Desi: The False Ideology

Re: Veeru

If you`re gonna come and visit us here at least have the courtesy of double posting to boost our count. Every little bit helps.

Boond boond se samandar bharta hay.

74 bottles of beer on the wall.

Pat,

Thanks for the candid response. I had second thoughts as I posted that.

I envy your optimism regarding el freako and continue to be intrigued at why you cut him so much slack.

You said that him being from Pakistan gives you a better understanding on his presumed psychological propensities that may have causal relationship with his `enemy consciousness` as you so kindly put it. I think furthermore, as he starts his arguments with phrases like, ``The Indians have proven to be fools again``, they just don`t register the same amount of distaste on you as they would on an Indian.

Well, enough of this.

Later.

P.S: 75 bottles of beer on the wall.

OK Team! 100 interacts to go for the record! I implore you to dig deep and gather up the last remaining shreds of will (or mojo or juice if you like it that way) and give your 110%! Lets just take it one post at a time... OK?

Now go champs and make me proud. I will be following closely behind with the beer bottles.

76 bottles of beer on the wall.

And one last comment about my own self assessment

I dont think of myself as a great thinker or a great man, or as an enigma. I am merely expounded on the ideas and thesis that many great thinkers and historians have created and then proved through hypothesis testing. I do take great pride in the fact that I love reading (the only other real passion I have other than cricket) and I have read quite a bit, and might surprise you but I am quite aware of all points of views and their merits and demerits. However a debate is like advocacy, and as I have mentioned before no good advocate will have argue the opponent`s brief. Indeed, if Indians were to fire back with their defence and their perspective, it would add balance, but for now, I can safely say Indians have let themselves and their perspective down, not that it matters on chowk. They have succumbed to name calling, and shameless exhibition of bigotry and fanatical chauvinism.

Remember, I might not be great as I dont think I am, but by dedicating over 300 posts to li`l ol me as the central issue, you have created a very different picture.

-YLH

Pankaj # 1086-

..precisely!...you`ve said much of what i wanted to...a minor correction: the RSSs mouthpiece is Organizer and Panchajanya...Samna is our half-nut Mainduck raja (to use a rushdie-ism)Thackeray`s dare-piece...

PM # 1087-

``Perhaps he reacts so intensely to it beacuse he feels/knows that these myths (Pakistan as throcratic state) have taken firm root in Pakistan itself (in fact become realities)...``

..maybe he should just learn to accept realities then..

..the pattern he exhibits- a tremendous awareness of his own cleverness, a dismissive attitude to others opinions and his crude threats etc are unfortunately not any evidence of convictions or even nationalism, its pure egotism on display...as some people use religion or race or wealth or whatever suits them to ride roughshod on others, ylh is using the secularism/liberalism jargon to stamp himself on all others....it doesnt take one long to realize that the last thing he has is convictions (however disagreeable they maybe)- its a pure and simple ego thing happening, as is more obviously the case with sarwari...i understood it when after reading through his lofty excerpts and references i would come to statements like-``I will denude Mr Gandhi`s true legacy and make it abundantly clear where this naked Brahmiacharya stood on things`` under the helpful heading-``Ultimatum TO THE INDIANS:`` etc..plus he is encouraged in this by the fact that many pass off his crude behavior and mule-headedness as understandeable if misplaced nationalism (and therefore sort of commendeable)..

Those who are accusing me of telling Indians that they are not invited here are once again distorting my statement. In response to Upman7626

who said ``We are telling to keep their meddling hands off of India`` I informed him that he had chosen to interact with us, and that this is a predominantly Pakistani Site which is true, and even if it werent true this is article was written by a Pakistani Nationalist about Pakistan so anybody interacting with us on this board knows that they will be interacting with Pakistanis. A member of the same school of thought as I put up an article, and hence I defended it. It was out of no desire to interact with Indians that I have argued on this board.

Needless to say, those who are guilty of seeing things in black and white themselves, are now accusing me of doing the same. I ask you, who started Jinnah Bashing on this site? Did I attack Gandhi first?

Now, upman accuses me of ``blurring`` the definition. I believe the meaning of secularism is divorce of church and state. Granted that Pakistan is not secular, which I have repeatedly said, but despite being officially Muslim, it has managed to have had Governments in place which have been secular in their outlook. But no, these Indians will go round and round in their arguments not realizing that what the other person is trying to say.

ASSUMPTIONS:

`if circumstances were reversed, do you think that a controversy as in Ayodhya would have been sustained in pakistan....we all know what the answer to that is..there would have been no need for a debate and such niceties...`

Yup, so now we are down to speculating instead of

facts- typical Indian reaction.

and then

`and btw the BJP also is constitutionally secular -otherwise they would not be allowed to stand for elections- and the only problem is that they too (like you)try to link a religion with secularism and hope to get away with it...`

When did I link a religion to secularism. Sir, you still have a major problem with understanding the difference between nation and state. That I might have lent my support to TNT in the context of partition, which is a sociological phenomenon, doesnot mean that I wish to link any religion with the state. The state has to be completely impartial in its dealing with all religions. This is secularism. Hence we know that Jinnah resigned from the Muslim League in Dec 1947 because it was a communal organization though interestingly enough, Muslim League had been open to and had members of other communities like scheduled castes, christians etc from 1944 and upward. On the contrary you are the one who is linking a religious spiritualist philosophy (Gandhism) to

the state.

and ARROGANCE

``i`ve realized, not least by reading your several posts, that pakistans liberalism begins where india`s chauvnism ends``

I am glad that you have arrived at that realization and that you are happy at it. Nobody stopped you from living in the fool`s paradise.

Now coming to Islam, there are many school of thoughts, and many different versions of Islam. I personally think that a religion which in a time when everybody was forceably converted, accorded the right of free religious practise to its non muslim subjects should have evolved into a complete equality, since my belief is that all great things are evolutionary. Colonialism, and a reaction to the west stunted the evolution of Islam, but that doesnot mean that every one believes in this version.

In any event, its a given that the cause of equal rights for non muslim minorities will get a boost if we, the majority community in Pakistan were to able to justify Islamically to our constituents. Our aim and objective are complete impartiality of the state, and equal rights for Pakistanis of the Minority faiths, and not the way it is in India. If being ``agressively secular`` will mean a backlash against those Pakistanis, we will act irresponsibly. We will Inshallah one day achieve that secular Pakistan, which may or maynot be secular in name, but will be secular in practise unlike India.

Latif Chappu,

Sir, this character assassination, distorting of my original arguments according to your limited comprehension ability, will not really get you anywhere with me. Dont waste your time, writing these posts, because I really am not reading them anymore. If you want my attention and wish to engage me in a positive and contructive debate, you will have to stop cease this name calling and

high school behavior that you have taken too.

PM,

I agree with how you have put it. Since you have relatively maintained neutrality, please also comment on who started the name calling and when on this site? I have been more than patient and tolerant, which is unlike the character of Lahori youth, uptill now. What has stopped me from stooping to the level of Indians on this board is the realization that I am better than that.

Wrong or right (even though I am the one who has consistently stated that there are no such things)

I have always stated my perspective, and then I have backed it up by credible sources.

What have the Indians done other name calling, making assumptions, and going as far as to look for my resume on the net? Now whats that all about.

On ONE SIDED ANALYSES:

And then we have Pankaj declaring that I look at one side of the story. It is often forgotten that the answers I was putting up were replies to posts by people like Jay and Harimau etc. If Pankaj is so concerned about one side of the story, then he should realize that if Indians are going to repeatedly post one sided BS, we shall reply with telling them the truth which counters and shatters those myths. In advocacy, a advocate doesnot argue the opponent`s brief.

Ofcourse, there is a truer picture in the middle,

Gandhi`s inspiration to many independence leaders around the world is unquestionable just like Jinnah`s credentials as an anti-colonialist lawyer

who wanted to drive the ``Tommies`` out of Indian Subcontinent while also securing and safeguarding the rights of the ``minority community`` to which according to Gandhi he belonged to. Yes the Rajya Sabha voted against and condemned Prime Minister Vajpayee`s statement, is very well known to me, but why should I mention it when all Indians can say and in total contradiction of facts, that Pakistan is a ``Islamic Theocratic state`` (Ref Upman`s many posts). Isnt it enough, that the Prime Minister of a state with a secular legislature, and ``aggressively secular`` Polity is declaring that the national will of India is to make a temple over the Babri Mosque? I hail the decision of Rajya Sabha to condemn this statement and censure Vajpayee, but the fact remains that none of the Pakistani Leaders, who werent even answerable to such a strong National Legislature and were not bound by an aggressively secular polity, didnt make those statements. Isnt it to our credit that we have resisted as a people despite being officially Muslim, the agenda of the Islamic Fundamentalists.

OUR IDEOLOGY and OUR POLITY:

Secularism, Liberalism etc etc are just words untill they are implemented. If the analysis of Pakistan as an ``intended`` secular state is so hurt ful to Indians and indeed to fundoos in our own land, then let me say that Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be a state, where every one was to be equal regardless of religion caste or creed. This is the course I wish to pursue, call it secular, call it theocratic, call it confusion, but this is our ideology, our polity, our statehood.

Finally, my Economic and Political training has been in the United States, and to me secularism means divorce of religion from the matters of the state. Indeed in this school of thought, and definition, whether the concept is nation is religious or land based, or racial is an irrelevant debate. President Bush came into a line of fire, when he brought representatives from all religions to the congress to establish a ``Faith based charity system``. This was regarded as an opposition to the secularism that United states stands for.

Now, secularism in India probably means the acceptance of and the amalgamation of all religions for the common good of humanity. Indeed a noble idea, but in total contradiction to the international definition of secularism. Instead the word for this is ``Multiculturalism``. So like I said before, let us agree to disagree on definitions of secularism. You can have your own but respect our definition.

80% to 90% of all Indians and Pakistanis are probably having a rough time, at any given moment in time.

Ergo, 80% to 90% of all Indian Muslims are probably having a rough time.

Further ergo, 80% to 90% of all religious groups, possibly exclusing Parsis and Sikhs and Bahais and some of the richer sub-sects of Hindus/Muslims are having a rough time.

Now that is a lot of guys cribbing.

1100 or so interacts, wow.

re. Latif Chappu on ylh

(And I post this at the risk of being accused of `prodding on` ylh further :) )

You write:

``[He] seems to absolute zero capacity to accept that others may have well founded differing views based on their life experiences. He seems completely unaware of the concepts of relativism and constantly derides people much smarter & wiser than him as foolish. He perceives himself a great thinker and dismisses all adverse reactions to his buffoonery as the usual adversity that great people face at the hands of contemporary plebeians. If it weren`t so ominous it would be funny.``

Here`s why, while I agree with most of the above, I have yet been less than denunciatory of him in toto...

I beleive the kid (and, maybe that characterization tells you something about the wont for my `patience`) started out making a passionate case for a forward-looking, semi-secular Pakistan, based on his discovery of the actual circumstances under which his hero Jinnah `founded` Pakistan, and the vision he had for it. he has made it his life mission to help realize that dream.

Now, while this doesn`t necessitate the villification of Indians/Hindus per se, and while I don`t believe Yasser thought ill of Indians a couple of years ago, I think the repeated contentions here that run contrary to what he has argued (well, IMO) were the exigencies leading to partition is what has turned him against Indians(as well as any Pakistani espousing similar views). Perhaps he reacts so intensely to it beacuse he feels/knows that these myths (Pakistan as throcratic state) have taken firm root in Pakistan itself (in fact become realities), and he perceives at some level that the tide of public opinion (on both sides) is overwhemlingly against him.

It is my understanding that even some of the older and wiser folks here have unreasonably rejected his (not original, to be sure) central thesis on Pakistan`s (intended) secularism. In his youthful indiscretion (and yes, lack of objectivity), he sees all who do so as dishonest or treacherous. It is at times such as these that the old enemy-consciousness, so well ingrained in young Pakistanis, rears its ugly head, and he is given to generalizations, hysterics, confusion, slight paranoia and self-righteousness. These are not faults I think he cannot overcome in due time with some contemplation *and time away from chowk *. In his more calm moments he seems to not have a default hate-India consciousness.

As for `adverse reactions to his buffoonery`, well he only seems to be lacking in the ability to distinguish between the intent of those reactions, which in drives him nuts.

Ugh-- now i`m doing this analyse-ylh thing too!

I`ll desist already. My intention was only to defend my `support` for him.

In conclusion I would say that I disagree with categorizing him more with the Unabomber type chang-agent thatn with the Edhi-type. I have no doubt that, hysterics aside, he would be a strict constitutionalist. His basic motivation is not hate, or exclusion or even, (as I think is the case of Sarwari) some false sense of superiority. He is genuine and honest about bringing about social justice. He needs only (but badly!) to master his ego. At 21 he has a lot of time to learn.

As for whether I would show the same patience with an Indian ylh, well, I think I can say that it YLH`s nationality has nothing to do with it, except that it gives me an understanding of where he`s coming from, which does, I suppose, affect my level of tolerance.

rgds,

PM

Dear PM

Well, I hope you know why many people disagree rather strongly with this guy, ylh. He brings out only one side of the issue that favours his strongly rooted belief while disregarding any such info that goes against his prejudices. In other words he searches for info that can prove(so he thinks) his point but shows a measure of intellectual dishonesty in concealing the facts that dont go well with his theory. Just to point out one such example, he repeatedly makes the point that it was Indian PM who once called destruction of Babari mosque `` a national will`` but does not mention how vehemently was it opposed in the Indian Parliament. In Rajya Sabha this statement was not only criticised harshly but the govt was embarrased when a move to condemn this statement was passed by majority. Look at the Indian media reports about this statement. Do any of them except RSS mouthpiece ``Samana`` endorse it? Later on even PM was forced to back down saying that it was his personal comment and not reflective of govt`s policy. So now you perhaps understand what I mean by ``intellectual dishonesty``. To tell you frankly, I have also read some of the books on the subjects he thinks himself to be the master of, and again I found that he is ``selective`` about the facts. What he paints is a ``half truth`` thta understandbly is irritating to some others who see the other side of the story. Hence I dont trust most of the info that he gives here.

A number of times I thought I should write and present the ``other side`` of the story, but I gave up the idea because of two reasons

1. I dont have so much time at hand.

2. I believe that intelligent people( and you are one amongst them, therefore I write to you!) would be cautious enough to go through the painful exercise of finding out the truth themselves( of course only if it interests them) instead of blindly believing everything that is doled out here by both sides as ``truth``.

I think the point I made about the population difference being one of the key reasons for a great disparity between the PhD, ect distribution of the states has been taken the wrong way, and addmittidly it is through my fault because I didn`t explain it as thoroughly as I had wished...

What I meant to say was not on the lines of ``if Pakistan had the same population, there would be an equal/ greater # of PhD`s``. It has been pointed out that the ratio is more like 100-1 and not 5-1. However, there are several reasons for this and they deal with concepts of national identity and Islam and population. Let me try and explain this better: India, since partition, has had a population far greater than Pakistan. This means that for the last 50 years there has been a tremendous disparity between the number of people who had opportunities to make money in India and the number in Pakistan. Also, market-wise, there has been a much greater potential to get the money needed to found these institutions (like the silicon valleys now dotting the Indian landscape) than in Pakistan. I know that I am now going to be attacked on the ``India is a larger market`` line of argument, but the truth is that since in capitalism money multiplies rather quickly, starting out with a greater population means more money in the beginning and therefore more momentum. It turns into a numbers game quite quickly. Nevertheless, Pakistan is making great strides now to get into the game where it should be: the number of tech schools around Pakistan are doubling and tripling almost it seems on a monthly basis. There is great hope that soon Pakistan also will be able to export great numbers of computer scientists who can make good money and return to help build up the society. However, let us look at another issue that is affecting Pakistan: Islam and the Wests view of it.

I`ve heard it argued here before that the US and states such as Germany are importing Indians wholesale for jobs like comp sci and engineering. However, what is the opinion of the west on India vs. Pakistan? Why is India viewed as a safe country and Pakistan not? Islam plays a major role in these things, and part of the reason that companies in the west won`t invest in Pakistan and won`t hire from there is based on that. Of course, this is not something that Pakistan is blaming India on (although India does try at every chance to get Pakistan put on the list of states who sponsor terrorism)... it also has a lot to do with internal problems with these mullahs and religious revivalists. It has to do with things such as the Zia regime. This we know. But now, Pakistan is making moves to redress these issues... to guide the country back from the idea that it is an ``Islamic Republic`` and hopefully one day we will be able to rid Pakistan of the ``Islamic`` part of the tittle and just refer to it as the ``Republic of Pakistan``. But even if that is not the case, it doesn`t matter what the state is called... what matters is how the state acts and what the state does and believes in. Musharraf wisely makes note of these things since he realizes that foreign investment (by these companies who are flocking to India) is a critical component of development and strengthening the economy.

Also, on a side note, I would like to point out that Abraham Lincoln had the governor of Missouri thrown in jail because he feared that he (the gov) would lead Missouri to leave the Union. He (Lincoln) also instituted martial law in maryland and Kentucky to make sure that they stayed in the Union. Yes, this was unconstitutional on many levels and he probably would have been censured by the senate after the war had he lived but it was VITAL to keep the country in one piece. He saw that sometimes it is necessary to circumvent things because there is something more important to be achieved. I think we can apply this to the modern era in Pakistan quite nicely. And it didn`t serve the USA that badly in the long run :)

Gowardhan #1066 I happened to spot my chowk name in your post. I must admit it feels good to be presented as a good example. :-)

More seriously, I think the problem is not that people are as hate-filled in real life as they appear on chowk. Trouble is (and this is a well recognzied phenomenon) that written communication tends to seem more harsh than verbal. This has to do with human psychology that I wont get into here. The result is that anything negative elicits a harsher response. And so the vicious cycle escalates. Given some of the geniuses we have on chowk, this vicious cycle tends to escalate faster than if there was a more select or mature group interacting.

As for the cyberwarriors on chowk, they wouldnt know what cyberwar was if it hit them on the head: bs-ing on chowk is basically that and no more. Cyberwar includes the ability to by-pass firewalls and destroy data. Take over web sites. Carry out virus attacks.

I think it is important for the rest of us not to get sucked in by these morons and try to maintain a civil discussion on chowk.

Thanks again for thinking of yours truly (I use this phrase with hesitation, realizing that urstruly the cyberwarior has the patent for this on chowk). Cheers.

Dear Yawaah,

Kindly desist from telling people of Indian origin that they don`t belong here. You are more than welcome to go and interact on any `Indian` site. You unwillingness or inability to do that does not earn you the right to proclaim this a `Pakistani` site.

The people who made & run Chowk are good people who will be counted for far more than you will ever amount to when all is said and done. They have made this a site where `paths intersect`. Your behavior is completely at odds with the spirit of this site so stop behaving as if you possess any greater ownership or right here than a person of differing nationality or race.

As unfathomable as it may be to you my dear Yawaah, a hing smelling, hair oil applying, dark as the night Hindoo counts for the same here as your allegedly Arabic elitist ass. Live with it!

Re: Tahmed

So as I was saying... I propose a trade.

You give us Saqlain Mushtaq we give you Murli Manohar Joshi.

77 bottles of beer on the wall.

Re: Tahmed

So as a precursor to the Agra summit where the old Hindu temple of Taj Mahal resides in all its Hindu glory..... may I suggest a confidence building measure?

Lets break this record together! Hand in hand...

ok sorry.

78 bottles of beer on the wall.

Re: Tahmed

Now who says that Indians and Pakistanis cant get along and work towards a common goal? Look at us! We march in unison towards 1189... hand in hand... Indian Paki Bhai Bhai....

Ok... got a little carried away there... job at hand...

79 bottles of beer on the wall.