In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful #11 Posted by neembu:

In six lines you have framed a good question. The question also is very clear. Now why do we need a whole FP article, where we even have to guess what is written? Thank you, I deal with this a lot when my daughter forces me to go over her home-work every evening. Moreover, does a question an FP article make? Don't we have UP?

Now, I do not like zeemax's interacts below and I believe that Arza should interact here. Tell us more. Though I am basically dumb, at least I am willing to listen.

Little Pakistan: Brooklyn’s Coney Island Avenue Kul,

This is great ... the reason I still visit chowk. Have lots and lots to say .... will definitely interact. Eagerly waiting for a fantastic discussion .... yes, with all the maa-behen etc.

Regards

GT.

In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful Azra:

1. Are more women being killed every year or is it the case that more people are now reporting/registering such incidents? Your initial statistics tell us that the latter is definitely true while the former may or may not be true. If you are telling us here that we should be alarmed about honor killings BECAUSE it is on the increase then a little bit of more research on numbers would have been appreciated.

2. If it is not growing numbers, then are you saying that we should be concerned simply because it is barbaric? This is a no brainer, all of us are horrified and know about these incidents. Your article neither adds nor substracts from our horror. However, there are quite a few here (like myself) who are not clear as to why such a barborous act takes place. For example, we know why Bush, Bib Laden or Mehsud act like barbarians. But it would have been nice if you could have shed more light on what makes a father kill his child. You do provide some definitions from some dictionaries. You also claim that you do not believe in God. Laws being ineffective and plainly stupid is another assertion. But none of them provide sufficient reason for a father to kill her child. Yes, you do imply that 2% of the population can be viewed as an uncivilized fringe of a somewhat civilized society. But then we already know that, don't we?

So unless you interact and tell us more, readers like me will keep on wondering as to what was the point of this article? And sadly, you will be elevated to the grand status of chowk glitterati like Hoodbhoy, Beena, Beg and others who put forth c@#p on FP for lesser beings like us to discuss.

The ‘shoey’ Side of Politics #424 Posted by ferozk:

"The Kashmir issue will settled not because the people wish it, but because it has ceased to be important in their lives."

The above statement is based on two assumptions: (a) The Kashmir issue CAN be settled; (b) It CAN cease to be important in people's lives.

Both assumptions are perhaps valid in the long run, something that we do not care about. The pertinent question, therefore is, whether these assumptions are valid in the short run, say in the next 10 years or so. The answer is NO.

1. The unwashed Kashmiri individual does not give a fig as to whether Kashmir belongs to India or Pakistan. This is as long as her day to day life is undisturbed. An important part of this day to day life her religion. It defines her social network (I usually call networks "tribes") and provides hope for the future. Hope is what allows her to live a dignified life and we know that dignity is something that one does not part with readily. A perceived threat, i.e. the threat need not necessarily be real, to her religion is therefore a threat to her socio-economic network and dignity.

2. It is a common ploy of opposition parties/politicians, in most democracies, to try to come to power by differentiating themselves from those who presently wield power. For example Obama and Hillary may not have many political differences to talk about. But by drawing on the fact that one's opponent is a Washington insider, one tries to impress on the fact that he/she (given a chance) can achieve something "better" than what one has at present. This need not be true only in democracies, but let us stick to it since this is the most optimistic scenario. In India it is no different. Except for the fact that like the Kashmiris, mentioned in 1., almost all Indians care for their socio-economic networks which are often based on caste/religion/language platforms. Of late, regional parties have come to power in different parts of India on platforms based on caste and language. The differences between the center and periphery in India, a multi caste/religion country, is thus more real than in the US. Moreover, the regional parties have persisted. This implies that they have provided sustenance to the networks in their states. Otherwise, they would have died a democratic death. I do not see them vanishing in the next 10 years or so. These parties will struggle for their existence. In particular, they will make sure that local networks do not get swallowed up by broader "markets". They won't succeed in the long run, but they are here to stay for the next 10 years or so.

3. Kashmir is similar to the rest of India in the sense of 2. They were perhaps the first to differentiate themselves from the "center" on the basis of "Kashmiri Nationalism" or language. But Kashmiris can also differentiate themselves from the center on the basis of religion, another factor that sustains local networks. Coupled is the fact that a certain brand of political ideology is strongly woven into (or is being woven into) what stands for Islam today. Thus, today, competition for political space has lead to "Kashmiri Nationalism" being defined solely on the basis of Islam across the entire political spectrum. Not only in Kashmir, but all over India. This is going to stay in the short run, just like regional politics is going to stay in India.

4. But where is the problem? After all a regional party called, say, the Islamic Party of Kashmir can be formed and it can function like the DMK functions in Tamil Nadu and there would be no Kashmir "problem". The issue is that today's brand of Islam will ask for a "constitution" of their own. And it is precisely because of this that a basis for "negotiation" has eluded the "problem". India - Pakistan relations are actually a second order problem. And a "nation" like India is not ready for multiple "constitutions", at least not for the next 10 years.

5. Above, I have given you the theory. Based on it let me make a prediction. The usual law and order problems, Pakistan's interference, Urstruly's rants etc. are 10 year predictions that even arjun can make. Here is my prediction: If the BJP comes to power, it will show (false) sympathy by acting as if it is in favor of a referendum. With the added clause that all Indian Muslims, and only Indian Muslims vote.

The ‘shoey’ Side of Politics #348 Posted by zeemax:

"I see that the new alliances being formed and the isolation of the hamidm2s haven't escaped your attention"

How could it? The same thing has been going on from Vedic/Biblical times. Only names change ... the basic remains the same .... but does it have to? :)

The ‘shoey’ Side of Politics On groups of roving bandits and Chowk:

The state is a complex institution. Let us try to understand it simply. Here I borrow from Mancur Olson.

Consider agricultural communities which store their harvest for sowing in the future as well as to insure its members from future weather shocks. A roving group of bandits plunder these communities stealing what they can and burning the rest. Burning is done to intimidate. What happens? Well, some of these communities dissapear (die away) as there is not enough seeds to plant in the future. The bandits realize soon enough that if they continue in this way there would be nothing to steal. So they come to an arrangement with the communities.

Nothing will be burned from now on as long as the communities pay a certain "tax". The bandits can also become "benevolent", providing crop insurance (i.e. subsidies to languishing communities) across communities. They also provide "protecion" against other groups of roving bandits. Things start looking dandy, and the bandits' empire spreads. With the "empire" growing, monitoring becomes difficult. Communities start "cheating" on their taxes. Moving from one community of "thieves" to another to burn their villages becomes "costly" for the bandits. They hit on an idea.

The bandit army splits into smaller groups. Each group now takes charge of a community. Recruitment, if needed, is made from the local community. Let us call the leading bandits of these groups IB, zeemax, urstruly and tahmed. The original bandit leader hamidm-1 becomes the Chief. Things go on nicely for quite some time.

One day, urstruly is approached by a guy from "his community" called GT, who suggests that he urstruly can control more "territory" than he does. But for that he needs to co-operate with zeemax. Pepped up, urstruly gets together with Zeemax, attacks hamidm-1 and kills him and banishes the prince hamidm-2 to a place called chowk. GT proclaims urstruly the "True Chief". With one chief less, communities now have to pay lower taxes and everything becomes "better" for the unwashed. GT notices this and is scared.

If things become better with the removal of a "chief", wouldn't other "chiefs" try to get rid of urstruly? Yes, he concludes. But then he figures out the following (i) urstruly was able to defeat hamidm-1 only by colluding with Zeemax; (ii) their armies were manned not by the original bandits but by people from the local communities. So GT gets into his "eureka" mode and advises urstruly as follows: "O, son of God Pluto, beware of tahmed, IB and Zeemax. For they will readily get together and kill you. To avoid this, O Lord of Lords, teach each of their communities to speak a different language so that they bable and are unable to get together and co-ordinate an attack against you. Then you shall verily rule". Urstruly follows GT's advise, he and his descendents rule fo ever.

The descendents of hamidm2 organize riff-raffs from all communities to vent in chowk even today. This helps, for after letting off steam riff-raffs calm down. Furthermore, no sane member in each community pays any attention. The discourse in chowk is lead by a person called Masadi. They have given a derogatory name to GT - "Chanakya". As per the advise of Chanakya, the descendents of urstruly still pay the operating cost of Chowk. And as per GT's edicts Chowk is also called the "Free Press". Now, don't ask me what it means.

The ‘shoey’ Side of Politics Dost,

I did not say that you did. Someone else (HP, I think) implied it from your post.

The ‘shoey’ Side of Politics #308 Posted by tahmed32:

tahmed sahib:

Forget someone bigger. You have slapped me hard right here ... calling me a "distinguished chowk poster". From now on, I shall use the word "unwashed" only when you are not around. Deal?

The ‘shoey’ Side of Politics tahmed sahib:

You would agree that "safety" is a subjective and relative concept. It is precisely because of this that the "army" is able to control politics in Pakistan. It is not much different in India. The Congress was able to do such a thing till very recently. It still hopes to do so. What is different in today's India is that many more parties are able to do so. This brings in political competition and the unwashed are slightly better off.

p.s. I like the term "unwashed". It gives a large set of people SOME identity. I am a bit against this "same-same" political correctness.

The ‘shoey’ Side of Politics #295 Posted by HP:

".... These guys are not going away and I think they will become the lightening rod that will eventually help develop a democratic society in Pakistan. I hope in due course, they will have support from the students and the trade unions....."

And from the unwashed in the rural sector. That will really be a great day.

The ‘shoey’ Side of Politics #294 Posted by tahmed32:

tahmed sahib:

Yes, the MQM indulges in ghoodaism and supports/supported the dictator. This same ghoondaism (burning people etc.) and support for the dictator also keeps the MQM's support base "safe" from the ghoondas of the PPP, JI etc. You cannot selectively condemn one group or the other .... actually, you can, but it is of no use. MQM will dissapear on its own, when the "NEED" to protect its support base dissapears. As long as Punjabi, Sindhi, balochi chauvanism exist and has the potential to be violent ... MQM, will exist and will be violent .... dictator or no dictator.

The ‘shoey’ Side of Politics #294 Posted by tahmed32:

tahmed sahib:

Yes, the MQM indulges in ghoodaism and supports/supported the dictator. This same ghoondaism (burning people etc.) and support for the dictator also keeps the MQM's support base "safe" from the ghoondas of the PPP, JI etc. You cannot selectively condemn one group or the other .... actually, you can, but it is of no use. MQM will dissapear on its own, when the "NEED" to protect its support base dissapears. As long as Punjabi, Sindhi, balochi chauvanism exist and has the potential to be violent ... MQM, will exist and will be violent .... dictator or no dictator.

Benazir’s Legacy Beena,

Was dissapointed with this article. You claim:

(i) the street power which helped induce elections was provided by party workers.

Very few will buy this line. Maybe after 10 years, but not today. The lawyers/students were the prominent protesters. Yes, some party workers might have been present. NS's party could not even mobilize when he came the 1st time. PPP was hardly in any scene.

(ii) You seem to indicate that BB convinced the Gringos to allow her and NS to return.

BB had been running from one capital to the other. Forget convincing, she could not even meet with prominent policy makers. The Gringos had to withdraw obvert support from the dictator because "people" were marching on the streets. BB was the cover/front. She did not convince Washington that they needed to talk to the "jihadis", she even suggested that the Gringos could come in. How much time do you need to "forget"?

(iii) You, like Zardari, are cunningly implying that this new phase of "democracy" is because of BB.

Again, who are you trying to fool? BB's role was small, if any. Yes, she was a glamorous leader and it is sad that she was murdered.

The ‘shoey’ Side of Politics #274 Posted by zeemax

What's that about?

The new CM of Balochistan (Dawn, April 10)

“...Gwadar is a .... mega problem for the Baloch because settlement of outsiders will deprive the natives of their right to sit in this house. The settlement of outsiders will be conditional and they will have no right to vote or contest elections,”

The ‘shoey’ Side of Politics There are two issues I would like to touch upon:

1. dost_mittar talked about the "Delhi Culture", and some (HP, I think) implied that it was because of the influx of bhaiyyas from UP and Bihar. I do not think so. IMO it has more to do with migrants from East Punjab. I may be wrong, but compare Mumbai and Delhi.

2. While blaming MQM is fine and dandy, why refrain from criticizing other chauvanist/funadamentalist groups (with their own lumpen elements). Have they murdered less when they wielded power? The CM of a neighboring state announces that "outsiders" should not vote in that state! Nobody, in chowk (full of democrats and secularoons), has taken that up! With neighbors like that, why shouldn't the MQM behave like a cornered cat? Now please do not give the cause/effect bs ....

The ‘shoey’ Side of Politics Tribes may come,
And Tribes may go,
Our stupidity goes on for-ever.