The Choice of Leading a Gay Life Dear Ali,
Thank you for picking up the issue of the same sex couple in Faislabad. I just wanted to make one addition, the couple in question was not sentenced under any homosexual act since there is no such law in the Pakistan Penal Code. They were actually given a 'light' sentence under purjury since they withheld certain evidence in court. Another factual error is that the family was not the first to approach the police to register a case, it was the couple who sought the security of the police from their respective families (more so the father of Shahzina) who were hounding them. It was ironical that the ones who had approached the law enforcing agency for security in fact got into trouble themselves. Having said this, I do think that you have done a sympathetic job of writing about the issue, there are very few people who have sided with the couple. So, thanks for raising this issue here.

Preventing More Lal Masjids Re: # 147
Whoever you are, you should be careful when you quote Hamid Mir as a credible source since he comes squarely from the ISI and is on their payroll - also a bad reporter and his words should never be trusted. Try other more authentic sources. What is your last infantile line all about? Can we get past this whole childish attitude?

Preventing More Lal Masjids Dear Dr. ``Peace``,

There are many questions that are unanswered in my view regarding the whole Lal Masjid saga and operation ``silence`` - which has been the bloodiest and noisiest of all operations! I fail to understand the liberal stand on this affair as well as the civil society perspective on the whole issue. You have been part of many protests to promote peace where were you and the Citizen`s Peace Commission when the operation was being carried out? I hate this liberal stance where you silently watch so many innocent people being killed because you know that one day you will be rid of all militants and those outfits that are self-proclaimed moral brigades, just so that a certain kind of liberalism prevails for your benefit. You and others like you could have arranged for a massive protest outside the G-6 area to ward off the stance the government took in the end. Where was your idea of peace? Where is our sense of humanity ? Do such militants deserve to die in this manner just because they are promoting an ideology that you fear might curb your personal freedom? In my humble opinion, this operation which the government has termed ``silence`` has further bared many `open secrets`` of the government - this is an opportunity for the civil society to highligh the complete and utter failure of the government, register a case against the military government that is now responsible for many deaths (including May 12, Karachi) and pressure it to accept its failure and open up the whole process for further scrutiny.

You will agree that this case CAN NOT be understood in isloation - there is whole history of total government support (especially Ejaz ul Haq) to Abdur Rashid and his followers. In my view the total and utmost repsonsibility of what happened has to be borne by the government and I believe that a certain pressure has to be maintained for this whole bloody episode to be kept alive. There are too many unanswered questions, the death toll for instance is hidden - figures just don`t match up, no reporter or media person is allowed to access hospitals or the area near the Masjid. The way the government conducted the whole operation in secrecy bears testimony to the possible human rights abuses inside the complex. As I write this, the news is that media persons will be taken on a tour of the masjid - what do they expect to capture on this disaster tourism when all the bodies would have been removed and what probably remains are the remains of a dying building.

I believe that we have to pick up the pieces and protest the lack of information provided, the utter and sheer use of military force against its own people (a bourgeoning trend in Pakistan - Waziristan, Balochistan) and especially in this particular case against its own project of talibinisation to make a case of extremism in Pakistan - Musharraf`s only and last resort to staying in control and to show people that he is all for curbing extremism but at the same time keeping it alive.

What do you say? Shall we arrange a protest to have a full enquiry into this whole thing or would you run away from even the humanistic elements of something that you may never want to be associated with. Dr. Hoodbhoy (liberal element) siding with the militants on humanitarian priniciples sounds scary, but think about it and let me know.

Preventing More Lal Masjids Jsut some food for thought:

Your analysis is quite traditional in many ways - so is the problem. It is a typical liberal reading of the situation without failing to understand the causes. The many causes that generally people talk about in Pakistan, you ruled out and instead what you pose as possible solutions are not really solutions. These are bandaids that any liberal fearful of such militancy pose, the dismisal is quick and easy which is why the problem grows. Before you start to think of me as a ``radical Islamic`` so and so, I would like to clarify that I bear a leftist perspective and premised on this ideology my tolerance for any brand of Islam that is shoved down anyone`s throat (and which can only then be thrown up with equal vigor) is neither pardonable nor permissible. So, I do not support the usual theological perspective on this issue.

Take out Islam from this equation and what do you have? In my view and many would agree, talibanisation is not about Islam and even those who promote and have promoted its various shades knew that it was not about religion. Let us not insult our intelligence by actually believing that what is usually packed under the rubric of Islam is just that. We all know that people ``use`` religion and this is what Zia`s Islamization programme was all about and Bhutto`s (before him) and Benazir and Nawaz sharif inherited a flawed legacy. What i am trying to point out here is that let us not fall into the trap of religion here and dismiss what has happened in Lal Masjid as ``religious fanatacism`` and so on. That has been done to death. It`s cliched and one is overdosed with this same analysis so much so that there is no way out of this quagmire. Sure, this is a case of biting the hand that feeds you. An example of sour relations between ISI and the Military - Lal Masjid was allowed to store amunition and arms to be used in a classic style reminiscent of Talibans created by Zia - to carry out operations on behalf of the government. There is no other explanation how so much ammo could be brought and stored in Islamabad right under the nose of ISI or the interior ministry without their consent. So, this is not about madrassas this is about the mentality, training and brainwashing that the governments themselves do to these people in order to use them to/for their own benefits. Abolishing madrassahs will not solve the problem since the same thing will raise its ugly head in some other form under the guise of some other half-baked ideology. In the case of lal masjid, things only went to this extent because the militants started using the space given to them, sanctioned by the government and in the end the government had to take a stand because of how things out in the open. Otherwise, it was not their intention to take over the masjid in this manner. I live in Islamabad, I am a Communist, I do not have tolerance for religion being forced on anyone, but I will say this much, I am finding it very difficult to draw a conclusive analysis on this whole thing. We need to look at things from a different perspective, so far media and liberals and diff sections of society alike are towing the same line - but this is not about Islam this is about resistance to the government and all we have done is witnessed it from the perspective of the so-called ``radical cleric``. There is more to all this than meets the eye. This is more about the turmoil brewing in Pakistan and for the much awaited change to come, the tragedy is that people are ready to do it, but there is no leadership.

Nowhere: The Utopian Destination Re: # 1
just because you used the word ``utopia`` ? Duh!

Faith No More Very well written!

L’affaires, Americans and Desis Re: # 27
I do not support marriage of any kind whether it is between same sex couples or brothers and sisters. You may want to broaden your horizon and go beyond the typical categorization of being gay equated with things like incest, bestiality and so on. Fact of the matter is that it is heterosexuals that have a problem with gay marriages since it is too threatening for them. Marriage in general is approved of for heterosexuals only since there is the element of creating more labour force for the state - therefore marriages come with incentives of all kinds. If the state were actually concerned about the welfare of the people, it would accord some kick-ass rights to single people too. So, in this whole debate, the idea is not love between two people (which does not need to be sanctioned through a marriage contract), whether sister brother, gay straight, the idea is to maintain the status quo and to strengthen the state. By the way, I do not support the idea of marriage but if someone wants to get married (gay, straight, brother-sister) more power to them.

L’affaires, Americans and Desis Re: # 13
I agree with you somewhat. But i would contest that if there is a problem with the whole institution of marriage, then heterosexuals should be targetted as well for making use of this social contract to attain certain rights. Why can`t they challenge this and why should gay people bear that responsibility? Is it because they are non-conformist to begin with? Actually, gay marriages are also part of the same deal you call being ``potent other voice`` since such marriages are not allowed. Anyway, I am someone who does not support marriages in general, gay or otherwise. But, if gay people want to get married I don`thave a problem with it. And i also fee that people who live alternative lifestyles should not be the only ones to have to contest heterosexual norms - at times, straight allies are good enough - ;) Do i hear you say yes to that?

L’affaires, Americans and Desis Re: # 13
I agree with you somewhat. But i would contest that if there is a problem with the whole institution of marriage, then heterosexuals should be targetted as well for making use of this social contract to attain certain rights. Why can`t they challenge this and why should gay people bear that responsibility? Is it because they are non-conformist to begin with? Actually, gay marriages are also part of the same deal you call being ``potent other voice`` since such marriages are not allowed. Anyway, I am someone who does not support marriages in general, gay or otherwise. But, if gay people want to get married I don`thave a problem with it. And i also fee that people who live alternative lifestyles should not be the only ones to have to contest heterosexual norms - at times, straight allies are good enough - ;) Do i hear you say yes to that?

Rabid Could not read beyond the first two - amazing how much time the writer has to devote on a silly satire like this and that too revolving around absolutely ridculous people and a hodge podge of themes- what is the point? Good material though for the Reader`s Digest. By the way, are you the only writer on Chowk to use the eff word? What does one do to elevate to that standard from where this is allowed for ordinary people like myself, Mr. Paracha?

Echoes Gosh, what the hell! Are people really as insecure as they come through in their comments?

I think that FV is a good choice and I am sure she will make a good Editor. Interesting that most of the unsupportive comments are coming from men - Geez! how secure can you all be? Let the woman do her job and we shall all see whether it is a good choice or not. And for heaven`s sake, this is not the end of the world and neither is Chowk the only place to write so take a chill pill and let`s see what these new changes are all about. But, having said this, I do think that being heard should not have to bear the tag of wisdom. There is not enough of that in the world anyway. So, everyone should have their say, wise or not.

Through the Parsi Prism Re: # 34
Again, spoken like a true Muslim and Patriot.

Through the Parsi Prism Re: # 27
Ms. Durrani:
I am sorry but I don`t subscribe to your idea of adolescent patriotism. I am a Pakistani as well, but I don`t feel that it was such a great idea to build another theocratic state along the lines of Israel. I don`t think that it has accomplished much. It is truly still a country based on religious ideology instead of being a secular state where all faiths would be respected. Ask the Ahmedis, the Christians, the Bohris, etc if they feel safe in this country. Well, these are all minorities who will never be accepted or pulled out of their ghettos. This also brings me to the point I wanted to make about the article.

To FV:
That ghettos are formed because it is felt necessary by any group that is marginalized. Why target that same group, however priviliged it may be and put the onus of the matter
on them and say that `they` should participate in politics or whatever. The space to do so should be there in the first place. There is a whole psyche that exists behind it and it is not that easy to come out of it, if they should at all. Take the case of the Amish County in the US. In fact, your article made me think of the whole assimilation argument that goes on in Europe and the US which I personally think borders on racism and eurocentrism. That people who emigrate to these ``great`` countries should assimilate into their culture and not stand out like sore thumbs. Remember the case of muslim schoolgirls in France who could not wear their scarves to school? It is not easy for those who come from isolated, marginalized experiences to engage with the mainstream in a way that the vast majority does. But then i also think that people have a right to choose their engagements, political or a-political or whatever else and to say that they ``should`` do this or that is not very inclusive of their realities.
I do think that salim Chauhan`s comment about had Jinnah been parsi...... is funny

Through the Parsi Prism Re: # 11
FV,
All I can say is that the World Conservation Union has a very active and influential parsi working for them - since the organization works on conserving nature and endangered species, I am sure that they have put parsis on their endangered species` Red List - ;)
Secondly, why do you think that Parsis should participate or be more active in politics? What is that going to establish? I personally think that ghettoization at times is not such a bad thing. It`s quite romantic actually - Ok maybe I will provide more constructive feedback on your article when I am in a better mood - Later then.

Through the Parsi Prism hmmm.

A Whiter Shade of Green disappointing, bakwas and complete sell out!