Caught In Between

Syed Ahmed:

``The Corrupt feudal –military establishment is highly westernized – and use religious mob passions to fight their proxy wars…. Thereby enriching themselves in the process…``

Syed, replace the feudal-military establishment with political and proxy wars with hollow political slogans, and you might as well describe India`s ruling classes.

ref: hobbyty #462

1.regarding the Indian refusal to acknowledge that Kashmir is disputed territory: India refuses to do so because it can see no grounds on which Pakistan can claim Kashmir. It was not ``common property`` which had to be resolved at the time of divorce between India and Pakistan. It was an independent Kingdom. From India`s perceptions, it came over voluntarily to us, driven there by Pakistan`s aggression. This accession was then duly ratified by an elected constituent body. It is difficult to justify on what grounds Pakistan holds on to the portion it does, but its claim on anymore cannot be taken seriously.

2. ``If Pakistan is a State in which the military has disproportionate influence in society it is primarily because India has threatened the existence of Pakistan from day one.``

On what basis can one conclude that the army is as powerful in Pakistan as it has been because of the perceived threat from india? A closer look may reveal that the army has certainly used this perception to its advantage, but its ascendancy has been due to the weakness of the civil society in Pakistan.

It also seems strange that if Pakistan actually faced such existential threat from India, it would dilebrately go out of its way to court more hostility from that quarter! Kashmir 1965, Punjab 1980-90, Kashmir 1990 onwards, Kargil 1999. These actions are all the actions of an aggressor who knows that he will not be hit back, not a country which fears for its existense. Would Pakistan, for eg, stand up to the US in support of its proteges, the taliban? Even though it might have some sympathy for the talibans point of view, it will not, becoz it knows its existense is as stake. I would therefore doubt that atleast the Pakistani army has ever feared India. How good a role it has played in convincing others of the ``threat``, and thereby appropriating state resources is your call.

3. ``The responsibility of the screw up in Kashmir is overwhelmingly, Indian.`` That is quite correct. If Mrs Gandhi had behaved better with the Kashmiris none of this need have happened. There is an urgent need to alleviate the Kashmiris sufferings, and to integrate him into Indian society.

4. regarding the ``free and fair`` elections being promised by Mr. Vajpayee. If the situation becomes better and less violent, there is no problem in sending the army back to its barracks. The army is anyway eager enough to go.

Intelligence agencies have not targetted political personalities till now, and it is unclear why they would want to do so now. Many Hurriyet leaders have a (Indian) police detail for their security. India would like political activity to get started in Kashmir, whether it is pro or anti India, not destablize it by killing political opponents. After all, shooting arguments is better than shooting guns.

5. ``If the option of seeking union with Pakistan is ruled out how can we know what the Kashmiri want?`` Sahib if you are so interested in finding out the will of the Kashmiris, why don`t you start with your own part of Kashmir? Apparently candidates there have to first sign allegiance to Pakistan before they can contest. Nothing like this applies in India.

And why can`t we find out what the Kashmiris want? Can`t the Kashmiris representatives speak? Let them spell out their political platforms, and then we can judge the popularity of their views by the way the Kashmiri public votes. Isn`t that how democracy is supposed to work?

It is India`s assessment that other than the current anger which most Kashmiris feel for the government of India, there are few genuine complaints which cannot be satisfactorily met under the constitution of India. What is needed is a blowing off of steam, and then down to the real task of political give and take. Most Kashmiris were not interested in going to Pakistan in 1947, and 1965 and are not so keen even today. Even if this is not so, it will become clear only once a dialogue starts.

6. ``This business in Afghanistan has all the potential of becoming percieved as a war against Islam, will India escape the consequences of such?`` Firstly I highly doubt that anything like this will happen. The US is too sensitive to the concerns of the Muslim countries to allow that to happen. In any case, India it seems, now sees the benefits in lying low after having made a show of its loyalty. It has promised not to make things worse for Pakistan than they already are, and it is not going to fight in Afghanistan. So how does India get drawn into all of this? There may be a few protests, but I doubt that there will be any major disturbance.

hobbyty, it may be hard, but I think that it is time that Pakistan realized its position, and reined in its ambitions. I hope that India does everything to make this process easier for it, but I don`t think that handing over Kashmir to Pakistan is ever going to be an option.

-narain

PS: I will respond to your analysis of Islam`s problems, maybe in the new article which has been posted.

YLH writes…….

“Mr Ahmed:

Furthermore, You being perhaps an Indian Muslim have managed to misrepresent Aisha`s statement. Aisha`s statement had been quite clear,....

Aisha Sarwari said and I quote:
`I would rather marry a Pakistani Hindu than an Indian Muslim`
This was in response to the marriage proposal aired by the Bhartiya Musalman Nazi. “



Again you assume that anybody who does not agree with you must be on the dark side…
At present I profess to be a Muslim without any qualifiers… unless there is a later downloadable version of Islam which I need to update to conform to your ethnic liking…..

Please don’t assume … If you are not sure ASK ????..... your Assumption is incorrect…. I am ( READ MY LIPS) … a Pakistani…. – Conversely had I been an Indian Muslim should it have changed my disposition towards your concocted view of history… Or is
My ethnic or religious allegiance of any significance when discussing history… Perhaps you are alluding to my biases…. On e the same note perhaps you should revisit your biases…..

If reporting history as it happened makes me an NON_Pakistani – so be it – it conforms to the establishment long held view of exclusivity practiced with such venom….

BTW… you cannot make up history to match your ideological views…. People including historical characters tended to be quite human and unpredictable and at times opportunistic..

As for Ms Sarwari – her knowledge of Pakistani history is at best limited – perhaps by her intellectual handicap or perhaps by an excessive sense of nationalistic zealotry without any basis in fact….. She had Accused Mohd Ali Jauhar of being mediocre based on a single instance of anecdotal evidence with regards to his prejudicial views… discounting a life time of work ….. Ironically as it transpires she herself was guilty of racist and ethnocentric remarks to further her own prejudicial views…..

YLH writes….
“ Let me start by Mr Jinnah. Yes he ate Pork and drank Whiskey, but remember he was trained in England as Lawyer and greatly imbibed their customs. Drinking Whiskey and Eating Pork was not immoral to him. As for running away with someone else`s daughter is concerned ... well I am saddened by your misrepresentation. Jinnah didnot run away, but when Ruttie came off age they married legally, religiously and constitutionally.

Jinnah`s life is without any scandals. “….


MR YLH .. you need to grow up …. A 40 year old marrying an 18 year old runaway ( particularly of another faith without parental consent ) is scandalous in any time even now… TO assume that it was not then is sheer hypocrisy…. – particularly in the parochial society of the early 20th century….

Although you have deified Mr Jinnah – you are hardly a worthy pupil … from your ethno phobic slants of “ son of the soil” to your pronouncements of personal superiority in terms of genealogical descent “ ie descendants of foreigners” are at best a worst form of self promotion…. Conversely you ideology also vacillates as the wind blows…. – in that regard it is more consistent with the current Pakistani establishment that you so vociferously defend….
It is ironical that even the Islamists were generally ignored by both the parties aka 1947…. Nor have they ever been in power in Pakistan ( A fact reinforced by MS Lodhi on CNN wherin she explained that the religious right has rarely won over 15% of the popular vote “ ).. – they are generally blamed for all the ills… Agreeably the Islamists have a regressive ideology but blaming everything on them ignores the ground reality in Pakistan… The Corrupt feudal –military establishment is highly westernized – and use religious mob passions to fight their proxy wars…. Thereby enriching themselves in the process…
Lastly neither Islam nor Pakistan is in ANY Danger on the chowk !!!! – Consequently there is no needed for voluminous “ Self-promoting” posts that are often contradictory …. – it hinders rather than promotes frank discussions of mutal interest on this site….” Anybody who opposed Pakistan was a fundamentalist and then they took over Pakistan ……. Is a ridiculous assertion at best and idiotic at worst”…
I usually avoid personal acrimony in my posts …. ( and I apologize for my strong language)…Nontheless your and Ms Sarwari are ideologues of “PAINDOOISM” …. Fractured dogmatic self-preservation.

Shammi :

Interesting that you interpreted my first post the way you did. My point was on quite another plane. But its alright. Stories are stories, they are just a very microscopic level of understanding. Its tough to make all your opinions based on one such story.

The discussion is really not leading anywhere, the point is lost, so maybe next time if one of us in the mood of making a point, they should specifiy in bold that its not really a question, its a POINT.

Hobbyty again recreating history to fit his Pakistani fanatic vision.

[You and I have come a long way with each other, and I hope you will take this in a constructive spirit: the responsibility of the screw up in Kashmir is overwhelmingly, Indian. The unidimensional nature of Pakistani policy towards India is a reflection of the attitude India has taken to the existence of Pakistan.]

Does this person write textbooks for Pakistan studies?

sarwari #472

``Heard of Burnol, shove tones of it in your diseased parts. ``

Hai mummy, yeh to obscene baaten kar rahi hai!!

Sarwari, are you really soooo innocent?

1. You make a list of 10 interactors who will read following line from your essay and vote on the meaning of the section quoted by you!!

It is a open challenge. You choose any 10 interactors, anyone!!

[[I said, ``These fundamentalists of Gandhi’s genre who thought religion as an inseparable part of politics became the religious leaders of Pakistan.`` ]]

2. [[First, let us agree that Gandhi je was a Hindu revivalist. ]]

Kindly define what do you mean by hindu revivalist? If Gandhi was trying to revive hinduism, what was his brand of hinduism? Was it aryasamaji, sanatani? As you call him a revivalist, did he promote any specific rituals etc in his specific brand of hinduism?

3. [[And this is a fact. ``I am a Hindu and therefore an Indian etc.`` ]]

Sarwari, you and YLH have quoted this statement several times. Kindly share the source of this statement. Let us put this statement, if true, in proper prospective.

4. Be kind enough to do that same for [[``who thought religion to be an inseparable part of politics``]]

I am confused. Are you blaming Gandhi for the problems in Pakistan or not?

If yes, then I guess you haven`t learnt anything.

If no, then why did you drag Gandhi`s name into the mess?

Stuka,

Hi, I hope you didn`t take it to heart that I called you a cockroach. I meant the entire India; it wasn`t personal. On the other hand, I have read quiet a few personal insults that Indian`s have floated rather boldly on this board on my person, that are shameful by any standards. However I have ignored them mostly because I know it is what Indian`s do. It is what the Indian forces do in Kashmir; it is what Indian reporters do when they go on air. And it is essentially an inseparable part of your country. Therefore I have no qualms of discriminating against your country. It is not based on color caste or creed. I can assure you that what I may feel for you or any other Indian is exactly what I feel for my own relatives who call themselves Indian, some I share a roof with.

Therefore, if it helps to know I will not be hateful to you as a person, but if you discuss politics with me I will be merciless without attacking you personally.

Regards.

Aisha.

Heard of Burnol, shove tones of it in your diseased parts.

I said, ``These fundamentalists of Gandhi’s genre who thought religion as an inseparable part of politics became the religious leaders of Pakistan.``

First, let us agree that Gandhi je was a Hindu revivalist. The documentary on E that I very carefully watched the other day said so too. And this is a fact. ``I am a Hindu and therefore an Indian etc.``

Second, the thesaurus explains the word ``genre`` as

kind, type, sort, field, variety and genus. NOTE: in the context of the sentence it is evident that I did not state that Gandhi was a fundamentalist, but the Muslims who thought like him were. I am not concerned about Gandhi, because he is not the one who crossed over to Pakistan, the fundoos did and those are who I am concerned with.

Third, I knew there would be people like you who will misinterpret and twist like most Indians do. So I further made clear my sentence by adding ``who thought religion to be an inseparable part of politics``

I rest my case.

Next.

Re: id

I did not mention Bangladesh, or defend any particular position -- why pull that into the discussion? I was simply trying to address your question in post #401, which was -- ``For a while I have been asking myself the same question. If people of Pakistan are not doing well, then why do we even bother about Kashmir.``

I pointed to the story about Liaqat Ali, by sharing with you the same dilemma that he went through. He has `real experience` from both sides of the struggle, as opposed to us armchair warriors. And I asked you to reach your own conclusions, rather you responded by ascribing one for me:) Regards

Stuka #466,

I can completely understand your frustrations with Ali`s language. BUT, Gandi naali kay keeron ko naali main hee rehnay do. Why join them?

But I don`t think Sarwari deserved the Heidi Fleiss comment. She didn`t call you anything obscene, as far as I know.

As far as you disagreeing with me without insulting me, thanks. Wish I could say the same of others that I disagree with.

Re: spout

antsy, antsy...say, when`s your Kabul Air flight?

I return to this discussion after many days only to find myself metamorphosed into a cockroach - which brings me to think - that the hate of an educated individual is more powerful than that of an illiterate. An uneducated person always hates you for a reason maybe the direct consequence of the harm you have caused, or perhaps incited by others who stir up his anger.

But what about the hate of the educated - the hate which causes the person to prevaricate till the end, thinking up logical arguments to keep the fires of hate burning, rejecting all other views except the conjured up by their hate infested minds. Craps - do I really need to fulminate so much? To each their own, hate me all that you want to, visualise all the different ways you wish me dead, use me as compost if you wish.

Maybe I should crawl back to my own gutter and reflect upon the fact that us cockroaches will be the only ones around when the rest of you have nuked each other and there are no borders left to fight about.

sarwari #454

``It is sad that you think, if you do, that I have written this to put the entire blame on Gandhi. He has been mentioned in the context of the fundamentalists we both are against. None of it is untrue and I dare anyone to find a statement or phrase in which I conclude that I have intended to put Gandhi on the spot... Therefore. If I have exaggerated in this regard, please point it out because I surely need to retract.

``

I will like to share a ``height of .. series of joke``.

What is height of innocence? A pregnant girl applying Iodex on her belly. (for Chowkies not aware of IODEX, replace it with Bengay - a pain reliever)

After dragging poor Gandhi 4 times in her article, using phrases like ``These fundamentalists of Gandhi’s genre``,

Our poor innocent Fayyazi dares anyone to point out the sections? Either she can`t read her own article! Or perhaps she can, but can`t understand!!

This attitude and insistence on not accepting the obvious is quite in line with a comment in today`s newspaper about ``almost universal belief in Pakistan that WTC attacks were engineering by Israel``.

There are reports originating from Pakistani media that 5000 Jews worked in WTC and no one reported for duty on Sept 11th. Planted articles are now talking out Palestinian crowds shown on TV immediately after attack as fake. Without verifying the source & veracity of these statements these are being accepted as word of Allah by islamists of ``our innocent`` Aisha`s genre.

Even Afghans in USA talk about ``Taliban being mainly made of Pakistani students, who have no love for Afghanistan`` (Check Sunday’s WP). Hamid Guls and Javed Nassirs openly talk of supporting Taliban. Still out ``innocent`` Aisha`s imply that Taliban are a product of Gandhian philosophy.

Our innocent Aishas use word Jehad in every other sentence. But offence is taken if Bush uses word crusade.

Next time I need to share the ``height of innocence joke``, I will change that. I will just say ``height of innocence - Aisha Fayyazi``

``could some Indians on this board stop making references to prostitution (stuka to sarwari, heidi fleis), and their obsession with posterior orifices (maheshg, gowardhan to asfand).``

I can only speak for myself. If one throws filth around, one should expect to get some back. Sarwai, UrsTruly, Ali1 etc have no compulsions in using abusive language, and therefore there should be no moral compulsion in refraining from directing abuse. Personally, I have never been a fan of the Gandhian idiom of ``Turning the other cheek.`` Kya kren, must be the punjabiyat in me.

I know that you advised Sarwari to refrain from calling us roaches. I respect that. But then have I been less than polite to you, even when we have disagreed? Personally, I`m sorry that i used abusive language on these boards because people like you had to read it. But, I have a sneaking suspicion that these guys had it coming. Kinda the ``live by the sword, die by the sword doctrine`` ya know?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts