Rethinking Pakistan’s Kashmir Policy Fuzair, Mohar11, others:

Here is the reference that is eluding you:

``...In our scenarios, the only way for Pakistan to do that is by using nuclear weapons on India`s forces inside Pakistan. Strange as that sounds, using nuclear weapons on your own territory has some political advantages...``

from `It Doesn`t Start in Kashmir, and It Doesn`t End Well`, Sam Gardiner, Washington Post, January 20, 2002

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A6820-2002Jan19¬Found=true

Another Attempt on Musharraf Dost:
My ancestors also hail from Pind Dadan Khan. If you happen to go there and to Khewra, I would appreciate any pictures that you might happen to shoot. My email is sumeetchhibber@yahoo.com
Thanks

Are Secularism and Islam Incompatible? Hello, all. It has been a while since I have written on Chowk.

YLH, you raise an important question about secularism and Islam (or any religion for that matter).

Have you read `What Went Wrong? : The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East` by Bernard Lewis? There are some pointers there for your question. Lewis` rationale for the trouble that Islamic societies have in adopting secularism in the way most Western societies interpret it is as follows:

a) Early Christianity was in conflict with the state for 300 years, and the Church developed its own institutions (initially underground) to survive. This engendered a great deal of suspicion between the state and early Christians. Islam faced no such difficuly. Not only did Mohammed become an absolute sovereign in his lifetime, ruling over vast lands, but Sharia was ultimately implemented with no apparent conflict between Islam and the state. Without the history of conflict between Church and state that Christianity experienced, there simply is no precedent in Islamic history for a separation between the two. Lesson: It won`t be easy for devout Muslims to find a precedent in Islam for the need to separate the two. Note, even with the early conflict in Christianity, it took another 1200 years for Reformation to complete the separation in the modern sense of the word. How will Islam manage without such guidance from its history?

b) In the Bible (Mark 12), there is a verse, `` ‘Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar`s, and to God the things that are God`s``. This verse is often cited as an underpinning of the principle of separation of Church and state. There is no equivalent verse in the Koran that the devout can point to.

c) The Christian Reformation -- there is no such equivalent in Islam. Even the Shia-Sunni difference is over political power, not religious doctrine, and has therefore not been able to prepare the groundwork for a separation of religion and state.

In other words, due to a quirk of historical events, Islamic societies are handicapped when it comes to addressing issues such as these. This is frequently manifested right here on Chowk, when many are dismissive of any need to draw a distinction between Church and state and deride such debate as being useless and meaningless (as Fuzair points out in #15). It will not be easy to evolve a consensus, and the road ahead is going to be troublesome -- the consequences might be disastrous. In that sense, Hamidm is right in his pessimistic outlook. Just look at Turkey. Turkey requires the full power of an authoritarian state apparatus to bottle up non-secular forces, to impose a secular order. That is certainly not an organic, consensus-driven process. Where would Turkey end up, if the military were to lift all restrictions on religious activity?

The larger question is: where do societies that are unable to separate religious dogma from public policy end up in an increasingly complex world?

Survival of the Fittest Re: Romair
``(Allegation that) Pakistan supports Al-Qaeda, which it doesn`t, but neither did Iraq....``
Let the following fact speak for itself:
All the member-countries of the UN except Saddam`s Iraq and Musharraf`s Pakistan have banned Al Qaeda, the organisation headed by Osama bin Laden. In March,2003, the Lahore police filed a case in the High Court against a doctor accused of collaborating with Al Qaeda. The High Court ruled the charge inadmissible even at the preliminary stage. It pointed out that Al Qaeda had not been banned in Pakistan as a terrorist organisation under the Anti-Terrorism Act and hence belonging to it or collaborating with it was not an offence. The Government said that by oversight it had not banned Al Qaeda and promised to do so immediately. It is yet to be done.
Cheers

Inside China Today: Q&A with Dr. Robert Oxnam Re: Ahmadzai
``...my parents point of view who still hold on to the legacy of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan of the NWFP (the Frontier Gandhi)...``
You are one pathan that I would love to meet. My ancestors hailed from Peshawar (although the few that survived the Partition moved to India in `47). My greatgrandfather was a Congress leader in Peshawar and a VERY CLOSE associate of Badshah Khan, and was jailed in Peshawar Central Jail and Multan Central Jail while undergoing three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 40 Frontier Crimes Regulation, in connection with the first Civil Disobedience Movement of United India in the 1920s. Together, they founded a Peshawar newspaper called `Frontier Mail` that was dedicated to the Khudai Khidmatgars (Servants of God), that continues to be published from Dehradun, India even to this day, although the circulation is tiny - it still carries the dedication to the Khudai Khitmadgars! Badshah Khan visited India in the `60s, and there is a picture of my greatgrandfather with him and Indira Gandhi (Khan was very fond of her, having been a fatherly figure for her) that was proudly displayed at home. Badshah Khan was a noble man. What a long way the two countries and peoples have diverged since then!

Some Burning Questions Re: Tahmed321
How are you? My participation on Chowk has been steadily in decline because I find the same old tired rhetoric going back and forth, and rarely do I find anything new (or `out of the box`) as you put it. Your comment (coming from a thoughtful person) caught my attention, `One can blame pakistani generals for sabotaging the lahore peace process and thereby giving rise to extremists in BJP. But one can also blame successive Indian governments for painting all of pakistan with the same brush, and not making any real efforts to strengthen the case of those who wish to see peace and democracy prevail in Pakistan. That would be true statesmanship on the part of the Indian rulers, and ultimately to the benefit of India itself.`
While there is much to be criticized in the BJP over matters of damaging India`s secular polity and for polarizing public opinion, it would be incorrect to draw moral equivalence between Pakistani generals and `successive Indian governments` over the matter of provoking Indo-Pak spats, especially in the last decade. On this, I hope that you will agree. Even Republican think tanks are beginning to appreciate Indian restraint in the face of frequent Pakistani provocations (http://www.aei.org/nso/nso14664.htm). If nuclear war breaks out in the subcontinent, it will likely be triggered by another outrageous terror attack at an Indian target (e.g. Parliament) or the hypothetical assasination of George Fernandes by Lashkar-e-Toiba (as BBC4 recently simulated http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/features/situation-room/index.shtml). These are provocative acts that Pakistani generals have shown callous disregard towards curbing, and the Western world`s thought leaders seems to be agreeing with the Indian position. I recall that you once stated after the Parliament attack that India should work `like the US with Pakistani generals to restore democracy`. It seems that the US, too, is beginning to get tired of this fiction (as the recent exchange of fire on the Durand line between US-Pak forces seemed to indicate, and by the stringent new INS procedures). If the US, a vastly greater power than India, finds it difficult to work with Musharraf, what then to say about Indian `statesmen`? Musharraf made a statement today that he thinks that Pakistan will find itself in Western cross-hairs in the future. That, to me, is indicative of the fact that rather than fully cooperate, he seems to be entertaining the possibility of confrontation with the West. In the current environment, that is an outrightly foolish thing to say. Not even the looniest minister in Vajpayee`s Cabinet will say a thing like that publicly.
Do you think that if the BBC4 scenario pans out (in which the actors were former senior Administration officials), India would have been `deterred` or that rather than make war unthinkable, nuclear weapons only made it deadlier? All this is happening when it is patently clear what Pakistani generals have to do: shut down the jehadis for good, and introduce democracy, and cooperate with everyone concerned in doing so. Yet, Musharraf is entertaining hairy schemes of `confronting the West`. I also know that you have in the past pleaded helplessness in exerting influence over Musharraf. We understand that. But, what is inexplicable is `but, Indian governments are equally unresponsible` line. I do not for a minute condone BJP`s positions on domestic politics and their role in Gujarat, but it would be a travesty if anyone were to think that (a) the Opposition (barring Communists) would have reacted any differently to Pakistani provocations (remember: BJP had the full support of the Opposition in Kargil, and in last year`s buildup -- there was not a single dissenting voice), and (b) as the frequent provocateurs, Pakistani generals are as morally culpable as Indian leaders. (Note: I am not saying that Indian leaders are saints, but on one score they have acted responsibly: i.e, of not provoking a neighbor through actions at Lahore, Kargil, Agra, releasing murderous thugs, giving them run scot-free, not charging them with serious crimes, etc.).
If tomorrow, Indian restraint gives way to adventurism, what do you think would have been India`s response to Kargil, Parliament attack, etc.?

Another Visit to Pakistan Re: romair
``...the military is the most respected institution in Pakistan...``
Respected or FEARED? Beat constables in India also obtain free service from paanwallahs and cigarette vendors. That does not mean that they are respected, but they are feared. In the subcontinent, fear is often disguised as feigned respect.

USA and Muslims re: Romair #102
``...as USA socially isolates Muslims furthur (sic) and furthur (sic)...``
Indians (Muslims included), Bangladeshis, Malaysians (Indonesians?) are exempt from these INS procedures, and wonder of wonders -- they live in some semblance of democratic rule. Half the world`s muslims live in these countries. So, repeat after me: Pakistan is not Islam. And don`t pull an OBL trick here by dragging in Islam when it is not even necessary, and converting an issue of some countries not being able to discipline their uncouth and barbaric jehadis, into one of a clash of civilizations. Let us be clear: only citizens of countries that try to punch above their weight category, and are governed by despots who don`t give a rat`s a$$ about their national pride by exporting the worst that their societies have to offer to across their national borders are now paying a price. Weren`t you given to pontificating to us on Chowk on the `brilliantly cheap` strategy of bleeding India by a thousand cuts and tying down a third of the Indian Army by AK-47 wielding thugs? Well, the costs have suddenly risen, or haven`t you noticed? You shed crocodile tears for your countrymen, but you are their worst enemy. Shame on you.

Sex in the Indian Family nasah:
How was Karol Bagh like in those days? How does it compare with today? When was the last time you were back? Thanks

Jihad – The Misperceptions Ferozk, Rsridhar:
Check out this book, `What Went Wrong: Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response by Bernard Lewis`

Intellectual Dishonesty of Pakistani (Pseudo-) Liberals Sadna, Romair is, to put it mildly, spineless, and changes his positions dpending upon the weather.

Intellectual Dishonesty of Pakistani (Pseudo-) Liberals Re: Tahmed32
``...like to see in their lifetimes: the emergence of civilized societies in the subcontinent, with an end to ``tribal`` (i.e. religion,ethnic) hatreds, national rivalires, mob violence. ..``
And that can be done ONLY through democratic institutions (and not just ANY institution, but those that reflect the broad-based opinions of all who are affected by them). Any diversion from this reality, or lack of focus from this goal is tantamount to declaring that the emergence of civil societies is not really an essential goal. So, when the VHP declares that they do not recognize the sanctity of the Supreme Court of India, it is a step backwards from that goal. And if the Indian public condones that behavior by letting this exercise of free speech go unpunished, then it is joins them in doing so. Likewise, when the public opinion in Pakistan remains silent or unwilling to risk confrontation with its military over policies that it has pursued domestically, in Afghanistan, Bangladesh or towards India, then it is complicit in those actions through acts of omission.

Intellectual Dishonesty of Pakistani (Pseudo-) Liberals Re: Tahmed32
Voting in the BJP was a CONSCIOUS choice by (mostly) north Indians. It did not happen by accident. Now I can give a long explanation as to why it happened and how certain events led to the eclipse of the Congress, and the rise of the BJP, but let us not kid ourselves that it was an accident. It was a deliberate choice. The question now is, do the same voters feel that what good points the BJP offers overshadows their negative points? The choice may not come in neat packages (at least not yet) where you can pick and chose what you want, (the best of the BJP and the Congress while discarding their worst tendencies), but the final decision will reflect more or less what the Indian voter feels about what the greatest evil is to the best of his/her judgment. In the end, the decision will be a deliberate one, but it wont be an accident. Escaping responsiblity for those actions is not an option.

Intellectual Dishonesty of Pakistani (Pseudo-) Liberals Re: Shankar
``...If you look at the VERY CORE values of Americans...anybody trying to change the American WAY OF LIFE..esp thr` violent acts,..will be fought..& fought without mercy...``
Very accurate diagnosis of the American Mind, and may I add, the Western Mind. This can be corroborrated by reading Richard Hanson`s a) Autumn of War and b) Culture and Carnage: Landmard Battles in the Rise of Western Power

Intellectual Dishonesty of Pakistani (Pseudo-) Liberals Re: Tahmed32
``...Do I now hold you responsible for ``tacitly`` accepting extremism and violence in India?...``
If you mean, the Indian voter in general by `you`, then the answer is `absolutely yes` should future elections result in no change in govt. policy. No question about it, especially so because Indian politicians have a lifeline to voters. If it was not an error of commission, then it certainly is an error of omission (most responsible people would make no distinction between the two in terms of their effect). If the VHP and Bajrang Dals escape the dragnet of POTA, then it is because society at large has tacitly determined that this is not a very important thing to do. Now we can argue whether that is right or wrong, but let us not at least dispute the fact that politicians (especially BJP) have guessed that a victory in the next elections in Gujarat is not going to be delivered through banning VHP. We can`t have it both ways -- e.g. claim to be a democracy, and escape responsiblity for the quality of politicians we vote in by blaming the `system`. I believe that the Congress/VHP rhetoric has reached previously unfathomed depths even in Indian politics, and should Congress win, the VHP will be a target, and that will be an instance of policy change (as is already the case in Madhya Pradesh where the Congress state govt. has banned VHP and their youth wing Bajrang Dal).

Islamic Utopia? Harimau:
The problem with the `assertive Hindu` is that most of his assertions have been wrong and damaging to India, but highly profitable for Advani and his party. Leading a mob to illegally destroy Babri Masjid only to absolve himself of any responsibility thereafter is cowardice, not positive assertiveness