Does a Bachelor’s degree mean education in politics Atashband to Hobbyty

``...I seldom understand it (Hobbyt`s posts)...``

I, too, don`t understand 95% of Hobbyty`s posts. I know others (Shankar, Dost-Mittar) have expressed similar opinions in the past.

Worldwide India-Pakistan peace movement begins? Busharraf:

``...Now that we are, let us try to live in peace. Why can’t we shed our militancy? ...``

Count my vote of confidence for your proposal.

Does a Bachelor’s degree mean education in politics Re: Romair #94

Textbook perfect rationalization of a broken system that is being broken some more. The stage is being set for an autocracy, and the ones who are cheering it are English-speaking, Internet-savvy `elites`. Shabaash.

Meanwhile the poor guy, who is locked out by this latest requirement, has to work hard to remove this layer of oppression before he can even begin work on the next one -- the heavy handed role of the unelected NSC that will lord over the elected assembly. Good luck!

Does a Bachelor’s degree mean education in politics Fuzair:

How does your analysis (ie. `democracy was not suited to the genius of the Pakistani people`) stand up when you look at Bangladesh? Anything unique about Bangladesh that makes democracy run, albeit imperfectly? I think that you give up too easily.

Worldwide India-Pakistan peace movement begins? Tahmed321,

I feel that all too often, religion is used as a crutch (I like your metaphor) because it appears to fill an unmet need for some people, not the least of which being that it binds groups while simultaneously setting them up for conflict with others practicing a different brand. It also gives an identity to people, some of whom then quickly turn around and wear the symbols of religion on their sleeves. Religion remains vulnerable to exploitation, to push political agendas, to serve the needs of power grabbers, and to oppress, kill or injure human beings.

This is a sub-optimal state of affairs, and I personally cannot reconcile myself to pushing or defending any particular brand of religion principally for this reason. The glaring shortcomings of religious beliefs put them firmly in a zone where reasoned debate quickly breaks down, and `faith` takes over.

You mentioned that scientists like Einstein see religion differently, that `central to their view is the Creator of the universe (or universes)`. Before I delve into how scientists view the `Creator`, crucial differences between how scientific and religious thoughts operate need to be pointed out - (a) science, even when it is controversial, resolves contradictions through logic and experimentation, not through violence, (b) science updates and modifies its theories and treatises to account for emerging realities, and (c) scientists of two opposing politico-religious bearings are still likely to agree on scientific matters, even if they disagree on religious matters.

In so far as the view of cosmologists on God, Creator, is concerned, this quote from the science section of today`s NY Times describes the predicament of scientists:

QUOTE: As for the fate of the universe, we will never have a firm answer, said Dr. Sandage, who was Hubble`s (the person who observed an expanding universe) protégé and has seen it all.

``It`s like asking, `Does God exist?` `` he said. END QUOTE

While Einstein may have believed in the existence of a Creator, others are unsure, and unable to prove whether He exists or not. One guy goes even further (in the same article): ``Cosmologists are often wrong,`` the Russian physicist Lev Landau put it, ``but never in doubt.`` ``We theorists can invent all sorts of garbage to fill the universe,`` Dr. Sheldon Glashow, a Harvard physicist and Nobel laureate, told a gathering on dark matter in 1981.

Religion then boils down to rejecting or accepting as a matter of faith the existence of God. No logic can be used to prove or disprove His existence. Whether you accept it, or remain skeptical, it remains a matter of choice, not the result of conclusive scientific evidence. Given these uncertainties, I find it increasingly hard to push, and to defend religious theories. And given the societal havoc that these theories often create, I remain skeptical about their benefits that appear to be increasingly tenuous.

How Not to Reform Universities Re: Tahmed321

``...And we dont seem to have any choice left in Pakistan but to make sure that we are not over-run by Advani and his friends...``

There is a choice -- to curtail the acts that give wind to Advani`s political sails (although, there are other winds that Advani`s boat sails on).

Does a Bachelor’s degree mean education in politics Re: Fuzair, PM

The college graduate criterion is less important than the issue of the sovereignty of the elected assembly and the exercise of popular will (even if it is to be expressed through college graduates). You can have an assembly packed with people whose IQ is 155+, but if it is still the guy who wields the trigger on a 155mm howitzer that calls the shots (no pun intended) then minutae like qualifications for candidature count for nothing.

That said, I am not in favor of using college education as a criterion because I know what the result would have been in India (where college degrees are restricted to perhaps less than 20% of the population) -- an elitist assembly with no representation of the rural poor. This criterion would make sense if the state could meet the lofty goal of providing universal education, but that is not going to happen for a long,long time. Look at it from ther perspective of a wretchedly poor person -- first he is asked to accept that he cannot be educated because the odds are stacked against him going to a decent school, much less a college; then he asked to accept that he cannot even represent people in the same boat as him. If this is not arrogance of the elites, then what is?

Dhirubhai Ambani: The Heathcliffe of Indian business Re: samina

``...i’m curious as to know to what extent this will curtail journalistic capabilities/freedom, if at all...``

That decision to allow partial foreign ownership of media in India is a non-event because (i) foreign media is already well represented -- there are no import duties in India on importation of books, journals, publication (ii) Cable/satellite TV and the Internat have changed the rules on distribution of content, and (iii) if there are many sources of consumption of information, then it matters less who owns what.

Worldwide India-Pakistan peace movement begins? Re: Tahmed321 #115

Tahmed321, I understand and appreciate your interpretation of religion. However, all too often the negative impact of religion is glossed over and ignored, and left unchallenged. I would not be exaggerating if I said that wars have been fought in the `name of religion`, and much murder, plunder, loot, has been done in its name. Religion, instead of bringing people together, has been shamelessly used to divide people. Religion has not removed the poison of violence and persecution in its name, and therefore I find organized religion of any brand to be overrated. It is not sufficient to state that the followers are not true followers - religion has inspired violence - there is ample evidence for this.

Homo Sapiens existed for at least 100,000 years without religion, and still managed to progress without its aid (note: I am not saying that religion played only a small part in this endeavor). I think that as time goes on, religious dogma and indeed `articles of faith` need to be revised, updated, or discredited in much the same way that scientific theories are subject to change. Many religious scriptures (from the Old Testament, to the Vedas to the Koran) have objectionable text that only the most charitable interpretations can moderate and bring into sync with modern times. The fact that such books are left `unedited` is a rejection of rational thought. Editing scriptures is a tall order, not in the least because anyone claiming to ask for this runs the risk of being called a heretic or a blasphemist. This has an instantaneous chilling effect on free debate.

Societies have evolved many mechanisms to counter this chilling effect - secularism and pluralism, being two amongst many. Secularism at best is an attempt to rationalize the limitations of religion and to minimize its deleterious effects on public affairs. Since governments are not the appropriate vehicles to deliver change to religion and be in the business of `religious brand selection`, some of them have frequently chosen the path of least resistance - i.e. keeping religion out of public affairs. The other frequent tactic that societies have resorted to is to promote pluralism - i.e. allowing many brands to flourish so that any single virulent and vicious strain does not come to dominate.

My complaint against organized religion is not that it does not do some good, but that all too often, organized religions do not realize and compensate for the abject acts of violence that are perpetrated in their names. These are errors of omission, which are just as serious as errors of commission.

How Not to Reform Universities Re: Tahmed321 #94

``...My only caution is that given that BJP is looking for ways to humiliate Pakistan...``

How does this square with Vajpayee`s visit to Lahore and the Minar-e-Pakistan? Or with Kargil that followed a few months later to sabotage the process?

Would you still stand by your assertion?

This raises a larger issue -- Can undeserved humiliation be heaped on and made to stick on those who through their virtuous actions have earned world sympathy and admiration? You have previously described the paradoxical situation in which the Pak Army has through its various actions given rise to the BJP in India (e.g. Kargil when the Vajpayee govt. had lost a no-confidence motion in the Lok Sabha in April `99, only to be confronted by Kargil in May, and an electoral victory in October. IMO there are other reasons as well to explain BJP`s rise that have little to do with Pakistan) and when India is provoked, there is a necessity to maintain a large Pak army. Would it be safe to say that the Pak Army is part of the problem, not the solution?

I do not think that political parties of one nation can humiliate another nation -- it is safer to say that political personalities can through their actions invite humilition, and any humiliation of the ordinary people is undeserved, as is guilt through association. As an example, Germans despite two massive military defeats last century, and experimentation with entirely discredited political philosophies have done much to earn the respect of the world.

Of Evil Zionists and the Great Satan Re: Hobbyty

``...Since the first thing you notice is the religion of writers (an entirely secular affliction) blah blah Indian Hindu interactors blah blah...``

Ummm...actually no. The first thing that I notice is the objectivity of Chowk interactors -- that is the ability to call a spade a spade. Your selective culling of the facts laid bare your objectivity (or lack thereof).

Does a Bachelor’s degree mean education in politics Re: bluenoon26

What you write is true -- this gradual spread of egalitarianims (which occurred at a glacial pace until the `70s, and picked up steam in the 80`s and 90`s) is the most remarkable, and revolutionary change in a 5000 year old society.

Of Evil Zionists and the Great Satan Re: Romair

There are many all-volunteer militaries in the world who willingly accept the occupational hazards that come with job, but are not prone to grab power arrogantly by deposing civil authority, because they perform a `special duty`. The Pakistan armed forces do not do anything exceptional by this yardstick that gives them the right to conquer Islamabad from time to time. Hiding behind the figleaf of producing shaheeds for `supreme national interest` is not a good enough reason. This is my business, because we live in an increasingly globalized world, and anamolous events in one country can have global effects -- e.g. 9/11. It is as much my concern as it is of a worried US administration or the Indian govt. or the British Commonwealth.

Of Evil Zionists and the Great Satan Re: Romair

There are many all-volunteer militaries in the world who willingly accept the occupational hazards that come with job, but are not prone to grab power arrogantly by deposing civil authority, because they perform a `special duty`. The Pakistan armed forces do not do anything exceptional by this yardstick that gives them the right to conquer Islamabad from time to time. Hiding behind the figleaf of producing shaheeds for `supreme national interest` is not a good enough reason. This is my business, because we live in an increasingly globalized world, and anamolous events in one country can have global effects -- e.g. 9/11. It is as much my concern as it is of a worried US administration or the Indian govt. or the British Commonwealth.

Of Evil Zionists and the Great Satan Re: Hobbyty #204

Perhaps the irony of that post escaped you. The author of your elegant cut and paste is a Kashmiri pandit (How do I know? last name gives it away). Now, when was the last time I saw you do a similar cut and paste by a pandit about their ethnic cleansing from the Valley? I don`t remember. I do, however, remember your numerous posts in defence of the unelected APHC that have maintained a stony silence on the subject of ethnic cleansing of pandits.

Of Evil Zionists and the Great Satan Re: Romair

``...They don`t make noise, they don`t write articles, they are not critics, they are not activists...``

That nearly brought tears to my eyes, EXCEPT when I realized that the unlucky ones who never got a chance to offer shahadat, and live life like the rest of us petty mortals, produce that one-in-a-million `leader` who like nothing better than to appropriate power through any means necessary, all in the name of the shaheeds.