The Laying to Waste of the World: a Memory of I.H Burney

semipreciousme:

I go to Bentley College, but support BC for football. Live pretty close to it and have some friends there. You know people in BC?

Stuka

{semipreciousme:

``I often get e-mails from Indian readers complaining of what they perceive as a preoccupation with India in the Pakistani press. ``Why can`t your papers get over your anti-India fixation?`` they ask. ``

I bet those are YLH`s cousins from India ;)who keep writing these letters.}

...i won`t tell if you won`t...:)

{YLH:

Did you watch the BC-Rutgers game over the weekend. Boston College kicked ass.}

...you got to bc?...

Fatimah------520

Your post would have sent me the wrong signal had I not accessed the URL you wrote.It was truly wonderful.Thanks a lot!

Please use irony or tongue-in-cheek with a little less deadpan.Everyone here is not so insightful.

Hamzad Araqui #509

You are a copy cat /plagirist of this web site

You are trying to pollute true muslims with unislamic thaughts

http://www.fathermag.com/GenderWars/taliban/taliban.shtml

tahmad---516

The culture I was brought in referred to the servants as sahibs,barray mians,bibis,burree-bis,ammans,bhaees,or babaas.

I can only narrate what cultural ambience I experience.I have no knowledge of any other although I am aware that we as a society have regressed a lot and the slide is continuing.

This can be reviewed in the cultural ethos of the movies from the 50s to present.

You may not realise but by quoting the spendthrift example you are really supporting my argument.Please read the aphorism again & beyond the confines of Space & Time.

Thanks.

hamzad afaqui #509

On the use of Hazoor (or other honorifics): How many people in Pakistan would say ``Ji Hazoor`` to a domestic servant vs. ``Ji Hazoor`` to say, the boss or to some ``big shot``? Those people who really respect all humans, including domestic servants and the poor and weak generally in Pakistan, have no to address people differently depending on their status. Equality of humans is not a western concept, but a universal one. And certainly an Islamic one (although practiced only rarely in Islamic societies through the ages, I agree). It is clearly practiced far more in the US than in Pakistan and that is the reason it seems to be a western concept.

On the saying: ``Pride, cowardice and miserliness are bad for man but good for women.`` You say you liked this particularly well, and provided an explanation that I dont think is right, as follows:

You wrote ``The whole marketing ploy is designed to exploit the coupon-mentality of women.Women will always be women...``

You mean men cannot be spendthrifts? I present to you Zardari, his Argentine horses, and airconditioned stables. I present to you Pakistani men whom I have seen go on shopping sprees as soon as they step off the plane. I present to you western men whose idea of heaven is a huge boat. And I wont even talk about the Arabs (who seem to have entire markets of gold and perfumes and expensive luggage and so forth, and not one bookstore, in their cities). These are facts, nothing to do with western education. So, please remind yourself: ``Men can be as spendthrift as women``. I rest my case and let the evidence speak for itself.

Youy add: ``Every Woman must have Pride(ghuroor e Husn)`` Why should a woman have ghuroor e Husn? If you consider women to be humans beings, and not objects of man`s lust (as you must, as a muslim), then you will upon reflection agree with me. Indeed, why should a woman, or any person, have any ghuroor at all?

You write: ``Every Woman Needs protection by some-one who will risk his life for her & is expendible(does not have a womb).`` This is true only in backward societies where there is no law and order to protect women (and the weak generally) from the strong.

Some moron here mentioned India using the Northern Alliance to ``get back`` at Pakistan.

How dumb and Pakistan obsessed could you be? What a desperate attempt to get India into the picture somehow.....

The last thing the Northern Alliance is going to do is back-stab a US ally. Even if they wanted to, it could never happen. After the humongous help from the US, they get a hold of Kabul and now some Indians are lauding them as military strategists to be used against Pakistan somehow?

That`s laughable.

Sadna

``By bringing up the UN resolutions based on threats of violence which Musharraf refuses to give assurances on(what other leverage does Pakistan have with India except violence in Kashmir?), he wants to go down to basics, ie Partition and tooling of the relations of two new nations. ``

well said, Ma`am

EST Reply #: 500

sadna

Karakoram #498

``I think the UN resolutions need to be addressed. Either they need to be revised, the issues reviewed again, and then action steps followed through on. The UN & its resolutions need to be respected. Some form of world political governing body needs to enforce its decisions using the resources of member nations. Conflict resolution being one its primary aims. I think thats what the UN was setup to do.``

Want to review UN resolutions? Inspite of all the sound and light expended as well as sending their citizens over to kill on their behalf, I don`t think Pakistanis have taken the trouble to know what they are talking about.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/may/08arvind.htm

http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/jun/27arvind.htm

http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/aug/17arvind.htm



SAdna ,

You can read all about Kashmir through Varshas Rediff Machine JUST DONT COME BETWEEN THE KASHMIRIS(most of them)& THERE RIGHTS to be NON INDIAN.

ON 14 the Aug.19947, They were Kashmiris & Not Indians .They did not celebrate independence from British b/c there fight with DESPOT,Harisingh has continued.After Hari Singh India is the Occupying force for HARI SINGH.

We dont get REdiff news b/c we have whole web devoted to DOCUMENTING the atroceties,for one day KASHMIR will be INDEPENDENT & we will know who to hunt for from army chief to Gov Jaganath, saxenna Sharma to all indians who are raping our women

http://pak.gov.pk/public/kashmir/kashmir.htm

http://pak.gov.pk/public/kashmir/kashmir.htm

India on trial in

Kashmir

Mir Abdul Aziz

It is an undeniable fad of history that it was India and not the ‘people of Kashmir or their chief supporter, Pakistan, that took up the issue of Kash­mir with the United Nations Security Council and sought its indulgence under Article 35 of the United Nations Charter.

The Security Council p­assed various resolutions, incl­uding the most important of them all, the one dated 21st A­pril, 1948, which envisaged a solution of the issue of Kashmir by a free and impartial plebis­cite under UN auspices. India accepted the UN resolutions reluctantly, with the mental res­ervation that it would sabot-age them and not allow their imp­lementation because she was sure that the result of the plebiscite would be against her.

Pandit Nehru’s confide­ntial correspondence, which h­as been published from New Delhi by the Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund through the co­urtesy of the Oxford University Press only last year, reveals that Nehru wrote to Abdullah in reply to the latter’s letter that Kashmir would not vote in fav­our of India in the plebiscite, on 12th January 1949. Thus only one week after the pass­age of second resolution of the UNCIP on 5th January 1949, that he agreed with Abdullah that result of plebiscite in Kash­mir would not be favourable to India, and in due course India would have to back out from it but in order to keep the UN Security Council in good mood, it was imperative to pay lip ser­vice to the plebiscite scheme because running away from that so early would make India’ position challengeable. in the world.

But the UN resolutions on Kashmir are now hanging round the neck of India as Alb­atross, whom the Ancient Mar­iner the sailor in Coleridge’s p­oem of the same name has killed, but hung round his neck all the same. The UN resolut­ions will continue to haunt India till such time as India does not leave the Kashmiris to their fate and does not come out of Kas­hmir lock, stock and barrel.

It is obvious that the reference by India of the Kas­hmir case to the UN has boom­eranged. The latest self-defeat­ing action of India and her stoo­ges in Kashmir is the imprisonment without trial of the leaders of the APHC, including the aili­ng Chairman Sayed Ali Gilani, Muhammad Yasin Malik and many more, in the notorious jai­ls of Jodhpur in India and Ud­hampur in the Jammu region. Kashmiris have decided to face the Indian onslaught on every front and this is why they have challenged the detention by writ petitions in ‘the Srinagar High Court, which has admitted the petitions and sent notices to Farooq Abdullah, who said in a Press conference that these le­aders would remain in prison for at least three years, and to the Indian and IHK agencies to show cause why the APHC lea­ders have been detained with­out legal action.

Back in the 1950s, a si­milar case was launched agai­nst Sheikh Abdullah by the Ind­ian and Kashmir regime, when he was not seeing eye to eye with India. The case continued in the court of sessions Judge of Srinagar and Abdullah was charged for having conspired with Pakistan to subvert the oc­cupied Kashmir regime (of Bak­hshi Ghulam) and making it p­art of Pakistan and all that. The case went on for several years but, after that, it was withdra­wn unconditionally. In his defe­nce, Abdullah and other accus­ed like Mirza Afzal Beg, who had formed the Plebiscite Fro­nt, argued that their only crime was that they wanted impleme­ntation of the resolution under UN in Kashmir, which internat­ional decision had been taken at the instance of the Indian government by the UNSC. Sta­tements and speeches of Ne­hru, not less than two dozen in number, saying that Kashmir’s fate could be decided by the Kashmiris only in a UN supe­rvised plebiscite were produced by Abdullah and Ben and the other accused Kashmiris who­se number was more than a h­undred, in their defence.

They said that if the demand of plebiscite in Kash­mir was a crime, even Pandit Nehru was a culprit as it was his government, which referred the Kashmir case to the UN and initiated the resolution of plebiscite. They also quoted th­e reply of Lord Mountbatten, the last British GG to the Subcontinent, to Maharaja Han Singh’s letter to him, in October 1947, in which Mount-batten said that the issue of accession could finally be se­ttled only by a referendum of t­he people. This made India’s p­osition pretty awkward in the Srinagar Sessions Court and the proceedings were flashed t­he world over, making India’s position in Kashmir vulnerable and challengeable.

History is going to be repeated now with the writ peti­tions of the APHC detenues against the Indian and Kashmir regimes’ detentions order agai­nst them. This is most certain that like Sheikh Abdullah and Afzal Beg, and all the detenues of the Kashmir conspiracy case of the late 1950s, the APHC leaders’ counsels will also pile up all UN resolutions on Kas­hmir, the statements of Nehru and his ministers inside and outside the Parliament, in whi­ch they asserted that even if th­e result to the plebiscite would be against India, they would gl­adly abide by the verdict of the people of Kashmir. As such it would be India that would be the loser.

Very recently a refere­ndum was organised by the UN in East Timor on the issue of independence and 22 per cent people voted in favour of the island remaining with Indonesia and 78 per cent voted in favour of independence. In the elec­tions in Kashmir valley, 87 per cent people did not cast their votes while the Indian Election Commission claimed that 13 per cent votes had been cast. Most of these 13 per cent vo­tes, even according to Indian Press reports, were bogus. Th­us the position on the ground is that 87 per cent of the people of the Kashmir Valley, the most thickly populated area of Jammu and Kashmir which compr­ises three constituencies of the Indian Lok Sabha, have refu­sed to cast their votes as Ind­ians and they do not agree with the Indian claim that Kashmir is an integral part or utoot ang of India.

This is a simple case of arithmetic In Indonesia,. the de­cision of 78 per cent of the voters to separate East Timor from Indonesia over—ruled that of the 22 per cent. India herself supervised the pools in Kashm­ir, with the help of seven lac of her forces, but the result was a complete failure for India. Even in the remaining three constitu­encies the polling was less as compared to last year’s polling in the same constituencies.

It is generally said by observers of the political situati­on in Kashmir that the polling exercise of the 6 Lok Sabha seats in Kashmir has been a sort of referendum, which was organized by India herself, and which gave the net result that Kashmiris alienation from India is complete. The elections have been a farce and the anti-Indian leader and groups of Ka­shmir, under the banner of the APHC, and otherwise also , ha­ve proved that Kashmir is not a part of India like Tamil Nadu, West Bengal or Uttar Pradesh and the Indian Claim of Kash­mir being her utoot ang or inse­parable part, is a lie which has no legs to stand on.

The Writ petitions of the leaders of the APHC will br­ing into international limelight the original stand of India in Kashmir and the UNSC and U­NCIP decisions. There are a considerable number of Indian thinker, writers and observers, as also human rights obser­vers, who have eyes to see and ears to hear. Their stand of Kashmir is almost the same as that of the APHC leaders of Kashmir.

Law is after all law. It should be known to everybody that the former Chief Justice of Jammu Kashmir High Court of Judicature, Mr. Justice Bhau­ddin Farooquee, who formed t­he Jammu and Kashmir Hum­an Rights (Protection) Forum a decade ago, has already chal­lenged all the laws that have been promulgated in Kashmir by India with the connivance of the puppet Legislative Assem­bly of Kashmir, after the dismi­ssal of Sheikh Abdullah in Aug­ust 1973. He has pleaded in the High Court that all encro­achments on the autonomy of Kashmir are ultra vires of the Constitution of Jammu and Ka­shmir and even against Article 370 of the Indian Constitution.

This case of Kashmir versus India has been pending a judgement before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir all these years. According to the last clause of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, only the Constituent Assembly of Kas­hmir, which has ceased to exit after 1957, could change the K­ashmir- India relation-ship. The Legislative Assembly has been used by the Indian government as a rubber stamp of curtail the autonomy of Kashmir during th­e past 46 years. The writ of Ju­stice Farooquee has been in the Srinagar High Court pen­ding judgement for the last decade. The detailed petition was reproduced some years a-go in a publication of the Kas­hmir Liberation Cell, Muzaffar­abad / Rawalpindi, in a book named Kashmir Holocaust

The best way for India to face the realities on the ground in Kashmir. It is merely political bankruptcy to argue that the UN resolutions on Ka­shmir are old and not wor­kable. There is no mention of any time limit in the UN resolution. The Charter of the UN is three years older than the Kashmir resolutions, but nobody ever said that the UN Charter be relegated to the du­stbin because it is 54 years old. Indians should know the old saying that old is gold. The UN resolutions on Kashmir are still workable . A fitting example of the people deciding the future of an area was provided only last month by the referendum in East Timor.

What is good for East Timor is not bad for Kashmir. Indian leaders should sum up courage and abide by the com­mitments of the founders of in­dependent India regarding Kas­hmir. That is the only way out. They should also forget that a­nybody in Pakistan or Kashmir will abandon the struggle of Ka­shmir. Kashmiris are like the sword in the hands of destiny. lqbal has rightly said about Ka­shmir. Zarbate Paihum say ho jata hai aakhar paash paash/ Haakimiyat ka butey sangeen dil-o-aaeena roo ( By constant hammering, ultimately the ston­e-hearted and mirror- shaped dol of imperialism is broken to pieces).

Courtesy “The Nation”

Nov. 3,1999, reported!.

re khwamkha 478

``The great upholder of democracy was none other than your great hero Gen.Ziaur Rahman,the first Chief Martial Law Administrator of the newly independant Bangladesh.He has the honour of killing the nascant democracy in your nation and you have the gall to tell me about democracy... very funny.``

Apparently your history is as elementary as your spelling. The first CMLA of Bangladesh was not Gen Ziaur Rahman but the late Justice ASM Sayem. The honour of killing democracy went to Sheikh Mujibur Rahman when he, on 1/1/75, instituted one-party dictatorship in Bangladesh.

``He went on to reward the killers of the ``Father of Nation`` by appointing them to ambassadorial posts.``

Actually the accused killers of Mujib were appointed to diplomatic posts by the second Awami League regime of Khondoker Mushtaque Ahmed and protected by him through the Indemnity Ordinance he promulgated soon after taking over.

``And till date your great democratic party BNP refuses to accept Sh.Mujib as the father of nation.``

It is not just BNP but, if election results from the last three elections are any indication, at least half, if not more, Bangladeshis do not agree with this Father of Nation business.

``But then the descendants of Meer Jaffar always choose the winning side..don`t they?``

Gutter kind of snipe-beneath me.

Get over the sorrow that Bangladesh today is a functioning, if imperfect, democracy and many countries are not.

Re: ylh

``For those of you who think that the Northern Alliance (evil as it is) will become a pawn in India`s game once it controls Afghanistan, are mistaken. Mark my words. Pakistan has absolutely nothing to fear when it comes to the Northern Alliance.``

hehe...spoke like a man cornered and afraid...no point speculating about what N. Alliance will and will not do...but if what one hears from its leaders is anything to go by, I doubt your statement is true...those fellows, from Abdullah Abdullah to their UN spokesperson (Amir Haroon??) who is on CNN all the time, waste no time in trashing Pakistan whenever the opportunity arises...if you didn`t know better, you`d think they were Indian...who else could have it in for Pakis?

Re: ali1

``I think Bagpipe should ask his soldiers to stand up and fight and not run hither and thither like slaughtered chicken.``

You mean like when your uncles in Allah`s army of Pakistan ran like slaughtered chicken in 1971 and let India slice your country in half?

Kashmir is still in India...has been for 50 years...and will continue to be. If Pakistani army had gonads, it would come and take Kashmir instead of sending Moosfhraf to cry in front of the UN, year after year.

nasah---508.

No mistake there my friend.

If conscience,as a commodity,be sold/traded/bargained to do evil or then it also be expended to give charity in return for place in heaven.what would you/anyone choose?

Please do not twist the noble thought to suit your designs.This is called `taaveelaat` & Allah has warned us against chicanery & polemic.

``Do not sell your conscience for anything but heaven.`` (hamzad afaqui)

So you CAN sell your conscience for heaven?

Doesn`t it sound a little sleazy -- specially in Ramadan?

Are u sure Hazrat Ali said that?

Mr. Sattar says:

````We have not yet announced any de-recognition of the Taliban government but that does not mean that we continue to recognise it,``

Hai oos zood pashemaN ka pashemaN honaa

At times silence can also be a great tool of dilomacy.

tahmad---499

Sometimes you give the impression that you are the flipside of the same coin as Asif Naqshbandi.He despises the puritans(you know what I am referring to) needlessly and you seem to go to the other extreme to counter it.

But I welcome your opinions,always.

These are,as you know,just `frooaat`(secondary matters)and one need not make it a point of `belief`viz using honorifics.I use Abba Huzoor aur abba-jaan to express my love & devotion;if the ``civilised`` western ones call their father by the first name then let them do it.Just not let them try to `educate`/convince me how ``superior`` they really are.

PS:I particularly liked the one you found `out-dated`.The whole marketing ploy is designed to exploit the coupon-mentality of women.Women will always be women...there will never ever be any difference through geography or time.Let not the western `education` fool you(Like free-speech it is adjusted to suit the times while we adopt their creed like parrots)

Every Woman must have Pride(ghuroor e Husn)--that is why she eyes the others` attire critically.

Every Woman Needs protection by some-one who will risk his life for her & is expendible(does not have a womb).That is why much fewer `quality` men are needed to be `useful` to more women(if our `system` is implemented)

Every woman tries to prefer frugality over freespending.Just ask the waiters about the tipping practices.Generally,they do not squander their money in drinking,gambling,charities,and paying tag-prices.