Chowk@Five Happy Birthday!!!!!

Thank you, and many happy returns to the patient

and hard-working Chowk Staff.

Kant...

Interest Free Pakistan One important point about an interest-free-economy needs to be stated here. That is, at a macro-economy level, there are basically two economic tools available to any country`s administration (whether capitalistic, communistic, or theocratic) to control either inflationary or recessionary trends. These are, in Western parlance, FISCAL, and MONETARY.

In an economy akin to Pakistan where there is a significantly small tax-paying community, and, also, where the tax collection is erratic and unreliable, the fiscal measures are woefully inadequate and totally ineffective to stimulate the economy or restrain it. Furthermore, the propensity to consume of the main tax-paying group is admitedly very low, meaning no amount of tax-cut or tax-increase will affect the economy to make any positive or negative impact. This leaves one with the only available, but effective and manageable measures, namely monetary: in layman`s language, management through interest maneuvers. This is the Keynesian solution to the developed, and, more so, to the developing economies. Now, take interest away and you are left with no tools to fall back on. Even if rquity replaces interest, equity being more of a personal contract between the `borrower` & `lender`( U!, i.e., Hari and The Baniya to you), cannot be manipulated at the national level. BTW, (a digresion!) suppose Ali Beg borrows from Islamiya Paradise Bank for, say, six years. The new start-up ( you listening Umair!), losing or just b`even the first four years (therefore no equity!), pay back the capital at the end of the 4th and make a hafty profit in the 5th. What then? What does the Sharia say on that? Any help? Just wondered!

On a lighter note, when ``interest` is banned, can one still use the word `interest`, as in I am `interested` in you or my `interest` in this or that, vagaira! Shouldn`t it be `I am equited in you` or `this is awfully equiting!` What does the Chowk`s resident sage think!

More `equiting` thoughts later.

Kant...

The Garage School Shandana,

When this article appeared in the TFT a few weeks back, I sent you an e-mail via Sulekha`s address. If you received it, I would be glad to get your response.

Kant...

The Mandir Mirage Farzana, #181

``...Bloody Mary...will I offend the Christians?``

Well, I do not think so. As you, and the Christians too, know Mary was a virgin!:-) Your problem will be with your fellow religionist, Scout the Moralist, though! You may be called all kind of names you never have been called before. Good luck!!

Kant...

The Mandir Mirage Shiraz (i.e., Solitude), #153

Please tell me, and sorry I am no woman, which Shiraz wine is the best. The other day I tried some Lindman`s Shiraz Cabornet. Its good, though little sweeter than most C.Sauvignon. Good to my pallet though. I was told the Australian shiraz is good. May have to ask fairdinkum about it; the rumour is he read about Australia being totted as such a wine country that he packed his bags and headed to the outbacks!

Kant...

Ghazali On Women In Islam RSaxena, #339

``God help your patients and you``.

Surely you meant, God help your shrink and you!:-)

Kant...

The Mandir Mirage Aakar Patel, #107

Aakar, you rightly stated that Secularism means denial or rejection of religious beliefs(and/or practices). However,IMO, this is only a partial definition. You missed the word `indifference to` in your statement of definition. This is a rather significant point, as it negates your conclusion, that ends up into the last word -atheism. It is this part of the definition that acquires the most significance in the USA when one talks of secularism -i.e., the separation of the State and Religion/Church, in layman`s language.

To me, Secularism is a positive concept, while Atheism (denial of God or Godliness) is a negative one!

Sdhana, #109

I am not sure by your posting of Dr. Radhakrishan`s thoughts whether you subsribe to the view or not! Kher!, I think being a staunch (Hindu) religious, to Dr.R, the `Indian tradition` meant Hindu ethos and hence the acceptance of the concept of harmony and all encompassing beliefs, etc. What constitutes The Supreme, has different meanings to different religions, and, often, antagonistic interpretations amongst them. Hence all the strife, violence and miseries from the time immamorial! This leads to what Aakar calls the `denial of accomodation` (by the State) of diversed beliefs. This view is at fault too since secularism has nothing to do with seeking harmony or accomodation, or the denial of them, with any or all religion(s). Simply put, it means Religion/Atheism is a personal matter and the State plays (positive or negative)NO part in it. period. It is the interpretations, IMHO, in the spirit of Dr.R`s thoughts that has created some of the post-Independence mess that we have now come to recognise as psuedo-secularism - vote-banking, quota cum reservation system , unequal civil laws,etc. Under the guise of `harmony`, `accomodation` we created an anomalous situation where democracy is supposed to exist side by side with the preferential and separate social `electorates`. Secularism is not holding someone`s hand; secularism is keeping ones hand in ones own pockets! Dr.R tried to recontruct an idealistic definition of secularism rather than a realistic or pregmatic one. We tried to incorporate that into our legislations and created more trouble than we can handle.

Kant...

Al-Quds Divided: The Politics of Hatred fairdinkum #107, & other interested posters,

Fairdinkum, since this article has been scrolled over, I was going to call it quits. However, I had promised to come back, and you asked, rather emotionally (you may call it passion!), many rhetorical questions. Put it mildly, you did not like my response. So, let me try one more time.

It seems, you presumed certain lack of understandings on my part, namely:

1. How Israel came into being.

2. What part the West, esp. US, played in the whole affair.

3. The politics of oil in ME.

4. Perhaps my inherent dislike for Arabs/Muslims.

5. My failure to respect significance of Jerusalem

to Islam.

Granted, I am no expert on ME history, politics or interplay of ethno-religious factors. However, whatever rudimentary knowledge I possess, the basic theme in my post still stand on a firm ground. I have nothing against Arabs, Muslims, religion or ethnicity. It is only based on one thread: What is beneficial TODAY for the Palastinians? To me, it is to settle for peace, stable home, own self-rule and a hope for a decent living. As Sigalph mentioned, they could have avoided decades of misery only if they were prudent and pragmetic enough to accept the 1948 UN resolution. In today`s Dawn opinion page, a writer is echoing the same thoughts, Says he, if the Arabs had accepted the existence of Israel, the state of Palestine would have come into existence decades ago. This is why my outbursts re. Arabs despots and religious zealots. When two countries are trying to settle, why the religion has to be dragged into? Why it suddenly becomes a do or die issue for a billion? As the US News reported, the problem is so intertwined with religion(s) that it has become difficult for any compromise; and, it states, ultimately may be impossible to solve. So,I do understand the religious complexities involved. It further adds to my argument that emotions, religion, etc. aside, now probably is the best time to strike a deal. Otherwise it may reach a point of no return. In that case, the future Palestinian generations will have no respect for their Muslim sympathisers who live in their own protected, secure territories while preaching them the virtues of Islamiyat. What the Palestinians, under Arafat, are asking for is exclusive sovereignty over J. You know, and I know, even if its fair, in reality it is not going to happen, esp. after desecration of the Jacobs tomb. So what is wrong to stop posturing, agitating and, worse still, lose innocent lives for a cause that is far-fetched. As you know, the Jews were barred from praying at the Wailing Wall from 1948 to 1965(8?) when Jordan controlled the city. Jews will not forget that and be willing to give up J.

As to the machinations of the West, US etc., they going to do what is best in their interests. Besides there is no recourse and, hence, no use on keep harping on that. In ME and SE Asia it is an old cliche, just muddy the rationality to see things clearly. As long as there is oil in ME, there is going to be `oil politics & diplomacy`. When they run out of it, the rest of the world would not even bother whether they exist or not!

In your response to Arun, you mention that much maligned `K` word. Instead of replying to the argument at hand you are trying to put the writer down. Besides, what happens in `Rome`(read K......), has no bearing in the ME.

Kant.....

Beware of Ariel Morons and Protect Your Children! YLH #107

So, that resolution was conditional upon getting the whole of Bengal and Punjab!

``NOW (my emphasis) we don`t need Muslimness to define Pakistan``.

Meaning Jinnah, Liaquat Ali, et al, were opportunist! Does that logic applies to the Mohajirs too, now! Please go over your post several times and ponder what it implies.

Kant.....sans slogans:-)

Al-Quds Divided: The Politics of Hatred fairdinkum #107,

Yaar, no need to get naraaz! I have to rush now, but will get back and explain my stance on the subject. After that you may find mine not too far off yours.

Talk to ya latr........Kant

Al-Quds Divided: The Politics of Hatred Sigalph235 #100

Wasn`t it Black September? The Palestenians still hate Zia for the tortures. The whole Arab, as well as the Muslim, world were conspicuously mum. As a matter of fact, a lot of Pakistani army personnel got very well off from this `phoren` operations.

I tend to agree with you that the Palestenians have unfortunately ended up as pawns to play with in the hands of self-serving despots and the mis-guided religious zealots. If they had, instead, settled with the Israelis long time ago, the current, as well as the future, generations would have been a much better lot than most of their chest-beating bretheren. Besides, how could the Middle Eastern sheikhs, kings and dictators vouch for the rights for others when they are loath to grant the same to their own citizenery! Is it worth ruining for Jerusalem, when one could really settle for a joint or bilateral governance of the city? Does the sovereignity over it offers a pancea for all the Palestenian ills and misery? What Palestenians need right now are some leaders who can think rationally, rather than emotively, and guide people to arrive at compromises and a path to liberation from this wretched life of misery, wandering around,and begging help from the hypocratic and self-serving religious zealots. No Asif, you can wallow in your prophecies, this people have suffered enough and have no patience for the `great arrival`. Reliving the past will not buy the future!

Kant......

Defend the Country, not its Government Folks, Sorry for the detour! This lady is seeking some help for a worthy endeavour. A letter from DAWN:

Information about Santanam

I am currently writing a book on my father, Pt. K. Santanam, who played a prominent role in the

political, legal and commercial life of Lahore and Punjab during the period 1910 to 1947. His name is

particularly associated with the alternative Inquiry Commission into the events of Jallianwala Bagh and

Martial Law in Punjab. He was also one of the founders of the Lakshmi Insurance Company and its

first Managing Director.

I would be grateful to receive any information by way of correspondence, reminiscences, published

material which may be in the possession of the readers.

I could be reached at the following address: 7, Amrita Shergill Marg New Delhi 110003, India email:

ashson@del6.vsnl.net.in

MADHURI S. SONDHI

New Delhi, India

Defend the Country, not its Government Fuzair #116, Subcontinental #122,

The discussion in the subject posts raises some fundamental points, with particular implications in a democratic set up.One, do the interests of an elected govt. coincide or tentamount (a better term!) to the national interests? Second, who really is eligible, again in a democratic set up, to determine these `so-called` ``national interest(s)? In this context, let me site the case of bribery committed by the Congress govt. in India, under the then PM Narsinha Rao, to buy votes from a minority party to win a `No Confidence` vote in the Parliament. This led to the survival of the govt. in the midst of a certain defeat. (N. Rao and a then Cabinet minister Bhuta Singh have been recently sentenced to 3year jail terms for this criminal act.) Now, there is an argument being put forward in some quarters that it was the Rao govt. that opened up the Indian economy, released it from the chok-hold of the Nehruvian socialism and Permit-Raj, thereby unleasing the forces of growth. And, that, this was in the `national interest`. So, the question is was that a national interest? If yes, was the means to an end, i.e., the vote-buying, was justified, or was it in the national interest too? Secondly, can the govt. take it upon itself to define the national interest when it deliberately kept the vote-buying information secret from the electorate? Aren`t the electorates the ultimate judges and approvers in a democratic structure? This very dilemma is also applicable to the `national interest` arguments when applied to Pakistani issues, such as Kargil, 1971, frequent military take-overs, etc. I agree with S that the govt.-of-the-day`s-interests and the national interests are not necessarily congruent, especilly when those interests are not well defined or spelled out by the claimants and facts not submitted for the electorates to review. Bilal may provide more insight and his learned knowledge on this subject!

Kant.....

A Delightful Cut If I were him, I will be asleep with both eyes open, O`darde katil!

Defend the Country, not its Government An intersting article `Confrontation or capitulation in 2001?` by Ejaz Haider in today`s TFT. An intersesting look at the `real` motives behind the devolution plan. Bilal, you will, especially, be interested in it!

Kant....

Al-Quds Divided: The Politics of Hatred tahmed321 #55,

Like Sheikh Peer! Agree with you completely. There are times when one has to act as a bania- for the lack of a better terminology on this site- i.e.,recognize losses, protect whatever little you still possess, and move on for bigger and better things. Keep bleeding may be courageous though foolhardy, and an injustice to own`s future generations. There will always be cheerleaders on the side-lines, but very few bleeders to keep company or the fellow heaven-travellers. Dying for real estate is the worst excuse!

Kant.....