Why Clinton should visit Pakistan

chayram #155: You have asked a lot of questions. Regarding what is going on in Kashmir, kindly check the Amnesty International website at http://www.amnesty.excite.com/. Do a search on Kashmir, and you will get your answers.

I think you and I have a different point of view on human rights. I believe every human being has certain human rights which are his/her alone. They cannot be violated by me, even if it is in my own interest to do so. I cannot support you or anyone else occupying someone else`s home, city, state by force, just because it makes you feel good. You have a right to decide your own future. You do not have a right to decide the future of other human beings. People of Kashmir, or of any other area, should live the way they want to live; not the way you want them to live.

It is a common practice throughout human history for occuppiers to come up with excuses to rule other people. The British actually thought that they were civilizing the Indians, thereby justifying their rule. They imposed their own laws on the natives of India, and forced the natives to live under these laws. The Americans wiped out a complete civilization of Native Americans just because it suited them to do so.

The Nazis killed millions of jews. While they were killing these jews they convinced their own Christian German population that the jews, ``deserved`` to be killed because they had aided the enemy in WW1; hence the German population was wrongly convinced it was in the German nation`s interest to kill the jews. Similarly you seem to be convinced that it is alright for the Indian military to kill tens of thousands of human beings in Kashmir. I do not agree with this. I think it is sad day for humanity when people still support the killings of other humans just because it makes them feel good, and suits their interests.

``Now my direct questions to Umairr and people who share his views. i) when you say people were oppressed in Kashmir, can you shed some light on us ignorants that what oppression people of Kashmir suffered during the first 35-40 years of independence? ii) what is your view of an independent Kashmir? iii) what measure of success you can provide to the Kashmiris that India could not give them if there were peace in that land? and iv) what difference does it make when you carry a Kashmiri vs. Indian passport?, and last but not least v) what is the right of a Kashmiri Hindu?``

i) Please check the amnesty international website. ii) If the Kashmiris want an independent Kashmir, then by all means they should have an independent Kashmir. iii) I am no one to decide the measure of success that the Kashmiris should have. Wasn`t it Churchill who asked what measure of success an independent India would have once the British left? Perhpas India would have been more successful had the British been ruling it. Should India not have asked for independence? iv) Perhpas it does not make any differnce to you if you do not carry a Kashmiri passport, but maybe it makes a difference to the Kashmiri. If it doesn`t make a difference to them, then I am sure the Kashmiris will decide to stay with India vi) I think the right of the Hindus in Kashmir should definitely be protected. Infact, I have earlier presented solutions which indicated that the Hindu dominated parts of Kashmir should remain with India (if that is what the Kashmiri Hindus want).

As long as you look at Kashmir as a Pakistan based problem, you will never see the light. As I stated earlier, I do not particularly care what Pakistan gets out of the deal. However, what a group of human beings wants has to be decided by that group, and not by you or me. Regardless of how you attempt to justify it, you cannot make a decision for the Kashmiris. Would you like it if they made a decision for you? If your answer is yes, then perhpas you have a point. Otherwise, you are merely trying to satisfy your interests at the expense of other human beings.

Unfortunately, as long as their are people in India and Pakistan who are bent upon imposing their own views on other people`s lives, there will never be peace in South Asia. If the Kashmiris in Pakistan want to decide their own future and join with India, I would support that equally also. I have repeatedly stated earlier that I supported the right of the E. Pakistanis to form Bangladesh, since that is what they wanted. I do not value my life and desires to be superior to other people`s lives and desires. I hope you do not value your desires to be superior to the desires of other people.

``Your posts sound very jealous/pathetic when you say that you were happy that Paksitani hackers broke into Indian sites, or how Indian muslims are not been seen as software engineers, or how all the India is infested with radical BJP people, or how India is disintegrating.``

Kindly do not put words in my mouth. I never said I was happy that Pakistani hackers broke into Indian websites. I merely joked to someone that perhaps Pakistan is not as far behind in IT as I thought. A sense of humor is a good thing; understand the meaning of :).

I have been involved in discussions with quite a few Indians on why Indian Muslims have not matched the success of Indian Hindus in IT. This is a fact, I did not make it up. There are hardly any Indian Muslims in the Silcon Valley IT industry. You are the first Indian I have met who does not agree with this. I am not saying this to put anyone down, as you have suggested. I am only trying to find out why.

I never said that all of India is filled with radical BJP people. Someone had indicated that Pakistani politics were being taken over by the radical religious elements, which would be dangerous for South Asia. I merely pointed out that the only area in South Asia in which religious nationalistic poltical party has enjoyed massive success is the BJP. This is a fact, also. Please look at the election results (Why do people in India get offended when someone points out that the BJP is in power in India? This is something I have yet to figure out).

By the way, I begin every discussion on Indian topics by stating that I have very little first hand knowledge of India, and admit that I cannot comment on it intelligently (``gymnosophist #95: Your introduction to the Indian political-economic system was quite interesting. Apart from what is available on Indian parties` websites, I do not know the details of the Indian political system, so I cannot really comment on it intelligently. There are probably a lot of similiraties between the Indian and Pakistani political systems; however there are probably a few major differences as well:`` form my reply #109)

I am usually more critical of Pakistan than India. I have never stated that India will disintegrate. I have tried to describe the India Pakistan situation objectively. I have only stated that some leaders in India think that India will disintegrate, if Kashmir breaks away.

“Because if Kashmir goes, the 150 million Muslims in India will suffer heavily; there will be a civil war, a truly catastrophic situation.” “Well, what about the will of the Kashmiri people?” I asked politely. “Who knows their will?” He answered. “How about a plebiscite?” “If we hold plebiscite in Kashmir, then Tamil Nado and other areas will also ask for the plebiscite. We cannot allow it.” (I.K. Gujral`s interview to PaksitanLink)

I hope this answers your questions. If you have difficulty understanding my comments, kindly throw some questions towards me, before you jump to any final conclusions.

Reply Umairr #110

``I am a Kashmiri. My mother and grandparents and their fellow Kashmiris never willingly wanted to be ruled by India (or Pakistan). Unfortunately,

their land was conquered, their next generations were signed into slavery by an idiotic Raja, and they were subjugated to the rules and regulations,

and whims and desires of alien groups. Does this remind you of the history of India? If you support this conquest, then I hope you also support the conqeust of India by the British. Otherwise, please do not tell me that Kashmiris do not have a right to decide what they want to do with their lives, just because their decision does not satisfy you.``

Hi! Although I do not send my opinion every now and then, I do follow Chowk almost everyday. This is one of the most interesting website that I have come across. I enjoy the writing of Sameer, Zeemax, Bilal Ahmed,T-Ahmed, and temporal immensely. Sameer, your all-round knowledge inspires me. Reading all the posts, I can group people from both the countries who genuinely want peace in the sub-continent. You guys make at the top of that list.

However, I feel saddened and disappointed when I read the posting like above, especially coming from apparently intellectual people like ``Umairr``. It is this Kashmir, the bone of contention between India and Pakistan which had put both the countries in the 3rd-world category. During Clinton`s visit the corresponds from BBC and CNN world (CNN world service is better than CNN, US) repeatedly mentioned Pakistan to be obsessed and preoccupied with Kashmir. One of the Chowk writer mentioned that this is jew-conspiracy that the world is buying more India`s side of the story. I chuckled once when I read that. India`s failure in foreign policy and advertising itself is all too well-known. Our diplomats are pathetically incoherent, and poor communicators compared to Pakistani counterpart. Just see what our president has done in the Banquet of Clinton! This is besides the point. The point is why the world is not paying any attention to Kashmir. This is my analysis. Let us look at the issues of Kashmir. i) Who did the land belong? and ii) where did the present occupants of Kashmir come from?, and iii) can India`s behaviour be compared with British occupation of India? Can these be answers to the above?

i) sandwiched between present India and Pakistan, the land can not belong to anybody else, and since before partition it was all India, Kashmiri land had to be India`s.

ii) now if Kashmir is occupied by all indigenous people,later converted to islam, then by default they are Indians. Since nobody asked any other province of India whether they want to be included with Republic of India during partition, why Kashmiris want a separate deal? If they are of foreign origin and came with the invaders, then that piece of land does not belong to them in the first place. Will US allow the Mexicans to get away with Texas and California since they have settled there for generations and become more in number?

iii) Can India be compared with British? and the militants/terrorists as freedom fighters? India never occupied a foreign land, it is its own land, very rightfully from thousands of years.

Now my direct questions to Umairr and people who share his views. i) when you say people were oppressed in Kashmir, can you shed some light on us ignorants that what oppression people of Kashmir suffered during the first 35-40 years of independence? ii) what is your view of an independent Kashmir? iii) what measure of success you can provide to the Kashmiris that India could not give them if there were peace in that land? and iv) what difference does it make when you carry a Kashmiri vs. Indian passport?, and last but not least v) what is the right of a Kashmiri Hindu?

And please stop looking at India through your tainted glass. Your posts sound very jealous/pathetic when you say that you were happy that Paksitani hackers broke into Indian sites, or how Indian muslims are not been seen as software engineers, or how all the India is infested with radical BJP people, or how India is disintegrating. There are 1 billion people for God sake. At least there will be 30 millions opionion if not more! And also while calculating Pakistan`s GDP or whatever in the last decades, do not forget to add the huge US/Saudi aid Pakistan enjoyed.

We want peace in the sub-continent, and that is why Kashmir needs to be solved one way or another.

While I do not condone violence, I do not want to see India to be partitioned once again for whims of some people.

Sorry for the long post, and watch out for spelling mistakes, I did not spell-check, and I am not a literary person. So pardon my English as well.

Regards to all like (not-like) minded people.

Re: Mohajir #149

This is not an attack on the suffering of the poor woman mentioned in the article. What happened to her was truly horrible.

This is a question about an oft-mentioned figure given in the article that 3 million Bengalis were killed by the Pakistani Army in 1971 in E. Pakistan. Sisson and Rose, ``War and Secession: Pakistan, India, and the Creation of Bangladesh (1991),`` years after the events in question, ask two Indian officials involved in the Indian war effort what were the total casualties in E. Pakistan in 1971. One answers, ``About 300.000 deaths.`` At which point he receives a filthy look from his colleague and hastily revises it to ``between 300,000 to 500,000.`` These are total deaths: Indian Army, Pakistani Army, Razakar, Mujahid, Bengali civilians, Biharis, and so on. Some of these are battle deaths. Some are W. Pakistanis killed by Bengalis and Mukti Bahini, although there is no doubt that the vast majority of these are Bengalis killed by the Pakistani Army. Three hundred thousand is apparently the official Indian govt estimate.

Sisson and Rose flatly state that the 3,000,000 figure is nothing but anti-Pakistani propaganda, though the truth is dismal enough as it is. I don`t think that anyone can call the book Pakistani propaganda as it is probably one of the best scholarly accounts of the events of 1971.

While there is no question that there were many tens of thousands of civilian casualties, the Paksitan Army simply did not have the logistics capability of doing what the Indians and some Bengalis have accused it of: three million deaths. If you read the accounts of the Holocaust, you will have a better understanding of the logistics of such an action. Fighting an insurgency, spread out in penny-packets over E. Pakistan, fighting a full-scale border war with India starting in November, such a task was clearly beyond its capability.

Perhaps its time we put this myth to rest.

musharraf has other ideas to get mediation...

http://www.deccanchronicleonline.com/cover6.htm

War would lead to US mediation: Musharraf

Washington, : Pakistan chief executive General Pervez Musarraf believes that if there is a war over Kashmir, India will be forced to accept US President Bill Clinton’s mediation, media reports quoting American officials have said.

The New York Times in its analysis of South Asian situation said on Sunday, “American officials believe he (Musharraf) figures if the war at the top of the world gets splashed on enough front pages, India will be forced to accept what it has long rejected — outside mediation from Clinton.”

“The General may be proved wrong, but maybe not. With not much to do at home, Clinton is moving from hot spot to hot spot (Middle East and Ireland), arguing that all involved areas in America’s strategic interest.

The problem is that Clinton envisions himself as an umpire, while the rest of the world sees Washington as a player with its own agenda,” the paper said.“There is suspicion in Beijing, for example, that America is using all its weapons — from the seventh fleet to its influence over the World Trade Organisation — to contain China’s power.

The Indians share a similar suspicion, even as they flocked to shake Clinton’s hand.” “And so, for all the happy talk, the Indians had no intention of signing on to Clinton’s non-proliferation agenda.

After all, they said, the other great symbol of democracy — the United States Senate — rejected the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty last year, proving that even the most powerful economy on earth wasn’t willing to forgo its nuclear weapons,” the New York Times says.

umairr,

doesn`t it bother you even little that while the whole pakistani nation is obsessed with the rights of the kashmiris (who are not pakistani citizens), thousands of pakistans`s own citizens are living in appalling conditions in refugee camps in bangladesh waiting for repatriation? why don`t the advocates of human rights (like you) ever bother to comment on that? why is getting kashmiris their rights more important to pakistan than admitting its own people in the country?

re sadna 147:

Why should the Pakistani Army have any TLC for the kashmiris? It is simply fulfilling Pakistan`s strategic objectives. On the last 2 occasions that the Pakistani Army tried to take over Kashmir(1948 and 1965), the major reason it failed was the the non-cooperation of the Kashmiris on the ground. Now that the indigenous population of Kashmir has woken up from its slumber due to India`s gross stupidities compounded over the years why is the Pakistani Army being held responsible for everything that goes wrong in that region? There is no doubt that the Paksitani Army is actively abetting the conflict in Kashmir. But isn`t Kashmir disputed territory(on both sides of the border)? ``What`s love got to do with it???``

There is an increasingly militant voice within the Kashmiri community demanding that it be the sole arbiter of its future and there is a growing sentiment within the Paksitani establishment that it may be a prudent course of action. The reason the establishment refuses to discuss it too openly is because of an uncertainty within the minds of its champions as to the fickle nature of the Kashmiris. They fear that now that the world`s attention has finally been focused on this issue, the Kashmiris may change their minds once again.

Re #132 Umairr

I don`t know how you could honestly say that Clinton threatened india. He said friends can have honest differences after outlining those differences.

In his interview with Peter Jennings he said a lot has happened in the fifty-odd years since the first dispute over Kashmir. He mentioned the Simla Agreement. This was the first time any US offcial - leave alone the President - has indicated that Simla was worth talking about.

It is fantasy to think that Clinton would kowtow a tinpot dictator from the 3-rd world country and declare that Kashmir was a paramount issue. He obviously is derisive of Musharraf`s pursuit of Kashmir to the exclusion of all other diplomatic efforts vis-a-vis India. How could you expect him to put Kashmir ahead of everything else? He does not carry a Pakistani passport!

Musharraf has apparently made Kashmir a prestige issue for Pakistan and is willing to risk everything on it. Very sad!

Victim of 1971 Bangladeshi war finds `great joy` in the truth

DHAKA, March 26 (AFP) -

http://sg.dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/asia/afp/article.html?s=singapore/headlines/000326/asia/afp/Victim_of_1971_Bangladeshi_war_finds__great_joy__in_the_truth.html

As Bangladesh celebrated the 29th anniversary of its independence on Sunday, the first woman to go public about the torture she suffered at the hands of the Pakistani army says she has found ``great joy`` in facing the truth.

``There is a great joy in coming to terms with the truth, but the pain and sorrow would never go away,`` Ferdousy Priyabhashini, a celebrated sculptor who was among the at least 250,000 women raped during the war, told AFP in an interview on Saturday.

Priyabhashini explained she had reconciled herself to the fact she was a ``victim of circumstance`` and needed to tell a new generation about the bad months.

Collaborators and Islamic fundamentalists who helped the Pakistani army now want to downplay those events, she said.

``I want to be alone when the melancholic winds of March (the month of independence) start blowing, which at one time made me romantic and now takes me back to those horrific days of pain and anguish,`` she said.

``I can only say I was trapped to my fate.``

Priyabhashini, a mother of six, said that when she decided to go public in Bangladesh`s conservative Muslim society she told her husband she was ``responsible for everything and I have nothing to lose whether the society accepts or rejects me.``

A mere 22-years-old in 1971, she went public in November 10, 1999, when her story was published in ``Tormenting `71,`` a book by prominent anti-fundamentalist Ekkaturer Ghatak Dalal Nirmul Committee.

At least three million Bengalis were killed in Bangladesh`s 1971 independence war against Pakistan, and 250,000 women were raped during those nine months, according to official estimates.

Priyabhashini, then a divorced mother of three, fell into a trap set by Urdu-speaking Pakistani collaborators in May of that year after failing to run away and returning to her job at the privately owned Crescent Jute Mills in southwestern Khulna district.

She was alone as the Pakistani army launched its military crackdown code-named ``Operation Searchlight`` to silence the independence movement.

``I can never say or give the real picture of my horrific days in captivity and the killings I saw at that time,`` she said, suddenly becoming silent.

Priyabhashini came face-to-face with her first horror as soon as she stepped into the place she thought would be her ``shelter`` -- the home of her Urdu-speaking boss.

She fell victim to the man, who she said once treated her as a younger sister, immediately on entering the house. Between May and Bangladesh`s Victory Day on December 16 she was tortured and raped by Pakistani army officers based in Khulna and Jessore.

``In that house, owned by the jute mill owners, I saw whisky on the table and I still wondered why was this man who I saw always as my elder brother behaving like that with me ... I was so naive I did not even understand that a war of such great magnitude had broken out,`` she said.

``My boss made me a prisoner and before going to inform his military officers he told me `don`t go anywhere, army officers will come here`,`` she said, still seething with bitterness.

``I was supposed to be killed and often wonder why I am alive. Maybe I feared death and learned to survive during those tormenting days.

``I saw truckloads of Bengalis being brought to the mill and beheaded by a machine at the factory before being thrown into the adjacent river.``

Asked about her experiences after going public, Priyabhashini said ``it was my life`s greatest gift when my fried, and now my husband, accepted me along with my children despite my tragedy.``

``I never want any sympathy from anyone.``

Her husband Ahsan Ullah Ahmed, employed in a private company, said his wife`s decision to publicize her case ``has not changed our life.``

``I think how helpless one can be in her own country and I could not help her, besides there are so many more women who even suffered more than my wife,`` he said.

Ref Umairr #: 141

I agree with you in your explanation of how the feudals perpetuate their hold on the landless laborers. But aren`t millions of Indian peasants in a similar situation even today? After all, when the Zamindari system was abolished, the zamindars were allowed some land and they use sharecroppers to cultivate the land. They have practically the power of life and death over the peasants but you do not hear that the peasants are afraid to vote. Even Bihar regularly trades one set of rascals for another. If the ballot is truly secret, how does a feudal know which 1000 votes out of 500,000 led to his defeat? After all, his sharecropper employees cannot number more than a couple of thousand.

I will agree with you that the Pakistani National Assembly has very few representatives of religious extremists. But you cannot put JUI on the same boat as the BJP for only one reason: even in those states where the BJP has a clear majority, they are unable to impose a Hindutva agenda. And at the Federal level, by virtue of being a coalition partner among 24 parties, the BJP has had to yield to every single one of the other 23 parties. When you have the BJP allied with the avowedly atheistic DMK of Tamil Nadu, how do you expect a Hindu agenda to be advanced? Even on Hindi as the official language, the BJP is quiet so as not to offend the DMK. Contrast this with the PML trying to bring in CA-15.

You have the various Lashkar-e-Toyiba outfits running around in Pakistan. Let us say that non-political organizations such as the RSS and the Bajrang Dal are their equivalent. Do you see them running madrassah-style schools anywhere? Do their members carry around kalashnikovs? Do they shoot at each other`s temples because one follows Shiva and the other Vishnu a la the Sunni-Shia shootings in Pakistan? After the much publicized murder of Graham Staines and his two sons a year back, have you heard of any other attacks? And we are not using martial law or suppression of basic liberties to try to control these communal riots.

Long ago, I longed for a two-party democracy like the US or the UK (I know they have the Liberals too) so that India could move forward rapidly, instead of 50+ parties. But I think this proliferation of parties with local, regional and national bases has actually helped democracy grow. Every party knows that it will never have the dominant position that the Congress had from 1947-1972 and realizes the need for compromise and give-and-take. When they get into power, they realize that they have to get re-elected in 5 years and try not to antagonize too many people. The real growth of democracy in India began with the rise of regional parties because the Central government had to deal with states ruled by the opposition. While they might periodically dissolve the state governments (Bihar last year being the most recent example but actually started in 1959 with the Communist government of Kerala) to throw the opposition out of power or try to prevent them from forming a government after elections (again, Bihar this year, but there is a long history of this too), these are powerplays that are negated by the elections (Laloo Prasad Yadav`s wife is running Bihar now).

You agreed {However the icing on the cake for the religious parties would have been the success of the Shariat Bill that Nawaz Sharif was about to pass.} The BJP wouldn`t even try the one thing it has always campaigned for: abolition of Muslim Personal Law, because the Telugu Desam Party of Andhra has a sizeable Muslim support.

You say {Unless the Shariat Bill (which had nothing to do with Islamic Shariat by the way, and had more to do with Nawaz Sharif centralizing power) pops up its ugly head again in Pakistan, I think if anyone in India is worreid about religious parties dominating the South Asian political scene, they should point their fingers more towards the BJP, and less towards the religious parties in Pakistan. Not because the religious parties in Pakistan are less extremist than the BJP; but because the Pakistani religious parties are not even remotely close to enjoying the electoral support in Pakistan, that the BJP enjoys in India.}

And yet the BJP has not been able to change one thing in the Indian constitution or any other law. All they can do is work on economic issues. And after campaining on a strong swadeshi platform, they are opening up the economy to foreign companies, thus proving that staying in power is more important to them than ideology.

It is all a question of what are the words and what are the deeds. The words get them to power but people did not vote them for those words. After all, women vote for the Republican Party in the US even though there is an explicit anti-abortion plank in their platform. Everybody knows how far certain things can be pushed before they themselves get pushed out of power.

When you visit India, if you have the time visit a few locations in the North and the South. I am not even asking you to go into Lucknow or Allahabad. I think Old Delhi would be plenty eye-opening for you. You can compare that to that bastion of Hindu conservatism, Madras. You would probably come back swearing that you weren`t in the same country! It would also answer some questions about what is holding the Muslims back.

The mindset of Pakistani Army and their TLC for Kashmiris.

Sadhana

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/2000-03/27/098l-032700-idx.html

The Washington Post

On South Asia Trip, Clinton Makes Clear Cold War Is Over

Pamela Constable

Excerpt:

``

...

``Clinton has chosen India, and we must take a deep look at the new ground realities. It is time for Pakistan to readjust its geopolitical priorities and rediscover its traditional friends in the region,`` said Aslam Mirza Beg, a former Pakistani army chief. ``We don`t need to enter into an arms race with India, but we cannot let Kashmir go. Let Kashmir become a bleeding wound for India. The costs will be heavy on both sides, but heavier for India.``

...``

Yahmla Jat #135

Undoubtedly you havent read any of my earlier posts on Chowk. I`m one of the few Indians who wants Kashmir to seceede from India. Yes, two wrongs dont make a right. So use your buddhi to explain to your mujahadeen that by singling out hindus & massacaring them is only going to make the Indians all the more entrenched. They even kill Kashiri muslims who are sympathetic to India.

The only hope Pakistan & Kashmiris to gain freedom in Kashmir is to organise a peaceful non violent civil disobedience keep provoking them ala Gandhi & Martin Luther King.

If your buddhi cant accept this, then learn from history. When Yasser Arafar publicly renounced all forms of terrorism, the US intervened & brought reluctant Israel back to the negotiating table.

AI or no AI, when Clinton visited India (security notwithstanding) ,he mingled with the crowds, shook their hands, danced with Rajasthani women, brought his daughter to go sightseeing. In Pakistan, he slinked in an unmarked plane & Natoinal Security personnel, sent his daughter & business leadres home, ensured that no Pakistani crowds lined the roads & made it crystal clear that the US will not intervene in Kashmir.

When Pakistan loudly proclaims Indian human rights abuses in Kashmir, NO other country--not even the other Islamic countries or China are pressuring India. Pray, what does you buddhi say about that?!

Krashid # 131

It doesnt hurt me; it makes me laugh at your hypocracy.

Umairr,

My brother is married to an Indian muslim. They are both programers in NJ. She told me that because there are so many Indian programers in their firm that they were able to wrangle a holiday for Eid & Diwali from the management. Of course they had to forfeit Yom Kippur & Rosh Hashannah.

Maybe I should ask them to interview with you in CA:)

Fuzair:

you seem to have a convoluted logic! I dont think I offended non-Muslim Pakistanis in my post at all; all I did was state my personal preference for Muslims as friends (as I feel I have much more in common) over non-Muslims whether they are from Pakistan or anywhere else. I never said I do not like non Muslim Pakistanis or that they are not loyal citizens...

Navaid--bro, you were a bit too harsh on yourself, you should NEVER call yourself a `kaafir` if you are a Muslim! And not praying alone does not make you a kaafir according to the Ahle Sunnah scholars--you are mistaken there! No, as long as you don`t disbelieve any of the things which are necessary to believe in you are a Muslim! May Allah guide all of us. ameen. (Subtle point: if a person believes that it is NOT FARZ to pray THEN he/she is a kaafir as he/she is denying a farz which is kufr; not praying is a horrendous sin but not kufr according to the accepted opinion of the Sunni scholars by consensus (The view of Hazrat Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal alayhirahmat is different; and Allah knows best.)

PAKISTAN Zindabad!

BTW, I heard Clinton`s speech and it was absolutely clear that he totally has taken the Indian stance and he clearly said that the USA ``cannot and will not mediate over Kashmir``; the rest of his speech was a condescending threat to Pakistan to do as we [America] says or else veiled in nice language with references to the Quaid and Allama Iqbal. It was a slap in the face of all Pakistanis and should teach our leaders and those who so slavishly sell themselves to the US that the US does not want to know you. It has decided to take the Indian side totally. But instead of looking for some crumbs of comfort and trying to

fool ourselves that his speech was a ``success`` according to Our Cheif Executive for Pakistan (!) and generally acting like slaves we should now face up to the reality that the US has NEVER been a friend of ours and never will be (occassionally it uses and then abuses us like some rent boy when it needs our services for its own interests-eg during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan) our friend. We must not be surprised or hurt. Allah has clearly told us in the Qur`an not to take the kuffaar as friends and not to trust them.

I hope that this speech of his has awakened our brethren who looked kindly towards the US; now it should be clear that as long as we remain Muslims the kaafirs will never like us and so we have to choose between doing everything the US has demanded and thus living as slaves and losing our mazhab or living without the US as proud Muslims according to Islam and making Pakistan the beacon of light in the Muslim world--and the only one with nukes to date (although we should tell the US to get lost over non-proliferation and share our technical know-how with our afghanistani and arabian brothers (and other Muslims nations eg Maalysia--and Turkey--if they agree to cut ties with Israel) and also strengthen ties with Iran.) in exchange for economic and financial and scientific knowledge and aid. We must build new foreign policies centred around the MUslim world (and China) and forget the US.

finally, the indians should be happy and congratulated for this trip was for India an unqualified success.

..and finally some good news for Pakistan: in the past in other articles about the direction of pakistan and the jihadi organisations people have commented (eg in the Nation and a post by SameerJB once) that till now most of the jihadi groups have been run by the Deobandi and Wahaabi sects which are a minority in Pakistan. Now, according to the Daily Jang London the Barelvis (who are the vast majority in Pakistan (and India)) are, alhamdulillah, also forming their own Jihadi organisation called the Lashkar-e-Ahle Sunnat and all these groups are agreeing to fight together. It is the best news for ages. Allahu Akbar!

The sufis are going to jihad....

:-)

correction para 10: ``Perhaps, that is why the only Muslim computer scientists one comes across in Silicon Valley are from Pakistan.`` should read

``Perhaps, that is why the only Muslim computer scientists from South Asia one comes across in Silicon Valley are from Pakistan.``

krashid #131

``Real`` Pakistani: No, but are Pakistani newspapers so unreliable? BTW, I have lived among Tamilians all my life and not one of them ever even hinted that they wanted to secede. I have never come across any report of any publication or organization that has kept this issue alive. Why do Pakistanis need to keep bringing such a non-issue up? This is a really broken reed for Pakistanis to depend upon.

Sadhana

gymosophist # 117: ``I agree it is necessary to break the stranglehold of the feudals on the people and the political process in Pakistan. But if you are taught that your station in life is your kismet, all I can say is that Hinduism is alive and well among the Muslims of Pakistan.``

I think you are over-simplifying the Pakistani feudal problem here. The reason the feudals have a strangelhold on Pakistan is not because the people living on their lands consider it their kismet to serve the feudal. It is because the feudals have ensured that at least one member of each feudal family gets elected to the National and Provincial Assemblies, after every election. At that point, all of them unite to ensure that the people on their lands remain uneducated, and unrepresented. Since it is not a crime to own extremely large amounts of land in Pakistan, the feudals are able to legally ensure that their power base is not broken. Even Nawaz Sharif who wanted to shift the power base of Pakistani poltics from the corrupt feudals (PPP`s Sindhi power base) to the corrupt businessmen (PML`s Punjabi power base) was unable to do so.

It is not easy for a poor uneducated, unprotected hari (whose past generations have been slaves of the feudal, and who owes his complete economic survival to the feudal), to rise up against the feudals; specially since the hari does not own the land, and the feudal can thus legally kick him of his (the feudal`s) land. Obviously, feudal-run assemblies will never pass laws limiting the power of the feudal, regardless of how many elections there are. The one and only purpose of the feudals entering politics is to make sure that their power base is not taken over, or broken. That is one of the main reasons that Pakistan has only had elections; it has never had democracy. Hopefully, the current regime will initiate legitimate land reforms. Otherwise, their attempts at decentralizing power will be useless.

Another point that needs to be emphasized here is the incorrectness of the Indian view that Pakistani politics is being overrun by religious parties. In the last National Assembly elections, all the major religious parties (except JUI-F) ran on a single combined platform. This means that the various religous parties did not compete against each other, and jointly supported one religious party candidate from each seat. This combined platform, along with JUI-F seat(s), won two (yes two out of the possible 217+) seats in the National Assembly. This has always been the case. The religous parties traditionally do not win more than five or six seats in the Pakistan National Assembly.

Compare this to the success that the BJP has had it India. A look at their respective manifestos will indicate that the BJP has a more religious nationalistic agenda (www.bjp.org) than any of the Pakistani religous parties. In that sense I find it quite odd that Indians vote for the BJP, again and again with their left hand, while they point to the growing power of the religious parties in Pakistan with their right hand.

The religious parties in Pakistan (like the religious parties in many countries) are very vocal and somewhat violent (much like the BJP). So in Pakistan, the actual fear is not that they will get power through elections (2 seats out of 217+ indicates weakness; not power). The actual fear is that they will get indirect power. They were able to do so during the Zia regime, and thus Zia left behind a legacy of distortingly interpreted religious laws. Pakistan is still suffering from these laws. However the icing on the cake for the religious parties would have been the success of the Shariat Bill that Nawaz Sharif was about to pass.

Nawaz Sharif openly considered Zia his mentor (which he was), since General Zia and General Gillani are the ones who brought the Sharif family into politics from obscurity. These two generals are also considered the main reason for Nawaz family`s group of businesses growing from one of the many mid-sized businesses in Lahore to perhaps the wealthiest business house in the country. If I remember correctly, general Gillani (then the governor of Punjab under Zia`s martial law) picked out an unknown thirty-something man named Nawaz Sharif, and appointed him the finance minister of Punjab. From that time onwards, Nawaz Sharif, the Sharif family, and the Sharif businesss empire hasn`t looked back (until now of course, when they must be looking back on a daily basis). The Sharif business empire has also grown by 1000s of percentage points since the young Nawaz Sharif caught the eye of the two powerful generals. Nawaz Sharif makes speeches in Zia`s memory every year at Zia`s grave on Zia`s death anniversary.

Nawaz Sharif`s Shariat Bill would have brought Zia`s religious policies to their logical conclusion. It would have basically constituted a body of unelected religious leaders, who would have decision making power over every law passed by the National Assembly. So the religious lobby would finally get the power through this bill that they had been unable to get through elections. With the power centralized with this religious committee, Nawaz Sharif would not have to worry about the Assembly, and would just have to satisfy this group of religious leaders. It would also make him an ally of the very vocal religious parties, whose street power he feared greatly. The bill breezed through the PML dominated National Assembly. It would have passed through the Senate this year. Luckily, that is not going to happen now.

Unless the Shariat Bill (which had nothing to do with Islamic Shariat by the way, and had more to do with Nawaz Sharif centralizing power) pops up its ugly head again in Pakistan, I think if anyone in India is worreid about religious parties dominating the South Asian political scene, they should point their fingers more towards the BJP, and less towards the religious parties in Pakistan. Not because the religious parties in Pakistan are less extremist than the BJP; but because the Pakistani religious parties are not even remotely close to enjoying the electoral support in Pakistan, that the BJP enjoys in India.

I am very interested in visiting India and getting a chance to observe first-hand how the average Muslim in India lives. From the comments of the Indian Hindus, I get the feeling that the Muslims in India are far more inward looking and self-conscious of protecting their religion from external influences than the Pakistani Muslims. The Muslims in India seem far less accepting of technology than their counterparts in Pakistan also. Perhaps, that is why the only Muslim computer scientists one comes across in Silicon Valley are from Pakistan. I have yet to meet a Indian Muslim comp. scientist (I must have met over 300-400 Indian Hindu comp. scientists) Perhaps that is the cause of your comment on Kismet.

If the above is true, then there is probably a major difference in outlook on religion between the educated Indian Muslim and the educated Pakistani Muslim. I think the Indian Hindus, having only had a chance to interact with Indian Muslims, seem to assume that the outlook of the Pakistani Muslim is identical to that of the Indian Muslim. My own gut feeling (based on the comments on Chowk) is that their respective outlooks are quite different. However, I cannot make a final judgement on this until I actually visit India (hopefully in a year or two).

More comments on the future of Pakistan economy, from the 60s onwards, at a later time.