No Fault Of Mine It was not Jinnah`s tomb in Lahore that was washed, it was Minar-e-Pakistan. The point in #102 remains that there was a segment of Pakistanis who felt that a monument had been defiled by Vajpayee`s visit (Gowardhan just had the wrong monument which has caused some people to miss the forest for the trees regarding post#102) and some Indians wanted to return the compliment to Musharraf with regard to Gandhi`s samadhi.

And yes, there are enough Hindus stupid enough to think that something can be cleaned by cows urine.

No Fault Of Mine Just in case the link to the Chapman-Lennon analogy was not clear in my post #126, it appears to me that some Pakistani`s view themselves as inheritors of the Mughals and the only thing disturbing that fantasy is the fact the Red Fort, the Taj Mahal and other Mughal heritage etc. etc. are used by Indians to define their own heritage. This seems beyond the comprehension of some.

No Fault Of Mine Zafar #106:

About not recognizing India at Chowk....

When I first arrived at Chowk and saw some of the interactions going on, I had a kind of John Lennon vs Mark Chapman type of experience. Remember Mark Chapman killed John Lennon because Mark Chapman thought he himself was Lennon and the only person disturbing that fantasy was the living Lennon... so Chapman promptly went ahead and killed Lennon.

Growing up, I had always thought of Akbar and Aurangzeb as MY kings with Akbar being MY good king and Aurangzeb being MY bad king. I came to Chowk and met these Pakistani guys in cyberspace who were claiming that Pakistan was the inheritor to the Mughal empire and India was this Hindu country inheriting the laws of Manu and the caste system.

I felt disoriented for a while as if I had entered a parallel universe with its own reality but I finally realized I shouldnt be defined by people who dont understand me. So Akbar is still MY king and Aurangzeb is still MY king. And India is whatever it is, good and bad, but not the cesspool that some Chowkies would describe it as.

No Fault Of Mine Dilip:

For a list of Indians who died in Kargil, please visit the following:

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/KARGIL/

I do not have a link to the names of Pakistani soldiers who have died. I regret their deaths too.

With regard to the ``core of Indian nationhood``, in my mind it is a non-sectarian idea with freedom, equality and fraternity for all (if it sounds a lot like French nationhood ``liberte, egailte, fraternite`` or US nationhood ``we hold these truths...``, you are right, it is similar but in a local context). This non-sectarian idea is very different from a state which requires its President to take the following oath as President Pervez Musharaf did ``I swear that I am a Muslim...`` It is unconscionable to me that any minority should have to live under that dispensation and it makes Kashmir worth fighting for. If that makes us ``secular jehadis``, so be it.

I have said often that a secular independent Kashmir is a concept I can personally accept but an Islamic Kashmir or a Kashmir part of an Islamic Pakistan is unacceptable. A Kashmir part of a secular Pakistan is also unobjectionable if that is the will of the Kashmiri people. But Pakistan has a long way to go before it establishes its secular credentials. We have a covenant with the people of Kashmir, including its minorities and its majorities, that we provide a non-denominational government. To allow for the formation of a denominational government would be a betrayal.

Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan said when the Congress accepted partition that NWFP had been thrown to the wolves by the Congress - India must keep the faith in Kashmir. Keep the long sweep of history in mind including the Reformation, the French Revolution, American Independence, the American Civil War, the character of our independence and our constitution in mind before you throw in the towel to sectarian nationalists in Kashmir. Do not allow the tragedy of Babri Masjid`s destruction be the defining feature of India`s relationships with its Hindus and Muslims. I abhor that event. When I think of the Jama Masjid in Delhi, I think of a living culture. When I thin of Nankana Sahib in Pakistan, I think of a lost culture. That is why we are in Kashmir.

Tilak and Gokhale jnutec99 Post#176:

Thanks for the post regarding Gandhi`s reaction to his son`s embrace of Islam. It is important to remmember when we we are looking at historical figures that we not only remember their positions but their trajectory in life - where did they start, where did they finish. In this regard, one can see an evolution in Gandhi`s thinking.

In Hind Swaraj, which is one of his early books, he had many positions that can only be called absurd. For example, he bemoaned railways because he found that all sorts of irreligious people were now making pilgrimages to holy places while before the railways it was only the true believer who did so.

It is also important to remember that what makes a leader a leader are the positions that he takes which find a receptive audience. His anti-railways, anti-doctor approach in Hind Swaraj or his strange experiments with sexual restraint were never embraced by the people though people accepted it as the eccentric views of an otherwise remarkable man.

Contrast Gandhi`s willingness to accept his sons conversion to Islam if it came from his heart to Musharaf`s interview with Ronin Laurie where he said he would object if his children married a Christian or Hindu. And wasnt Jinnah disappointed that his daughter married a Parsi? I only ask the question reg Jinnah - I am positive about Musharaf.

The Quest for Power Gentelmen:

I dont believe K.P. Nayar and Kuldip Nayar are the same person. I could be wrong.

Tilak and Gokhale The idea that Goans would migrate to Pakistan during partition defies common sense. The natural thing at that time for a Goan would be to either stay put or move to Goa which was still technically not part of India but part of Portugal. Looks like the Karchi Goan making the claim is smoking some strong stuff.

Tilak and Gokhale I often argue with Hindu Indians who say Muslim Indians are ``Muslims first, Indians second`` that it is a worthless debate since the order of love is unimportant, the important thing is to love. Now ylh is arguing that Gandhi was ``Hindu first, Indian second`` as if that is a crime.

Secularism, Mr YLH, deals with how the state, through state officials, deals with its citizens. It has nothing to do with the ordering of an individual citizens loyalty to country and faith. This is the most pointless and negative energy discussion that pervades Indo-Pak discussions all the time.

Some Pakistanis insist on loyalty to Islam before a loyalty to their country and some Indians insist on a loyalty to their country before their religion. Both are wrong. It is ultimately an individuals birth right to define his loyalty in any order, or further, to refuse to impose any sequencing on the loyalty and just be loyal to both.

When religion and state are in conflict, you get a tricky situation but that was irrelevant in the Gandhi-Jinnah debate since both expected a secular state with the same issues of conflict between Sharia and state law (Hindu and Christian law really dont exist in any significant way).

Refusing the Sitara-I-Imtiaz friend:

i`m sorry for misrepresenting you. i have tried to locate the post and havent been able to. i apologize.

in fact, this whole good guy/bad guy thing was a mistake i shouldnt have made. one should focus on the message rather than the messenger - my mistake. sorry to all.

ps: jawahara is an indian. sameer is a pakistani.

Refusing the Sitara-I-Imtiaz friend:

my criterion for everybody on the bad guys list was at least one post in poor taste (me being judge and jury). if i remember right, you had a post on scout ``sucking hindu c@ck`` or something like that.

as for where i am on these lists, i`m a sinner. i presume you remember kabirs doha:

bura jo dekhan mein chala

bura na milya koi

jo dil jhanka apna

mujhse bura na koi.

on that self effacing tone, namaste and regrets if i hurt your feelings (although i`m sure thats not true since my views dont count for much!).

Sher Shah Suri YLH Sir:

No, I am not suggesting two nation theory people have no right to live in India. There are a number of people who voluntarily migrated to Pakistan (Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan being the most prominent) - India has no obligation to such people or their children (of course if their children made an independent decision to live in India around the years of 1947 as did Jinnah`s daughter, they remain full citizens of India in every sense of the word).

The harder question of course are people who did believe in the two nation theory but migrated solely out of fear. Maybe anybody who migrated out of fear should be welcomed back and as a practical matter very few TNT people would want to come back anyway (I`m not sure many people would sign up for this program anyway - I`m an example of the reverse case - son of a Lahori and if Pakistan were to make a similar offer, I would decline it). My suggested amendment would probably face a lot of opposition in India as drafted - to enable TNT people back would kill it altogether.

However, if a current citizen of India chooses to believe in the two nation theory, then that is his or her right as a free man in a free country.

Refusing the Sitara-I-Imtiaz tahmed: yes, there is truth that i focussed exclusively on the pakistanis and ignored the indians. studebaker is such an india hater that i just added a tortured soul category for him. i am judging him by his words not his religion. keeping indians out of the list was a deliberate decision but not a malovent one.

let me point out that when i once used foul language against ali1, you jumped to castigate me while remaining silent on ali1`s abuse (i have noticed you criticize him since then). but your criticism of me was legitimate so i didnt question your silence. but you have interpreted my silence on the indians on this forum as the type of thinking that leads to ethnic violence, discrimination, and mob violence. that is an imaginative leap. why did you expect better of krashid when he has printed so much garbage? are you indulging in some sort of ``group`` leniency? is your thinking going to lead ethnic violence - i doubt it. lets not go overboard.

please note that just because i have not mentioned indians on my list, it doesnt mean i think they are all good guys or that they are all bad guys. heres a list

good guys: macgupta, kabuli, harpreet, dost-mitter, jawahara (where is she?), sameerjb and others

bad guys: friend, manoj, rsaxena, harimou, siraj and others

negative thinkers: jay, mohajir

tortured soul: farzana

now add the lists together and get the universal list of good guys and bad guys. there! we are one big happy family now.

Sher Shah Suri Since we have been talking about migrations, here is a law I would like the Indian Parliament to adopt. I submitted it to Chowk as part of 4 amendments I`d like to see but it was not published. I know a lot of TNT guys will not like it but others may see it positively. Tried to put it in ``pseudo-legal`` language but I ain`t no lawyer.



Amendment#1: The Law of Return (“The Bhumiputra Law”)

Whereas

The years 1947 to 1950, contemporaneous with the creation of the modern states of India and Pakistan, were a period of widespread civil strife and that

A large number of Indians who were then residents of modern day India emigrated to Pakistan either because

They were adherents of the Two Nation theory, or

They feared for their personal safety in a period of civil unrest and

Noting that every child has the right to live freely and die peacefully in the land of his birth and in the land of his parents and

Noting that justice is done for justices sake and not for the sake of reciprocity and

Mindful of the bitterness, distrust and destruction, the Two Nation theory has caused and intensified among the people of present day India and

Mindful that the world often changes in irreversible ways and

Noting that the people of India would like to invite and warmly welcome back and restore the Indian citizenship of certain former residents of India;

It is resolved that

Any person who emigrated from India between 1947 and 1950 to Pakistan or such person’s son or daughter may

Apply to have their Indian citizenship restored provided, however, they swear under oath

“I, or at least one of my father or mother, were residents of the area comprising modern day India prior to 1947 and

Such resident(s) emigrated to Pakistan between 1947 and 1950 because they feared for their personal safety and

Such resident(s) and myself reject the two nation theory and

I take this oath with a free conscience and, if I am a believer, I take this oath in the name of God and in the name of any Book I consider sacred”

All such applications must be made prior to 2003.

No more than 200,000 such applications will be accepted from Pakistan and Bangladesh each.

No claim for material compensation for property lost by the applicant will be entertained.

Refusing the Sitara-I-Imtiaz tahmed123:

``Frankly, krashid, I always thought you had more decency than the rest of them.``

tahmed123, you seem to be a nice guy. you think krashid had more decency? why? he routinely bashes hindu generically and has been doing so ever since I have seen his posts.

the good guys: you, bahmed, fuzair, frkhan, hobbyty and others

the bad guys: urstruly, scout, ali1, krashid, ylh, aamir and others

tortured soul : studebaker

Sher Shah Suri I would like to add to my previous post: my interactions with Bangladeshis of all religions have almost always been positive.

Sher Shah Suri Dost-mitter #753:

Your post to ali1 is the equivalent of a catholic going to satan for a confessional.

Dont fall for this crap - you owe nothing to anybody, least of all to satan.

MaheshG:

We have a few Hindu relatives left in Pakistan. I dont know them personally. Some family members have become Muslim, others have remained Hindu. I do not know the circumstances, preference for Islam, marriage, jobs. I have interacted with a few Hindu Afghanis and one Hindu Bangladeshi (have not run into Pakistani Hindus) in New York -they dont like it in their home countries. The Afghanis have almost all left post Taliban. The Bangladeshi felt there was a general intolerance. Even in Dubai, I was told by a relative that they had to ``hide`` a Buddha statue they had picked up in Thailand to take it into the country. I dont believe there have been forced conversions of Hindus in any meaningful number in Bangladesh - I think it just people feeling that they are made to feel like ``children of a lesser god`` and they end up migrating to India. I am sure that feeling of discrimination must exist among a lot of Muslims in India as well - it just hasnt risen to the level of causing mass migrations (Post the trauma of partition)out of India. And hopefully, it never will.