The Garage School

i found the address in one of the replies...

Thanks

Asim

Hi,

This is not exactly interaction, but I just wanted to find out, how to get in touch with Shabina Mustafa, I think I could do some things here to play my two-bits worth of part for garage school venture.

I don`t know how to contact the author directly, so I guess this could work.

Thanks

Asim

Kabuli,

I think the idea behind the praise is more towards the fact that she is helping the poor and uneducated, how people praise her is one, besides the point, and two, as long as she helps make a difference to any unfortunate uneducated individual it makes the required difference.

This article was not about Sikh`s, Hindu`s, Muslim`s and so forth, it was about the fact that somebody is doing something for the great good and not solely thinking for themselves to achieve any selfish thought or idea.

The majority of the articles on Chowk have replies and interactions on ideas completely irrelevant to the article and the intention behind it.

Don`t worry about it.

p.s. I just gulp down NyQuil whether I need it or not to fall asleep!!

Cheers

re: slink

I first read this article in The Friday Times and was like, holyshit, there are Sikhs in Karachi...but one thing has been annoying me ever since the article has come on Chowk...in the interactions, many people have praised Shabina Mustafa for not being prejudiced against non-Muslim kids INSPITE of her losing her husband in one of the wars...I think Mrs. Mustafa is an honourable Pakistani for doing what she is doing...but should she be praised FOR helping non-Muslim kids?...aren`t they Pakistani too?...so what does it matter if she helps out PAKISTANI non-Muslim kids?...her husband was killed by the Indian military and not by non-Muslims of Pakistan...this is not meant to show disrespect to Mrs. Mustafa, nor would I care to comment on anything about Pakistan, but the logic some of the interactors have applied has been bugging me and giving me sleepless nights

regards

Kabuli

Greetings -

Solitude,

Like Shandana said in one of her responses, this article is simply about education. It is an effort to help the unfortunate -

Your concepts of Islam and the sheer belief that it is a cult of sorts, also leads one to beleive that you really have little knowledge of what the religion is all about.

Regardless, you have a right to your thought, beleive what makes you happy.

There is no old and new religion, yes it`s true one should progress with time and alot of ideas were set in, back in the days when people were half lunatics and pulled a knife on the smallest of things. It however should not lead one to beleive that Islam promotes the concept or brain-washes one to abide by any such idea.

``Is it human nature to kill ? No.`` To an extent Yes, it is. survival of the fittest applies to all life forms!!

``It is religion, sectarianism, social pressure, communal anger, collectivism in particular that gives birth to violence and evil.``

We tend to define our black, white and grey areas. That is what leads us to our beleif`s and judgment of each other. Religion does not promote violence, you will find extremism in all religions and societies. You will find violence and evil all around you. It is not Islam, it is not Christianity nor is it hinduism.

Waco - Texas to the Uni-bomber, everbody has the good and bad.

``Is it human nature to force people into converting to Islam ? Is it human nature to rape women and treat them as ``anfal`` (war booty) ? Is it human nature to genitally mutilate girls and children ? Is it human nature to discriminate ?``

Like I said. You have your concepts all severely mutillated and grossly exagerated. Not to say such atrocities donot take place, but please keep Islam out of it. It makes you look a little silly.

Do study the art of war, do read Bruce Lee`s works, you`ll realize the techniques of meditation and prayer and so forth, do exist outside of Islam.

All forms of discipline and guidance and patience not only are promoted by Islam, but many look to it as a way of life.

The concepts behind the ideas you`ve listed below are rather stretched and surely an image you`ve painted for Islam in your own head. ``Speaking in tongues``, is however the most amusing, since Arabic is in front of it. Is`nt any language second to your mother - ``tongue`` - a foreign second language and thus classified as a ``tongue``.

``Mind-numbing techniques (such as meditation (prayers), chanting (tasbeeh), speaking in tongues (arabic), denunciation sessions (anti -west propaganda , anti hypocrite , anti non muslim), debilitating work routines (fasting, 5 time prayers etc.) are used to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).``

All are ideas promoted by extremists and to an extent educated fools who`ve become fundamentalists. NOT part of Islam, NOT promoted by Islam, and not accepted by the norm.

You definitely seem to be set in your ideas. Hope you can open your mind at some point and consider the bigger picture.

Life is too short and ``in the long run, we`re all dead anyways!!`` Get over it. You seem too stressed.

Cheers

shankar #65, ``many dentists are struggling because they have been too successful in their efforts in promoting oral hygene. Fewer people have cavities & hence lesser work for the profession.``

Yes, lesser cavities BUT thanks to cosmetic dentistry, orthodontics, the prevalence of gum disease, and preventative dentistry, dentists still make a living. It`s not all about cavities. Thank God.

Sorry Shandana, just had to correct Dr. Shankar`s notions.

Umairr,

It has been suggested that in the US, many dentists are struggling because they have been too successful in their efforts in promoting oral hygene. Fewer people have cavities & hence lesser work for the profession. Fortunately, human nature as it is, we shrinks will never starve, no matter how bad we are:)

Yes you are right in saying that cyberspace should not be controlled. However, no matter how wonderful the concept of freedom is, you will agree that there have to be some modicum of rules. Now we can disagree as to where those lines ought to be drawn.

One can argue that vulgarity & profanity is freedom of expression. However, I agree that the Chowk staff has to set rules in that regard. In the same vein, I think that the author of the article should be given a choice to moderate discussions. If the author feels that the posts should be confined to the topic at hand, then I feel it should be his/her perogative to do so--especially if the direction of postings are annoyingly distracting.

On the other hand, if the author prefers not to participate or doesnt mind where the discussion could lead, then it is his/her perogative as well. I feel we posters should give the author at least that level of respect.

Shandana`s fervent appeal in uppercase letters meant to me that she found those distractions annoying. Then I wish those overzealous posters would show some modicum of respect for her feelings.

If I understand her article correctly, she is relating a story of one wise & brave woman`s contribution to society. Shabina Mustafa suffered a tragedy 30 yrs ago by war (a human tragedy). Yet she turned that tragedy into a triumph by bringing children of all faiths toghether in order to make them better human beings. She`s honored her husband`s sacrifice by these actions. If that is Shandana`s message to us, this useless bickering between PAF/IAF is an affront to the message.

{{The only improvement I can think of is for the Chowk staff to create permanent threads on issues like India/Pakistan etc., for people who are bent on briging these up everywhere.}}

You just finished pointing that out it would be an excercise in futility. Those bigots will bring it up even if the article was titled ``Why tea is better than coffee``:)

shankar #50: I am still undecided on whether it is a good or bad idea to moderate and control replies, on an open medium like the Internet. If for no other reason, because it is impossible to do so.

Discussions on any subject will always take on lives and sub-lives of their own, depending on the people who are interacting. Should this be discouraged, or encouraged? Or perhaps, neither should be done. If someone wants to turn an article on the finer points of Lata`s voice, into a contest between India and Pakistan, then I would have to say, they should be allowed to do so. Similarly, if an article on education turns into a discussion on airplanes, that should also neither be encouraged nor discouraged.

People will comment on what they are interested in. And regardless of how much one yells at them one cannot control them; at least not in cyberspace. Nor should one try to. One word in any article can start off a debate on something that has nothing to do with the article. More than likely, most replies turn into threads of their own, spawning off furthur baby threads.

This is the beauty of the freedom of expression on the Internet. No one controls anyone. And I think, if an attempt to is made to moderate this freedom, the freedom may end up disappearing.

I would have to say the Chowk Staff has adapted the correct policy regarding the above: they reject replies with vulgarity, but let everything else be printed, even if it has nothing to do with the article.

The only improvement I can think of is for the Chowk staff to create permanent threads on issues like India/Pakistan etc., for people who are bent on briging these up everywhere. Apart from that, I think people should be allowed to comment, at will. If someone does not like a discussion another individual is partaking in, all he/she has to do is to not read the reply.

The above, of course, will lead to a lot of replies which have nothing to do with the article. This can be very annoying. However, in my opinion, that is still better than moderating replies, to point to only the basic theme of the article; especially since each article actually contains many themes (some which even the author of the article may not have noticed).

For example, for me, apart from the garage school, another interesting theme in this article, is the background of its founder (mentioned briefly by the author, herself). Should I comment on it, or should I not? Following my own rule of more discussions (even unrelated and/or annoying ones) being generally better than fewer discussions, I have commented. This has lead to a debate on Air Forces, having nothing to do with the article, alongside a debate on the school itself. Should the former debate be halted, and only the later be allowed to proceed? Or should both be allowed to proceed, with the readers, concentrating on the one they are interested in and ignoring the other one?

Annoying as this mode of reasoning maybe, I would have to say, to avoid the first stages of a, ``Farenheit 451`` type situation, both should be allowed to go on.

Besides, if everyone in the world became disciplined enough to follow the straight and narrow, psychiatrists would go out of business :-)

This reply doesn`t have much to do with this article.

Solitude #8: I have read all your comments, on various threads, with great interest, in an effort to figure out whether you genuinely have valid points, or if you are just trying to impose your own dissatisfactions on certain issues related to religion, etc. onto others. Since discussions on historical and religious issues can be somewhat subjective, it becomes difficult to decide one way or the other (and I am not a religious or social scholar).

However, I do have some expertise on the points you have mentioned in reply #8. In my opinion, what you have mentioned there is about as severe a distortion of fact, as possible. Based on that, I would have to assume that you see religion as a problem for everyone, not only yourself. As long as one keeps this to a personal level, it is all right. However, when you use this to spread disinformation, I think it becomes offensive.

``I grew up on PAF bases around Pakistan``

Growing up around bases does not really give one too much insight to the functioning of the military organization. I grew up around military bases as well, however I only figured out how the military (PAF, Army, PNS) functions after I joined the military.

``PAF is the most racist, sexist and prejudiced Air Force.``

Although none of the organizations in Pakistan would be considered model equal rights organizations according to the international standards, the PAF comes about as close as possible. I found it to be far less biased and racist than the normal Pakistani society.

``My father himself left the PAF early on in his career because he was not a Punjabi (even though he spoke Punjabi fluently and grew up in Lower Topa Muree and then Sarghoda and Sialkot).``

Actually, the PAF on the whole is run by Pathans, not Punjabis. A majority of the fighter pilots are Pathans. And fighter pilots in the PAF, get almost all the senior positions. I believe three of the last four Chiefs were Pathans. So being a Punjabi doesn`t put one in the majority group. I was a non-Pathan, and never felt an ounce of ethnic discrimination.

I would be very interested in knowing your fathers` name. There are around 400 or so active fighter pilots in the PAF. The total number of retired and active fighter pilots is probably less one thousand. I know, have read about, or have heard about, around half of them. Could you pass on your father`s name? Maybe I know him, or have heard of him.

``You can forget about the walls thick with Islamic prejudice that are put up to prevent Qadianis (Ahmedis), Shias (``khatmals``), Mohajirs and non Muslims like Christians etc.``

There is only one area where a wall has been put up in the PAF, as far as progress goes. Unfortunately, the Chief will only be a Shia or a Sunni. This I believe has become an unwritten rule. However, this has been imposed by the civilian leadership of Pakistan, and not by the military itself. It is more an indication of the lack of tolerance in the Pakistani society, rather than the Pakistan military.

``Sure it suits the PAF quite well to have Christians dying for them -instead of their own sons.``

By a gigantic ratio, the most Shaheeds in the PAF have been Muslims. For the simple reason, that most of the fighter pilots are Muslim. This is because most of the people in Pakistan are Muslims. The Christian, whose name I mentioned in an earlier reply, was actually a squadron commander, in 1971. So he probably had more Muslims die for him (his subordinates), rather than vice versa.

``MM Alam today is amongst the most severely disillusioned men ?``

I have met MM Alam, and heard him speak, also. We were stationed at the same base once, as well. He was forced to resign from the PAF, because he did not get along with the Chief, and used to openly criticize him (something forbidden in any military). He then became a sort of a born-again Muslim, and actually volunteered and fought in Afghanistan against the Soviets. He is now, I believe, quite religious. One could say he is disillusioned or very well-illusioned, depending on one`s views of religion.

``a long time ago when the RAF trained our men``

The RAF never trained the men of the PAF. The moment Pakistan was created, Jinnah personally inaugurated the PAF Academy (a few months before he died). So the RAF only trained the pilots who originally belonged to the pre-partition Indian Air Force. After the formation of Pakistan, all the officers were trained by the PAF (or the RPAF, as it was known at that time). As a tradition, every year one or two cadets went to England for training. A few odd times, ten or so went to flying clubs there and in the US, during the middle of their training. However, Pakistan has always trained its own pilots and officers, since inception. It is way way too expensive to send complete batches of cadets for flying training to another country.

``There was a time when the Pakistan Air Force was indeed blind to prejudice a long time ago...PAF was run according to the Britain`s Manual.``

The PAF is still running, by and large, on the British Manual (with some additions from the USAF manual, and the Pakistani manual). The official language of aviation (and the PAF) is English. The rank structure, even the uniforms, traditions, parade formations etc., is still almost identically British. Even the PAF Law Manual is based on British military law, with a few modifications.

``Today with our madrasahs teeming with Mujahids the gentleman soldier is becoming extinct.``

I never met a single officer in the PAF who came from a Madrassah (not that I have anything against or for Madrassahs). I would be interested in finding out if you could name some pilots who went to a madrassah. I think it would be very difficult for a person educated in a Madrassah to make it into the PAF, because the selection process is heavily weighted towards the English language and Mathematical skills (required for Aeronautical Engg. and flying). All the selection tests are in English. Even applicant`s English public speaking skills are tested. I am not familiar with too many Madrassah`s that emphasize English.

``The Ahmedis hid their identities from fear of persecution - my father named all ``suspected`` Ahmedis and was instrumental in the ruination of many families.``

This is more an indication of a fault in one person`s personality, rather than a problem in an institution. There are people in the USA who hate South Asians. That doesn`t mean every American hates South Asians. There have also been phases in recent US history, when certain ethnic groups have been targeted in certain areas. There are good and bad individuals, and good and bad phases in every organization. However, one bad apple or one bad day, neither destroy nor defines the whole orchard. By the way, the Chief during the 1971 ware was an Ahmedi. I have met him a couple of times, and he is still very well respected. He regularly writes on defense issues in the Nation newspaper.

``Today in the PAF men like my father thrive (him and all his friends who are very devout Muslims.``

There will always be bad people who thrive in any organization. However, the bad people who thrive in the Pakistan military, don`t do so because of religion. In fact the most secure club, through which low merit officers have managed to thrive, is the drinking club. Exactly the opposite of what you have described. Drinking buddies have a long history of being promoted in most militaries, including Pakistan`s.

``Men who refuse to shave their beards``

You will very rarely find any fighter pilot, in any Air Force, who has a long beard. The reason is that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to wear the chin strap of the flying helmet, and the oxygen mask, around a beard. In fact, very few fighter pilots have even small beards. This is because a pilot`s face can get quite sweaty during flying (specially in some of the older planes, with bad air-conditioning). A sweaty beard is a great irritant while one is flying. Of the few hundred PAF pilots I have met in my life, only one had a long beard (3 to 4 inches). I never figured out how he was able to handle the irritation during flying. One out of a few hundred, however.

``come to my father for help with convincing their wives to put on the veil and for counseling on how best to order their wives to stop driving.``

I don`t personally have anything against very religious or very non-religious people. I don`t judge a person`s character by the lack or excess of facial hair (ZZ Top, the rock band, have beards longer than any religious fanatic I ever met). I also do not judge a female by the lack or excess of clothing. However, the description you have given of the current PAF officers is exactly the opposite of my experience. Having grown up and trained with so many of them, I can only smile at your portrayal of their views. Some of the times we spent together, during our younger days, would make most of my Americans frat brothers (of college days) blush. I am definitely more conservative then most of them. This does not necessarily make them good or bad people, however it does point out the inaccuracies in your description.

There are many many problems with the PAF, Navy, and Army. These should be pointed out and discussed. However, you have not hit on a single one of them (apart from pointing to a brief phase after 1971 when officers assumed to have pro-Bangladeshi views may have been targeted; this point has some accuracy). I am afraid I will have to conclude that you are using your personal views, and the effect religion has had on you, to misinform everyone. Your personal outlook on life is your business, however it is unethical to spread misinformation regarding other people`s views.

harpeet,

don`t worry about it..you had a valid reason :)

scout,

you`re right :)

Suggestion#2:
Chowk Staff SHOULD start thinking of adding an additional feature in the little ``interact`` window, saying ``Edit Feature.`` Just a thought for 2001!

Suggestion#1:

As the Garage School has started focusing towards the education of the kids in the neighborhood, it is very important that these kids have some role models in real life. It will be an added benefit for these kids to have mentors, like Yasser and Akash. Both the knowledgeable interactors can share their info on planes, trains and automobiles with the kids. You never know....one of the students may like to opt for airforce or other related fields. These kids need to talk to young men with hosh and josh. I think Yasser and Akash will be ideal candidates for this job. I would strongly recommend their names for the noble cause. Interestingly, the students will be able to tell the difference between Iss Paar and Uss Paar`s fighter jets. Wonderful! Killing two birds with one stone!

I think that it will be very unfair to let go of these talented young men`s views. They must be well utilized. Probably, slink should forward the email addresses of both the interactors to the school.

Good Luck and Congrats!

Suggestion:

As the Garage School has started focusing towards the education of the kids in the neighborhood, it is very important that these kids have some role models in real life. It will be an added benefit for these kids to have mentors, like Yasser and Akash. Both the knowledgeable interactors can share their info on planes, trains and automobiles with the kids. You never know....one of the students may like to opt for airforce or other related fields. These kids need to talk to young men with hosh and josh. I think Yasser and Akash will be ideal candidates to this job. I would strongly recommend their names for the noble cause. Interestingly, the students will be able to tell the difference between Iss Paar and Uss Paar`s fighter jets. Wonderful! Killing two birds with one stone!

I think that it will be very unfair to let go of these talented young men`s views. They must be well utilized. Probably, slink should forward the email addresses of both the interactors to the school.

Good Luck and Congrats!

Ylh



I checked the official records of Pak military that accepted the loss of 42-45 planes in 1971. A non official version puts the loss of Indian planes to around 60. However we must remember that India was the agressor in 1971. It is well known by the defense experts that a ratio of 3:1 is required to dominate the adversary. Also the side that is attacking invariably faces more loss than the defending side. Thus the loss of a few more planes by IAF in 1971 stands justified. None of the sides have released an oficial version of the ``actual loss`` in 1965. You will definitely agree with me that the figures given by both the sides of the losses are likely to be biased. Asuming that the loss as accepted by PAF lately of 56 planes in 1965 to be correct, I would put the actual loss of Indian planes to be around 70. Note that the figures of Indian loss stand midway between 104 as claimed by PAF and 35 as initially accepted by IAF. These numbers are certified by some Indian military officers unofficially. Similarly it is interesting to observe that the actual loss of 55 admitted by PAF lately is midway between 75 claimed by Indans and 19 as accepted by PAF initially. The additional loss of 10-15 planes by IAF is attributed to the surprise attack by the PAF and the Indian unpreparedness initially. Thus we see that the war was much more evenly pitched than what most of the people (Indians and Pakis)think.

PS Mr ylh, please read carefully and backcheck the details carefully before jumping to conclusions. The actual facts are usually more balanced than the empty rhetoric

Ylh



I read Jane`s defense weekly quite frequently. And the analysis of India`s airforce Vs Pak airforce as of 2000 as posted by me was from alphalink which is very reliable and unbiased. It claims that if the war commences tomorrow, Indian airforce will completely dominate the weak Pak airforce. This is not to say that Pak pilots are any less courageous than their Indian counterparts. However in modern times wars are won by techmology, better organisational skills, and strategic planning. Do you think that Americal pilots were 100 times more courageous than Yugoslavian ones as they won the war without any casualty while inflicting huge damage to yugoslavia. Or American soldiers are 1000 times ``braver`` than Iraqi soldiers. No man, it`s the technology and strength of economy to carry the burden of war that matters in modern times. Had Indian airforce had merely 40 or so planes with ``look down shoot down capability`` against around 300 of the Pak obviously it is the Pak who will

win. But we know it is not the case.

P.S.

Would you post any article from Jane`s defense weekly that proves that PAF in 2000 AD is stronger than IAF. This is my challenge to you.

Please also be advised that the admitted USAF analysis was 19 PAF aircrafts...with only 154 aircrafts in the entire strength ... Pakistan clearly couldnt have half its Airforce viped out.

The PAF air war victory in both war has been admitted by the following sources...

1) USAF analysis

2) Yeager Autobiography available at Barnes and Nobles..

3) Jane`s defense weekly

I suggest you read

``Personal author: Tanham, George K. (George Kilpatrick)

Title: The Indian Air Force : trends and prospects / George K. Tanhma & Marcy Agmon.

Publication info: Santa Monica, CA : Rand, 1995.``

I believe this particular very non biased book is very embarrassing for the IAF.

-Yasser Latif Hamdani

PS Akash do you take up the challenge.. or are you going to tell me again that I am misinformed?

Please dont take Akash seriously. On another board he was claiming that ``I (YLH) was misinformed and that Jinnah was a Parsi`` when clearly Jinnah was a born a Muslim into a Khoja family. Please go and read a clearer analysis and start reading.

Also, Akash the figures that you give, exaggerated no doubt by India still show a PAF superiority. Believe me the World will believe ``Chuck Yeager`s`` estimate in his Biography more than any Bharat Rakshak site.

Now time to read more Akash, time to come out of the cocoon of selective reading, and that too of biased Indians authors.

-YLH

PS Indians want us to believe them, over Yeager, Jane Defense Weekly and the internationally acclaimed airwar experts... yeah right.