Caught In Between

Major headline in JANG - Video game makes an Indian-American couple suspect.

http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/index.html

Oh Man! ...the heights of desperation !!!

ref: Hobbyty #534

Dear Hobbyty,

Just a few clarifications:

With regard to independence for Kashmir: I am not against the Idea in principle. My only contention is that this should happen through a peaceful political process where both Indians and Kashmiris negotiate with each other. If both of us realize that there is nothing to be gained from continuing together, and that we are both better off going our separate ways, let Kashmir go its own way and I will applaud such a decision. What we CANNOT afford is another partition brought about by force, one where there is no regard paid to the Indian point of view. That is why I say that one has to be clear about what the objective is: Independence for Kashmir, or defeating India. The two are not necessarily the same thing.

On whether Kashmir is a dispute: I believe that it is a dispute. But between the Indians and their Kashmiri brethren, NOT between India and Pakistan. Let India first settle their issues with the Kashmiris, and then the Kashmiris can do whatever they want as regards Pakistan: join it, reject it, whatever. Pakistan is at best an interested party, but it is not a party in the dispute. I would be willing to change my mind, however, if you can tell me why Pakistan rather than the Kashmiris are the main party to the dispute, or if you can convince me that Pakistan=Kashmir in the Kashmiri mind.

On the possibility of radicalization: I am aware of the danger of violence in Kashmir becoming chronic if the problem continues for any longer. I have already mentioned this in some postings on other boards. No solution will be possible then, either this way or that. I am more hesitant to accept that this radicalization will work its way to the rest of India because (despite the targeted minority killings by militant organizations) the Kashmir dispute is seen more as a regional than a religious issue in India. Radicalization is already becoming a threat to some extent, but that is attributable to other reasons.

About History: I am not clear about what you are saying, but may I assure you that no Indian believes that Indian history ended with muslim rule, and started again after independence. The achievements of India are the achievements of its various consitutents: Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh, Tamil, Maharashtrian, etc. The Taj Mahal is as much an Indian achievement as is the Temple of Rameshwaram or the Indian railway system. And if anybody tells me to forget the contributions of Mian Tansen or Amir Khusro, my reply to them might not be printable.

-narain

Zafar:

Again – You broke OUR country - Partition

In other words those of us who saw we no longer had a place in an India that India did not have our interests at heart - had no right to go our own way? No right to our world view, no right to our nationalism, no right to a vision other than someone else`s.

You seem to be saying “our way or no way at all” –And then you feel it is a failure and a human tragedy? Perhaps a rethink on “our way or no way at all” should be considered.

Once again, the point of view that Congress leadership and Hindu fanatics at no role in determining the partition and it’s consequences.



Secularism is not justification for holding captive peoples – someday those Indians who hold positions that imply captivity, human rights abuses, etc are justified in the name of secularism will reexamine these notions. You are here, taking an extremist and highly partisan view both of partition and secularism. USSR used a similar justification for holding not just it’s Union but Eastern Europe under captivity. See, these justifications would not be necessary in any voluntary union. These justifications run contrary to notions of pluralism and tolerance. Both these ideas are built upon the notion of a free choice, free association, exercised freely.

About the Zari and Sari analogy – India has survived and thrived, it’s Sari has not been torn to shreds because Pakistan exists. Yes, it’s an excellent piece of rhetorical exuberance, but it does seem to hold up to facts. The existence of Bangladesh has not torn the Indian Sari to shreds, has it?



“I would agree that on a philosophical level, India does not believe in the justification for Pakistan. And perhaps that comes through, and results in Pakistan feeling threatened. On the more mundane level, I truly believe that India has nothing to gain from attacking Pakistan, diminishing Pakistan’s prosperity, encouraging the further break up of Pakistan – all of this would be bad for India - and that this is recognised at a strategic level by our Government”

Zafar, most all behaviour, short of reflex and biological imperative, arises out of the ideas we hold. “Philosophical level” – Does this not mean that India cannot behave in a peaceful or neighborly manner with Pakistan. If at it`s core it is hostile to the very idea of Pakistan, how can it fail to demonstrate this hostility. Ideas are everything. Histories carry ideas to the masses, I request you to be conscious of this and to review many of the ideas about partition, Pakistan and Islam, prevalent in India, with this consciousness. If Indians cannot reconcile with the existence of Pakistan, can there really be any such thing as ``strategic level`` where in the continued existence and prosperity of Pakistan we anything but, window dressing?

.

“I realise this is an Indian point of view. But please take it in good faith. I am trying to explain why we think the way we do. (Who is we? All Indians who think like me of course….heheheheheh)”

OK – but an explanation will not change the reality of Indian hostility. This hostility is holding India within the confines of it’s territory and speaks against a larger role. But this is a determination Indians will have to make in the future.

“When it comes to Kashmir, this seems to indicate that the countries need to find a solution that both they and the Kashmiris can live with, thereby ending the bloodshed. Too many years have passed while Indians and Pakistanis have repeated their points of view ad nauseum without essentially changing anything – and while we could put up with that so long as people were not being killed in Kashmir, it is less and less a morally acceptable position.

So…what is needed are practical, concrete suggestions, and a willingness to compromise on the implementation of our beliefs about our nation. Hard to swallow, but that’s the truth as I see it.”

Hallelujah!

Jalal more interesting than Soroush? Orientation and the Self. In a way the same thing and yet each unique in itself. Don’t let the challenge to both Orientation and Self that Soroush may hold, be unsettling. Yes, Soroush writes for a different audience but the depth of his thinking, the originality of his thinking, the ramifications of his thinking, have the potential to change the course of history – while Jalal merely records it.

But I am interested to know just what are you having problems with in reading Soroush?

Simply because I want to discuss my understanding of the material with someone else and we could help each other better understand the material.

Re: radicalisation

I urge you to be conscious that this not happening in a vacuum but is very influenced by radicalization of elements in the larger segments of society.

Yet, Yet! Rejoice – For the flowering of the Kernel of your thinking and morality are articulated in Soroush in a most meaningful context – and is cause for hope to counter the negative.

Taliban- Ethniciity:

Taliban have never excluded any segment of society because of ethicity, rather the existence of ethnic differences has been exploited by all sides to consolidate their positions. Something we have a measure of familiarity. Yet this does not mean that exploiting such differences will continue to pay dividends.



“I await your suggestion as to what you lot will do to make sure that Musharraf wins Indian hearts and minds instead of poking them in the eye.”

My first suggestion is that Indians should examine the ideas about partition, Pakistan and Islam. You simply cannot begin from the proposition that Pakistan is illegitimate, that’s suicide, it’s unreasonable, it’s hateful.

My second suggestion is That Mr. Musharraf convey truthfully and fully, Pakistani positions to Indian media. Mr. Musharraf must never let Vajpayee, Advani or Jaswant set the agenda for the understanding of Pakistan in India.

My Third suggestion would be to tell Mr. Musharraf to repay a kind word three fold and an a unkind three fold.

I completely agree that we as Muslims have a part to play I educating persons that there are any number of Islams. Yet this will not save us. Not until we are organized in such a way that bigotry can be challeneged in courts. This will bring a change in media perceptions. It’s important here to note that we are talking about Americans who are Muslims. This will effect all Muslims. See, I think of the U.S. as being part of the Ummah, especially since it is not hostile to that idea.



Power Vacuum, Kappra, roti, makkaan and OBL

Notice already the conflicts about Taliban, NA and Pakistan – where will it end? The American has said that he is sensitive to Pakistani concerns about NA and that “nation building” is not what this is about – Has any of this furthered stability?

Kappra, Roti, Makkan before soverignty and self determination? I have problems with that. After all, why don’t we just reject all our histories to gain our freedom. We sufferd deprivations of Kappra, Roti and Makkan, would you exchange these for the return of the English?

OBL didn’t feed people – I don’t wish to be in a position of defending OBL, but since when was this his charge?

“The message of terrorism is that the days of arrogance are over, that if you push, you should expect to be pushed back.”

Hobbyty, your reasoning frightens me. Mardanagi dikhane se kisi ka pet nahin bhartha. Aur yeh bhi hai, ke mardanagi dikhane vale kabhi bhooke nahin rahthe”.

My reasoning?, read it carefully and it says “the message of terrorism is…” I don’t think this about “Mardanegi”. Reality is that groups such as Al-Qaida have a utility to states and interests that find no other way to influence U.S. policy. In articulating this, I am articulating a fact, not advocating a position.

“And forgive me for asking, but on one hand you seem to be saying that many Muslims around the world (including the US) will be ready to hurt America so America had better watch out, and on the other that any wariness of America towards Muslims is totally unjustified and unfair. This seems contradictory. Please explain. If nothing else the attack on the WTC has clarified that when push comes to shove you cannot run with the hares and hunt with the hounds”.

Again, you misconstruing the articulation of fact with advocacy of a particular position. Remember when we are talking about Muslims in America, we are talking about Americans, who are Muslim.

Since Latif Chappu has gone to long sleep like Kumbhakaran, I request Zafar Bhai to take up Presidentship of Roachistan. Stuka and Subroto are invited to choose between the posts of PM and home-minister. I will be Chief Convenor. Or should we have Presidential form of govt? Our national anthem would be

``Saare jahan se ... Roachistan hamara

Roaches hain hum, roaches hain hum, roaches hain hum,

watan hai,Roachistan hamara, hamara.

Saare...``.

The other symbols for our new found nation would be as suggested by Zafar. We will not have any army to defend us since we are not afraid of anybody. If somebody attacks us, we will follow Gandhian way to change the hearts of our enemy without resorting to violence.

-A humble member of roachistan

-

Since Latif Chappu has gone to long sleep like Kumbhakaran, I request Zafar Bhai to take up Presidentship of Roachistan. Stuka and Subroto are invited to choose between the posts of PM and home-minister. I will be Chief Convenor. Or should we have Presidential form of govt? Our national anthem would be

``Saare jahan se ... Roachistan hamara``.

The other symbols for our new found nation would be as suggested by Zafar. We will not have any army to defend us since we are not afraid of anybody. If somebody attacks us, we will follow Gandhian way to change the hearts of our enemy without resorting to violence.

-A humble member of roachistan

-

Hobbyty: RE 534

Great post.

SADNA,

Learn to ask intelligent questions. And 100,000 of you screaming those questions and various insinuations to the world are equal to one Malleha lodhi speaking to one key policy maker. You are mistaken that people are stupid up there to listen to your negative diplomacy.

Friend and your nameless clan of losers who have no answer for Gandhi`s self-suffering on other`s expense derived form his Upanishadic heritage:

Here is a statement that will be music to the ears of Indians. But before I give it, let me explain. Yesterday it occurred to me that it is pointless arguing with you. From this day on, ``I Will not mention Gandhi`s name on Chowk.`` :)

Aisha Sarwari

sarwari

According to this report, a Russian memo to the UN security council in March this year mentions that apart from Pakistanis in leadership positions and as foot soldiers, there is even a Pakistani army regiment in Afghanistan supporting the Taliban in association with bin Laden`s organisation.

So has the Pakistani Army become `Gandhian` by your defination, finally?
http://www.msnbc.com/news/634197.asp

Bharvaatsi,

Thanks for the article. This points to a problematic issue that has very few easy or perfect answer. It does seem that the war on terrorism is giving China and Russia carte blanche in persecuting Muslim minorities, as it does many other groups. These are clearly human rights abuses. Of course the US is thawing relations with both countries, despite China`s massacre at Tiananmin Square. All of this is far too depressing and illogical to even get a handle on. Power corrupts.

regards

Re: Zafar

Excellent post (the one to hobbyty on Kashmir).

Nothing burns Pakistanis like sarwari and Urstruly more than Indian Muslims rejecting the idea of nationhood based on religion (i.e. Pakistan). Soon you will be labelled a traitor to Islam because you defend your country and pledge allegiance to its secularism (first you will be informed that it is not secular and that you must either be a RAW agent or on LSD if you claim it is).

http://biz.yahoo.com/bizwk/010925/khhtsyvoqywiyjo4d5agpq_1.html

BusinessWeek Online

DAILY BRIEFING -- Don`t Just Read His Lips

Daily Briefing

By Howard Gleckman

President Bush has made a breathtaking promise. ``Our war on terrorism,`` he told a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, ``will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.`` And, repeating a theme he has sounded since the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Bush grimly warned that ``any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.``

These are powerful words of extraordinary importance. And they appear to have enormous support within the U.S. Polls show more than 90% of Americans back the President`s efforts. Unfortunately, these are vows that the President cannot keep. More troubling, U.S. diplomatic actions since his impassioned speech suggest the White House has no intention of even trying.

John Mitchell, who was Richard Nixon`s hard-nosed attorney general, used to tell reporters, ``Watch what I do, not what I say.`` If you apply the Mitchell Rule to the Bush Administration, it`s clear that the White House`s goals are quite different from its rhetoric. Rather than really trying to end terrorism around the world, it is actually aiming at a much narrower target: To destroy Osama bin Laden and his network. And to pull this off, the Bush White House seems prepared to make peace with the very sponsors of terror it promises to defeat.

STRANGE BEDFELLOWS. The list of countries around the world that harbor, finance, and arm terrorist groups is hardly a secret. The U.S. State Dept. puts out its own annual report on the subject that names, among others, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan, and Libya as leading state sponsors of terrorism. For its own political reasons, the State Dept. leaves two other governments off its list -- Pakistan and Yassir Arafat`s Palestinian Authority -- but their use of cross-border terrorism is evident to anyone who reads a newspaper on a regular basis.

Who is the U.S. trying to enlist in its battle against terrorism? Among others, Syria, Iran, the Palestinian Authority, and Pakistan. It is very likely that the U.S. has already promised a bundle of financial aid to the generals who run Pakistan. And it is a good bet they will use some of those funds to continue their terror campaign in neighboring Kashmir.

It`s the same story with Syria. For decades, that country has used radical groups, such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah, as an integral part of its foreign policy. These groups, of course, are best known for their almost daily terror attacks in Israel. But their activities go far beyond their war against the Jewish State. Hezbollah, for example, bombed a U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1984, killing 241 Marine, Navy, and Army personnel. In 1996, a Saudi chapter of the group participated in the bombing of the Khobar Towers, an apartment building in Saudi Arabia, killing another 19 Americans.

Hezbollah gets weapons and funding from Iran, funneled through Syria. It has free rein to operate in Lebanon, now little more than a client state of Syria. And, not surprisingly, the group has close ties with bin Laden.

LIP SERVICE? The list of countries that, in one way or another, back international terrorism doesn`t stop with the obvious cases. It also includes Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States, which provide much of the funding for these terror groups. The governments in these countries are terrified of Islamic radicals, so they have made a deal with them. They look the other way while terrorists raise hundreds of millions of dollars from private citizens. In return, the groups agree to operate somewhere else.

Then, there are nations, such as China and France, that without a second thought, sell arms -- directly or indirectly -- to terrorist organizations. Sometimes, the weapons go through Iran, Iraq, or Syria, but all involved know the ultimate destinations.

The White House says things are different now. It even suggests that countries such as Syria, Pakistan, and Iran are going to change their behavior and turn their backs on terror. But people such as Secretary of State Colin Powell know better than that. More likely, these nations will give little more than lip service to the U.S. effort to kill bin Laden. And even that will end once the first civilian casualties are inflicted.

BITTER HARVEST. Yet in its effort to buy the loyalty of these nations, the White House has already lifted its long-standing arms embargoes against Iran, Syria, and Pakistan. Think about it for a moment: A decade ago, the U.S. armed bin Laden and the Taliban to enlist their support against what was then our Enemy #1 -- the Soviet Union. Today, we are reaping that painful harvest. Now, we are about to do exactly the same with states such as Iran and Syria -- help re-arm them to fight what we have identified as our new Enemy #1 -- none other than bin Laden himself.

With money, luck, and probably at some cost in American lives, the Bush Administration may kill bin Laden. And the world will be a better place for it. But will it be rid of terrorism? Not likely -- especially since the White House is cozying up to the very states that have made suicide bombings a routine instrument of their foreign policy. Bush has made a promise he cannot keep -- and one we may all regret.

Go to www.businessweek.com to see all of our latest stories.

http://biz.yahoo.com/bizwk/010925/khhtsyvoqywiyjo4d5agpq_1.html

BusinessWeek Online

DAILY BRIEFING -- Don`t Just Read His Lips

Daily Briefing

By Howard Gleckman

President Bush has made a breathtaking promise. ``Our war on terrorism,`` he told a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, ``will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.`` And, repeating a theme he has sounded since the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Bush grimly warned that ``any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.``

These are powerful words of extraordinary importance. And they appear to have enormous support within the U.S. Polls show more than 90% of Americans back the President`s efforts. Unfortunately, these are vows that the President cannot keep. More troubling, U.S. diplomatic actions since his impassioned speech suggest the White House has no intention of even trying.

John Mitchell, who was Richard Nixon`s hard-nosed attorney general, used to tell reporters, ``Watch what I do, not what I say.`` If you apply the Mitchell Rule to the Bush Administration, it`s clear that the White House`s goals are quite different from its rhetoric. Rather than really trying to end terrorism around the world, it is actually aiming at a much narrower target: To destroy Osama bin Laden and his network. And to pull this off, the Bush White House seems prepared to make peace with the very sponsors of terror it promises to defeat.

STRANGE BEDFELLOWS. The list of countries around the world that harbor, finance, and arm terrorist groups is hardly a secret. The U.S. State Dept. puts out its own annual report on the subject that names, among others, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan, and Libya as leading state sponsors of terrorism. For its own political reasons, the State Dept. leaves two other governments off its list -- Pakistan and Yassir Arafat`s Palestinian Authority -- but their use of cross-border terrorism is evident to anyone who reads a newspaper on a regular basis.

Who is the U.S. trying to enlist in its battle against terrorism? Among others, Syria, Iran, the Palestinian Authority, and Pakistan. It is very likely that the U.S. has already promised a bundle of financial aid to the generals who run Pakistan. And it is a good bet they will use some of those funds to continue their terror campaign in neighboring Kashmir.

It`s the same story with Syria. For decades, that country has used radical groups, such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah, as an integral part of its foreign policy. These groups, of course, are best known for their almost daily terror attacks in Israel. But their activities go far beyond their war against the Jewish State. Hezbollah, for example, bombed a U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1984, killing 241 Marine, Navy, and Army personnel. In 1996, a Saudi chapter of the group participated in the bombing of the Khobar Towers, an apartment building in Saudi Arabia, killing another 19 Americans.

Hezbollah gets weapons and funding from Iran, funneled through Syria. It has free rein to operate in Lebanon, now little more than a client state of Syria. And, not surprisingly, the group has close ties with bin Laden.

LIP SERVICE? The list of countries that, in one way or another, back international terrorism doesn`t stop with the obvious cases. It also includes Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States, which provide much of the funding for these terror groups. The governments in these countries are terrified of Islamic radicals, so they have made a deal with them. They look the other way while terrorists raise hundreds of millions of dollars from private citizens. In return, the groups agree to operate somewhere else.

Then, there are nations, such as China and France, that without a second thought, sell arms -- directly or indirectly -- to terrorist organizations. Sometimes, the weapons go through Iran, Iraq, or Syria, but all involved know the ultimate destinations.

The White House says things are different now. It even suggests that countries such as Syria, Pakistan, and Iran are going to change their behavior and turn their backs on terror. But people such as Secretary of State Colin Powell know better than that. More likely, these nations will give little more than lip service to the U.S. effort to kill bin Laden. And even that will end once the first civilian casualties are inflicted.

BITTER HARVEST. Yet in its effort to buy the loyalty of these nations, the White House has already lifted its long-standing arms embargoes against Iran, Syria, and Pakistan. Think about it for a moment: A decade ago, the U.S. armed bin Laden and the Taliban to enlist their support against what was then our Enemy #1 -- the Soviet Union. Today, we are reaping that painful harvest. Now, we are about to do exactly the same with states such as Iran and Syria -- help re-arm them to fight what we have identified as our new Enemy #1 -- none other than bin Laden himself.

With money, luck, and probably at some cost in American lives, the Bush Administration may kill bin Laden. And the world will be a better place for it. But will it be rid of terrorism? Not likely -- especially since the White House is cozying up to the very states that have made suicide bombings a routine instrument of their foreign policy. Bush has made a promise he cannot keep -- and one we may all regret.

Go to www.businessweek.com to see all of our latest stories.

http://biz.yahoo.com/bizwk/010925/khhtsyvoqywiyjo4d5agpq_1.html

BusinessWeek Online

DAILY BRIEFING -- Don`t Just Read His Lips

Daily Briefing

By Howard Gleckman

President Bush has made a breathtaking promise. ``Our war on terrorism,`` he told a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, ``will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.`` And, repeating a theme he has sounded since the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Bush grimly warned that ``any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.``

These are powerful words of extraordinary importance. And they appear to have enormous support within the U.S. Polls show more than 90% of Americans back the President`s efforts. Unfortunately, these are vows that the President cannot keep. More troubling, U.S. diplomatic actions since his impassioned speech suggest the White House has no intention of even trying.

John Mitchell, who was Richard Nixon`s hard-nosed attorney general, used to tell reporters, ``Watch what I do, not what I say.`` If you apply the Mitchell Rule to the Bush Administration, it`s clear that the White House`s goals are quite different from its rhetoric. Rather than really trying to end terrorism around the world, it is actually aiming at a much narrower target: To destroy Osama bin Laden and his network. And to pull this off, the Bush White House seems prepared to make peace with the very sponsors of terror it promises to defeat.

STRANGE BEDFELLOWS. The list of countries around the world that harbor, finance, and arm terrorist groups is hardly a secret. The U.S. State Dept. puts out its own annual report on the subject that names, among others, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan, and Libya as leading state sponsors of terrorism. For its own political reasons, the State Dept. leaves two other governments off its list -- Pakistan and Yassir Arafat`s Palestinian Authority -- but their use of cross-border terrorism is evident to anyone who reads a newspaper on a regular basis.

Who is the U.S. trying to enlist in its battle against terrorism? Among others, Syria, Iran, the Palestinian Authority, and Pakistan. It is very likely that the U.S. has already promised a bundle of financial aid to the generals who run Pakistan. And it is a good bet they will use some of those funds to continue their terror campaign in neighboring Kashmir.

It`s the same story with Syria. For decades, that country has used radical groups, such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah, as an integral part of its foreign policy. These groups, of course, are best known for their almost daily terror attacks in Israel. But their activities go far beyond their war against the Jewish State. Hezbollah, for example, bombed a U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1984, killing 241 Marine, Navy, and Army personnel. In 1996, a Saudi chapter of the group participated in the bombing of the Khobar Towers, an apartment building in Saudi Arabia, killing another 19 Americans.

Hezbollah gets weapons and funding from Iran, funneled through Syria. It has free rein to operate in Lebanon, now little more than a client state of Syria. And, not surprisingly, the group has close ties with bin Laden.

LIP SERVICE? The list of countries that, in one way or another, back international terrorism doesn`t stop with the obvious cases. It also includes Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States, which provide much of the funding for these terror groups. The governments in these countries are terrified of Islamic radicals, so they have made a deal with them. They look the other way while terrorists raise hundreds of millions of dollars from private citizens. In return, the groups agree to operate somewhere else.

Then, there are nations, such as China and France, that without a second thought, sell arms -- directly or indirectly -- to terrorist organizations. Sometimes, the weapons go through Iran, Iraq, or Syria, but all involved know the ultimate destinations.

The White House says things are different now. It even suggests that countries such as Syria, Pakistan, and Iran are going to change their behavior and turn their backs on terror. But people such as Secretary of State Colin Powell know better than that. More likely, these nations will give little more than lip service to the U.S. effort to kill bin Laden. And even that will end once the first civilian casualties are inflicted.

BITTER HARVEST. Yet in its effort to buy the loyalty of these nations, the White House has already lifted its long-standing arms embargoes against Iran, Syria, and Pakistan. Think about it for a moment: A decade ago, the U.S. armed bin Laden and the Taliban to enlist their support against what was then our Enemy #1 -- the Soviet Union. Today, we are reaping that painful harvest. Now, we are about to do exactly the same with states such as Iran and Syria -- help re-arm them to fight what we have identified as our new Enemy #1 -- none other than bin Laden himself.

With money, luck, and probably at some cost in American lives, the Bush Administration may kill bin Laden. And the world will be a better place for it. But will it be rid of terrorism? Not likely -- especially since the White House is cozying up to the very states that have made suicide bombings a routine instrument of their foreign policy. Bush has made a promise he cannot keep -- and one we may all regret.

Go to www.businessweek.com to see all of our latest stories.

Dost Mittar

Dost, I do not think we disagree on everything, That`s too broad.

We, I believe, disagree on Kashmir, Hindutva ideology seeking into the outlook fo ordinary Indians, and our understanding of Islam.

With regard to Cohen`s chat, review my most recent posts with Zafar and Narain - and review their responses. Zafar is convinced that the idea of independence for Kashmir has a great deal of support and that Pakistanis are threatend by it. Narain response is close to , no!, No! and Heck No! - both do not see the sense in a negotiated settlement. Both refuse to see that Indian responses in Kashmir serve Pakistani interests.

Refusal to acknowledge Kashmir as a dispute is ridiculous, a denial of reality. A signal that reason is absent. If the freedom struggle, really does transform itself, to terrorism within India, not just Kashmir, what might be the implication? Everybody will agree it`s terrorism and it`s awful, and then? An operation infinte justice? and then? Sooner or later sanity will prevail and it will have to be acknowledged that if terrorism is political drama, a political (negotiated) settlement will have to be explored.

The disagreement we have in regard to the point of view of Indian history you take, is that, in my opinion, without realizing it, you are actually buying into the Hindutva version of history. It is not enough to say that not all Muslims were bad guys, but rather it is important to acknowledge that muslims were, are Indian. That the history of India is a amalgamation of a multiplicity of histories, none of them conforming to a linear philiosophical or ideological trajectory. A claim of a linear progression is acceptable only when forwarding a history as evidence, for building a claim, in the direction of a particular version, or philiosophical/ideological claim. Yes, this is not the history for the pedestrian masses, but it is more in conformity with a broader understanding, than not.

In my opinion, your understanding of Islam, and that of a good number of non-Muslim Indians and some Pakistanis on these boards, is very much colored by a skewed understanding of the intellectual depth of Islam and it`s role as inspiration to Muslims and by the conflict(s) of orientation. Will we ever agree on these? I doubt that very much. But we can work to reduce the degree, the distance between our understanding. You seem not be recalling the intellectuals who posited the failings of Indian society in the culture of Hinduism. Was that valid criticism? or a shallow understanding?

As I was reading Cohen`s chat and I recommend you read his book (because his description of power that India can have, has not been undertood, if opinions on these boards can be said to be a reflection of that understanding). Pakistan and India, for good or bad, for the forseeable future, seem connected at the hip. In order for our peoples to progress as nation States, we need to restructure the vocabulary of our conflicts, to a more civil level.

sarwari #520

``I would if I had a founder who said ``my inner voice tells me you should not be vaccinated against the disease.`` Who said, ``My inner voice says, do not kill the rats and the fleas even if they spread plague.`` Who said, ``Doctors should abandon medicine``

I would if the very same founder went in for surgery and used the most modern machinery to publish his little-minded news papers. ``

Sarwari,

You are not really a hyna, you are a rabid hyna. I wonder where sigalph finds your clarity in toughts. Has your troubled childhood left no space in your upper cavity except this garbage that you spew out daily on chowk?

If you have any guts just reply to analysis of your article that was posted by Zafar, or just find 5 people on this forum who will agree with you about this junk you are writing about Gandhi.

Ferozk, thanks for your detailed reply. I have some more queries or points etc.

One aspect which is missing from all the discussions here on chowk is why is it that in the last two decades there has been an increase in intolerance amongst muslims for muslims? Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, have been extremely tolerant, amongst themselves as well as with others. This has developed over hundreds of years. Yes there have been the occasional blood baths, but it does not explain the virulency of the current trends. Where does this virulency come from? What is the basis for this sudden spurt in the ultra-extra-puritanical streak? Why are intelligent muslims silent? Why is it that muslims from pakistan, bangladesh, india when they come to the west, and attend mosques are suddenly portrayed as lesser muslims (though they follow the quran) than certain otehrs and the people who run these mosques?

The next point I would like to make or ask is this. There is a preamble here. Long time back in History, the Rulers from delhi (sultanate or the mughals) had to seek permission from the Caliph, and later on only homage by way of some dues were paid. Even this later on was discontinued. (you can check this out by reading any history book). TOday, the modern day rulers in Pakistan have to pay homage to the modern day caliphs. (just see where all the good leaders of pakistan have visited first after they have taken power, and visited it in times of problems). WHo are these caliphs? And what do they have that holds the pakistani establishement by the proverbials? (this is in a sense a follow up to my questions and your answers).

The third point is, the Hanafi traditions in Afghanistan were pretty tolerant. They the afghanis, staunch muslims, were men who were tolerant. But get on their wrong side and you were dead meat. And ferocius fighters to the last.

How is it that these people suddenly took up a very extreme form of Islam? What has driven them to do it? Who is driving them to do it? For surely, it cannot have been the russians (or soviets), it cannot have been a dislike for the infedels - this surge of ultr-extreme-islam is a recent development in Afghanistan and indeed Pakistan.

What is your take on these questions? Anyone on the board willing to go the extra mile and go beyond the usual stuf that is doled out.

#519

ZAT.....His masters Voice

There are 700 bride burning cases in Delhi with approx population of 10 million or 1 crore .Multiply that by 100 to give you fig of 7000 annually .You say there is law against it ,& i agree ,there are laws aginst all sorts of BAD things ,but untill the incidence drops ,ITS VERY MUCH LIKE SAYING WE GOT CURE FOR t.B. BUT ARE THE t.B. PTS GETTING IT & IS THE INCIDENCE DECREASING???

I posted this story before.DO YOU KNOW INDIAN GOVT PRESSURES DOCTORS NOT TO WRITE THE CAUSE OF DEATH AS STARVATION ,MALNUTRITION OR HUNGER???

You might have seen the Calcutta from OUTSIDE ,Park St.,Alipore,Ballgunj,you are NOT A CREDIBLE ,KNOW ALL WHAT REALLY GOES ON JUST BY VIRTUE OF BEING BORN IN INDIA

Court on Wednesday sought the

response of the Centre and six states to the allegation

that a large number of starvation deat

SC NOTICE TO GOVT ON STARVATION DEATHS

NEW DELHI: The Supreme hs were occurring

due to the flagrant violation of the 1962 Famine Code,

even though the government`s godowns were overflowing

with foodgrains.

Full Story: http://www.timesofindia.com/100501/10home5.htm



PENURY PUSHES FATHER TO DUMP DEAD DAUGHTER





OUR BUREAU



Calcutta, Feb. 20 :

An impoverished father left his 10-year-old dead daughter in a municipal

corporation vat in Bansdroni, south Calcutta, on Monday night. He did

not have the money to pay a doctor for the death certificate, take the

body to the crematorium, or perform the last rites.

The man was detained for interrogation, while Regent Park police started

an unnatural death case, pending a post-mortem report.Little Mun Mun was born to Tapas and Gita Das of Bansdroni, near Regent

Park, 10 years ago. She was born a spastic, with no control over her

movements. Her brother and sister, born later, were normal.Mun Mun’s father, a peon at Howrah court, drew a meagre salary, and

could just manage to make ends meet. But when the girl developed complications relating to rheumatic heart

disorder, he did not have the funds to get her operated upon.As a result, she was treated at home and, over the past five years, her

condition deteriorated. She was bedridden for the past five months and

finally died on Monday night.The parents were at a loss over what to do with the body. “We thought of

the costs involved,” recalled Das at the police station. “The doctor’s

certificate, taking her to the burning ghat, the charges there... We had

only Rs 100 with us to buy the next day’s food for our two other

children. If we spent it on cremating Mun Mun, how could we get food for

the others...” he asked, breaking down in front of the interrogators,

who included Gyanwant Singh, additional superintendent of police, South

24- Parganas.Mun Mun’s mother suggested that the girl’s body be cast into the Adi

Ganga (Tolly’s Nullah), still considered a holy waterway. In the dead of

night, Tapas carried the body in a large jute bag (the 10-year-old’s

body had shrunk due to her illness) and walked along Bansdroni Main Road

towards the Ganga.With street dogs snapping at his heels, Das was forced to beat a hasty

retreat. He then decided to dump the body in a roadside vat near his

home, presuming that the CMC would take the bag away as garbage.The next morning, however, residents spotted the limbs of a child in the

bag, which had been rummaged overnight by dogs and cats. They recognised

the body. A crowd gathered at Das’ house and raised a din, thinking that

the girl had been murdered. The police were informed.“This is a very tragic situation,” said Singh. “The civic authorities

and the government have provisions for cremation of the destitute but

the Das family, apparently, did not know about them. The last rites can

be preformed at only a fraction of the usual cost.”Several councillors have appealed to the mayor to intervene so that

Tapas Das is not punished for what he did.