South Asian Earthquake: Don’t care… or don’t know? Whether Maha`s jar in the USA is empty or full, in the big scheme of things, doesn`t matter much. Because there are quite a few Mahas in Pakistan, whose donation jars are getting filled. And that is where Pakistan`s strength in dealing with this earthquake will come from...............

The English press in Pakistan and English websites (including this one) spend far too much chasing invisible religious ghosts in Pakistan, and looking towards what the West does and does not do for Pakistan, as a criteria for how well Pakistan is doing in any sphere. Having read the Pakistani English press extensively, and having known some of the writers and an odd editor or two, I have always felt these individuals are far too enamoured with the West. In that sense, they suffer from somewhat of an inferiority complex.

It is incorrect to guage Pakistan`s success in handling this earthquake from what people in the West, or outside Pakistan, are doing. When, in fact, they should be looking at the average Urdu/Punjabi/Sindhi etc. speaking Pakistani, who cannot speak English and has never been to the West and see what he is doing for this earthquake.........

I will even go to the extent that, after the initial emergencies are handled, it will be good for Pakistan if it is forced to handle the expenses of reconstruction for this earthquake internally. It will force Pakistan to readjust its budget allocations, and fix its priorities. If the aid just comes in from abroad, it will be business, as usual.

In fact, Pakistan has made the most progress in areas, when it has been forced to, domestically, solve its problems, based on the strengths and weaknesses of its own people...........

South Asian Earthquake: Don’t care… or don’t know? Behram1 #24: ``Why can`t Pakistan relocate the living to warmer temperatures?``

You may want to go a bit easy on the rhetoric. While it is upto Americans and others to give or not to give, as much as they want. It is not upto them to ridicule any efforts, domestically, that are going on to assist earthquake victims. Any foreigner who does so is crossing the line............

Rest assured quite a few Pakistanis, civilian and military are working day and night to assist in relocating people. If you have ever been to that area you will know that it is impossible to relocate people in much of that area, without a massive large scale helicopter fleet. Which no other country, than the USA, possesses.

There are soldiers, literally, carrying people on their backs, to relocate them. There are helicopter pilots flying 12 hours a day, in some of the most dangerous terrians in the world. And there are doctors working without sleep in those areas.

The way Pakistanis of all types, rushed into Kashmir, after the earthquake, was unprecendented. I didn`t see anyone rushing into New Orleans, after Katrina. Or in various other disasters.

On the whole, I would say the Pakistanis in Pakistan have done quite a bit more to relocate Kashmiris, than any of us have done. Based on that, I think one should either lead, follow or get out of the way, i.e. one should either help or keep quiet and not badmouth people who are helping and working............

I personally think, the reaction to this earthquake, from all Pakistanis, was Pakistan`s (of all types and professions) finest hour. At least, in my lifetime. All the myths about Pakistan being divided along ethnic and religious lines have been sent to their graves. Karachi has nothing to do with Kashmir, helped the most!!

The Pakistani English press has tried to belittle this. But I think they have been unsuccessful.

I think the money received, from other countries` will be proportional to the money received for other earthquakes, like Gujurat, Turkey and Iran. In the end, Pakistanis will have to handle this, themselves. And I think they will do fine...........I don`t know a single person in Pakistan, from my very old father, to my siblings (to me), to my friends in the Army who are flying choppers, to my friends in the Air Force who are flying C-130s, to my civilian doctor friends, to the media, to entertainers, to big business houses, to maulvis to anyone else, who hasn`t done something.........

Do let me know of any other disaster, where literally every person one knows did something to help.........Not just sending 100 dollars to Oxfam, but physically helping.............

Indo-Pak History via Mail Dost-mittar #365: ``If Mahmood Ghazanavi, after slaughtering masses and demolishing places of worship, had expressed remorse and embraced a faith which renounced all types of violence, he would also perhaps be an Indian hero. Just a thought!``

Had Mahmood Ghaznavi simple switched from Islam to Hinduism, I think he would have been declared a hero by Indian historians. He would not have had to do anything else. He could have kept on invading and looting and conquering to his heart`s desire, after that. He could have kept on killing Hindus, in each invasion. And still he would be declared a hero........

Do keep in mind that Akbar, after founding his Din-e-Illahi kept invading and conquering other provinces, and, ``civilizations.`` As far as I know, one conquers through an Army, and invasions, which result in many people getting killed. Considering how much Akbar expanded his empire (moreso than Ghaznavi), one would guess he killed more than his fare share of Hindus. To the best of my knowledge, only Aurangzeb after him, expanded the Mughal empire, at similar levels. Hence, Shah Jehan and Jehangir probably killed fewer Hindus than Akbar did. Yet Akbar is a, ``hero`` in India..........Why?......I think it is because he moved away from Islam, towards Hinduism, and that is the criteria that is used.......Whether he conquered and invaded people, including Hindus, seems to be a secondary consideration........

Ashoka did the same. He conquered, killed and invaded. Didn`t he continue expanding his empire and controlling it, even after he became a Bhuddhist? Simply converting to Bhuddhism should be neither here nor there. After all, Japanese were Bhuddhists and look what they did in WWII. Such things only appeal to people who are centered around religious conversions, as their ideas for greatness..........

Being an Indian, ``hero,`` one would hope, should not be dependent on how much one distances himself from Islam and what religion one adapts. That seems to be the criteria that I see amongst Indian interactors and historians. That is the criteria used by Muslim historians, for Muslim invaders. And I admit to that. However, one would like to see some admittance on the Indian side also..........

Also one needs to get out of this mentality of, ``Indian`` heroes. There was no India, until 55 years ago. One could be a Bihari hero, or Afghani hero, or Kashmiri hero, or Tamil hero, at best. But where in the world did this, ``Indian`` hero come from? Keeping that criteria in mind, Ashoka could at best, if one forgets all his sins, and highlights all his virtues, be considered a Bihari hero..............In terms of being an, ``Indian`` hero, he was about as much of an Indian hero as Alexander the Great (who is also called Great, for no apparent reason, other than invading and conquering and killing others.......)

Indo-Pak History via Mail Following are some of the myths and inaccuracies I have noticed that have been spread, without any factual basis:

Bolta_aina #338: ``Asoka is revered in India.....because he had a change in heart during the Battle of Kalinga where he could not convince himself of the death and destruction caused by the war.``

This is inaccurate. Ashoka kept ruling over, and I assume expanding his empire after Kalinga. Hence he remained an invader. He simply denounced any more slaughters of the type in Kalinga, and became a Bhuddhist. He went from being a brutal invader to a more benevolent one. But an invader, just the saem. One cannot conquer and invade and rule without death and destruction. I think he is revered because he was the first Hindu (turned Bhuddhist) ruler to rule over the complete Sub-Continent. And thus fits nicely as a hero, in Indian history, after Mahabharta.

One cannot slaughter 100,000 people, invade every inch of the land, and then declare one`s self a pacifist. It`s like Hitler becoming a pacifist after WWII.........

ballukhan #340: ``Pakistani official history is as laughable``

Pakistan`s official history is only 55 years old. And is hence generally ok. It is what Pakistanis are taught about pre-Pakistan history that can be laughable. But a lot of Pakistanis acknowledge that. The problem is that it is difficult to get Indians to acknowledge the fact that the history they are taught is quite laughable as well. The former glorifies Muslims, the later glorifies Hindus......

Anil #313: ``Akbar (hardly Hindu and certainly Muslim) as two genuine Emperors of India.``

I don`t think Akbar was a Muslim. He founded his own religion called Din-e-Ilahi. He had many Hindu wives, as well.

There is nothing I can see in his background which would exalt him to the status that has been bequethed on him by various Indian scholars than the fact that he switched religions, or founded a new one. Amongst other things, he also invaded six different provinces of South Asia and conquered them. He was thus an invader. He was another invading king, who perhaps loved arts and other things. In all those invasions, I wouldn`t be surprised if he killed more Hindus than Ghauri and Ghaznavi did.......

It comes back down to religion again. Had Ghaznavi converted to Hinduism or Bhuddhism, after all his invasions, all his sins would have been forgiven, and he would have been raised to the same level of magnificence by Indian historians. And he would have been denounced by Muslim historians..........

All these guys from Ashoka to Akbar to Aurangzeb etc. were all invading kings, expanding their empires. Nothing more. They are painted as heroes and villians based on their religion and the religion of the individuals debating them.

Which brings me back to the whole point I have been trying to make. Muslims and Hindus, in South Asia, take a very religious-specific view of their history and heroes. While many Pakistani Muslims are now willing to acknowledge this, it is difficult to find Indian Hindus who are willing to acknowledge it as well...........

To me Ashoka is a foreign invader who invaded Punjab, Taxila etc. - areas where I currently live - and killed people there. As is Ghaznavi. And any South Asian, who is willing to take a non-religious view of history, along with a view that recognizes the fact that South Asia has always been many civilizations, and not just one Hindu (read Indian) civilization, has to acknowledge all these people as invaders - be they Ashoka or Akbar or Ghaznavi............

Indo-Pak History via Mail Anil #313: ``There is some contradiction in Indian position, just in your position``

Could you highlight the contradiction in my position. I am simply saying that anyone who invaded any of the civilizaitions, outside their own, in South Asia, should be considered an invader. Regardless of religion. If a Bihair Hindu invaded Punjab, he should be considered an invader. As much as if an Afghani Muslim invaded Punjab.

I am basically trying to highlight the contradiction in the stances of our Indian colleagues, who consider Hindus to not be invaders, in South Asia, and Muslims to be invaders. Primarily because they consider India to, historically, be some kind of a unified Hindu civilization.

``Where do you place Druse, Christian Arabs, and Sephardic Jews if religion is the basis from Pakistan to Turkey continumm of Islam.``

I don`t think you have followed all my comments. I don`t think religion is a main factor in civilization. That is my whole point. I don`t think people from Pakistan to Turkey are one civilization. I think they have a common religious link. But they don`t have other common characteristics of a civilization, like language, physical features, culture etc.

In fact, this is exactly what amazes me about the arguments of various Indian interactors on this site, who seem to regard all of India as one historical civilization. Based on what? Based simply on the fact that everyone was a Hindu.

India is a very new phenomenon. Historically South Asia was like Europe, an area of many civilizations, with one religion...........Is that religion enough to consider it one civilization. Idon`t think so.

Indo-Pak History via Mail kaalchakra #320: ``So obviously there is something completely different about Ashoka that we are talking about.``

Hmm....So if a person slaughters 100,000 Hindus, and invades the length and breadth of South Asia, with his armies, conquering whatever Hindu (or Bhuddhist) is in front of him, there is something, ``completely different`` about him. Could you highlight what that completely different factor happens to be.......

Perhaps you can accept the fact that historians have created myths around various people, based on their religions, to paint them as heroes and villians. Which is why many Pakistanis consider Ghaznavi some sort of a hero, while many Hindus consider Ashoka one.........

There is nothing completely different about Ashoka. The facts are right in front of everyone. The guy killed and invaded and slaughtered as much (in fact moreso) than any king of his, or future, time. He has just been turned into a romantic figure, by looking at one aspect of his life, while completely ignoring any other. If you want to consider him to be completely different, then why complain when others consider Ghaznavi, Ghauri and Aurangzeb to be completely different.......After all, according to certain people, Ghaznavi and Aurangzeb had some completely different qualities about them.........Let me ask you the following questions.......

- Suppose Ashoka had been a Muslim, and had lived the exact same life he lived. Would he be such a hero in India, due to his, ``completely different`` qualities?

- What are the ``completely different,`` under which one can kill and conquer South Asians?

Indo-Pak History via Mail kaalchakra #307: ``Romair...Ashoka is presented as a hero not only in some parts of India, but in all of civilized world!!``

If this is the only argument you can present, then I am afraid it is a weak argument. Most of the world has no clue who Ashoka is, other than some historians. He is mostly an unknown entity outside India.......Apparently, even hamidm mian doesn`t know who he is (or was)

However, being known as anything - good or bad - does not make someone good or bad. What makes someone good or bad is an objective study of history. Basing it on one principle. Go tell anyone in the civilized or uncivilized world, if a person who killed 100,000 people in a slaughter is of a high moral standard, and see what kind of answer you get. Now if you never tell them that, and continue making love story based movies about him, then they may have a different view.......

But those of us who do know these stories, which includes all Indians, should know better. They should specifically know better if they regularly complain about people, unnecessarily associating themselves with civilizations, based on religion. And even more specifically, if they constantly complain about South Asia being invaded.

Anyone who consistently complains about the various civilizations in South Asia being invaded by foreigners - be they from Bihar or Afghanistan - can, under no circumstance, claim the biggest invader of them all - Ashoka and his family - to be heroes. If they do so, then they are contradicting their own argument. Why not then claim Mohd Bin Qasim and Babur and Ghauri and Ghaznavi as hereos? To the best of my knowledge, none of them slaughtered 100,000 Hindus at any one time.........

Try to objectively look at the facts, based on one principle. Not what is taught to you in school or in Bollywood movies.........

Anways, I simply used Ashoka as an example. The point was that our Indian colleagues view South Asia, historically, as a Hindu Ummah, with one civilization, based on the common link of Hinduism. And view their heroes and villians based on that. A Muslim conquerer being an invader. While a Hindu conquerer is a uniter.

Granted Muslims view the history in a similar manner. But some of us, amongs the Muslim community (like me) are willing to acknowledge this. Why aren`t there people in the Hindu community (or at least on this site) who acknowledge this also?

Just out of curiousity, do you consider it wrong for Hindus in one province of South Asia, historically, to invade other provinces and conquer them. Or do you reserve that dislike only for Muslim invaders?.....i.e. if a Gujarati Hindu conquered Punjab, is he as bad as an Afghani Muslim who conquered Punjab, in your book?

Indo-Pak History via Mail kaalchakra #298: ``If you think the life histories of Ashoka and Gaznavi are distorted, you are most welcome to explain how. What is it that you know that the rest of us don`t?``

I am not saying the life histories of Ashoka and Ghaznavi are distorted. What I am stating is that it is as stupid to present Ashoka as a hero of some sort, in all of India, as it is to present Ghaznavi as one. It is even more stupid for actresses like Kareena Kapoor to act in movies dedicated to him, when she shares more in common with Ghaznavi than with him, and both invaded her hometown........

I also think it is ridiculous to use Ashoka`s symbols, by India, as a national symbol. When he invaded the whole place. As wrong as it would be for Pakistan to name their missiles after Ghaznavi............

Yet so many, in fact, all of our Indian colleauges have no problem with a Bihari invading their lands, and conquering and killing their ancestors. But they do have a problem with an Afghani doing so? Why?

The only reason I can think of is becuase the Afghani was a Muslim and the Bihari was a Hindu-turned- Bhuddhist. Which brings me back to my original argument. I think Indians, unnecessarily try to turn South Asia into some sort of a historical civlization based on the concept of a Hindu Ummah, i.e. since everyonen`s ancestors were Hindu, at some point, hence everyone was one group. And if one of this group, wanted to get up in Bihar, and invade the area from one side to the other, he is a uniter and not an invaders. As long as he was Hindu. However, if he got up from the other end of South Asia, invaded in the opposite direction, and happened to be a Muslim, then he is an invader......

You need to make up your mind. Either use religion as a criteria for both Hindus and Muslims. Or do not use it as a criteria for either........I think both Ashoka and Ghaznavi were invaders. And should not be glorified. Hindi speaking residents dancing to the beats of Ashoka - a movie about someone who conquered them, is as odd as Urdu speaking residents dancing to the beats of Ghaznavi. Luckily the later movie has not been made........

Unless, of course, we assume that India is, historically, some sort of a Hindu civilization, just because its inhabitants were Hindu. Kind of like a Hindu Ummah, i.e. religion is a defining factor of civilization when Hinduism is concerned. In which case, why do our Indian colleagues complain about Paksitanis looking towards a civilization based on Islam.........Quite the double standard, if you ask me..............

Indo-Pak History via Mail hamidm mian #272: ``.......... who is ashoka and how is he relevant today ? is he related to our bihari prime minister short-cut shaukat aziz ? ............ did he invent the bihari kebab ? ....... if he didn`t then he is not worth talking about .........``

Ashoka, along with his father, was the most aggressive invader and conquerer South Asia has ever seen. His family partnered with the invading Greeks and took over their local area. Then they started from Bihar, massacring Orissa (like no one since has ever done). And within two generations (sixty years or so) had conquered more of South Asia than the Muslim invaders could in 800 years. Or the Christian Brit invaders could do in 200 years. He even conquered Afghanistan and portions of Iran...........

And he beat up quite heavily on the Hindu ancestors of us Islamabadis................

He is about as relevant today as Ghaznavi. The reason we are talking about him is to highlight the double standards in the arguments presented on this site, which consider all of South Asia to be one homogenous historical civilization, because everyone was a Hindu. While simultaneously complaining about Pakistanis looking West towards Saudi Arabia and Turkey, because they are Muslim.........

It is quite possible that Ashoka invented the Bihari kabab. He is the most famous warrior ever produced from Bihar. Other than M. M. Alam, the second most famous son of Bihar, who shot down five Indian planes in less than thirty seconds, thereby setting a world record.

P.S. Ashoka is apparently considered a hero in present-day India. Not sure why, but he is. He is considered a hero in Orissa also, who use his tri-headed cerberus symbol as their national symbol. Despite the fact that he slaughtered their ancestors. Much like Ghaznavi is considered a hero in Peshawar and Lahore.........

As I have always stated to our Indian colleagues, there is no doubt in my mind that us Pakistanis are fools. The point I have always made is that Indians are equally big fools. The only difference is that most Pakistanis are able to look back and laugh at their foolishness. One would like our Indian colleagues to develop this trait also. Rather than attempting to present Pakistanis as fools and themselves as Einsteins..........

Indo-Pak History via Mail kaalchakra #271: ``But forget about Hindus, Muslims, or even Buddhists -- find out what others think.``

What others think is based on the distorted history that is taught to them. Be they in India or in Pakistan. Be they Hindus or Muslims. If they truly want to study history, they should do so objectively following one principle for everyone........

I think our Indian colleagues on this site object to Pakistanis considering themselves a part of some Islamic civilization, which extends from Pakistan to Turkey. Our Indian colleagues base this on the argument that religion does not constitute a civilization.

One can consider this a valid argument. Religion only contributes to a religious linkage. It is not the core factor of a civlization. It is only a contributory factor, from a civilizational point of view. No doubt I have more in common with an Indian Punjabi than with a Turkish Muslim or a with a Tamil Muslim. However, this same argument should be applied to Hindus in South Asia also; including Hindu invaders. This is where this argument is set aside by our Indian colleagues.....

Why?

India is presented as some sort of a historic civilization, where it was ok for a Hindu king to invade from one end to the other, killing, raping and pillaging Hindus, like no other. Ashoka could go from Bihar to Taxila and invade every inch of the area, however, he is of good moral character. What kind of a person can be of good moral character, who invades every inch of an area........

The only reason he and other Hindu invaders are presented as heroes is because they are Hindu. South Asia is, thus, presented as some sort of a giant civilization, because everyone there was a Hindu. A sort of Hindu ummah of sorts. Terms like, ``good moral character`` are used to replace the fact that the person was a Hindu.......

Anyone who slaughters 100,000 innocent people during the time when the population of South Asia was probably barely in the low millions is a butcher. He is not of, ``good moral character.`` He should have been prosecucted, not hailed as a hero. If he then goes out and conquers South Asia from one end to other, he is of ever weaker moral character............

One needs to apply the same rules to Hindu invaders of South Asia as one does to Mohd Bin Qasim and Ghaznavi. All of these people had one interest: spread their empire, at the expense of locals...........

However, Muslims and Hindus read their history differently, based on the religion of the invader. While our Indian colleagues somewhat correctly present this argument in case of Muslim invaders. They go out of their way to use the exact opposite argument in case for Hindus. And the only reason I can see, on the basis of which such arguments are presented, is because, they view all of South Asia as some sort of a Hindu civilization............i.e. all South Asians are similar, because they, or their ancestors were Hindu...........One cannot think of a more non-factual argument.......

Indo-Pak History via Mail kaalchakra #262: ``One likes Ashoka or Ghaznavi, not because one is Hindu or Muslim, but because of the moral character one possesses (or lacks).``

This is not true. I think the Hindu and Muslim factor has quite a lot to do with it. Unless, of course, you assume that Muslims like people because of their being Muslims. While Hindus like people on the basis of moral character..........

There is actually very little historical info available on Ashoka, other than some edicts written on rocks. Hence, any picture painting him to be of high (or low) moral character, is suspicious at best. He has been painted into such a figure, because he was a Hindu-turned Bhuddhist. Rest assured, had he been a Muslim, he would not have been painted like that.....

What is known are the lands he invaded and conquered. Let`s take a look at what he did:

- He carried out a massacre in Kalinga - present day Orissa. A massacre so brutal, that the person carrying out the massacre himself, Ashoka, was affected by it, to the point that he switched his religion. He had basically massacred the Hindu residents of Orissa. If nothing else, those in Orrisa should dislike him..........They should not accept any of his symbols being a part of the Indian govts. official symbols..... (like the tri-headed cerberus)

- Ashoka invaded all of South Asia. Him and his family invaded more of South Asia than any ruler before or after. Does that indicate good, ``moral`` character? Is invasion ever moral? If it is, then the invasion of South Asia, by anyone, including the Brits and Muslims, should be considered moral.

- Ashoka invaded Taxila to, ``quell`` an uprising. His family conquered Taxila (present-day Islamabad). As a current resident of that area, why in the world, and how in the world can I consider Ashoka`s actions to be moral. When armies invade and conquer, then do a lot of killing. They don`t just walk in casually. Ashoka crushed the uprising of local Taxila residents, with an, ``iron fist.`` A Bihari killing present-day Punjabis. Is that moral in your book?

- Ashoka and his family invaded land of Afghanistan and conquered them, far before the Afghanis started invading the Sub-Continent. He conquered them first.

If you want to study history, study it objectively. Study it through facts, not through the religion, of the individual. Use a consistent rule: anyone who invaded others is doing something immoral. People don`t invade others for moral reasons. Be they Mohd Bin Qasim or Ashoka........

Indo-Pak History via Mail Following is from Wikipedia:

`` Kalinga was a state that prided itself on its sovereignty and democracy; with its monarchical-cum-parliamentary democracy, it was quite an exception in ancient Bharata, as there existed the concept of Rajdharma, meaning the duty of the rulers, which was intrinsically entwined with the concept of bravery and Kshatriya dharma.

The pretext for the start of the Kalinga War (265 BC or 263 BC) is uncertain. One of Susima`s brothers might have fled to Kalinga and found official refuge there. This enraged Ashoka immensely. He was advised by his ministers to attack Kalinga for this act of treachery. Ashoka then asked Kalinga`s royalty to submit before his supremacy. When they defied this diktat, Ashoka sent one of his generals to Kalinga to make them submit.

The general and his forces were, however, completely routed through the skilled tactics of Kalinga`s commander-in-chief. Ashoka, baffled at this defeat, attacked with the greatest invasion ever recorded in Indian history until then. Kalinga put up a stiff resistance, but they were no match for Ashoka`s brutal strength. The whole of Kalinga was plundered and destroyed: Ashoka`s later edicts say that about 100,000 people were killed on the Kalinga side and 10,000 from Ashoka`s army; thousands of men and women were deported.

Indo-Pak History via Mail Ashoka and Ghaznavi:

---

I recently saw an ad for a movie called, Ashoka, starring Shahrukh and Kareena. It got me thinking. How come there isn`t a movie on Ghaznavi? I would like to suggest such a movie.

Why you may ask?

Ashoka was the biggest conqueror in the history of the Sub-Continent. He conquered more of the Sub-Continent than the Muslim conquerers and even the British. In fact, the Sub-Continent in its thousands of years history, was only one country, under Ashoka and the Brits.

Ashoka is a very popular figure all over India. While Ghaznavi, though somewhat popular in Pakistan, is hated in India. Why, I would like to ask? Why isn`t Ashoka hated in India? Is it because he was not a Muslim? Ashoka moved into and conquered areas of Afghanistan, before Ghaznavi moved in and conquered areas of the Indus and Ganga. Ashoka, at Kalinga, carried out a bigger massacre of Hindus, than anything Ghaznavi ever carried out. The massacre was so huge, that Ashoka, himself, was psychologically, affected by it. Ashoka conquered and enslaved, far more of South Asia than Ghaznavi ever could. Or anyone ever could.

Ashoka is, in fact, the biggest invader of South Asia in its history........

Then why is Kareena Kapoor wearing tiny skirts and paying homage to him. Kareena Kapoor the proud Pathan daughter of a proud Pathan father. A proud grand-daughter of the proud Pathan Raj Kapoor. Who is the proud Pathan son of a proud Pathan Prithviraj (though born near Faisalabad, but graduate of proud Pathan King Edwards College), whose proud Pathan house still stands in proud Peshawar, even today......

Kareena Kapoor is, infact, from the same family tree as Ghaznavi. Shouldn`t she be paying homage to Ghaznavi? So, why are Pathans (even if they are Hindus) making movies in honor of Ashoka, when he came and kicked the butts of their ancestors, and conquered the hell out of them? And most of all, why are our Indian colleagues in Delhi and Amritsar and UP and Bombay dancing to the songs of the movie, Ashoka, when he invaded, conquered and killed their ancestors. And if that wasn`t enough, why is Bollywood, making movies about a Bihari invader of their lands, Ashoka, in Hindi language, in the first place?

Based on this, I have reached two conclusions:

1. People - Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Jews etc - view and read and interpret history based on their religion. Had Ashoka been a Muslim, he would not be considered a hero in India. He would not be considered as a, ``uniter`` of India. But an invader and conqueror (which is what he was), much like Ghauri and Ghaznavi. His movie would have been titled Ashoka: The Muslim butcher of Kalinga. Not in Ashoka the hero of India. And most of all, proud Pathans like Kareena Kapoor, whose ancestors Ashoka`s armies destroyed, would not be dancing in movies, dedicated to him..........

2. Based on the above, should Pakistan make a movie on Ghaznavi? And should Meera star in it, even though her own Sheikhupura ancestors were conquered and and destroyed by Ghaznavi? And should people in Peshawar be dancing to the songs of Ghaznavi: the movie?

Echoes Chowk Staff #:``This space should, however, be treated as a `Letter to the Ed` with suggestions/comments``

Here is a suggestion. I think Chowk needs to add more sex to its conntent. It already has the violence part handled. I suggest a, ``Chowk babe of the week`` section. As well as a, ``Men of Chowk`` yearly beach calendar..........

Echoes I would like to nominate the joint team of Urstruly and hamidm mian as the Co-editors in Chief of Chowk (CEiCoC...pronounced Chee-Cok). They live close to each other, have a, ``play hard to get`` affinity for each other, and have very strong, though opposing, views regarding the world. And most importantly they are, both, completely convinced, of the ultimate correctness of their world-view......The ying and the yang.......The zig and the zag........Their views, though extremely dangerous individually, balance out quite nicely when viewed jointly...............And I think hamid mian has a fascinating crush on Urstruly......

Will have to wait to see how Farzana will do.........But I, for one, will be quite sad to see the current editor@chowk.com leave. Whomever it may have been........he/she/they went out of their way to be nice to me......I was treated like the teacher`s pet.......everything i submitted, got published - including stuff that sucked even more than pieces temporal has been authoring recently........i once made changes, seven times, to something i submitted, and chowk staff incorporated every change!! And not a single one of my replies was ever deleted. And I was never asked to stand in the corner for two days, like Samina shah and Salim_Ch were, despite my making rude comments......

Based on this, I came to a conclusion, a long time ago, that Chowk Staff is, secretly, in love with me. Or, at least, has a big crush on me......Like all the Indian girls in my office.......

Anyways, Chowk Staff(s), thanks for the memories........All of you did a great job. This is the only Pakistani site I know, which lasted more than two years.........

For Chowk Staff

---

ab ke ham bichhray to shaayad kabhii Khvaaboon mein milein
jis tarah suukhe hue phuul kitaaboon mein milein

DhoonNDh ujraye hue logoon mein vafaa ke motii
ye Khazaane tujhe mumkin hai Kharaaboon mein milein

tuu Khudaa hai na meraa ishq farishtoon jaisaa
donoon insaaN hain to kyoon itnae hijaaboon mein milein

Gam-e-duniyaa bhii Gam-e-yaar mein shaamil kar lo
nashaa ba.Dataa hai sharabein jo sharaaboon mein milein

aaj ham daar pe kheinche gaye jin baatoon par
kyaa ajab kal vo zamaane ko nisaaboon mein milein

ab na vo main huuN, na tu hai, na vo maazii hai, `Faraaz`,
jaise do shaKhs tamannaa ke saraaboon mein milein

A Place Like No Other? This article is quite amatuerish.........

There is an easy way to figure out which country is the best place to live. Take a look at the HDI scale. That is prepared by professionals after a lot of research.......

It is true that USA is not the best place to live in the world. Since the scale has started, Canada stands at the top, alone. It was no 1. for seven straight years. However, the USA is in the top ten. And has consistently been in the top 5.

In the end, one has to go beyond rhetoric, and simply look at the direction in which people migrate. Pakistanis and Indians migrate to USA in a hearbeat. And they both migrate to UAE in a heartbeat, as well.......And quite a few, from both countries migrate to Saudi Arabia, as well.......

The USA does have its problems in massive human rights violations and massive killings overseas. On average, it attacks one country every two years. But that is not included in domestic Human Development Index...

I would agree that in comparison to the rest of the Western civlization, the USA`s position is slowly declining. This is indicated by its downward movement on the HDI. Interestingly Canada is no longer no 1 either. It is now down to no. 4. Apparently now, over the past three years, Norway is the best place, along with Australia............

Where are Pakistan and India - 135 and 127 respectively. Though the manner in which our Indian colleagues have been commenting, India will at no. 5 in about three years :-)