Benazir Bhutto in Sacramento
Ras Siddiqui October 30, 2001
#1 Posted by cutandpaste on January 9, 2001 8:01:40 pm
WEDNESDAY JANUARY 09 2002
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C7-2002013426%2C00.html
Cover story
THE TIMES, UK
A state of war
BY TREVOR FISHLOCK
The dispute over Kashmir has brought India and Pakistan to the brink of nuclear war. But why has this beautiful state become the subcontinent`s powder keg?
Poets hymned it as a land of love and languor. In 1627 the dying emperor Jahangir, who shaped its blissful gardens, was asked to name his last desire. “Only Kashmir,” he murmured. “Only Kashmir.”
India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, promised melodramatically that its name was written upon his heart. Today, millions make the same emotive claim.
Passions for Kashmir run hot and bitter, the bayonets almost touch and the urge for war is strong. Two rivals, two ideas, two faiths stand nose to nose in one of the world’s most dangerous places. One mistake or misjudgment and the spark falls on the fuse.
India and Pakistan have fought three wars, two of them over Kashmir. The great bulk of their armies are based along the frontier that runs through Punjab and Kashmir. The border is always tense.
In Kashmir there has been an almost permanent grumbling small war of artillery bombardment. Apart from the all-out conflicts, India and Pakistan have two or three times pulled back from the brink, and now the assessments of their military power have to include their nuclear capability. There was a particularly dangerous stand-off in 1990.
It was inevitable that the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament on December 13 would bring India and Pakistan once more to the edge of the abyss. It was an echo of the October suicide bomb attack on the Kashmir assembly. The Parliament in Delhi is the heart and emblem of what India stands for. Now India is raging.
Poor Kashmir. It lies in the Himalayan ramparts where the borders of India, Pakistan and China rub together. Reality mocks its beauty. There is no escaping the permeating melancholy of a land that lies under the gun. It is as if malevolent gods, jealous of its loveliness, placed a curse upon it.
The poison entered the garden in 1947 when the war-weary British quit their Indian empire and partitioned it. They had no wish to cut it up: one of their imperial achievements, they said, was to have united India and made it secure. They divided it to meet the demands of Muslim leaders who said that Hindus and Muslims could not live together in one country, that the communities formed two separate nations. Pakistan was therefore created as a homeland for the subcontinent’s Muslims.
Britain ruled India with the co-operation of more than 500 Indian princes, a galaxy of maharajahs, rajahs, ranas, raos, khans, mirs, jams, nizams and nawabs, loyal to the British crown, well-oiled with flattery, some fantastically rich and a few of them barmy. In the summer of 1947, these rulers had to choose whether to take their states into India or Pakistan. It was a personal decision, without referendum.
Public opinion hardly came into it. Most princes joined India. Most knew that they would be extinguishing themselves as a ruling class, but it was clear to all but a few that the game was up. On the eve of independence, all the princes had made up their minds except four.
The Maharajah of Kashmir, Sir Hari Singh, was one of the ditherers. He was vain, pompous and addicted to hunting bears and shooting ducks. As a young man he had an unfortunate scrape in London, being found in bed with a woman at the Savoy Hotel and milked for a lot of money by a blackmailer pretending to be the woman’s husband.
At Partition, Kashmir, more fully known as Jammu and Kashmir, was in a key position: a prize because it was a large state and famously beautiful, a honeymooners’ resort of lakes and cool alpine meadows.
Given its place on the map, it could have swung either to India or to Pakistan. Because of its overwhelming Muslim majority, Pakistan’s new leaders expected that it would join their Islamic entity. But the maharajah had to decide — and he was a Hindu. This was not unusual. In princely India, Muslims often ruled Hindus and vice versa. But Hari Singh dithered. He could not believe that the British would really go home. He did not want to join Pakistan because he could not bear the thought of his state being subsumed. He dreamt that Kashmir could somehow be an independent country and he could keep his power.
India and Pakistan became independent in August. Hari Singh was still dithering in October. As he fiddled, the storm broke. Thousands of Pathan warriors from the North-West Frontier, bordering Afghanistan, rushed into Kashmir, vowing to seize it for Pakistan. Although they were a rabble, they might have succeeded. They were close to Srinagar, the capital, when they were delayed by their lust for loot and women. While they pillaged towns and raped girls and nuns, the hapless Hari Singh gathered up his diamonds and Purdey shotguns and fled his palace in a motorcade.
India acted fast and decisively. In a flurry of action the maharajah agreed to join India, and Indian forces flew to save Srinagar. This was the first Kashmir war, not an all-out confrontation but a series of fights and communal conflicts. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the leader of Pakistan, wanted to send the new Pakistan regular Army into action, but did not do so when the absurdity of the situation was pointed out to him: the forces of India and Pakistan shared a commander-in-chief, Field Marshal Sir Claude Auchinleck, while many officers on both sides were British.
Kashmir was left divided along the line where fighting stopped in 1948. A United Nations ceasefire came into force on January 1, 1949. In 1965 Pakistan tried and failed to annexe Kashmir and was defeated in brief and bitter fighting. At one stage Indian forces were almost at the gates of Lahore and could easily have taken it. Pakistan’s leaders believed that Kashmiris would welcome Pakistani troops as liberators. It was a shock that they did not. In 1971 India and Pakistan went to war again, India assisting the secession of East Pakistan, which became Bangladesh. Pakistan was left truncated and humiliated.
Yet the story of a vacillating maharajah and the ensuing bloody quarrel over territory is only the half of it.
Kashmir is a tragedy for its divided people and a continuing source of danger in a subcontinent inhabited by a fifth of the world’s population. The tragedy has deep roots. Kashmir is the offspring of bitterly divorced parents. Pakistan aches for it but will never possess it. India will never let it go: it is not negotiable. The trouble is that both sides define themselves by this feud.
Their mutual suspicions date from the 8th-century Muslim conquest of western India and the many hundreds of years of Mogul rule that were brought to an end by the British Raj. For India’s Hindu majority, independence in 1947 was a reclamation of their vast land, the end of centuries of foreign domination. Nehru and others believed passionately that this new India would be a daring concept, an embracing of all its religious, linguistic and regional diversity, a magnificent secular state.
The steely and intractable Jinnah did not believe it. His new country of Pakistan grew out of that scepticism, the belief that Muslims in India would be vulnerable, second-class citizens.
Pakistan was an invented state, a by-product of the great Indian struggle for independence. It evolved in the last few years of British rule among people who wanted to escape religious and political discrimination in the new order. Landowners especially thought they would lose out in India. Democracy barely made the journey to Pakistan.
In a sense Pakistan remains stranded in 1947. Its great debate has centred for half a century on what it is for and what it should be. Jinnah mused that it could be a secular country. But in that case, what was the point of Partition? Some of his successors said that Pakistan was nothing if not Islamic and determined to make it more so, a military theocracy.
Yet Islam proved an unreliable glue. It did not cement Pakistan and East Pakistan. Bangladesh erupted as the assertion of Bengali language and culture. Nor did it cement the disparate parts of Pakistan itself — Punjab, Baluchistan, Sindh and the North- West Frontier — or, indeed, the many shades of Islamic belief. Thus Kashmir is useful, the “unfinished business of Partition”. However much Pakistanis disagree about the nature of their society, they find common cause in Kashmir, the belief that they were robbed in 1947. This is the unifying insult. It is why Pakistan has supported Kashmiri insurgents. India’s treatment of Kashmiris during the long years of internal strife are held as proof that Jinnah was right, that Muslims needed their homeland.
It is true that India could have managed Kashmir more wisely, less roughly. But Pakistan has to live with the fact that there are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan. India has the second largest Muslim population in the world: evidently Hindus and Muslims do live together in a secular society, Nehru’s idea of India, even if it is not always easy. And Kashmir, the only Indian state with a Muslim majority, is in Indian minds the shining fact of secular India. Its existence throws the question to Pakistan again: what was Partition for? India has a powerful idea of its identity. It is the giant of South Asia, its Armed Forces are huge and it is proud of its democracy, even if this is somewhat battered. Pakistan, on the other hand, does not enjoy such a positive identity. It thinks of itself in terms of its neighbour and endures the negative of being Not India.
It means that even if the impossible were to happen, that Kashmir should somehow become part of Pakistan, the anxieties and insecurities of Pakistan would endure. There would have to be another issue by which Pakistan could seek to establish its identity and purpose.
In the meantime the two nations face each other again — and judging from what we see and hear, there are many on both sides desperate to fight. Centuries of prejudice are poured into the funnel of Kashmir.
People on both sides treasure the slights of history. There is an endless misunderstanding of each other’s beliefs and opinions. Estrangement is total. Trivial matters become huge. Hindu nationalists complain that Muslims cheer for Pakistan during Test matches. In both India and Pakistan, keen teams of monitors comb through guide books and encyclopaedias searching for maps that might contain instances of “cartographic aggression” — inaccuracies that seem to favour one side or the other.
Words are traps, and there is a sense that a comma could cause a crisis. But the opinions of outsiders are not welcome. For this is a feud between cousins, a quarrel in the family. It could hardly be more acrid and perilous.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C7-2002013426%2C00.html
Cover story
THE TIMES, UK
A state of war
BY TREVOR FISHLOCK
The dispute over Kashmir has brought India and Pakistan to the brink of nuclear war. But why has this beautiful state become the subcontinent`s powder keg?
Poets hymned it as a land of love and languor. In 1627 the dying emperor Jahangir, who shaped its blissful gardens, was asked to name his last desire. “Only Kashmir,” he murmured. “Only Kashmir.”
India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, promised melodramatically that its name was written upon his heart. Today, millions make the same emotive claim.
Passions for Kashmir run hot and bitter, the bayonets almost touch and the urge for war is strong. Two rivals, two ideas, two faiths stand nose to nose in one of the world’s most dangerous places. One mistake or misjudgment and the spark falls on the fuse.
India and Pakistan have fought three wars, two of them over Kashmir. The great bulk of their armies are based along the frontier that runs through Punjab and Kashmir. The border is always tense.
In Kashmir there has been an almost permanent grumbling small war of artillery bombardment. Apart from the all-out conflicts, India and Pakistan have two or three times pulled back from the brink, and now the assessments of their military power have to include their nuclear capability. There was a particularly dangerous stand-off in 1990.
It was inevitable that the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament on December 13 would bring India and Pakistan once more to the edge of the abyss. It was an echo of the October suicide bomb attack on the Kashmir assembly. The Parliament in Delhi is the heart and emblem of what India stands for. Now India is raging.
Poor Kashmir. It lies in the Himalayan ramparts where the borders of India, Pakistan and China rub together. Reality mocks its beauty. There is no escaping the permeating melancholy of a land that lies under the gun. It is as if malevolent gods, jealous of its loveliness, placed a curse upon it.
The poison entered the garden in 1947 when the war-weary British quit their Indian empire and partitioned it. They had no wish to cut it up: one of their imperial achievements, they said, was to have united India and made it secure. They divided it to meet the demands of Muslim leaders who said that Hindus and Muslims could not live together in one country, that the communities formed two separate nations. Pakistan was therefore created as a homeland for the subcontinent’s Muslims.
Britain ruled India with the co-operation of more than 500 Indian princes, a galaxy of maharajahs, rajahs, ranas, raos, khans, mirs, jams, nizams and nawabs, loyal to the British crown, well-oiled with flattery, some fantastically rich and a few of them barmy. In the summer of 1947, these rulers had to choose whether to take their states into India or Pakistan. It was a personal decision, without referendum.
Public opinion hardly came into it. Most princes joined India. Most knew that they would be extinguishing themselves as a ruling class, but it was clear to all but a few that the game was up. On the eve of independence, all the princes had made up their minds except four.
The Maharajah of Kashmir, Sir Hari Singh, was one of the ditherers. He was vain, pompous and addicted to hunting bears and shooting ducks. As a young man he had an unfortunate scrape in London, being found in bed with a woman at the Savoy Hotel and milked for a lot of money by a blackmailer pretending to be the woman’s husband.
At Partition, Kashmir, more fully known as Jammu and Kashmir, was in a key position: a prize because it was a large state and famously beautiful, a honeymooners’ resort of lakes and cool alpine meadows.
Given its place on the map, it could have swung either to India or to Pakistan. Because of its overwhelming Muslim majority, Pakistan’s new leaders expected that it would join their Islamic entity. But the maharajah had to decide — and he was a Hindu. This was not unusual. In princely India, Muslims often ruled Hindus and vice versa. But Hari Singh dithered. He could not believe that the British would really go home. He did not want to join Pakistan because he could not bear the thought of his state being subsumed. He dreamt that Kashmir could somehow be an independent country and he could keep his power.
India and Pakistan became independent in August. Hari Singh was still dithering in October. As he fiddled, the storm broke. Thousands of Pathan warriors from the North-West Frontier, bordering Afghanistan, rushed into Kashmir, vowing to seize it for Pakistan. Although they were a rabble, they might have succeeded. They were close to Srinagar, the capital, when they were delayed by their lust for loot and women. While they pillaged towns and raped girls and nuns, the hapless Hari Singh gathered up his diamonds and Purdey shotguns and fled his palace in a motorcade.
India acted fast and decisively. In a flurry of action the maharajah agreed to join India, and Indian forces flew to save Srinagar. This was the first Kashmir war, not an all-out confrontation but a series of fights and communal conflicts. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the leader of Pakistan, wanted to send the new Pakistan regular Army into action, but did not do so when the absurdity of the situation was pointed out to him: the forces of India and Pakistan shared a commander-in-chief, Field Marshal Sir Claude Auchinleck, while many officers on both sides were British.
Kashmir was left divided along the line where fighting stopped in 1948. A United Nations ceasefire came into force on January 1, 1949. In 1965 Pakistan tried and failed to annexe Kashmir and was defeated in brief and bitter fighting. At one stage Indian forces were almost at the gates of Lahore and could easily have taken it. Pakistan’s leaders believed that Kashmiris would welcome Pakistani troops as liberators. It was a shock that they did not. In 1971 India and Pakistan went to war again, India assisting the secession of East Pakistan, which became Bangladesh. Pakistan was left truncated and humiliated.
Yet the story of a vacillating maharajah and the ensuing bloody quarrel over territory is only the half of it.
Kashmir is a tragedy for its divided people and a continuing source of danger in a subcontinent inhabited by a fifth of the world’s population. The tragedy has deep roots. Kashmir is the offspring of bitterly divorced parents. Pakistan aches for it but will never possess it. India will never let it go: it is not negotiable. The trouble is that both sides define themselves by this feud.
Their mutual suspicions date from the 8th-century Muslim conquest of western India and the many hundreds of years of Mogul rule that were brought to an end by the British Raj. For India’s Hindu majority, independence in 1947 was a reclamation of their vast land, the end of centuries of foreign domination. Nehru and others believed passionately that this new India would be a daring concept, an embracing of all its religious, linguistic and regional diversity, a magnificent secular state.
The steely and intractable Jinnah did not believe it. His new country of Pakistan grew out of that scepticism, the belief that Muslims in India would be vulnerable, second-class citizens.
Pakistan was an invented state, a by-product of the great Indian struggle for independence. It evolved in the last few years of British rule among people who wanted to escape religious and political discrimination in the new order. Landowners especially thought they would lose out in India. Democracy barely made the journey to Pakistan.
In a sense Pakistan remains stranded in 1947. Its great debate has centred for half a century on what it is for and what it should be. Jinnah mused that it could be a secular country. But in that case, what was the point of Partition? Some of his successors said that Pakistan was nothing if not Islamic and determined to make it more so, a military theocracy.
Yet Islam proved an unreliable glue. It did not cement Pakistan and East Pakistan. Bangladesh erupted as the assertion of Bengali language and culture. Nor did it cement the disparate parts of Pakistan itself — Punjab, Baluchistan, Sindh and the North- West Frontier — or, indeed, the many shades of Islamic belief. Thus Kashmir is useful, the “unfinished business of Partition”. However much Pakistanis disagree about the nature of their society, they find common cause in Kashmir, the belief that they were robbed in 1947. This is the unifying insult. It is why Pakistan has supported Kashmiri insurgents. India’s treatment of Kashmiris during the long years of internal strife are held as proof that Jinnah was right, that Muslims needed their homeland.
It is true that India could have managed Kashmir more wisely, less roughly. But Pakistan has to live with the fact that there are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan. India has the second largest Muslim population in the world: evidently Hindus and Muslims do live together in a secular society, Nehru’s idea of India, even if it is not always easy. And Kashmir, the only Indian state with a Muslim majority, is in Indian minds the shining fact of secular India. Its existence throws the question to Pakistan again: what was Partition for? India has a powerful idea of its identity. It is the giant of South Asia, its Armed Forces are huge and it is proud of its democracy, even if this is somewhat battered. Pakistan, on the other hand, does not enjoy such a positive identity. It thinks of itself in terms of its neighbour and endures the negative of being Not India.
It means that even if the impossible were to happen, that Kashmir should somehow become part of Pakistan, the anxieties and insecurities of Pakistan would endure. There would have to be another issue by which Pakistan could seek to establish its identity and purpose.
In the meantime the two nations face each other again — and judging from what we see and hear, there are many on both sides desperate to fight. Centuries of prejudice are poured into the funnel of Kashmir.
People on both sides treasure the slights of history. There is an endless misunderstanding of each other’s beliefs and opinions. Estrangement is total. Trivial matters become huge. Hindu nationalists complain that Muslims cheer for Pakistan during Test matches. In both India and Pakistan, keen teams of monitors comb through guide books and encyclopaedias searching for maps that might contain instances of “cartographic aggression” — inaccuracies that seem to favour one side or the other.
Words are traps, and there is a sense that a comma could cause a crisis. But the opinions of outsiders are not welcome. For this is a feud between cousins, a quarrel in the family. It could hardly be more acrid and perilous.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#2 Posted by hamzadafaqui on October 30, 2001 10:45:02 pm
Luis Farrakhaan s Farrakhan warns against wider war
Atonement answer to world`s problems of war poverty and disease
by Eric Ture Muhammad
Staff Writer
CHICAGO (FinalCall.com)—President Bush right now is planning, like his father (former President Bush), a wider war against Islam, the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan warned during his Oct. 16 Day of Atonement speech celebrating the 6th anniversary of the Million Man March. Pres. Bush is not satisfied with Afghanistan and is seeking to attack the Muslim nations of Iraq, Libya and Sudan, he said, during a message from Christ Universal Temple, delivered via satellite and live Internet webcast throughout the country and world.
``President Bush, I pray you won’t pursue what you have in mind. If you do, you will end what is known as the United States of America,`` he warned, adding that the judgment of God would visit the country.
Min. Farrakhan said that the warmongering of Mr. Bush is based on the world’s oil deposits and who controls ``the sweet crude.`` He said that the process of atonement and returning to the principles of God is the only saving grace for the country.
Prefacing his remarks with scriptural references to the third chapter of Ezekiel in the Bible and the fifth chapter of the Holy Qur’an, the Nation of Islam leader said that God had shown him the basis for America’s war against terrorism and that spiritual leadership of all faiths in this time must remain mindful of their duty to God.
``We have arrived at a very critical hour when the ministers of God, who are watchmen on the wall, have to not only hear the word of God from the mouth of God, but we have a responsibility in an hour like this to warn the wicked from their wicked ways, and not fear what the wicked may say or do. Only fear what God will do if we fail to deliver the message,`` he admonished.
In the world of Christianity, Islam and Judaism, there are men and women who have heard the word of God and say they believe, but are afraid to condemn the wicked practices of the people and call them to repentance for fear of losing donations to the church, he said. The message from God through His prophets and warners is not a ``milquetoast gospel that tickles the ears of the people,`` but one that delivers them from Satan, he said.
At the root of denominations and separation are materialism, racism and bigotry. God does not judge the people by skin color, he said, ``but it is our piety that makes one human being better than another.``
Referring to the escalation of the war against terrorism, Min. Farrakhan said that America’s foreign policy makers and her crafters of war are not in any danger of losing their sons and daughters in a war that President Bush has told the American people will last for years. ``Most of those who will die if the war continues are Black and Brown and poor white,`` he cautioned.
``Something terrible happened on September 11, and we have not gotten definitive answers as to why people hate America to that degree. People don’t act like this for nothing. People don’t sacrifice their lives and take the lives of others for nothing,`` he said.
Min. Farrakhan recounted a litany of U.S. foreign policy machinations that have thwarted the sovereignty of nations and imposed or assassinated leaders, adding that the American public is owed the reasons that justify Mr. Bush’s call for an extended war.
``If Mr. Bush wants the world to join him in this war, then prove to the world that Osama bin Laden is responsible for this heinous crime,`` he said. ``[Bush] said he has overwhelming evidence. Then bring the evidence and show it to the American people,`` he said.
Noting that the United Nations is presently struggling to set a definition of ``terrorism`` and ``terrorist`` that could be applied universally, Min. Farrakhan said: ``One nation’s terrorist is another nation’s freedom fighter. So, we have to discern whether the governments of the world are repressive of the legitimate aspirations of its citizens.``
He cited the Minutemen, Paul Revere and Crispus Attucks as examples in their freedom fight against British colonialism. He walked the audience through the opening paragraphs of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, offering examples of how the American public is owed the truth behind its government’s actions lest Mr. Bush was setting the country up for more anti-war protests and civil disruption.
Minister Farrakhan said that America has relegated God and religion to a back seat, when ``without God you have no government.``
The need for atonement
The president of the United States as Commander in Chief of its armed forces carries enormous weight to send the people of America into harm’s way in the name of defeating terrorism, Min. Farrakhan explained. ``I would humbly ask our President, is there a better way to defeat terrorism?`` he said. ``Must countless hundreds of thousands of innocent lives be lost and the causes of terrorism never be addressed?
``If America would adopt the process of atonement, it would keep America strong hundreds of years into the future,`` he said. ``The weapons of war have never kept any great empire of yesterday from falling. And the great weapons of war that America has amassed can not keep America from falling if she violates the principles that leads to perpetuity,`` he said.
Min. Farrakhan defined the terms ‘fundamental Christian’ and ‘fundamental Muslim’ as patriots of God who seek to bring their respective governments back to the law of God.
Man is too weak and fallible to make laws because he makes laws for his own self-interest, even if the laws he makes are hurtful to others, he said. ``So God and only God can make just laws that render us all equal,`` he said.
Mr. Bush has in his mind to go after Iraq after he finishes in Afghanistan, Min. Farrakhan said. Next he will move on to Libya, then the Sudan, where the oil deposits in Southern Sudan are more plentiful than in the whole of Saudi Arabia. ``That’s why the war is on right now,`` he said.
Min. Farrakhan told the audience to never allow Satan to put the people at odds over the labels they wear. ``Be wise like the wino,`` he quipped. ``When the wino gets the bottle, he is not interested in the label, it’s the content. We should be interested in the content and not be divided by labels,`` he said.
He closed the historic evening thanking Christ Universal Temple’s founder, Rev. Johnnie Coleman for hosting the event and urged its parishioners to go after the young and encourage them to follow in the example of ``Christ consciousness`` developed by her.
During opening comments for the evening, Rev. Al Sampson of Fernwood United Methodist Church and a disciple of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., said ``the entire world shook for a moment`` when nearly two million men showed up in Washington for the Million Man March.
These men stood up and said ``enough in enough`` and the reality of the March is ``written across our hearts,`` he said.
``Now we’re faced with moral authority to say to the world that [the world] needs atonement, reconciliation and responsibility now more than we’ve had to have at any other time in history,`` he said.
Reading from a letter that he sent to President Bush, Rev. James L. Bevel, who also worked with Dr. King, advised the President to seek atonement.
Rev. Bevel said that he too was thinking of revenge and killing during the ’60s when four little girls were killed when racists bombed a church in Birmingham.
``I ultimately concluded that a greater good would result from following the teachings of Christ. Today it’s your turn to make a decision [whether you] will save or destroy the world,`` he said.
Speaking on behalf of the Rev. Sun Yung Moon of the Unification Church, Rev. Michael Jenkins said that only by the word of God can humanity be healed and ``we are about to hear the word of God tonight.``
``One year ago today, the Million Family March was launched and all of God’s children came together. My family and my life have been touched by the Honorable Louis Farrakhan É and all of America is being touched more and more,`` he said
peaks 16th october 2001
Atonement answer to world`s problems of war poverty and disease
by Eric Ture Muhammad
Staff Writer
CHICAGO (FinalCall.com)—President Bush right now is planning, like his father (former President Bush), a wider war against Islam, the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan warned during his Oct. 16 Day of Atonement speech celebrating the 6th anniversary of the Million Man March. Pres. Bush is not satisfied with Afghanistan and is seeking to attack the Muslim nations of Iraq, Libya and Sudan, he said, during a message from Christ Universal Temple, delivered via satellite and live Internet webcast throughout the country and world.
``President Bush, I pray you won’t pursue what you have in mind. If you do, you will end what is known as the United States of America,`` he warned, adding that the judgment of God would visit the country.
Min. Farrakhan said that the warmongering of Mr. Bush is based on the world’s oil deposits and who controls ``the sweet crude.`` He said that the process of atonement and returning to the principles of God is the only saving grace for the country.
Prefacing his remarks with scriptural references to the third chapter of Ezekiel in the Bible and the fifth chapter of the Holy Qur’an, the Nation of Islam leader said that God had shown him the basis for America’s war against terrorism and that spiritual leadership of all faiths in this time must remain mindful of their duty to God.
``We have arrived at a very critical hour when the ministers of God, who are watchmen on the wall, have to not only hear the word of God from the mouth of God, but we have a responsibility in an hour like this to warn the wicked from their wicked ways, and not fear what the wicked may say or do. Only fear what God will do if we fail to deliver the message,`` he admonished.
In the world of Christianity, Islam and Judaism, there are men and women who have heard the word of God and say they believe, but are afraid to condemn the wicked practices of the people and call them to repentance for fear of losing donations to the church, he said. The message from God through His prophets and warners is not a ``milquetoast gospel that tickles the ears of the people,`` but one that delivers them from Satan, he said.
At the root of denominations and separation are materialism, racism and bigotry. God does not judge the people by skin color, he said, ``but it is our piety that makes one human being better than another.``
Referring to the escalation of the war against terrorism, Min. Farrakhan said that America’s foreign policy makers and her crafters of war are not in any danger of losing their sons and daughters in a war that President Bush has told the American people will last for years. ``Most of those who will die if the war continues are Black and Brown and poor white,`` he cautioned.
``Something terrible happened on September 11, and we have not gotten definitive answers as to why people hate America to that degree. People don’t act like this for nothing. People don’t sacrifice their lives and take the lives of others for nothing,`` he said.
Min. Farrakhan recounted a litany of U.S. foreign policy machinations that have thwarted the sovereignty of nations and imposed or assassinated leaders, adding that the American public is owed the reasons that justify Mr. Bush’s call for an extended war.
``If Mr. Bush wants the world to join him in this war, then prove to the world that Osama bin Laden is responsible for this heinous crime,`` he said. ``[Bush] said he has overwhelming evidence. Then bring the evidence and show it to the American people,`` he said.
Noting that the United Nations is presently struggling to set a definition of ``terrorism`` and ``terrorist`` that could be applied universally, Min. Farrakhan said: ``One nation’s terrorist is another nation’s freedom fighter. So, we have to discern whether the governments of the world are repressive of the legitimate aspirations of its citizens.``
He cited the Minutemen, Paul Revere and Crispus Attucks as examples in their freedom fight against British colonialism. He walked the audience through the opening paragraphs of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, offering examples of how the American public is owed the truth behind its government’s actions lest Mr. Bush was setting the country up for more anti-war protests and civil disruption.
Minister Farrakhan said that America has relegated God and religion to a back seat, when ``without God you have no government.``
The need for atonement
The president of the United States as Commander in Chief of its armed forces carries enormous weight to send the people of America into harm’s way in the name of defeating terrorism, Min. Farrakhan explained. ``I would humbly ask our President, is there a better way to defeat terrorism?`` he said. ``Must countless hundreds of thousands of innocent lives be lost and the causes of terrorism never be addressed?
``If America would adopt the process of atonement, it would keep America strong hundreds of years into the future,`` he said. ``The weapons of war have never kept any great empire of yesterday from falling. And the great weapons of war that America has amassed can not keep America from falling if she violates the principles that leads to perpetuity,`` he said.
Min. Farrakhan defined the terms ‘fundamental Christian’ and ‘fundamental Muslim’ as patriots of God who seek to bring their respective governments back to the law of God.
Man is too weak and fallible to make laws because he makes laws for his own self-interest, even if the laws he makes are hurtful to others, he said. ``So God and only God can make just laws that render us all equal,`` he said.
Mr. Bush has in his mind to go after Iraq after he finishes in Afghanistan, Min. Farrakhan said. Next he will move on to Libya, then the Sudan, where the oil deposits in Southern Sudan are more plentiful than in the whole of Saudi Arabia. ``That’s why the war is on right now,`` he said.
Min. Farrakhan told the audience to never allow Satan to put the people at odds over the labels they wear. ``Be wise like the wino,`` he quipped. ``When the wino gets the bottle, he is not interested in the label, it’s the content. We should be interested in the content and not be divided by labels,`` he said.
He closed the historic evening thanking Christ Universal Temple’s founder, Rev. Johnnie Coleman for hosting the event and urged its parishioners to go after the young and encourage them to follow in the example of ``Christ consciousness`` developed by her.
During opening comments for the evening, Rev. Al Sampson of Fernwood United Methodist Church and a disciple of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., said ``the entire world shook for a moment`` when nearly two million men showed up in Washington for the Million Man March.
These men stood up and said ``enough in enough`` and the reality of the March is ``written across our hearts,`` he said.
``Now we’re faced with moral authority to say to the world that [the world] needs atonement, reconciliation and responsibility now more than we’ve had to have at any other time in history,`` he said.
Reading from a letter that he sent to President Bush, Rev. James L. Bevel, who also worked with Dr. King, advised the President to seek atonement.
Rev. Bevel said that he too was thinking of revenge and killing during the ’60s when four little girls were killed when racists bombed a church in Birmingham.
``I ultimately concluded that a greater good would result from following the teachings of Christ. Today it’s your turn to make a decision [whether you] will save or destroy the world,`` he said.
Speaking on behalf of the Rev. Sun Yung Moon of the Unification Church, Rev. Michael Jenkins said that only by the word of God can humanity be healed and ``we are about to hear the word of God tonight.``
``One year ago today, the Million Family March was launched and all of God’s children came together. My family and my life have been touched by the Honorable Louis Farrakhan É and all of America is being touched more and more,`` he said
peaks 16th october 2001
#3 Posted by freesoul on October 30, 2001 10:45:02 pm
it is irnoic that BB can fool only those Americans and Paki Americans who have not been to Pakistan during her rule. With foreign education, fair sex, and English accent, she has everything to make her more innocent than an angel.
Maulana Fzlur Rehman to Tahir ul Qadri, all molvis were in her lap during her rule. Her interior minister (called `the buther of Karachi`) was the main creator of Taliban. The Taliban policy of ISI and Pakistan army formed in her 2nd rule, with no opposition by PPP. When asked about the mistreatement of women t the ahands of Taliban, she used to calm down journalists by saying her govt was trying to win over Taliban to desist from that.
Now, she has the audacity to tell world, that she fought against the molvis. Balshphemey laws to hudood ordinace, every sexist and intolerant law was not revoked in her rule. She just amased wealth in foreign banks, and intends to collect more when the foreign aid has started coming in, thanks to the prostitution of pakistan by paki army.
Maulana Fzlur Rehman to Tahir ul Qadri, all molvis were in her lap during her rule. Her interior minister (called `the buther of Karachi`) was the main creator of Taliban. The Taliban policy of ISI and Pakistan army formed in her 2nd rule, with no opposition by PPP. When asked about the mistreatement of women t the ahands of Taliban, she used to calm down journalists by saying her govt was trying to win over Taliban to desist from that.
Now, she has the audacity to tell world, that she fought against the molvis. Balshphemey laws to hudood ordinace, every sexist and intolerant law was not revoked in her rule. She just amased wealth in foreign banks, and intends to collect more when the foreign aid has started coming in, thanks to the prostitution of pakistan by paki army.
#4 Posted by hamidm on October 30, 2001 10:45:02 pm
.....bob dylan also said
Things have changed
People are crazy and times are strange
I used to care, but things have changed
Some things are too hot to touch
Things have changed
People are crazy and times are strange
I used to care, but things have changed
Some things are too hot to touch
#5 Posted by ali1 on October 30, 2001 10:45:02 pm
The whole bayarea was stinking. Smelt like dead fish. Now I know why.
[``And keeping this in mind, one has to admire her ability to make our country of origin look good in the West, especially in the United States.``]
pipliyas die hard, don`t they? This was true pre 9/11, not now.
[``And keeping this in mind, one has to admire her ability to make our country of origin look good in the West, especially in the United States.``]
pipliyas die hard, don`t they? This was true pre 9/11, not now.
#6 Posted by Romair on October 30, 2001 10:45:02 pm
``But all I can write here is that Benazir Bhutto makes Pakistan and Pakistanis look good in this America (that is quite a feat by itself). For that she has my support and admiration. And if someone believes that she cannot return to lead Pakistan again, they should read Najam Sethi’s editorial in The Friday Times this week. President Musharraf can use all the support he can get from Pakistan’s politicians. And according to an old Bob Dylan song (one can hope) “the times, they are a changing”.``
I feel pity for any country that looks towards people like BB as their saviour. And I feel sorry for anyone who attempts to portray people like BB, as such.
This is part of our slave mentality. We follow people who are or were in power, just because they had/have power. Just because a person can portray themselves as a liberal, should we follow them? Wake up and smell the chai. This person and her husband have robbed the country silly, not once, but twice. Both of them are on the cover sheet of every handout that Transparency International, mails to its members. Every newspaper from Dawn to NY Times to tehelka.com has highlighted her corruption. Mansions in Surrey, off-shore companies (not one, but many) in the Virgin islands, swiss bank accounts. None of which she admits to, until the evidence is overwhelming. If she were a US govt. servant, she would have been locked away, a long time ago. She would be one of the most hated people in the US.
I don`t think BB makes Pakistan look good. I think she makes Pakistanis the laughing stock of the world. There are 140 million people in Pakistan. Is she the only one we have available for a leadership position? She has never even held an entry level job in the govt. or private company. She is the chief of the feudals. She doesn`t hold elections in her own party, yet wants democracy in Pakistan. She appointed her husband as the Minister of Investment.
If a surgeon kills a patient twice, will he/she be allowed to operate on patients a third time? I am far more scared of people like BB than I am of any religious extremists. Primarily because, there are no educated people left in Pakistan who are stupid enough to follow the religious extremists. But there are still educated people left in Pakistan who are stupid enough to continue following BB.
If one uses the argument applied in this article, then Pakistanis like BB, due to their, ``liberal image`` are much better representatives of Pakistan, despite the fact they have destroyed the country (oh wait, it was the ISI that forced BB and Zardari into corruption) than people like Edhi, who don`t have a, ``liberal image,`` but have spent their whole lives building Pakistan.
The next elections will be won by PPP and PML, because Pakistan is still a feudal society, and these feudals will win regardless of which party they belong to. However, There are far more talented, honest and patriotic people than BB, who can come to the top, once people like BB, take their millions, and call it a day in Surrey. I hope the well-known rascals like BB are kept out of power, and the few relatively capable and honest PPP and PML people are allowed to come to the top.
If BB makes it back, Pakistan is doomed for disaster again, regardless of how friendly the US and Saudi Arabia gets with us. Then again, there is no shortage of people in Pakistan who believe, ``“the times, they are a changing”.
God save Pakistan from such people, and from people like Benazir Bhutto.
I feel pity for any country that looks towards people like BB as their saviour. And I feel sorry for anyone who attempts to portray people like BB, as such.
This is part of our slave mentality. We follow people who are or were in power, just because they had/have power. Just because a person can portray themselves as a liberal, should we follow them? Wake up and smell the chai. This person and her husband have robbed the country silly, not once, but twice. Both of them are on the cover sheet of every handout that Transparency International, mails to its members. Every newspaper from Dawn to NY Times to tehelka.com has highlighted her corruption. Mansions in Surrey, off-shore companies (not one, but many) in the Virgin islands, swiss bank accounts. None of which she admits to, until the evidence is overwhelming. If she were a US govt. servant, she would have been locked away, a long time ago. She would be one of the most hated people in the US.
I don`t think BB makes Pakistan look good. I think she makes Pakistanis the laughing stock of the world. There are 140 million people in Pakistan. Is she the only one we have available for a leadership position? She has never even held an entry level job in the govt. or private company. She is the chief of the feudals. She doesn`t hold elections in her own party, yet wants democracy in Pakistan. She appointed her husband as the Minister of Investment.
If a surgeon kills a patient twice, will he/she be allowed to operate on patients a third time? I am far more scared of people like BB than I am of any religious extremists. Primarily because, there are no educated people left in Pakistan who are stupid enough to follow the religious extremists. But there are still educated people left in Pakistan who are stupid enough to continue following BB.
If one uses the argument applied in this article, then Pakistanis like BB, due to their, ``liberal image`` are much better representatives of Pakistan, despite the fact they have destroyed the country (oh wait, it was the ISI that forced BB and Zardari into corruption) than people like Edhi, who don`t have a, ``liberal image,`` but have spent their whole lives building Pakistan.
The next elections will be won by PPP and PML, because Pakistan is still a feudal society, and these feudals will win regardless of which party they belong to. However, There are far more talented, honest and patriotic people than BB, who can come to the top, once people like BB, take their millions, and call it a day in Surrey. I hope the well-known rascals like BB are kept out of power, and the few relatively capable and honest PPP and PML people are allowed to come to the top.
If BB makes it back, Pakistan is doomed for disaster again, regardless of how friendly the US and Saudi Arabia gets with us. Then again, there is no shortage of people in Pakistan who believe, ``“the times, they are a changing”.
God save Pakistan from such people, and from people like Benazir Bhutto.
#7 Posted by ferozk on October 31, 2001 10:52:40 am
Re: Ras
Yaar, it is easy to say living in the United States that you would like to see Benazir Bhutto to rule Pakistan again, specially when you will not be living under her rule.
Ras, ever asked BB why she uses the royal pronoun ``we`` in talking about herself? Did you ever really listen to her...``my people...my government...my party...and the list goes on...``
How can BB, who is the PPP`s chairman for life and does not allow anyone to share the spot light with her, be democratic?
How can one who only thinks of herself think of others in Pakistan?
Ras, I respect your interact posts and I enjoy reading your articles, and my disagreement with you is on two issues: BB and Kashmir. You seem to be mentally strait jacketed on these two issues.
Ciao
Yaar, it is easy to say living in the United States that you would like to see Benazir Bhutto to rule Pakistan again, specially when you will not be living under her rule.
Ras, ever asked BB why she uses the royal pronoun ``we`` in talking about herself? Did you ever really listen to her...``my people...my government...my party...and the list goes on...``
How can BB, who is the PPP`s chairman for life and does not allow anyone to share the spot light with her, be democratic?
How can one who only thinks of herself think of others in Pakistan?
Ras, I respect your interact posts and I enjoy reading your articles, and my disagreement with you is on two issues: BB and Kashmir. You seem to be mentally strait jacketed on these two issues.
Ciao
#8 Posted by veeresh on October 31, 2001 12:17:22 pm
Yeah, I know how it feels . . .corrupt is fine (she is like us only . . . no?) as long as there is a semblance of relative competence. And if our ``democratically elected`` rulers can give shades of royalty at fawning courtiers, then so much the better for the PR guys, right?
When will we, Pakistan or India, ever learn?
#9 Posted by afaruqui0 on October 31, 2001 12:17:22 pm
With all due respect to Ras, I disagree that Ms. Bhutto makes Pakistan or Pakistanis look good in American eyes.
Her failures, hypocrisy and corruption have been documented in numerous scholarly works, written by people as diverse as Stanley Wolpert of UCLA, Shahid Javed Burki of the World Bank and Hasan Askari Rizvi of Punjab University.
Twice the people of Pakistan elected her to high office, and twice she failed them. Nawaz Sharif`s failures may be attributed to his lack of education, or perhaps to his lack of native intelligence.
That cannot be said of Ms. Bhutto, since she has both in ample measure. Add to that a silver tongue and striking demeanor, and you have all the elements of a successful leader. Unfortunately, she lacks character and integrity, and that explains why her performance in Pakistan has been nothing short of tragic.
I used to be a great admirer of her father, and like countless others was deeply disappointed at his performance once in office. A more ruthless, cunning and vindictive person has never governed Pakistan.
She grew up admiring him, and adopted his ways when she came to power. She will never admit that he did any wrongs, just like she will never admit that she has ever done any wrongs.
How can such a person improve Pakistan`s image, in the US or anywhere else?
Her failures, hypocrisy and corruption have been documented in numerous scholarly works, written by people as diverse as Stanley Wolpert of UCLA, Shahid Javed Burki of the World Bank and Hasan Askari Rizvi of Punjab University.
Twice the people of Pakistan elected her to high office, and twice she failed them. Nawaz Sharif`s failures may be attributed to his lack of education, or perhaps to his lack of native intelligence.
That cannot be said of Ms. Bhutto, since she has both in ample measure. Add to that a silver tongue and striking demeanor, and you have all the elements of a successful leader. Unfortunately, she lacks character and integrity, and that explains why her performance in Pakistan has been nothing short of tragic.
I used to be a great admirer of her father, and like countless others was deeply disappointed at his performance once in office. A more ruthless, cunning and vindictive person has never governed Pakistan.
She grew up admiring him, and adopted his ways when she came to power. She will never admit that he did any wrongs, just like she will never admit that she has ever done any wrongs.
How can such a person improve Pakistan`s image, in the US or anywhere else?
#10 Posted by hamzadafaqui on October 31, 2001 12:17:22 pm
What the CNN & bbc do not report.
A muslim is a muslim.Not a shia,not a sunni,not whatever,not a liberal/moderate kind of flimflam...these are merely `Excuse-me muslims`.It is sad that secular society is so oppressive that muslims have to go into these `excuse-me` taqqayaas.These are just survival devices in an oppressive climate.Mr.Asif Naqshbandi & other puritans of his kind must display empathy & understanding towards those who are subjected to the cultural,economic,and political oppression & do not have the courage to confront `modern` society without compromising some outward manifestations.
Deep Deep inside one is ALWAYS a muslim.It is common knowledge that it is extremely difficult for a muslim to give up his/her faith....At most he becomes a `humanist` but still does not renounce Islam.
Unless one declares that he or his sect is non-muslim he must be considered a muslim if he claims to be one...and I mean EVERYONE,including you-know-who.
Mr.Naqshbandi!what do you say?
I`m trying to decide whether to fight in Afghanistan
ALL ALI KHAN`S DIARIES
Ali Khan Yusufzai, 25, is a former officer in the Pakistani Navy who`s now thinking about resuming his studies in marketing. He lives in Islamabad.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Tuesday 23 October 2001
I am a Yousafzai Pathan by caste. I was born in Abbottabad, which is in North West Frontier Province of Pakistan. My father is a contractor and my two brothers work in Islamabad, one is working in a financial institution and the other with an internet service provider.
I joined Pakistan Navy in 1992 and resigned after serving for 8-1/2 years. The whole tenure of my naval service was in Karachi. Now I have moved back to Islamabad. Since I am back into a more free life, I get in touch with people from various walks of life unlike the navy when I had to see the same people over and over again.
After September 11th, there has been a great deal of change in the attitude of people I know. They knew that day that life is not going to be the same again and they knew that they would be affected if America attacked Afghanistan. How can we not be affected by the attacks on a neighboring when events in our country or city or even down the street influence us? It`s not only the people in the big cities, but far off villages who have all eyes turned to events in Afghanistan.
I had a chance of visiting my village, a few hours drive from Islamabad tucked in mountains of Hazara division to the north, just a few days before the American air raids began. I remember it was a Friday and there was a nationwide strike call by the religious parties. My village was part of the strike. Most of my villagers are against America. They don`t consider America as our friend but as an opportunist.
I personally share the same view. I think America when in need is a friend, otherwise it is least concerned about us. In Pakistan, every one supports the Taliban`s point of view as far as the handing over of Osama bin Laden is concerned. Most people I talked to in my village think that Taliban are justified in asking for evidence before handing over Osama.
Now that America has been bombing Afghanistan for the last 14 days, people are praying for the safety of the Taliban regime and the Afghan people. I go to the mosque almost every Friday. The sermons at the mosques are usually reflective of the way people think, though many would not go public with their true feelings.
I have been to several mosques after the attacks. I feel that these attacks and the killing of civilians have only helped the people to be more sympathetic with the Taliban. Even those who are of the view that Taliban are very strict and disagree with their brand of Islam are against the attacks on Afghanistan. While many just sit quiet, some do express their anger at roadside discussions or even at protests being held every day under the auspices of religious parties, which are opposing the Pakistani military governments cooperation with the United States.
But I know a number of people back in my village and even in Islamabad who are either volunteering for Jihad against American forces or giving donations in cash and kind for Jihad.
At one point, I myself was seriously thinking of going to Afghanistan to fight against the foreign forces. I even got in touch with a few people in this regard who I knew were mobilizing people for Jihad. But I was astonished to learn that there are thousands waiting to proceed for the same purpose. I was way down the list. I even shared my intention with my father and mother, who did not have any hesitation in giving me their blessings. I am still trying to make up my mind whether I should go or not. I will not be going for Jihad purely on religious reasons, but being a Pathan it is my responsibility to stand alongside my fellow brethren when need my help. My brothers also think that Taliban are too strict in implementing Islamic rules but at the same time they would not like to see the Afghan people suffering. And Taliban are the Afghan people.
But many other people I know want to Jihad purely on religious grounds. My cousins in village are willing to sacrifice their lives because they like most of Muslims think that America has Attacked Islam and not Afghanistan. This concept is getting stronger everyday and especially when people hear that Americans are killing of the innocent civilians in Afghanistan.
A few days back I had a chance to meet a police constable who was going back to his home after duty. I asked him would you open fire on those who are demonstrating against America? He said, NO. I asked him why not and he replied, I think these protestors are right and the government is wrong in supporting America.
I wonder what is going to happen. But I do think that the situation is getting worse and people are becoming impatient. I just pray for Afghan people, because they are the victims of a situation they have not created. I think they need help, my help and your help!
OCTOBER 2001
A muslim is a muslim.Not a shia,not a sunni,not whatever,not a liberal/moderate kind of flimflam...these are merely `Excuse-me muslims`.It is sad that secular society is so oppressive that muslims have to go into these `excuse-me` taqqayaas.These are just survival devices in an oppressive climate.Mr.Asif Naqshbandi & other puritans of his kind must display empathy & understanding towards those who are subjected to the cultural,economic,and political oppression & do not have the courage to confront `modern` society without compromising some outward manifestations.
Deep Deep inside one is ALWAYS a muslim.It is common knowledge that it is extremely difficult for a muslim to give up his/her faith....At most he becomes a `humanist` but still does not renounce Islam.
Unless one declares that he or his sect is non-muslim he must be considered a muslim if he claims to be one...and I mean EVERYONE,including you-know-who.
Mr.Naqshbandi!what do you say?
I`m trying to decide whether to fight in Afghanistan
ALL ALI KHAN`S DIARIES
Ali Khan Yusufzai, 25, is a former officer in the Pakistani Navy who`s now thinking about resuming his studies in marketing. He lives in Islamabad.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Tuesday 23 October 2001
I am a Yousafzai Pathan by caste. I was born in Abbottabad, which is in North West Frontier Province of Pakistan. My father is a contractor and my two brothers work in Islamabad, one is working in a financial institution and the other with an internet service provider.
I joined Pakistan Navy in 1992 and resigned after serving for 8-1/2 years. The whole tenure of my naval service was in Karachi. Now I have moved back to Islamabad. Since I am back into a more free life, I get in touch with people from various walks of life unlike the navy when I had to see the same people over and over again.
After September 11th, there has been a great deal of change in the attitude of people I know. They knew that day that life is not going to be the same again and they knew that they would be affected if America attacked Afghanistan. How can we not be affected by the attacks on a neighboring when events in our country or city or even down the street influence us? It`s not only the people in the big cities, but far off villages who have all eyes turned to events in Afghanistan.
I had a chance of visiting my village, a few hours drive from Islamabad tucked in mountains of Hazara division to the north, just a few days before the American air raids began. I remember it was a Friday and there was a nationwide strike call by the religious parties. My village was part of the strike. Most of my villagers are against America. They don`t consider America as our friend but as an opportunist.
I personally share the same view. I think America when in need is a friend, otherwise it is least concerned about us. In Pakistan, every one supports the Taliban`s point of view as far as the handing over of Osama bin Laden is concerned. Most people I talked to in my village think that Taliban are justified in asking for evidence before handing over Osama.
Now that America has been bombing Afghanistan for the last 14 days, people are praying for the safety of the Taliban regime and the Afghan people. I go to the mosque almost every Friday. The sermons at the mosques are usually reflective of the way people think, though many would not go public with their true feelings.
I have been to several mosques after the attacks. I feel that these attacks and the killing of civilians have only helped the people to be more sympathetic with the Taliban. Even those who are of the view that Taliban are very strict and disagree with their brand of Islam are against the attacks on Afghanistan. While many just sit quiet, some do express their anger at roadside discussions or even at protests being held every day under the auspices of religious parties, which are opposing the Pakistani military governments cooperation with the United States.
But I know a number of people back in my village and even in Islamabad who are either volunteering for Jihad against American forces or giving donations in cash and kind for Jihad.
At one point, I myself was seriously thinking of going to Afghanistan to fight against the foreign forces. I even got in touch with a few people in this regard who I knew were mobilizing people for Jihad. But I was astonished to learn that there are thousands waiting to proceed for the same purpose. I was way down the list. I even shared my intention with my father and mother, who did not have any hesitation in giving me their blessings. I am still trying to make up my mind whether I should go or not. I will not be going for Jihad purely on religious reasons, but being a Pathan it is my responsibility to stand alongside my fellow brethren when need my help. My brothers also think that Taliban are too strict in implementing Islamic rules but at the same time they would not like to see the Afghan people suffering. And Taliban are the Afghan people.
But many other people I know want to Jihad purely on religious grounds. My cousins in village are willing to sacrifice their lives because they like most of Muslims think that America has Attacked Islam and not Afghanistan. This concept is getting stronger everyday and especially when people hear that Americans are killing of the innocent civilians in Afghanistan.
A few days back I had a chance to meet a police constable who was going back to his home after duty. I asked him would you open fire on those who are demonstrating against America? He said, NO. I asked him why not and he replied, I think these protestors are right and the government is wrong in supporting America.
I wonder what is going to happen. But I do think that the situation is getting worse and people are becoming impatient. I just pray for Afghan people, because they are the victims of a situation they have not created. I think they need help, my help and your help!
OCTOBER 2001
#11 Posted by hobbyty on October 31, 2001 12:17:22 pm
Dear Mr. Siddiqui:
Ms. Bhutto makes no one other than herself look good. The truth about her is absolutely ugly and Pakistanis are left deeply disappionted, betrayed. Educated in universities we could not hope to afford, promoting ideals, the harsh reality of our lives would only allow in moments of weakness. The Pakistani nation trusted her twice to deliver. Only her husband and her croonies became million and billionaires. She herself is reputed be a Billionaire; Shame. One day, Pakistanis, in the hundreds and thousands, will be among the ranks of those who create wealth, instead of misappropriate it.
Lets face an uncomfortable fact, Pakistanis and Americans have a distance between them. This distance is one of Freedom, Reason, Prosperity, Education, Empowerment, economic and gender, Enablement (if there is such a word) of the soul.
I don`t mean to belittle the sentiment you expressed; every person, especially minorities, want to be seen as exemplry, emotionally and in real terms, they need the approval of the majority.
For Pakistanis, while the distance between us and Americans or anybody else for that matter, will remain, the struggle must be to project the postive about ourselves as people, our ambitions our ideals, and how close we have come to our own ideals. If we are to influence and effect the perceptions of others, Winning our self respect, is the most important step we can take. We say we believe in enabling and empowering Pakistani citizens, we say we see the freedom of conscience as a societal value, we say that as a Muslim, freedom is the need of the soul and poverty is the work all that is negative, unholy in the world. Well, as soon as we begin to make real our ideals and be the persons of our ideal, whether American or whatever or whoever, will see that we are the kinds of people who make themselves worthy. Ms Bhutto will not be among these.
#12 Posted by scout on October 31, 2001 12:17:22 pm
A message from Salman Ahmad of Junoon:
Please donate to the Afghan Refugee Fund, a way Pakistanis around the world can help these poor people out.
UNITED FOR PEACE FUND
muslim commercial bank,
zamzama branch 1443
karachi,pakistan
US$ account # 105-1
The swift code(routing number for the mcb branch)
is: MUCBPKKAA
intermediate bank: CITIBANK N.A.
111,wall street,new york 10043 usa
1096-0607 USD
swift code CITIUS33
Please donate to the Afghan Refugee Fund, a way Pakistanis around the world can help these poor people out.
UNITED FOR PEACE FUND
muslim commercial bank,
zamzama branch 1443
karachi,pakistan
US$ account # 105-1
The swift code(routing number for the mcb branch)
is: MUCBPKKAA
intermediate bank: CITIBANK N.A.
111,wall street,new york 10043 usa
1096-0607 USD
swift code CITIUS33
#13 Posted by Waheed on October 31, 2001 12:17:22 pm
RE: RAS Siddiqui
Dear Mr. Siddiqui, Benazir Bhutto is a crook, being a journalist you should know better than ordinary folks like me. Like Romair said, ``she is doesn`t make Pakistan look good.`` All she does is lie, lie, steal, lie, steal some more and lie some more. Is this something to be proud of? that our leaders are shameless liers and thieves?
A while back she came to my city on a speaking engagement and I knew the local professor who arranged her engagement. What was funny, shocking, and sad at the same time was the fact that this guy would diss her in private meetings in front of us locals, but in his introduction to this Lady in waiting he compared her to Joan of Arc, I almost puked! So much so for the integrity of an educated man. This guy held nothing back, it was very tragic seeing him tumbling over for a photo op...:-).
Her father reduced the country to half her size and she and her husband looted it blind. Do you want to add anything else to it. I think the most appropriate thing for us expats to do is to boycott these ``so called leaders`` meetings here, and make it very public. No one should even acknowledge them in the hope that they will shut up one day.
Dear Mr. Siddiqui, Benazir Bhutto is a crook, being a journalist you should know better than ordinary folks like me. Like Romair said, ``she is doesn`t make Pakistan look good.`` All she does is lie, lie, steal, lie, steal some more and lie some more. Is this something to be proud of? that our leaders are shameless liers and thieves?
A while back she came to my city on a speaking engagement and I knew the local professor who arranged her engagement. What was funny, shocking, and sad at the same time was the fact that this guy would diss her in private meetings in front of us locals, but in his introduction to this Lady in waiting he compared her to Joan of Arc, I almost puked! So much so for the integrity of an educated man. This guy held nothing back, it was very tragic seeing him tumbling over for a photo op...:-).
Her father reduced the country to half her size and she and her husband looted it blind. Do you want to add anything else to it. I think the most appropriate thing for us expats to do is to boycott these ``so called leaders`` meetings here, and make it very public. No one should even acknowledge them in the hope that they will shut up one day.
#14 Posted by Ordinary on October 31, 2001 12:17:22 pm
its a sad story for a country which can only produce these kind of leaders. with no shame left she is back yearning for the Chair again. What nauseating feeling...I`ve read the TFT editorial and just confused and sad what choice do the poor pakis have. Leave the scoundrel and not elect them and then face the bearded Jackals eating u.
What dilema we are facing. of 140 million, not a single person with atleast some good and honest leadership!
Why are we are blaming our stars! then
What dilema we are facing. of 140 million, not a single person with atleast some good and honest leadership!
Why are we are blaming our stars! then
#15 Posted by mohajir on October 31, 2001 12:17:22 pm
Remembering another great lady of Pakistan`s neighboring country on her 17th death anniversary. She was killed on October 31, 1984
Former Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi missed
Seventeen years after her assassination, former Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi is still remembered as one of the most powerful leaders of the world`s largest democracy.
Many people may have forgotten her death anniversary on Wednesday, but Gandhi`s monolithic memory remains etched in public fancy.
Gandhi, who ruled India for 16 years over two spells, was gunned down by two security guards at her residence in New Delhi on October 31, 1984. This followed her order to the Indian Army to storm Sikhdom`s holiest monument, the Golden Temple in Amritsar, to quell a separatist campaign.
In the past few years, whenever governments fell and prime ministers dithered over pressing issues, it would be a rare occasion when people did not recall Indira Gandhi`s stern, even arrogant demeanour and iron-handed rule, marred only by the ``Emergency rule`` of 1975-77 when she jailed thousands of critics.
India misses her, say a cross-section of citizens who voted her the best prime minister the country ever had in an opinion poll published in August.
Chosen by Congress bosses in 1966 as a prime minister they thought they could easily manipulate, Jawaharlal Nehru`s daughter stunned everyone by quickly building a mass following, splitting the century-old party, and establishing herself as the unquestioned leader - the only ``man`` in her Cabinet as some said.
Nothing that she accomplished is remembered more vividly than the way she led India to a decisive military victory over arch foe Pakistan in 1971, breaking up that country`s eastern wing, which became an independent Bangladesh.
That came barely two years after she brought about radical changes in politics, injecting large doses of socialism, and went on to turn India from a food deficit to a self-sufficient economy, and took the country closer to the Soviet Union.
Domestically, however, she scored poorly.
She deftly - and often brusquely -- handled party leaders who ranged from noisy rebels to greasy sycophants. Gandhi proved vulnerable only when it came to her younger son Sanjay Gandhi, whom she tried to groom until he died tragically in a plane accident in June 1980.
There was a strong mind under the head of close-cropped hair with the signature silver streak, concede admirers and detractors alike.
Asked by India Today news magazine who they thought was India`s best prime minister, 41 percent of the readers gave the mother of two the highest points, piping her father and independent India`s first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru (13 percent), present Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee (11 percent) and Lal Bahadur Shastri (9 percent), at the post.
``It is hard to come by a leader like that. If only she were alive today,`` remarked Anil Joshi, an executive with an international bank who claims he is politically neutral.
Had she been alive she would have been 84, but he told Indo-Asian News Service that he found it hard to imagine that even a decrepit Gandhi could not run the government as she did till 1984.
Even Jagdish Prasad Mathur, a leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party, attributed some of the after sheen of the Indira persona to the canonisation of the dead.
``Past leaders are always remembered. She is also being remembered as a good leader,`` said Mathur, one of the founder members of the Jana Sangh that was born as an alternative to the Congress in 1951.
Mathur admitted that she was an effective prime minister.
``She was daring and decisive -- such as is needed in any good leader.`` The flipside, however, was her hunger for power.
To many minds, nothing compares to the audacity of the Emergency rule. Gandhi took this drastic step when her election to the Lok Sabha was challenged and a court unseated her.
Says Khushwant Singh, a noted writer-historian and a family friend of the Gandhis: ``She was dynamic but she also destroyed all institutions of democracy.``
There were two different facets to the same person. She was decisive, yet she put loyalty to her person above loyalty to the party and the country, sometimes at a great cost, Singh opined.
``Today`s leaders are namby-pamby. They cannot make up their minds and always pander to their supporters,`` he observed. ``I think what India needs today is a leader like Indira Gandhi but one who has learnt the lessons from her mistakes.``
Over the years, Gandhi`s charismatic personality seems to have prevailed over her dictatorial ways. She was named ``Woman of the Millennium`` in a BBC poll in 1999. She upstaged even Queen Elizabeth II.
Former prime minister Inder Kumar Gujral does not like comparisons but says: ``There may have been faults in her policy, but viewed as a whole, she served the country to the best of her capacity. She had courage.``
Former Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi missed
Seventeen years after her assassination, former Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi is still remembered as one of the most powerful leaders of the world`s largest democracy.
Many people may have forgotten her death anniversary on Wednesday, but Gandhi`s monolithic memory remains etched in public fancy.
Gandhi, who ruled India for 16 years over two spells, was gunned down by two security guards at her residence in New Delhi on October 31, 1984. This followed her order to the Indian Army to storm Sikhdom`s holiest monument, the Golden Temple in Amritsar, to quell a separatist campaign.
In the past few years, whenever governments fell and prime ministers dithered over pressing issues, it would be a rare occasion when people did not recall Indira Gandhi`s stern, even arrogant demeanour and iron-handed rule, marred only by the ``Emergency rule`` of 1975-77 when she jailed thousands of critics.
India misses her, say a cross-section of citizens who voted her the best prime minister the country ever had in an opinion poll published in August.
Chosen by Congress bosses in 1966 as a prime minister they thought they could easily manipulate, Jawaharlal Nehru`s daughter stunned everyone by quickly building a mass following, splitting the century-old party, and establishing herself as the unquestioned leader - the only ``man`` in her Cabinet as some said.
Nothing that she accomplished is remembered more vividly than the way she led India to a decisive military victory over arch foe Pakistan in 1971, breaking up that country`s eastern wing, which became an independent Bangladesh.
That came barely two years after she brought about radical changes in politics, injecting large doses of socialism, and went on to turn India from a food deficit to a self-sufficient economy, and took the country closer to the Soviet Union.
Domestically, however, she scored poorly.
She deftly - and often brusquely -- handled party leaders who ranged from noisy rebels to greasy sycophants. Gandhi proved vulnerable only when it came to her younger son Sanjay Gandhi, whom she tried to groom until he died tragically in a plane accident in June 1980.
There was a strong mind under the head of close-cropped hair with the signature silver streak, concede admirers and detractors alike.
Asked by India Today news magazine who they thought was India`s best prime minister, 41 percent of the readers gave the mother of two the highest points, piping her father and independent India`s first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru (13 percent), present Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee (11 percent) and Lal Bahadur Shastri (9 percent), at the post.
``It is hard to come by a leader like that. If only she were alive today,`` remarked Anil Joshi, an executive with an international bank who claims he is politically neutral.
Had she been alive she would have been 84, but he told Indo-Asian News Service that he found it hard to imagine that even a decrepit Gandhi could not run the government as she did till 1984.
Even Jagdish Prasad Mathur, a leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party, attributed some of the after sheen of the Indira persona to the canonisation of the dead.
``Past leaders are always remembered. She is also being remembered as a good leader,`` said Mathur, one of the founder members of the Jana Sangh that was born as an alternative to the Congress in 1951.
Mathur admitted that she was an effective prime minister.
``She was daring and decisive -- such as is needed in any good leader.`` The flipside, however, was her hunger for power.
To many minds, nothing compares to the audacity of the Emergency rule. Gandhi took this drastic step when her election to the Lok Sabha was challenged and a court unseated her.
Says Khushwant Singh, a noted writer-historian and a family friend of the Gandhis: ``She was dynamic but she also destroyed all institutions of democracy.``
There were two different facets to the same person. She was decisive, yet she put loyalty to her person above loyalty to the party and the country, sometimes at a great cost, Singh opined.
``Today`s leaders are namby-pamby. They cannot make up their minds and always pander to their supporters,`` he observed. ``I think what India needs today is a leader like Indira Gandhi but one who has learnt the lessons from her mistakes.``
Over the years, Gandhi`s charismatic personality seems to have prevailed over her dictatorial ways. She was named ``Woman of the Millennium`` in a BBC poll in 1999. She upstaged even Queen Elizabeth II.
Former prime minister Inder Kumar Gujral does not like comparisons but says: ``There may have been faults in her policy, but viewed as a whole, she served the country to the best of her capacity. She had courage.``
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- KHYBER: Instead of arguing,lets put... NRO Is Just a
- HisExcellency: AZ mole diesel.. just... NRO Is Just a
- Ravi_Kopra: What choice? Can any Abdullah,... Crowning of a Crony
- Diesel: punjabi mole hi ex... NRO Is Just a
- HisExcellency: re: Agha Amin wrote: "NRO... NRO Is Just a
- Mr.India: Breaking News: Vajpayee,... The Jehadi Frankenstein
- Mr.India: Vajpayee, Advani pseudo-moderates, Liberhan... The Jehadi Frankenstein
- Diesel: so mulla omar was... Crowning of a Crony
