The Chicken Hawks Of Pakistan

Farangi_Kush,

{{If you are a brahmin how have you reconciled to live eat & rub with every other achhoot(farangis) except your own kind.Do you act awkward when visiting fellow brahmins or have bacome so `modern` that you have disavowed all past connections.}}

Very simple. I`ve become a true disciple of the penis god. In his infinite wisdom, my god has proclaimed that every human with a penis (& its female counterpart) belong to my caste. I`m still a little fuzzy about hijras though.

Mine is a ``super caste``. The only achoots are the bigots (doesnt matter what part of the world they come from).

As for my country--its the good ol red, white & blue. The greatest civilisation & culture humankind has ever created.

Incidentally, even people who hate it seem to want to live there. Why?--beats the heck out of me! Perhaps when they live in the US, they forget the stench of the gutter cultures they came from. Then their minds go into a strange torment of guilt & it converts that gutter into a sweet meadow of delusions. They long for the days of yore when those cultures were going through a golden era. Little do they realise that the sun has set on those ancient days. No amount of romantic delusions will ever resurrect them.

Yeah those are the poor anachronistic beings that I feel awkward towards. Maybe the word ``awkward`` is a poor choice. ``Pity``--thats a more befitting word.

Re Shammi #314 and Dost-Mittar#312

I am not suggesting that Pakistanis do not understand the reaction of Indians to the freedom struggle in Kashmir. Indeed they do understand. The point being made is that it`s already too late, the horse is out of the barn, the cat out of the bag, so to speak. Our challenge should be how to evolve a tri-lateral concensus on the shape of things to come.

I have not suggested that Indians surrender Kashmir on Pakistani terms, I am suggesting that we move towards a dialogue between the parties to the dispute. A just resolution of the crisis in Kashmir is in the long term interest of India. The promise of Indian economic development will remain unfulfilled until a just resolution is crafted. Indian national security will also be under constant threat. If Indians really belive that China is a larger threat to India than Pakistan, does it not make sense to work towards building a normal, workable relationship with Pakistan? If Pakistan sees it`s present and future security tied to that of China, is it inconcieveable that Bangladesh and Nepal and Sri Lanka will also try to use their relationship with China as a balancing tool? Pakistan is under financial strains presently, will this last? What is the cost of training to a few thousand, in relation to the cost of maintaining on alert, hundered of thousands of soldiers and their logistic support? Chauvanism will not lead us to resolution. Dialogue between the parties can change the political and intellectual landscape.

The thrust of my statement was that an intellectual and emotional environment that is hostile to Islam, is not in the interest of india and of peace. Muslims have been extraordinarily easy to divide, but at the end of the day, it is the Indian that is most easily distinguable as anti Islamic.

There is a fundamental ideological divide between liberal secularism and those who will not deny Islam a role in the affairs of organized society. Intellectual positions that claim to be Islamic can only be countered by positing countering positions which are seen as legitimately Islamic. We should be circumspect; we may create a emotional wall that will damage our long term interests. We have no need to create enemies there they don`t exist. And adversaries are preferable to enemies.

A process of dialogue with Pakistan will allow the preparation of an intellectual and emotional space within which the three parties can begin to deposit hope for resolution and within which the masses of the three parties can discard their biases and compromise. The more sincere this engagement, the stronger will be the committment of the masses to this process.



Re Harharan #320

Boneheaded?

Agreed that some policies of the Taleban are boneheaded and suggest the need for further study by the Talib. Can your conclusions reached after ``efforts`` be characterized similarly?

Ref tahmed321 #: 316

[harimau: greetings if you are around. now you promised not to be like jay and urstruly - I have not followed your posts to which shankar is responding, but trust that you are keeping your part of the deal like I am too.]

My post to which the headshrinker objects to violently merely pointed out the inconsistencies of the shrink. After saying that Jay belittles others because of his insecurities, he called Jay ``chickencrap``. For pointing this out, he has called me, RSaxena and Jay `chuts`, not once, but twice.

I asked if `chut` is a term of endearment that he uses with his wife. Chowk editors, ever so protective the headshrinker`s mental health (he does seem to need protection) have so far refused to post my rebuttal but it is a privilege that they have as editors.

Ref FARANGI_KUSH #: 313

[If you are a brahmin how have you reconciled to live eat & rub with every other achhoot(farangis) except your own kind.Do you act awkward when visiting fellow brahmins or have bacome so `modern` that you have disavowed all past connections.

In short how much Indian-ness & Hindu-ness you are trying to cast aside to exorcise your `backward` demons......the Jag stuff & talking about it demeans you,please never quote that again as a sign of success or intelligence.]

The headshrinker will be delighted when his son/ daughter bring in gora girlfriend/boyfriend so that he can erase his dark skin at least in the next generation. For all his talk about how he is delighted that his children will be completely assimilated into the US mainstream, wait till his daughter shows up with a black. It will be ``Guess Who is Coming to Dinner`` time.

These idiots who neither know their heritage nor have any sense of self-worth need psychoanalysis.

Sattar2 #305

In your mind you can believe yourself God instead of Muslim, inspite of that Ahmedi are non Muslims.

What is the problem with you.

When prophet PBUH brought his religion although it was a continuation of previous tradition, it was called by the name of Islam.

In the same vein you should call yourself Ahmedi and not Muslim.

Any way whatever name you call yourself, Muslim body don`t consider Ahmedi as Muslims. There is a strong tradition in Islamic history for persecution of fake religion in the name of Islam. In fact Prophet PBUH himself sent expedition to fight Muselma Kazzab who declared himself prophet.

If you can see the fate of Bahais in Iran, consider yourself lucky, to be born in Pakistan.

I know how the certificate of Qadianiat is given in US and UK for the servicess of Qadianis against Islam. My friend got green card because he declared himself Qadiani. Although he would not only curse Mirza Tahir Ahmed and Ghulam Ahmed and Company, but was Muslim all along. (Hai Ye BeIzzati).

As far as Jesus migrating to Kashmir more RATIONAL and STILL ALIVE even more rational. Ask any rational person on chowk about the rationality of irrationality.

Call your self Qadiani and not Muslim.

Re:Reply #: 302

Assad_K,

Your point is well taken. What i really meant was that peaceful struggle is a potent way. When i look around the world, i do not see any group having won a violent struggle recently; Hamas in Middle East, Irish struggle, LTTE in Srilanka etc. I see none of these have sympathies of the world. LTTE used to be quite popular during early days in Tamil Nadu until it committed the blunder of assasinating Rajiv Gandhi. This lead to revulsion and belief that LTTE has lost its moral ground. It has few sympathiers in Tamil Nadu today.

Violence, by its nature produces a reaction that is only violent. At some point everything gets blurred. Who started it all? The vicious cycle of violence and counter-violence goes on.

Today there is a sizable constituency on both sides of border who benefit by keeping the issue simmering. Once trade is normalized and peace gains momentum,a new constituency that has its stakes in maintaining peace is created. Once this is achieved, peace process moves forward on its own momentum and by popular support. I thought a similar situation was about to be achieved when Vajpayee visited Pakistan. Alas, i was wrong. Only a commitment to peaceful solution by both sides will solve this problem.

sridhar

Re:Reply #: 302

Assad_K,

Your point is well taken. What i really meant was that peaceful struggle is a potent way. When you look around the world, i do not see any group having won a violent struggle; Hamas in Middle East, Irish struggle,LTTE in Srilanka etc. I see none of these have sympathies of the world. LTTE used to be quite popular during early days in Tamil Nadu until it committed the blunder of assasinating Rajiv Gandhi. This lead to revulsion and belief that LTTE has lost its moral ground. It has few sympathiers in Tamil Nadu today.

Violence,by its nature produces a reaction that is only violent. At some point everything gets blurred. Who started it all? The vicious cycle of violence and counter-violence goes on.

Today there is a sizable constituency in both sides of border who benefit by keeping the issue simmering. Once trade is normalized and peace gains momentum,a new constituency that has its stakes in maintaining peace is created. Once this is achieved, peace process moves forward by its own momentum and by popular support. I thought a similar situation was about to be achieved when Vajpayee visited Pakistan. Alas, i was wrong. Only a commitment to peaceful solution by both sides will solve this problem.

sridhar

The bone-headed policies of Taliban is giving Islam a very bad name. Since Pakistan along with UAE and Saudi Arabia gives recognition, it reflects badly on Pakistan as well. Saudi Arabia and UAE can get away, because they have oil, money and finally `DISTANCE`, but Pakistan doesn`t have all three elements.

In a way, the Taliban has served as a good PR for India with reference to the Kashmir issue. Many look upon idiotic policies of Taliban and compare that with ``It could have been Kashmir`` and support the Indian position.

It is kind of sad, when people are starving in Afghanistan, the Taliban is more interested in ensuring that boys wear turbans. Sometimes one doesn`t know if one has to laugh or cry. Keep it up Taliban! You have made Islam proud. (Frankly, if one reads the Koran and the various hadiths,sunna, Taliban is not far away from true Islam. I have taken effort to see their justification, and I find that most of what they are doing is indeed called for in Islam). Indeed THE PROPHET(PBUH) would have supported Taliban as well. The world we are living in, may not agree with what is happening in Afghanistan.

Regards,

Hariharan

shankar #310 Bravo! Brrraavo! Please read Qalandar`s previous post and my previous post (which adds to it). I hope you will appreciate it and let me know if translation is needed.

harimau: greetings if you are around. now you promised not to be like jay and urstruly - I have not followed your posts to which shankar is responding, but trust that you are keeping your part of the deal like I am too.

sadna # 311 Anamika

``Its by no means clear that what Indians may consider a `final solution` will actually be so in the eyes of independence-minded Kashmiris and ``strategic depth`` minded Pakistani Army or expansion-minded Islamists.``

Anamika, on this Sadna does make a crucial point. There can be no one-shot solutions to the problems between India and Pakistan, or problems involving Kashmir. No matter what steps we or anyone else takes, all parties (Indians, Pakistanis, and Separatist Kashmiris) will continue to make their own moves. And the logic of these future moves will not be (can not be) very different from that guiding their behaviors now. To think otherwise is to be very naive.

Therefore,we have a dynamic problem before us, not static one. The situation in Kashmir can be radically different 15 years from now, depending upon who is allowed to fish in the waters of Dal Lake with what kind of fishing rods.

Just because we have an unsatisfactory situation now, alternative courses of action do not necessarily become better. Sometimes one just has to live with an imperfect world.

re: Shankar and his adversaries..

Shantih shantih shantih...

:)



BTW, you guys are duelling over some very important issues. So I hope nobody will give up! Just a teeny-tiny bit of civility will go a long way...

Re:Reply #: 301

Layman,

I agree with what you said in your post. I was trying to point out the fallacy of taking to violent means to achieve the purpose,howsoever noble or justified it may be. India won freedom largely through peaceful means. No doubt the British were not in the same league as Nazi Germans and were reasonable and law-abiding but we must never forget that they justified the very same traits to rule a vast country. They often said India would end up in chaos if they left. Freedom was very hard fought and not easy. By steering India away from violence people like Gandhi bequeathed us a country where democracy could flourish. Majority of Indians had no trouble accepting secularism as a state policy soon after the hindu-muslim carnages.

Simmering discontent in the North-east has a lot to do with illegal immigrants (as in Assam)or too much interference by center. Decentralisation will go a long way to solve this problem. I do not know the details of what else is going on in those areas but i may be wrong.

Indian bureacrats and politicians have no doubt played havoc. They have treated these states with a ``kid glove`` so to say. These states (also called the ``seven sisters``) need proper representation and a feeling that they too belong. This takes a long time and will happen with decentralisation and grass root democracy.

My reference to Tamil Nadu was to point out that being different does not mean you do not belong. India is a vast country of subcontinental size. Each state has its own unique culture and language. Kashmir with its Kashmiriyat can live with India as have other states.

regards

sridhar.

RE: headshrinker

``Eating all those coconuts has turned your brain into coconut milk.``

Dude, you`re a frekin nutcase. Grow up.

Re: Hobbyty #306

It will be instructive to review the history of the American Civil War and draw comparisons with Kashmir. Lincoln did not oppose continuation of slavery in the South -- he realized that the South will have to make its own decisions on the issue (like Article 370 of the Indian Constitution on state issues), but he was against its (ie slavery) expansion to the new territory of Kansas. The South argued for the expansion of slavery, and argued under the principle of `popular sovereignty`, ie. the will of the majority, or the will of the majority of the people living in Kansas. Lincoln was against this principle on moral grounds and found himself isolated politically -- history would prove him to be on the right side long after his assasination. Before this issue could be resolved, the Civil War broke out when the South attacked Ft. Sumter in S. Carolina and tested/challenged Federal authority, with all the carnage to follow (Gettysburg, Sherman`s march through Atlanta and the South, etc.)

Likewise, in Kashmir, the `majority` (if you can call the unelected APHC to be representative -- remember Kashmir is not just the Valley) to be one wants a breakdown of the secular fabric of Kashmir. It is the defence of this essential principle that forms the philosophical divide. You can expect a resolute, determined defence of this principle from India much like Lincoln`s willingness to return violence with violence, even though he personally abhorred it. This is the same situation that many Indians find themselves in. The political demands of the ordinary Kashmiri have been hijacked by the militants, and the bullet, not the ballot, is doing the talking. The direct sufferer of this situation is the hapless Kashmiri -- but it is their leadership that is doing them a great diservice.

Also, it might be instructive to read the following from the RAND report ``The Changing Politial-Military Environment: South Asia`` (Appendix D, pg. 222) available at http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1315/MR1315.appd.pdf :

``Transforming this “ugly stability” will require, at the very least, an acceptance on Pakistan’s part that the status quo in Kashmir is unlikely to change significantly no matter what means are brought into play. (Alternatively, it would require that India recognize that its current strategy in Kashmir has reached the limits of its success and therefore requires some negotiations with Pakistan that would eventually result in significant changes to the status quo. Since this possibility is highly unlikely given India’s current stand and its continued willingness (and ability) to expend resources in maintaining the status quo, the only alternative left remains a change in the current Pakistani strategy of distracting India.) This in turn implies that both Pakistan and India would have to commit themselves to a comprehensive dialogue that would take place despite the ex ante impossibility of any significant transformation in the current political and territorial configuration in Kashmir.

If such a dialogue is successful, a variety of alterations in the current arrangements might occur ex post, but the demand for radical alterations could not become either a precondition or a presumption were New Delhi to be expected to engage in serious discussions with Islamabad on Kashmir. There is no evidence, however, that Pakistan is willing to engage in a serious dialogue with India under such conditions.``

Regards

Shankar:#310

Jay Jay Shiv Shankar,Kanta lagay naa kankar

Yeh pyaalaa teray naam kaa piyaa.

As an international psycho analyst what do you say about those in India who must return to their unseen abodes when the nights` gutter work is done.Is that law still there,so that a brahmin may not accidentally cast an eye on a non-caste.

If you are a brahmin how have you reconciled to live eat & rub with every other achhoot(farangis) except your own kind.Do you act awkward when visiting fellow brahmins or have bacome so `modern` that you have disavowed all past connections.

In short how much Indian-ness & Hindu-ness you are trying to cast aside to exorcise your `backward` demons......the Jag stuff & talking about it demeans you,please never quote that again as a sign of success or intelligence.

The chamaars,shudrs & hari-jans take it as a personal affront.

wassalaam.

anamika #294
I meant Partition, I know the numbers quoted range between 1/4 million-2 million. The smaller number is gruesome enough.
My points were merely these:
1. People forget Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists have been living in the region we loosely term the Valley for generations as have Muslims in the regions loosely termed Jammu and Ladakh. The issue of a `new` line based solely on religion is many times more `loaded` than even a `final` LOC solution which is itself not easy, given that there are Kashmiris on both sides. Any `new` line drawn on the basis of religion alone can only recreate the spectre of Partition, couch it as both sides may with euphemistic platitudes or cotton wool. The fact that Pakistan now prides itself as Islamic Republic and India a Secular republic makes it more loaded than merely a territory adjustment at Independence.

2. India will have to remain highly invested anyway in whatever region it cedes control to Pakistan (if it does ever do so, that is). Firstly to prevent religious hardliners or external powers from taking control, secondly to prevent economic disarray and its accompanying human problems, the effect of both of which India cannot isolate itself from due to proximity and history. If a Pakistan in disarray or an economically weak Bangladesh are problems for India, then a Kashmir in disarray is more so and seems more likely and for similar reasons.

3. Its by no means clear that what Indians may consider a `final solution` will actually be so in the eyes of independence-minded Kashmiris and ``strategic depth`` minded Pakistani Army or expansion-minded Islamists. Give an inch and cope with demands for a mile has happened before.

anamika, similar to jingoism which resists solutions to problems, there is jingoism which presses for some course of action. Both positions qualify as jingoism if their consequences are not properly thought-through. I believe India should avoid both because both can have high (and recurring)human costs. Fair enough? :)

Assad_K #302


``Well, we all know who massacred the Sikhs, don?t we? ``

Do you? Barry Bearak wrote a lengthy article in the New York Times Magazine: December 31, 2000, Sunday ``A Kashmiri Mystery`` in which he states that its difficult to reach a conclusion whether the Pakistani jihadis were responsible or pro-India unknowns were responsible.

He seemed to come to this conclusion after spending a lot of time and effort investigating the story, better get in touch with him if you have some more conclusive information than he had.


Though I donot understand why the massacre of 35 Sikhs should be a reason to deny the Sikh community in Jammu and Kashmir a say as interested parties in any Kashmiri settlement. I donot see a single Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist member in the Hurriyat who claims to represent all Kashmiris nor do I see that the Hurriyat has alliances or agreements with any leaders from these communities. And on what basis is it impled that the Muslim community in Kashmir is monolithic and homogenous with respect to political point of view or historical community or wrt religion?

As for your airy `division of the spoils` refer to my answer above.

``Lets not bring up arrogance, shall we?``
Better sort it out with F_K whether its inferiority complex or arrogance. Though I doubt that will end the requirement of likemindedness and rubberstamping of Pakistani leaders by the Pakistani Army.