February 18th, 2008-Election Day Re: # 264
by dot_dash
// howdy do to sri chaitanya or have you lost touch with him....//

I've been hibernating for several months i'm afraid... last seen a year ago, chaitanya was his usual uncoordinated self... managed to get lost in Lodhi Gardens.

February 18th, 2008-Election Day Re: # 259
posted by zeemax

//You seem to be new//

Hardly.

Name: Aha_Snark
Member Since: 27 Sep 2002
Interacts: 157

Moreover, the server burp and the "new" ids, I used to have another account where I posted in about '99-2000.

February 18th, 2008-Election Day I would like to come out my years-long lurking and, as an Indian, congratulate the people of Pakistan on this election. I am particularly pleased that Ayaz Amir won in Chakwal, and that too by a massive margin. I hope he will find the time to continue his column.

I certainly hope and expect that Aitzaz Ahsan and others like Kurd are freed and that regardless of Benazir's startling jealousy and fear of the capital Ahsan earned by being a central force of the lawyers' agitation, he wil be given a ministerial portfolio, if not the Prime Ministership (one can only hope).

Moreover, it's really heartening to see an election where religious hardliners are roundly defeated. It is almost as sweet as it was in India. It is a welcome slap in the face of all those (including a vocal group of Indian posters) who pointed to Saharan Africa and the Midde East and said that Muslims would always vote fundamentalists into power.

Questions:
1. Are there any strong differences which would work against the ANP allying itself with the PPP ?

2. Despite it's party motto being "Realism and Practicalism (sic)", will the MQM ally itself with the PPP after it sided with the government and against the lawyers in Karachi?

2a. How likely are substantial defections from the PML(Q) to the PML(N) ? Could they be strong enough to give the PML(N) the majority or make it the single largest party?

3. The PML(N) has campaigned against the military operation on the Lal Masjid, the 'Global War on Terror' and the ongoing operations in the NWFP, while the PPP has come out strongly in favour of a continuing struggle against extremism. Are the operations in the NWFP likely to continue at the same strength?

3a. What is the extent to which Pakistan can currently defy America ? Musharraf defied them on access to AQ Khan and appeared to defy them on NATO operations on Pakistani soil (never mind the air). Is US access to A Q Khan even remotely forseeable ? However, will he ever be released, given what he knows ?

4. Given the economic condition which Pakistan finds itself in, with food and energy shortages and blackmarketeering, is there any likelihood of the next budget reducing defense spending in order to make up for a more guaranteed availability of basic commodities ?

5. Assuming a PPP-led government that would have to ally itself with the PML(N), two most strange bedfellows, what change, if any, can we expect on laws such as the Hudood Ordinances and PPC Ss. 295A & C (outraging religious feelings, i.e, blasphemy and Ahmedis not Muslims) ?

6. How likely is the new government to revoke the overarching powers of PEMRA, given that it is now in the driving seat and that NS, at least, has ordered crackdowns on journalists, such as the one against Najam Sethi, editor, Friday Times ?

7. With NS and Zardari having to cohabit, will NAB be shelved or will it just get new targets ?

8. If the judiciary has to be restored, what will happen to the cases against Zardari that were being heard and were suspended under the NRO ? If the judiciary is not restored, how can one expect a ruling against the ordinances passed by Musharraf ? If the judiciary is not restored, it will be difficult for Musharraf to be impeached under the current constitution - resolution has to be approved by 2/3 of joint sitting of Parliament.

9. Benazir and Nawaz Sharif made conciliatory noises about India-Pakistan relations while they were in exile and have spoken about greater cooperation. At the same time, there are those (such as Ayaz Amir) who feel that Pakistan has ceded too much to India. What, if any, are the short-term policy changes that might be announced? Given status quo on Kashmir, is there broad support for reconciliation with India ? Is there broad support for cancellation of the detente with India ? Will I ever be able to visit Pakistan on a proper tourist visa *smile* ?

Anyway, as cautious as history and my past dashed hopes keep on telling me to be, and as arduous as the road ahead is, may I be infected enough by optimism to say to the awaam at this election,

Pakistan Zindabad!

And please, zeemax, do let me know which category of posters I fall into.

Varanasi Explodes Re: # 90
re: MantoLives

Yasser, Hi. You said ``Ramanujan is a staunch Gandhian``. How?

Varanasi Explodes Re: # 79
re: Ramanujan:
#73 by Aha_Snark

Really, WHICH policies and declared programmes?
Could you kindly list them? And kindly cite your sources.

No. A list of the policies of the Sangh that I oppose is not relevant in a discussion on your criminal conduct.

Then you should be able to take legal action against me.

Believe me, if you publicly called for the bombing of mosques, I wouldn`t have to file a complaint - especially at a time such as this, the police would jump on you for trying to ignite communal violence.


I am making fun of people exploiting a word (saccular) they know nothing about.

Either your spelling of secular is wrong or you`re deliberately trying to misspell it to poke fun at the way some Indians speak. Which is it ?

Sarcasm is the last resort of impotents.

Hilarious. So when you`re being sarcastic in Post #11, or post #108, what should one conclude?

Will you be on the frontlines then? Standing up for what you believe (so strongly) ? ]

Just because I think it`s okay to do something, does not mean I personally have to do it.

So you strongly call for *someone* to make the statements that you`ve made in a publicly identifiable manner. Just not you, eh? And this means that you won`t be taking part in the yatras or the bandhs, eh ?

Don`t keep arguing for the sake of arguing. You cannot identify the community that aided and abetted the terrorists in 50 minutes.

Yet you`re sure that that community has mosques and that those mosques are in India somewhere.

I didn`t realize you`re parthaab. And the ``sigh`` thing is very gay. Try not to do it.

I`m not parthaab. And I don`t really care if you think my sighs are gay.

A community can (not DOES, but CAN) mean a few families living in close proximity toi each other.

And the entire family should pay, right ? Because even foetuses, infants and the infirm were aiding and abetting the bombers, right? And the mosque that they go to is attended only by them, right ? And completely uninvolved co-religionists will, unlike you, not get incensed by a bombing. Right?

This is a touch gay. Are you a woman?

You`re really entertaining.

Then try. The first person to be netted under that law would be Muslim luminaries of all shapes and stripes that took part in protests like the Cartoon riots and many before that.

That`s your opinion. And if, along with you, other people who make inflammatory, illegal statements punishable by law were proceeded against, I`d be quite happy.

Ah, a commie. That explains it.

Wrong again. But you wouldn`t understand.

I know who or what is responsible. It`s people like you.

Hilarious as always.

I don`t know. Are you a woman?

All this sounds so gay.

And ``bomb the mosques`` sounds... ?

I started responding to you because I thought you were dangerous and needed to be countered. I was wrong. You`re not that dangerous at all.

So cheers,

Aha_Snark

Varanasi Explodes Re: # 61
re: Ramanujan

It is interesting to see you ``secularists`` rush to defend the ``community`` as opposed to ``individuals within the community`` when it is Muslims who are the accused. When it is Hindus, you take out the big wide brush - VHP, RSS, Gujrati Hindus etc.

I`m responsible for my statements and mine alone. I take no responsibility for the ones that are made by any others. Gujrati Hindus are just like any other group of people in the world: some are tall, some are short. Some are fat, some are thin. Some do stuff I like, some do stuff I don`t like. End of story. As far as the VHP and the RSS go, as organisations, I`m against their policies and declared programmes.

I did say that IF we know which community gave shelter and support to the terrorists.

Irrelevant. You`ve called for the bombing of a place of worship. In order to ``send the right message``. My point is that in my opinion, and based on the grounds I have advanced above, such a statement is illegal.


It is neither evil nor abhorrent. With the current ``saccular`` government in power...

Funny. You make fun of Indians` pronounciation. No doubt your own diction is crystal clear and BBC perfect.

...there would be another Bannerjee commission, and the report would indicate that the devotees accidentally set off their own bomb inside the temple. And tomorrow there would be another bomb in another Hindu place of worship, then another, and another - and ``saccularists`` would be sitting splitting hairs over Bannerjee commission reports.

You get FutureTV, I see. What a nice cablewallah you have.

In post # 59, I asked
``Do you have the courage to stand by the statements when lawful repercussions might fall on you?``

You replied:
If there is a bomb explosion in the Vatican, you`d see enough protesters all over the western world spouting various degrees of vitriol. In India, however, we are so cowed and afraid, that we are afraid to protest.

Speak for yourself. 1,00,000 people recently protested in Delhi. If you have such strong views but are will shy away from expressing them where you might be held accountable for them, that says a lot. Oh, and it`s not like Sanghis don`t protest either, as we`re sure to see today. Will you be on the frontlines then? Standing up for what you believe (so strongly) ?

Knee-Jerkism:

1. You say I have commented on your post ``in a knee jerk manner.`` If waiting for 50+ interacts, marshalling evidence with links and only then posting is being knee-jerk, then what would you call calling for the blowing up of mosques in less than 50 minutes after the first comment is posted ?

more:
Because Muslims always get justice - the Gujarat riots are being prosecuted, but Hindus never get any of the benefits of law and order.

Baseless. Would this change your mind?

You say
[3. I have not called for violence against you, despite my revulsion for your statements. ]

And I have not called for violence against you either - see your knee-jerk reaction?

You exhorted, less than 50 minutes after the first comment ``let`s fry parthaab``. I called your posts knee-jerk. In #55, you asked me to explain why my posts were not knee-jerk. In #59, I did. Again, you point to my knee-jerk reaction. Sigh.

I said AFTER we find out the community which was harboring the terrorists. Now of course you would say that ANYBODY under the sun could be responsible. But that would somehow exclude your close family circle now, would it not? Now WHY would that be?

An entire religious community cannot be responsible for a bombing. Or are you going to hold the Hindu community responsible for this one?

And as for my family circle, I was busy in the Batcave so I can`t vouch for them, no. Our dog Julie is smelling of plastic explosive, however - the police have taken her in for questioning.


Do you think you could prosecute me for posting what I did in any court of law?

What you did? What did you do? If you mean what you said, the answer is no, of course not, because a private citizen cannot prosecute criminal cases. I definitely do believe that the Union of India could prosecute you for calling for the blowing up of mosques. And in my original post, I`ve laid out the reasons for this belief.


And the interesting thing here is how you have managed to turn the focus ENTIRELY AWAY from your community, and npw we are talking here about how I am the one who is guilty.

Strange, isn`t it, how the Ummah operates?

My community? Ummah? If you think I`m a Muslim, think again.

And as for focussing on your guilt. Even if you set aside standards of humanity and common sense on one hand and the Chowk.com InterAct guidelines on the other, I believe your speech was violative of the Indian Penal Code - a criminal offense - one that you get to go to jail for. After having given you ample opportunity to rebut this proposition, you`ve not done so, despite trying persistently to prove some kind of ill-advised point with stuka on another thread, for which I see you have got the expected karara thappad. You have also not had the courage to even claim that you will take your speech to a place where, unlike Chowk, you might actually have to face real consequences for what you say.

At a time when the nation is tense, when the need of the hour is de-escalation, you try to fan the flames, before getting even an inkling of who or what is responsible.

Oh, and one more point about India. It`s a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic. Or at least it claims to be. Fight the elections. Win. Get a 2/3rds majority. Remove Socialist and Secular from the Preamble. Defeat the inevitable challenge in the Supreme Court.

You should make it back in time for the next episode on FutureTV.

Aha_Snark

Varanasi Explodes Re: # 55
re: Ramanujan:

You said: The communities that gave them shelter are guilty of criminal conspiracy. Blowing up their mosques is the LEAST we should do.

Inaccurate for several reasons. First of all, under law, a community cannot be guilty of a offense, only people can. That`s why, when, for example, someone commits a crime, you don`t put him and his parents (who brought him up) behind bars. Similarly, if someone is guilty of criminal conspiracy (and let us not forget that you don`t know who committed the crime) you do not and cannot punish the ``community`` to which that person belongs.

Secondly, coming to the question of punishment. Just like setting off a bomb in a temple full of devotees who have nothing to do with and have done nothing against the bomber is evil and abhorrent, blowing up a mosque for no better reason than the fact that your private investigation and assessment of the entire matter has shown that it`s the LEAST we can do is evil and abhorrent.

The punishment for the crime called ``waging war against the State`` is death or life imprisonment. Conspiracy to wage war against the State attracts life imprisonment.

Even if this heinous crime amounted only to criminal conspiracy, there`s a punishment for it and that punishment is not ``blow up the mosques``.


All right, you don`t want to picket the Legislature because ``India is not a democracy`` and because ``politics is run according to what the swing voters want.`` Would you then go out and express your views in public ? Say, march down M G Road (there`s bound to be one in your city somewhere (assuming you`re in India)) shouting slogans asking for mosques to be demolished. Or write an article and try and get it published, even in the Panchajanya. Do you have the courage to stand by the statements when lawful repercussions might fall on you?

In your post # 55 you asked ``YOU BETTER EXPLAIN TO ME WHY YOUR REACTION IS NOY(sic) KNEE JERK``

Well, here`s why:
1. I have not insulted you personally, but have commented on your statements.
2. I have laid out the grounds for my proposition using the law of the land, after conducting at least a modicum of research into the applicable law.
3. I have not called for violence against you, despite my revulsion for your statements.
4. I have not jumped to conclusions such as ``Community X or group Y is responsible for the bombings.``

Which brings me back to the point. I asked you whether you could explain to me why you were not guilty of several offences under the law of the land. You said ``
Ok, let me tell you. `` ``The communities that gave them shelter are guilty of criminal conspiracy. Blowing up their mosques is the LEAST we should do.``

Umm. And even if that were true, and I have shown why I think it to be not, saying that a community is guilty of criminal conspiracy in no way goes to show that you are not guilty of the various offenses. You have to show that your statement calling, among other things, for the blowing up of mosques is not a statement that

a) incites violence against a religious group
b) will hurt religious feelings
c) will promote enmity between Hindus and Muslims
d) is prejudicial to national integration

Aha_Snark

Varanasi Explodes Re: # 15

Re: # 15
re: Ramanujan # various

Not only are your reactions and statements ill considered, inflammatory, escalatory and kneejerk, they`re probably illegal. Consider.
Among other things, you`ve called for the destruction of places of worship. I`d say you might be guilty of hurting religious feelings, guilty of promoting enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion & doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony, guilty of making statements that are intended to incite offences against a community; guilty, under the same provision, of making statements that promote ``feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will`` between different religions and guilty of making statements prejudicial to national integration.

Do read the last link, it`s my favourite. Under that provision it is a crime, for example, to state that Muslims, by virtue of their being Muslims, be denied any rights as citizens of India.

So tell me, Ramanujan, could you explain why you are not guilty ? Would you care to picket the State Legislature or Parliament, holding a placard that reproduces what you`ve said on this board?

Catch the killers who planted the bombs and punish them heavily, according to the law. Reprisals against innocent people for attacks against innocent people are not only counterproductive and escalatory, they are AGAINST THE LAW.

Or do you not believe in the law ? Or do you believe only in a part of it ?

Aha_Snark

Anatomy of a Karachi Bomb Blast Re: # 55
re: masadi:

Hi. My original question was ``Am I allowed to say that Religion X is counter to the same notions of humanity because it places strictures on women and discriminates between women and men? ``

The point is not whether or not Religion X is discriminatory. I`m asking whether speech claiming such is a permissible part of discourse.

Anatomy of a Karachi Bomb Blast Re: # 47
re: masadi

Hi. Am I allowed to say that the caste system is repugnant to notions of humanity ? Am I allowed to say that Judaism places strong strictures on women and deems them inferior to men, and is therefore repugnant to the same notions of humanity? Am I allowed to say that Religion X is counter to the same notions of humanity because it places strictures on women and discriminates between women and men?

Can I make Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail ? Can I make Monty Python and the Life of Brian? Can I make Jaane bhi do Yaaron and insert a blindingly funny depiction of a revered indian religious text ? Am I Christophobic if I do so ? Hinduphobic ?

Are We The Most Racist Of Them All? Re: # 11
re: Zeena:

Pakistanis are not desi, eh ? Separate culture, don`t-group-one-with-the-other eh ? ``We do not call ourselves desis Well, I respect your impulse to try and ``... save our own identity based on our separate nation and country, called Pakistan.`` but I`d be a lot more convinced of a completely separate identity if language, religion, dress, movies, tv serials, food, poetry, literature, music, and even fashion styles did not overlap so much.

Oh, and I did a search on desis and pakistan. As I thought, there are many whose Pakistani identity will not automatically dissolve and become corrupt if they continue to use a word that has been in Urdu for generations.

And a funny article, too, on the usenet group soc.culture.pakistan

Zeena, no one is trying to assimilate your identity with the Indian one. The author has made a point about racism in India and in Pakistan. I asked if you have any comments on that. Your only contribution has been to point out that you are not desi, that Pakistani nationalism subsumes all concept of race and that casteism and racism are one and the same.

And yes, casteism and racism have significant overlap - but they are not the same. Person X of Y caste and person Z of W caste will often have to consider their differing castes before marriage, even if they look similar and have been living in the same area for generations.

Are We The Most Racist Of Them All? Re: # 6
re: bjkumar

Off the top of my head,

1. Make your displeasure known when your peers/co-workers/parents say something racist.
2. Remain alert for prejudices inside oneself.
3. Compel opinion makers to take public positions on race. Sustain the debate that ensues.

Wishful thinking:

1. Movies to be made that take strong positions on the issue, clearly breaking race taboos.
2. Break prevailing stereotypes in advertising. Can we finally get over Padosan?

Are We The Most Racist Of Them All? Re: # 7
re: Zeena

If you choose not to describe yourself as not being a desi, that`s your prerogative. *shrug* *roll eyes*. I believe the author of the article was referring to various racist practices that he believes are endemic to the societies of both India and Pakistan. And, as far as he`s concerned, he didn`t even address caste. nasah and I were the ones to bring up the issue of caste.

You say:

``Yes, I agree with you, there is too, much discrimination in India based upon cast system. Untouchables and high class hindus is a clear cut racist discrimination.``

You`re agreeing with a point that no one is making. The point of the article is not about caste discrimination in India - it`s about race bias in India AND Pakistan.

What, for example, are your views on race / colour discrimination in India / Pakistan ?

Are We The Most Racist Of Them All? Excellent article. I spent my early childhood in various parts of the country but have lived in Delhi from the ages of 7 to 17. A kaala Madrasi myself, I remember the shock I felt when some other 7 year old children of my age refused to play with me because I was too dark. And the how puzzled I was when, at 14, someone asked me what caste I was.

In college in Bangalore, I learnt very quickly about the slang ``CHOM``.

CHOM is quite a useful acronym - it refers to a concept in International Law called ``Common Heritage Of Mankind``. The intent was to refer to some people from the North as sort of a Dark Man`s Burden - they`re there, they`re illiterate, materialistic, misogynistic, uncultured and breeding like flies up north and we just have to cope with the drag on resources and peace they are.

CHOMs were people mainly from the North but it referred in the main to a state of mind. You could find South Indian or Marathi or Telugu choms, but you`d have to look.

My job places me in Delhi - the heart of CHOMLand as it`s called - and having lived in Bangalore and Calcutta and having visited Bombay and Madras frequently, I can say that the capital of Chom Land is the armpit of India.

While it`s got great food, excellent facilities, booming job opportunities, a vibrant cultural life and complete anonymity it`s also a highly communal, misogynistic, aggressive, casteist and racist hellhole.

What strikes me particularly about our dear capital, nestled lovingly in the lap of gentle Haryana, is that it`s marinated in the concept of Aukaat - Aukaat rules much of how Delhiites interact with each other - it`s an infernal calculus, derived, among other things, from the fairness of your skin, the accent with which you speak English, how much visible wealth you display, your job, the extent of your contacts and your caste. Aukaat describes how brutal / servile you can / should be to others and how servile / brutal they should / can be to you.

The South`s no land of milk and honey, either. Bangalore`s stifling and insular. Calcutta, close to dead, Madras ossified. And being one myself, I can state that Keralites or Malayalis are hypocritical, misogynistic and regard themselves as supercilious. Despite the MScs and PhDs that many of my female relatives hold, they`re still not treated as equals by their spouses.

And the acronym CHOM - racist, discriminatory, violent - of course. Some people claim it`s a defense mechanism or a ``reaction``. I`m not so sure.

Racism, colourism, sexism, communalism - all alive and well.

Mohammad Who? Re: # 79
Found it myself...

Mohammad Who? Re: # 126
re: Zeena:

In your post #76, you say that

The same news paper when was asked to publish Jesus Christ `s cartoons rejected the offer by saying ,``It is blesphamy, and we don`t hold this policy of disrespecting other`s religious figures.``

In post # 79, I asked you for sources for this claim of yours. Do you have any ?