Indian rule.

Mr. Musharraf is on record offering negotiations, He is on record suggesting that a ``process`` be established, that is, give all sides time, as they stand down, as their prepare their populace to accept a compromise. Even as the Pakistani representative was expelled, Pakistan has offered negotiations - it`s unfortunate that some will see this as weakness - whereas if rejected, it will become diplomatic leverage in the event of hostilities.

If Indians shall initiate hostilities and the result is a stalemate (as most predict) what then? will attacks upon the Indian forces not increase? will the situation not heat up considerably? What then?

If Indian action is decisive - a complete rout of Pakistani forces, what then? Are Pakistanis going to disappear? Will other forces in the region remain listless? is such a thing as a complete defeat of Pakistani forces even concievable?

I think we must move away from ascribing motivations which may or may not exist, fact is BJP is the power in Dehli and Pakistan has to negotiate with whomever is the power in Dehli - a similar realization ought to be promoted in India. it`s only realistic and it`s the call of conscience.

Of Violent Birth and Peaceful Death Cemendtaur

Such dangerous honesty.

``Colonized nations should be thankful to Hitler for their emancipation;

Hitler made the colonizing powers of Europe weak enough for them to decide

to draw back and tend to their own problems...``

Not a prescription but a statement of fact - bet you a Dollar for your Dime - The so-called ``Liberal`` (read illiberal) will project on this fact. Hitler? wasn`t the world just Muslims, Hindus and the British overlords?

``Pakistan was created because the large Hindu and Muslim communities didn`t trust each other...``

What?! No Muslim to blame for breaking ``OUR`` country? - Much, too much - too honest. And what does it earn you - both extremes on both sides of the divide join in attacking you. No evil TNT to blame Muslims with? No exclusive good and no exclusive bad?

``As Pakistan became more ``Muslim``, India--even despite resistance by the saner elements of that country--became more ``Hindu.``

A common misperception, Pakistan has become less ``Muslim`` and India has become less ``Hindu`` - Murder, rage, sectarianism, theft, greed, brutality are neither ``Muslim`` nor as I understand it, ``Hindu`` - as a matter of fact, these are the anti-Muslim, the anti-Hindu - these are a religiosity that it is difficult to say is Islamic or Hindu, it`s historicism

``Geography defines South Asia as one region.`` A tautologous statement, unworthy of you.

``Underneath the superficial layers of religious and ethnic differences, all South Asians are the same people.``

Rational, human constructs are superficial (religion and ethnic differences) but apparently the construct of geography does not qualify as a rational or human.

``The same people`` - How?, In what way? Cementdaur, more and more ``the same people`` does not make for ``sameness`` - as a matter of fact, the trajectory of history has been one of moving away from ``sameness``. The notion of small confederate states itself suggests that ``sameness`` needs further attention. A realization of differences, brings a realization of similarities - it sounds counter intuitive but it is true. The more we become aware of differences, the more clear the similarities. A reliance on the ``natural``, the ``instinctive`` is more and more taken to be the falsehood that it is - free choices, I suggest, are a more reliable measure, than any ``natural`` reason - are we not more than the ``natural``?

``Pakistanis need to understand that their country being in a continuous fray with India negates its (Pakistan`s) very reason for existence.``

Ah yes, amigo - the sound of one hand clapping. But again a Dollar to your Dime, you will find few Pakistanis who suggest a state of hostility is desirable. Negotiate the freedom of captive Kashmir. No one lives in a vacuum, Pakistanis are aware that their behaviour effects Indians - it`s time commit to negotiations.

``In Pakistan and India, it is almost a slur to call a person an Indian or Pakistani, respectively``

Almost? A friend says I`m naive and I`ve never been a South Asian and doubt if I ever will, but doesn`t mean we can`t share.

A confederation of small states - No imperial India? No Hindu India? No Indian Muslims as hostages? No linear Indian history but histories instead? No ``Indian`` culture but cultures instead? Yikes! How is any of this achievable without a change in our values, without Liberty a the principal guiding value, without a transition from ``duty`` bound to ``rights carrier``?

I suspect more persons share this dream than posts on these boards will reflect.

The Last Crusade Travard

I`m not suggesting that India be goaded - I think if Indian realize that a negotiated settlement is the appropriate manner in which this and any other outstanding problem between Pakistan and India ought to be resolved, both Pakistan and India will have removed this obstacle from their future relations.

I think it`s both ineffective and dishonest for this Indian government to be stubborn with regard to the need for a negotiated settlement. It has commited itself to a military and diplomatic offensive against the Kashmiri to extinguish the freedom struggle and equating it with terrorism - in this way, it takes a position that will be make it very difficult, if not impossible to recourse to negotiations.

Tahmed

The fact that you associate yourself with certain positions, allows Chowkies the opportunity to reconsider positions they would be less inclined to, were it not for your association with them. I took some time to consider your post - I did not find the positions you suggested to be compelling. I`m particularly concerned that you seem to disregard or give little credence to the fact that the Kashmiri struggle is essentially Kashmiri, certainly Pakistan takes advantage of Indian failures and certainly Pakistan`s claim has international legitimacy - I`m not saying that the Lashkars have not played a role, a deadly role, but I think it is less than fair to negate the struggle of the Kashmiri themselves or to characterize the struggle of the kashmiri in it`s entirety, by the Lashkars.

If it is your position that a piece of land must not matter, is to hold, does it not apply equally the Indian? After all, Kashmiris are being killed by Indian occupation forces daily, are they not?

Will your position be the same if the Indian shall inflict heavy cost upon Pakistan? Will you counsel that a piece of land does not matter - is right and wrong to be reduced to how much punishment one can endure?

If freedom of a piece of land is what the Kashmiri struggle for, The Indian kills daily to negate such a possibility, no? What is the reason the Kashmiri stuggles? Is freedom to be reduced to the ability to bear pain? inflict pain? Does that realization not suggest that a negotiated settlement is the course to take? A public commitment to the course of a negotiated settlement, will have the effect of negating the necessity of Indian occupation forces, it will negate the need for armed struggle, it will allow for forces to withdraw, it will allow Pakistan to concentrate on cleaning up house. These moves will undoubtably help Pakistan - would they help India? Would it help the captive kashmiri? The answer is obvious.

Allow me to elaborate on my understanding of why Pakistan cannot bite the bullet ``all at once`` and why it is irresponsiple to do so: Internally, clearly some religious parties have turned to obscuritanism and have given support to the effort of international terror - to act as if they are without support or that they cannot cause serious injury to domestic tranquility (to the degree that it exist) is simply irresponsible - they can be handled but the effort to redirect resources so as to address this weed in Gulistan from the root, is not amenable to immediacy. Also taking religious parties out of the political equation is itself, not without implications -I would suggest that it is more desirable that the ideas that have gained credence among these parties, should be defeated - but if defeated by brute force or violence, they will never die, they will only go underground - become even more dangerous, attract more of the romantically inclinced, the misguided, with Mr. Musharraf labeled a traitor, Pakistan labeled other vulgar names.

You are right and most everyone agrees that obscurtanist terror ought to be deprived a home in Pakistan - this realization need not blind us that there are other individuals and organized groups and countries who are similarly hostile towards Pakistan, and that there is a relationship, or an equation that needs to present in our consideration. I may be mistaken but perhaps you know of another situation or another country that feels free to act or has acted successfully against domestic terror while a hostile power has positioned armed might on it`s borders? Additionally, In my opinion, Pakistan cannot feel it has a free hand to deal with obscuritanist terror, which may well mean investigating and targetting certain religious parties, prior to the upcoming elections - regardless of the merits of the recent referendum, Mr. Musharraf`s government will have a significantly stronger position, to face such a internal threat, after the October elections. All are agreed that the religious parties cannot, never have, obtained any electoral power, however; lets not forget that they do, can, exercise disruptive power and an appeal to conscience.

Should Pakistan work to defang and disband the Kashmir focus Lashkars? begs the questions why did these particular Lashkars came to be? To the best of my knowledge these Lashkars are not, have not, been involved with act of terror in Pakistan. If more than a million Indian soldiers cannot stop infiltration, it is difficult to make a case Pakistani police ought to oblige the Indian - If Indian made a public commitment to a negotiated settlement and the evacuation of Indian occupation forces, with the condition that the military arm of these Lashkars ought to be disbanded, and only political activity be acceptable, no one disagrees with this, I`m sure.

Were the indian to do this, the lashkars turned political parties, I`m sure, would fare as well in the political and electoral process in Captive Kashmir, as they have in Pakistan. The only part of their appeal to the Kashmiri is their call for Captive Kashmir to be afforded it`s rightful place in Pakistan.

The domestic sectarian Lashkars deserve no such consideration, they have been banned, their activist continue to suffer when engaging police, their funding, both international and domestic has taken a hit - but of course - it is the IDEAS that propel these obscuritanist terrorists that must be defeated in society - for the sake of Islam itself, for the sake of conscience - I wonder if you think that this can be achieved effectively, while Indian armed forces are on the border and while innocents are targetted daily by Indian occupation forces on the eastern border, and clumsy imperial alliance troops on the Western border?

If it is true that there are those whose interests are served by provoking a war between Pakistan and India, and that terror events are created with this in objective in mind - does it not necessitate that a public commitment to a negotiated settlement on the conditions of a cessation of armed insurrection and the evacuation of Indian occupation forces be first steps to the eventual freedom of captive Kashmir?

Confessions of a BJP Supporter Prem, Zafar Al-Talib, Roohi, Tahmed, hamidm, Urstruly, YLH, SaminaShah, PM

Death of ``Benevolent`` Scholar or TRUTH and METHOD

From NYT dtd Mar 19, 2002 -

``The Last Sociologist

By ORLANDO PATTERSON

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — ``The Lonely Crowd,`` the book for which David Riesman is best known, was published more than half a century ago. It remains not only the best-selling book by a professional sociologist in American history, but arguably one that has had the widest influence on the nation at large. The work of Mr. Riesman, who died May 10, inevitably raises questions about the claims and limitations of academic sociology today.

In ``The Lonely Crowd`` and other works, Mr. Riesman provided middle-class Americans with a sharply focused view of their major cultural preoccupations. Then as now, Americans were concerned about the threat to personal freedom posed by the conformism and homogeneity inherent in mass-consumption society. They longed for connection in their pursuit of suburban affluence. They struggled with the contradictory tendency of capitalist individualism to undermine other forms of individualism through a ruthless ``ethic of callousness`` and celebration of greed. And they tried to reconcile their autonomy with genuine compassion.

He also gave the nation a vocabulary for the discussion of what his graceful prose had seduced them to gaze at. In ``The Lonely Crowd,`` he analyzed the anxieties of American life, identifying the ways in which individuals and groups responded to the fast-changing postwar culture.

And yet David Riesman died discarded and forgotten by his discipline. Even Harvard`s department of sociology, which he had served for over 30 years, recently discontinued a lecture series named for him after only two years. I gave the last David Riesman lecture in October 2000. It was, I think, the last public event David attended, and he was very happy about it. As he was my mentor, so was I.

The dishonoring of David Riesman, and the tradition of sociology for which he stood, is not a reflection of their insignificance. It is merely a sign of the rise in professional sociology of a style of scholarship that mimics the methodology and language of the natural sciences — in spite of their inappropriateness for the understanding of most areas of the social world.

Anxious to achieve the status of economics and the other ``soft sciences,`` the gatekeepers of sociology have insisted on a style of research and thinking that focuses on the testing of hypotheses based on data generated by measurements presumed to be valid. This approach works reasonably well for the study of certain subjects like demographics in which there is stability in the variables studied. Business schools, for example, have increasingly turned to organizational sociologists for a more realistic interpretation of the behavior of firms than that provided by economists.

Unfortunately, for most areas of social life — especially those areas in which the general public is interested — the methods of natural science are not only inappropriate but distorting. (It is important to note here that the issue is not the use of statistics. Mr. Riesman encouraged their use where appropriate.)

Americans tend to be highly skeptical of generalizations of social interaction. Yet they are deeply interested in knowing what is distinctive about their patterns of behavior, beliefs and values. They welcome attempts to understand what forces in society influence them to act the way they do. Another great sociologist and a contemporary of Mr. Riesman, Erving Goffman, gave them just that in books like ``The Sociology of Everyday Life.``

These two scholars — and others like C. Wright Mills, William F. Whyte, Daniel Bell, Nathan Glazer and Peter Berger — practiced a sociology different in both style and substance from that of today. It was driven first by the significance of the subject and second by an epistemological emphasis on understanding the nature and meaning of social behavior. This is an understanding that can only emerge from the interplay of the author`s own views with those of the people being studied.

These writers, following an earlier tradition, pursued big issues like the cultural contradictions of capitalism, the role of religion in economic life, the problems of America`s melting-pot ideology, the nature of civil society and the virtues and dangers of patriotism. But they also painted on small canvases, offering us insights into American rituals of interaction in public and private places. They wrote about the ways we avoid each other, the ravages of stigma, the search for honor behind the behavior of young men in gangs on street corners. Their ideas became pervasive, entering the language with terms like ``inner-directed,`` ``power elite`` and ``masking techniques.``

Mr. Riesman, in particular, was a pioneer in the study of popular culture, writing brilliantly on the role of the car and of comics. A landmark essay he wrote 50 years ago on youth and pop music was recently reissued in a definitive collection of essential readings on the rock `n` roll revolution. Even in the world of music criticism, Mr. Riesman was considered relevant.

Today, when mainstream sociologists write about culture they disdain as reactionary any attempt to demonstrate how culture explains behavior. And their need to test hypotheses, build models and formulate laws forces them into an emphasis on the organizational aspects of culture, which can be reduced to data suitable for ``scientific`` analysis.

Thus in much of modern sociology one learns little or nothing about literature or art or music or religion, even in sociologies that purport to study these subjects. Mainstream sociology eschews any exploration of human values, meanings and beliefs because ambiguities and judgment are rarely welcomed in the discipline now.

Americans are as eager today for analysis of how they live as they were when Mr. Riesman wrote ``The Lonely Crowd.`` Now as then, they want to be informed (in a language they can understand) about their beliefs and cultural practices.

Since mainstream sociology has abandoned this important mission, the intellectual vacuum has been filled by legions of scholars, mainly from the humanities, and commentators in the press. Most have little insight into social, political or cultural issues. In the academy, they have made a frightening intellectual mess of so-called cultural studies. In the popular culture, Americans who want informed sociological essays and thoughtful reflections turn to literary commentators or, less helpfully, to writers of self-help books or hosts of television talk shows.

Sociology is hardly alone in this pseudo-scientific narrowing of purpose and methods on the nation`s campuses. Many political science departments, for example, have been hijacked by ``rational choice`` theorists who disdain the study of political beliefs and culture. There are occasional hopeful signs pointing in other directions, often in small journals or quarterlies published by academic departments or individuals committed to independent thought.

It is that independence, that confidence in ideas, that is most lacking in the academy now. About this, too, Mr. Riesman had something to say. To participate in public life, as anyone who does so knows, requires something he called ``the nerve of failure`` and defined as ``the courage to face aloneness and the possibility of defeat in one`s personal life or one`s work without being morally destroyed.``

David Riesman had that nerve. Would that more in the academy did.

Orlando Patterson is a professor of sociology at Harvard and author of ``Rituals of Blood,`` the second volume of a trilogy on race relations``

The Last Crusade tahmed 321

I am convinced that Mr. Musharff and his team see terrorism as a mortal danger to Pakistan - and I am convinced that Mr. Musharraf wants a negotiated settlement with the Indians.

Frustration has been that since Pakistanis understand that thwy must bite the bullet, why don`t they just go ahead and do it all at once -Reality of politics, both internally and external dynamics do not allow for this possibility. If a state of confidence or trust could have been developed at Agra, I think this could have been handled much differently.

You are under the impression that I seek to deflect attention away from terror or infiltration - I was not aware that`s what I was doing - I find it extremely curious and less than a coincidence that such attacks seem almost made to order - to insure crying foul by Indians whenever some foreign dignitary is in the region it may well be that who ever directs or controls these elements means to cause problems for Mr. Musharraf and Pakistan - it`s hardly concieveable that Mr. Musharraf or his government would mount or support such an operation - after all where is his advantage, what does he gain? He is trying to engage remnants of Al-Qaeda and Pakistani Taliban, while trying to get it thru to the American that they need not engage as clumsily and louded as they have inside Pakistan - what does he need trouble with the Indian for at this time? Why would he keep his ambassador in Dehli, if it was trouble he was looking for? No, Sir, I`m convinced that these entanglements are the last things he needs at this time.

And as far as stopping infilration Mr. Ahmed, just what are those Indian soldiers supposed to be doing? Is it not their responsibility? Pakistan armed forces should never accept responsibility for order in areas which the Indian insists they must administer - it is up to them to ensure order is it not? perhaps the concentration ought to be on understanding why there is no order in captive kashmir? don`t you think? Do recall that LOC is not a border - it`s just that a LOC , a cease fire line, the territory remains ``disputed``. Once the injury to Pakistan has been redressed to Pakistan`s satisfaction, that is the Kashmiri shall be free, Indian shall not need army of occupation - the conditions to justify it will have ceased to exist. If the indian army of occupation were to be evacuted from captive Kashmir and UN monitors had access - then certainly Pakistani police resources and rangers may be used to assist the UN mission, as part of a comprehensive settlement process.

Would I be correct in characterizing your point of view in this regard to be a replay of the recent events in Palestine? Should Pakistan should play the Palestinians? Fortunately, reality is more complicated and the calculus of the responsible is that short of exerting themselves fruitlessly, the Indian armed forces are in not in any position of advantage - but that does not mean Pakistan is either - I`m conscious of this and wish war to be avoided - but certainly not at ``all`` cost.

Mr. Musharraf is determined that Mr. Vajpayee will not be provided a cover by Pakistan, to withdraw his forces - that Mr. Vajpayee has sent his army to the borders by his accord and misy withdraw his forces by his own accord. Only When the political leadership in India realize that blackmail against Pakistan is not an option - will they begin to see that a negotiated settlement is in the interests of all. But of course it requires nerves to stay the course. War would be a horrible tragedy - hoever; consider, if at this stage, the realization of the need for a negotiated settlement does not take hold, what may the position of the Indian government be, when in the future, it is able to field even more terrible weapons against Pakistan and against Muslims in India?

I think it is in the interests of humanity, honestly, seriously, in the interest of humanity that BJP not be yielded to - They want war, they need war, and they will not rest until they have their war - today in Gujrat and kashmir, tomorrow else where in India - and if the succeed, they will impose war on Pakistan to be sure.

Confessions of a BJP Supporter Sadna

I gave you an opportunity to instruct me, to allow me learn something from you - you wasted it needlessly - You are a rather sad and angry person and I hope you will not continue to be immature.

If it would please you, if it would make you less sad, less angry, to hear that I think I`m a hateful, defensive, bigot - here it is : I, hobbyty, am a hateful, dispicable, horrid, big, fat, pimply, puss filled, defensive, bigot.

Please use any further opportunities you may be afforded, more sensibly.