An Indian salute for President Musharraf

Re: Romair #447

Are you aware of any reference that gives a comparative analysis of the land reforms enacted in India and Pakistan since `47? My guess is that the situation (at least upto `47) would have been very similar in both countries.

sigalph. Israel is a legitimate state you say? So if the UN calls it such it becomes one? hmm...

Before 1948 it did not exist. The Brits and the French decided to carve up what was known under Ottoman Rule as the land of Bilad ash-Shaam (modern day Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Occupied Palestine) after the defeat of the Ottomans amongst themselves. At that time, in fact before then, since the late 1800s they had decided to create a homeland for the Jews--under pressure from the Zionists such as Weissman (who had many friends in the British Parliament such as ``Lord`` Balfour) and the Balfour Declaration was declared by British parliament in I think 1896 or something which promised to give a homeland for the Jews. The land originally thought of was in Argentina but eventually they decided on uprooting the Palestinians who had been living there for millenia and giving their land to the Jews. They finally achieved this in 1948. Before the last century the idea of a nation-state (which is a modern western creation)m did not exist as such and so to use this disingenious argument for justifying the displacing of virtually an entire people is rubbish. The fact is that the Brits had no right (other than the motto ``might is right``) for taking the land of the Muslims away from us and giving it to the Jews. Then just because the UN, which has always been a stooge of the 5 permanent members of the Security council, under US and UK etc pressure puts its stamp on it, doesn`t make it right.

The Zionists` basis on their right to live in that area with Jerusalem as its capital is based on their scriptures and, if so, we can with equal validity say that according to Our scripture though at one time you USED TO BE Allah`s chosen people He later cursed you after you kept on killing the Prophets sent to you (Qur`an) and so you no longer have this basis for the land...Also when the Bani Israel ruled the land they were the followers of Hazrat Yacub alayhisalam who was named Isra`el and at THAT time they were the Believers of that time and we support them THEN (i.e. whatever they did to the Palestinians according to the bible at THAT time we support as they were the Believers (Muslims) at that time. When Islam came it superseded and abrogated all previous scripture so now the Believers are the followers of Prophet Muhammad sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam and not the Bani Israil.)

For us Jerusalem is the First Qibla, and the second house built for the worship of Allah (after the Kaba) by Ibrahim alayihsalam (?) and the 3rd holiest shrine, and it is a sacred land where many Prophets lie buried and it is the place where Huzoor Paak led the other Prophets in prayer during the Mir`aj Sharif. And there are plenty of hadiths about its value for Muslims so as Muslims we have every right to get this land back. It is therefore as holy to us as it is to them, more so in fact, and therefore the Muslims have a right to get it back. When the great Sultan Abd al Hamid II was asked about giving up Palestine and Bayt al Maqdis he replied that it is not mine to give since it is an awqaaf which belongs to ALL Muslims.

I think it is a disgrace that a lot of Muslim countries now have political relations with Israel. They should socially and economically boycott them and become united.

* * * * * *

Here is a little history of Jerusalem:

``Glory to Allah Who did take His Servant for a Journey by nightfrom the Masjid-e-Haram to the al-Aqsa Masjid, whose precincts We did bless, in order that We might show him some of Our signs. For He is the One Who heareth and seeth all things.`` [Bani- Israel 17:1].

This very famous verse tells us why al-Aqsa is and will always remain one of the holiest places in Islam. It was the destination of the Prophetic journey called Isra and the spot from where Miraj or the Ascension of the Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, into heavens took place.

This verse is immediately followed by seven others that talk about Jerusalem and the Jewish history. The Jews had a Covenant with God. They would get His blessings, including control of Jerusalem, as long as they lived up to the terms of that Covenant. Otherwise they would be severely punished. Two major punishments were promised. Both happened as promised as the Jews ignored the repeated warnings.

Soon after Prophet Sulaiman`s death, his kingdom was divided into two: northern Israel, and southern Judah, which included Jerusalem. Both fought among themselves and courted pagans. The history of Jerusalem is thus a history of an ongoing battle between pure monotheism and paganism.

Jeroboam I, the first king of Israel ( 10th century BC), introduced a golden calf in the temples. In the next century king Ahab built a temple for Baal, a pagan idol, in Samaria, the capital. Various Prophets were persecuted at the insistence of his pagan wife Jezebel. As always moral corruption accompanied the spiritual one. Then in Divine retribution pagan Assyrians overran Israel in 721 BC. We see a similar trend in Judah, although on a reduced scale. There are periods of repentance during a general trend of accommodating the Babylonian and Egyptian pagans. Finally the promised punishment came to Jerusalem also. As Britannica notes: ``In 586 BC the doom prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel came true. Rebellious Jerusalem was reduced [to rubble] by Nebuchadrezzar, the temple was burnt.`` Remaining Jews were exiled into Babylon. This was the first punishment mentioned by the Qur`an.

As they repented, and mended their ways, the Jews were given a second chance. In 538 BC Persian emperor Cyrus defeated the Babylonians and Jews were allowed to return to Jerusalem. In 515 BC the Temple was rebuilt. The next century saw a revival under Prophet Ezra. But Alexander`s conquest of Palestine in 332 BC started the process of hellenizing Jews. Canaanite paganism was now replaced by Greek paganism. Three centuries later Roman Pompey walked into Jerusalem.

Then we see Herod being appointed the client king for the Roman Empire. He built the Temple but destroyed the religion. The Temple was still being rebuilt when Jews joined with Roman paganism to persecute Prophet Jesus and his followers. John the Baptist (Prophet Yahya) was beheaded by Herod Agrippa, the grandson of Herod. So in 70 CE the second punishment mentioned by the Qur`an came. The armies of Roman commander Titus moved into the city and burnt it to ground on the ninth day of the Hebrew month of Ab, the very month and day on which 657 years earlier the Babylonians had sacked the first Temple, built by Prophet Sulaiman. The punishment had come on an appointed time!

Prophet Muhammad`s (Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam) night journey in which he lead all the prophets in prayers at al-Aqsa also signified that the leadership role had been transferred from the Children of Israel to the Children of Ismail. Along with leadership came the responsibility. As long as they remained true to the Covenant with Allah, they would be successful and Jerusalem will be theirs. When they betrayed the Covenant, they would get the punishment also.

So Umar Radi-Allahu unhu just walked into Jerusalem in 638 C.E. The vastly advanced war machine of the Roman super power could not stand in the way of the Muslim forces, the new standard bearers of monotheism. Muslims ruled with justice, compassion, and fear of God. A new era of peace, justice, and prosperity started under them.

With the exception of an 82 year period of ruthless crusader rule, the area remained under continuous Muslim rule till 1917. It was Muslim in-fighting and waywardness that had brought the crusaders in 1099 and it was their turning to Allah under the pious and God fearing leadership of Salahuddin Ayubi that defeated them in 1187. Again it was in-fighting and transgression which were at the root of the dissolution of the Khilafa and the British occupation of Jerusalem in 1917. As Muslims did not learn from their mistakes in the beginning of the century, in time it would lead to the establishment of a Zionist state. The rest is recent history.

The events of this century would readily be apparent to be a continuation of the centuries past, if we realize two facts. First, Israel is ruled today by Zionism and not Judaism, which in any case, over the centuries, has been ``reformed`` beyond recognition as the original revealed religion. And Zionism is just a particularly poisonous form of Western political nationalism. Second, Western civilization, despite all the polishing and enlightenment, remains at heart a pagan civilization. Any doubts in this regard could be quickly dispelled by looking at the Halloween and Christmas observations alone.

So this is Jerusalem`s history of thirty centuries. Sins and transgression. Hellinicized Jews. Westernized Muslims. Client Kings. Puppet regimes. Humiliation and destruction. Repentance, trust in Allah, righteousness, and victory. In this eternal battleground between monotheism and paganism, the forces of monotheism would win as long as they remain true to it. When they betray their Covenant, they would be punished...

...The world needs monotheism for only it can provide true universalism. And only it can provide peace and justice for all as it did in the past. The world is waiting for the forces of true monotheism to conquer Jerusalem once again.

[http://www.albalagh.net/food_for_thought/aqsa.shtml]

correction #447: ``Zia ul Haq is the only military dictator who hated.``

should read,

Zia ul Haq is the only military dictator who is hated.

Re: Harimau

``…Isn`t the Hajj organized by a Hajj committee with the support of the Government of India?… So what is wrong if the trail to Vaishnodevi was upgraded by the Army?…``

If you read my original post on this subject, you will notice that I had said that the government SHOULD GET OUT OF THE BUSINESS OF `FACILITATING` YATRAS/HAJS FOR EVERY RELIGION. PERIOD. Let the devout find their own private means of getting to wherever they want to without depending upon the state.

``…Would you prefer that the Indian Railways not run loss-making trains to Rameshwaram?…``

I would. That issue is not limited to secularism, but also touches upon the issue of private/public ownership of railways. I generally favor private ownership. The rest of your post rambles on the same issues.

``… If the Government of India should not maintain the trail to Vaishnodevi, why should it maintain the Grand Trunk Road from Calcutta to Delshi? After all, it goes through the holy cities of Mathura, Allahabad, Varanasi and Gaya….``

Because Vaishno Devi is exclusively a religious site of importance to a particular religion only - it is not a commercial destination for any meaningful businesses. Gangetic plains cities are important commercial centers that also happen to have some holy sites. Big difference.

Your last paragraph indicates that you tend to `lose it` from time to time.

dost-mittar #414: Feudalism:

If I were to give a percentage value to the problems in Pakistan`s democratic system, I would give feudals a percentage of around 65%, ambitious Army Generals (not the whole Army, and not all the Generals, just the politically ambitious ones) around 18%, corrupt businessmen around 7%, ethnic based parties around 5% and religious parties another 5%.

It is without a doubt that feudalism is what is keeping a society like Pakistan undemocratic. Pakistani love politics. If you go to any Pakistani city you will see hotels and other areas requesting people to not discuss politics all the time, since people are so obssessed with it. Pakistani cities regularly vote out bad leaders and bring in better ones. They agitate, protest, take part in the whole election process etc.

However, as long as 2/3rd of the Pakistani assembly seats keep going to feudals, nothing in Pakistan will change. That is why Pakistan has always, as a rule, made more economic progress under Martial Laws (the growth rates have been nearly twice as high) than under democratic govts.

People (Indians and Pakistanis) look towards Lahore, Karachi, Islamabad etc. to see the direction of Pakistani politics. They point to a freedom of press, media, leaderhips etc. However, what happens in Pakistani cities is really immaterial. It is what happens in Pakistan`s rural areas that decides Pakistani politics. And Pakistan`s rural politics has not changed at all since pre-1947 days. Even if one party were to win every single seat in every single urban city of Pakistan (a mathematical impossibility), it would still have only half the seats that are occupied by feudals.

Each feudal constituency is either dominated by one feudal, or two. Both feudals in many cases are close relatives. Larkana, for example, is dominated by Benazir. She and her mother will always win by a landslide from the two seats there, even if they nominate their pet dog, who may have given the whole local population rabies. Farooq Leghari will always win from Dera Ghazi Khan, as will all his sons, despite the fact that he just left the PPP and formed his own party. From Jhang, Abida Hussain and Fakhr Imam will contest against their nephew Faisal Hayat. Either one will always win. Look at any election result from any feudal constituency.

These people are some of the most educated people in Pakistan. Benazir has a degree from Harvard and Oxford. Leghari is an Oxford graduate. Abida Hussain is a graduate from Switzerland, etc. They are good looking (except for Abida Hussain), sophisticated, educated etc. Yet their areas remain the most backwards in Pakistan. DG Khan, Larkana, Jhang etc. are still in medieval times.

The children of the above-mentioned are/will all be in US Ivy League schools. Some of them maybe regular visitors on sites like Chowk, and will discuss issues like women`s rights, etc. They return to Pakistan for their summer vacations and stand in elections against their feudal cousins for Parliament and Nazim positions. If they win, the join the assemblies. If they lose they go back to attend summer school. However, once they are elected, they remain solid to their feudals ideals, and ensure everyone in their constituency remains subservient to them.

It is infact a case of virtual slavery, which goes from one generation to another. Every thrid world country has something like this. But in case of Pakistan, 2/3rd of the country is dominated by it.

It is in the interests of the feudals to keep their areas backwards and uneducated. This ensures there are no other potential candidates from their constituencies. So out of a population of two hundred thousand, most will be uneducated with no running water, while the feudal and his kids will have a degree from Wharton or Yale.

They pay no or very little taxes on their lands. The current govt. is finally changing these laws. An agricultural country in which, by law, feudal land owners pay no or very subsidised taxes is not going to make much economic progress. It is surprising that Pakistan has been able to stay economically ahead of South Asia for so long.

Many of the feudals have a limited education also. But their next generations will always be foreign educated. The Ivy League degrees make them even more dangerous. Benazir is able to present one face to the USA, and completely another one to her own constituency.

The feudals control the livelihood of their own populace. If someone on their land doesn`t vote for them, they can cut off his/her water supply and kick him/her off their land into even more poverty. They can kidnap their daughters, etc. Due to this a feudal will never lose an election in any constituency, because his domination is like that of the plantation owner of pre-US Civil war days. It is now become common folklore that young frustrated men come out an actually assassinate their local feudals.

This is also why the feudals are the biggest supporters of, ``democracy and elections`` in Pakistan. It allows them to keep control over the legislative power of the country, so that no land reforms can be introduced to divide their lands, and no agricultural tax can be implemented. That explains why the literally every single feudal has two hobbies, i.e. hunting and politics.

Pakistani politics are dominated by two parties, PPP and PML. The parties themselves are insignificant. They are just the meeting points for feduals and their competitor feudals. If they all left the party and started another one, that one would become the most dominant; regardless of its agenda, manifesto etc.

The future of Pakistan is thus controlled by around four hundred powerful feudal families, who between them compete for 2/3rd of the seats (about 140 seats) in Pakistan`s National Assembly. While the intellectuals, and the ethnic leaders, and the maulvis and the philanthrpists, and the retired generals, and the corrupt businessman etc. compete for the remaining 1/3rd in urban Pakistan, divided over ten different parties. Urban educated politicians make the most noise, write the most articles, but it is the feudals who quietly run the country.

That is also why Pakistanis celebrate everytime their is a Martial Law. They celebrated when Musharraf took over. Pakistani oil trucks still have pictures of Ayub Khan on their backs. Zia ul Haq is the only military dictator who hated. It is not that they feel that Martial Laws were good, it is just that feudal dictatorships of Bhuttos and Sharifs (himself a businessman but his party was all feudal) were pathetic.

The main argument presented by the feudals, and their naive supporters on this site, is that the people vote them in, and in a democracy, the people will vote them out. However, they all know that their haris and serfs on their lands have no choice but to vote them in. And due to their virtual slave-like existence, there is no way the poor peasants can vote them out. Even if they do somehow vote them out, the only other option is the feudal from the opposing party. It is no different than holding an election in a plantation during the days of US slavery. What are the odds that the plantation owner will lose an election? If he does, it will be to the neighboring plantation owner or to his kids.

All of this may sound somewhat harsh. But it is true, with factual proof. In the last elections, 62% of Pakistan`s National Assembly was feudal. Look what they did. It will be the same this time, if no major changes are made. I have a few distant relatives who are small time feudals. I have seen them win elections, and have seen their lifestyles. They could not get past tenth grade, they have multiple wives and girlfriends, hunt all day, and end up in Pakistan`s highest legislative bodies. I supported Imran Khan`s candidate in the last elections. Imran Khan`s party had refused to include any feudals as candidates. The party could not win a single seat, and will never have any legislative influence unless Imran Khan includes feudals, or until land reforms occur.

If Musharraf does not introduce land reforms, I am afraid everything he has done will be undone, as soon as the feudal dominated assemblies get, ``elected.`` The feudals are only scared of the extremely vocal street power of the religious right, and they are scared of the Army toppling them. The Army they cannot do much about, but they will give into the religious right to satisfy them, and will start introducing another Shariat Bill type amendments (like NS attempted to).

Luckily, Musharraf is slowly trying to unravel the feudal system by completing delegating the executive powers to local bodies. Thus spreading the power of one feudal over hundreds of locally elected councilors. He is adding seats to the assemblies to furthur dilute the feudal power base. He has put in mandatory seats for technocrats and women to again dilute feudal power. But in the end, the govt. will have to buy or forcefully take away their lands and plantations, so that their, voting ``slaves`` can vote for candidates other than their feudal masters.

That is why politics in Pakistan does not fit into the generally accepted model of a democracy, which over the time should solve its problems by voting out the riff-raff. It is difficult for that to happen if the riff-raff owns 2/3rd of the country, and is the primary law making body assigned to get rid of the riff-raff. It will never get rid of itself. Someone will have to forcefully do it.

That is also why it is so easy for any ambitious General to take over the country. The people are so fed up of the, ``democratically`` elected feudals that they actually celebrate. The biggest demonstration against Musharraf`s coup was 138 people. He only needed about 100 soldiers to carry out the coup in less than a few hours. Imagine how happy the average Pakistani was to see, ``democracy`` go out the door. For the simple reason that BB and NS were running civilian dictatorships, which were much worst than the current military dictatorship. It was and has always been a choice between civilian and military dictatorships. There has never been democracy, at least not in my life.

Layman - it is indeed a small world - we must have been neighbours too!!

aicha

``Zohra, was a rarity for her era, an educated woman from a Muslim Indian family``(Newsweek quoted by romair)

Rarity? Ah the naive ignorant American.

My grandmother took her first job as the Principal of a Muslim Girls School -- in 1901 -- with a name to match her job -- Nejaatun Nissa -- Emancipator of Women.

Ref Zafar Al-Talib #: 437

[“After visiting Singapore a few times, I am convinced that the system survives because there is a high degree of societal consensus on it.”

Absolutely. But how will Singapore handle change? And what are the mechanisms for building consensus for the directions that will take? Also – consensus is not universal, and there is no mechanism to ensure that people who disagree in principal remain equal in that polity. (More below.)]

Singapore has worked out a system by which they can manufacture consensus. Elections are announced with just two weeks to go before polls are to be held. The PAP (People`s Action Party, the party in power) has offices all over the city in HDB buildings but opposition parties are not allowed to rent office space in similar buildings because HDB says that it does not rent space to political parties. However, the PAP offices, prominently marked with name boards, exist and are supposedly rented to the MP in his private capacity.

The PAP hold meetings on the lawns of these housing colonies. Opposition parties are denied the right to hold public meetings on the grounds that it will create public disorder. Section 144 is permanently in force in Singapore and any gathering of more than 4 persons is subject to dispersal, arrest and harrassment by the police.

All ballots are numbered and when they hand you the ballot, they also note down the number against your name on the electoral rolls. Thus, though you vote in closed booth, your vote is known. If in a particular constituency the PAP loses. they check all the ballots and fire those who are civil servants but who voted against the government. These people immediately lose their HDB flats and have to pay sky-high rents in the private market for housing.

Musharraf can also generate consensus this way.

Why do you think the US State Department is at odds with the Government of Singapore on Civil Rights?

[The way the Government of Singapore (and the ruling party – PAP) use the courts to intimidate opponents is appalling, and corrupts the system. Jayaretnam, the leader of the opposition for many years, has been bankrupted by the Government’s deep pocket recourse to courts which it fills and essentially controls.]

When JB Jeyaratnam appealed one of his cases to the Privy Council, the Privy Council acquitted Jeyaratnam of all libel charges and cancelled all the fines levied on him. They also had a few choice words to say about the Singapore justice system. Within a week, the Singapore government passed a law eliminating the right to appeal to the Privy Council and re-instated all the fines. Jeyaratnam was forced into involuntary bankruptcy by Lee Kwan Yew.

The man`s thin skin and absolute demand for obedience is famous. One fine morning, the newspaper in Singapore announces that President Devan Nair has resigned from the Presidency after behaving in a manner inconsistent with the dignity of the office. He is supposed to have propositioned the Queen of Malaysia during a state dinner in Brunei where he had gone to attend a meeting of all the ASEAN heads of state. The rumor is that he is supposed to have said in a private chat that Lee Kwan Yew was a dictator who brooks no opposition; the word got back within hours and Devan Nair was told he was no longer President. On top of all this, Devan Nair was forced to confess to propositioning the Queen and publicly apologize for it.

[And another thing…Singapore is more than 80% Chinese (the remainder being largely Indian, Malay and Eurasian.) Peace and order is indeed maintained…but at the cost of a certain ongoing level of discrimination against non-Chinese members of society. My points being (1) it isn’t even close to perfect (next to Malaysia’s bumiputera policy anybody looks good) and (2) people who have been discriminated against don’t have any realistic recourse. (The same goes for Singaporean women, btw…) Meritocracy is a pious hope, if that.]

Being Chinese helps. Being married to a Chinese helps a little. Willing to be a token Malay or Indian helps a whole lot.

[But…instead…would you agree that the power theChinese State holds over the people is greater than the equivalent in India, BUT Chinese State functionaries are (I’m guessing here) less corrupt than their Indian cousins – and so day to day interaction with State machinery is less onerous for ordinary Chinese than ordinary Indians?]

The power the Chinese State holds over the people is greater than the equivalent in India. Chinese State functionaries are no less corrupt than their Indian cousins – and day to day interaction with State machinery is no less onerous for ordinary Chinese than ordinary Indians.

[(Vaisai, we don’t really know what happens in the inland provinces of China. They probably have their Bihar as well…)]

MOST of China is the equivalent of Bihar.

Ref Zafar Al-Talib #: 437

[Further, Lee Kuan Yew’s son (whose name I now forget) is involved in Govt. ..... and I would be very surprised if he didn’t end up as PM (so long as SM Lee remains on the scene to direct it that way).]

The full name is Lee Hsien-Loong. However, he is usually referred to in the press as BG Lee for his rank of Brigadier General in the Singapore Army though others tend to think that it stands for Baby God. I believe he is the deputy prime minister and his succession to prime ministership is a foregone conclusion whether Lee Kwan Yew is around or not.

Ref Zafar Al-Talib #: 440

[In the interest of accuracy (not because I disagree with you, though I do :-))

The late Queen of Jordan, Queen Aliya, was a Palestinian.

The current Queen, nee Lisa Halaby, is a yank.

Strange but true.]

In the interest of accuracy (not because I disagree with you, though I do :-))

Queen Noor (Lisa Halaby) was married to the current king Abdullah`s father. Thus she sould be termed the Queen Mother, though she is being called the Queen out of courtesy.

King Abdullah is supposed to be married to a Palestinian.

re zafar 440

``In the interest of accuracy (not because I disagree with you, though I do :-))

The late Queen of Jordan, Queen Aliya, was a Palestinian.The current Queen, nee Lisa Halaby, is a yank.Strange but true.``

You`re dead wrong on all counts. The current Queen of Jordan is Her Mjaesty Rania who is married to King Abdullah II. She is a full blooded Palestinian from the West Bank town of Nablus. The late Queen Alia was NOT Palestinian but an Iraqi who was a sister of the martyred King Feisal. The Queen Mother, Her Majesty Queen Noor, nee Lisa Hallaby, is a Lebanese-American. Strange but ACCURATE.

aicha #355:

``IIM on Banerghatta Rd is a few minutes away from our house in JPNagar.``

It really is a small world! Which Phase in J P Nagar is your house at? I grew up in the first phase (close to Sarakki).

Reply Sigalph # 432

``They [Palestinians] already have a country, it would appear. It is called the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Heck 54 % of `Jordanians`, including their Queen, are also `Palestinians`.``

In the interest of accuracy (not because I disagree with you, though I do :-))

The late Queen of Jordan, Queen Aliya, was a Palestinian.

The current Queen, nee Lisa Halaby, is a yank.

Strange but true.

Prem,

Aren`t our loved ones dying now? Haven`t they been dying since a decade. True, a lot is our making. But the dead jawans, the dislodged kashmiri pandits, the RDXs around us, from our big cities to small are Paki contribution.Would you expect American reaction to Al Qaueda to be mellower just because the number at WTC got down from 8k to 4k?

Pain is not in numbers Prem. It`s pain, plain and simple.

{ on a lighter note, Bangalore nanage yavagalu, ``namma Bengluru,Our Bangalore,Apna Bangalore``}

rsridhar,

Full marks to you. That`s what needs to be done. And if Pakistan doesn`t comply, we should use all our might, in diplomacy and in battlefield. What else do we have the 4th largest army for?

Peace in peaceful times.

Pullu

Reply Dost-Mittar # 367

“ Is Detroit a major port, Lake Michigan notwithstanding?”

I think it is…as are Chicago, Toronto, Montreal…(due to the St Lawrence Seaway)

Reply Dost-Mittar # 390

Dost-Mittarji

[``On the other hand, this meant there was no mechanism (like fully free and fair elections) to prevent the flaws in the official paradigm being implemented - and this has left some almost intractable problems in the Turkish State - I am refering to its inability to deal honourably with the fact that about 10 to 20% of the Turkish population is Kurdish; and also to the State`s inability (or unwillingness) to incorporate religiously affiliated parties into the democratic system.``

“OTOH it could lead to the dismemberment of the State. Now, let`s be honest, isn`t this fear why we have been less than democratic when it comes to Kashmir?”]

That problem in Turkey stems (I’m simplifying, but only a little) from Ataturk’s swallowing whole the “linguistic nation state” paradigm as the only one which was valid. (OK, to some extent his views were a function of reacting to the enosis thing, and were not unusual for his time.) There was no political mechanism in Turkey, however, to finesse that, no opportunities for alternate points of view to be aired, discussed, reasoned out, etc. – no mechanism to allow for improvement. (And there still isn’t.) So the official line is, that Turks all have to speak Turkish – even if they don’t!!!!

In India we had a similar problem with the perception in the South that Hindi was being imposed on it from the Cow Belt. BUT the system was open enough to change, and to new ideas (and to the people’s will) that this policy was changed, and the country was NOT dismembered. This is what I mean about the self-correcting mechanism of a democracy. (Compare and contrast with Partition, where the country was indeed torn apart…wasn’t that also allegedly a decision based on elections of some sort?)

I agree – that is precisely the issue India has with Kashmir: if we give in to the notion that people who are not identical (linguistically and religiously) cannot live with each other peacefully, then there are enough small fish in a big pond who want to move on to being big fish in small ponds to make a lot of trouble for a lot of innocent fish (and other amphibians.) – and that’s why I think you find strong resistance to the idea. The country does not want anything which makes reliving Partition even mildly more likely. Can you blame them?

“I agree that the military has been excessively restrictive when it comes to religious parties. But there`s a common fear that this would lead to the destruction of the secular fabric of Turkey. Is this fear justified? I don`t know but why take a chance?”

Um – dunno. But if the secular fabric of Turkey is inevitably going to be destroyed by free and fair elections, then what is that secular fabric worth? Despite the Hindutva phenomenon, that has not happened to India – Indian secularism has proved to be resilient (all cut and pastes from VHP websites notwithstanding). My feeling is that the Turkish Generals should trust their countrymen to make, in the long run, the right decisions. Secularism HAS a natural constituency.

[``IMHO Ataturk was a great man, but he focused too much on what people wore on their heads (a law against HATS! How ridiculous) and other externalities, and not enough on the institutionalisation of the meaningful participation of these people in their own Government.``

“Externalities are important. Is it a coincidence that middle class caste Hindus gave up their external symbols of caste such as the tuft and sacred thread before they accepted the equality of all castes (at least intellectually, the gut level acceptance has yet to come)? Taking the opposite case, the Sikhs will insist upon keeping their external symbols (5Ks) to maintain their distinction from the Hindus.”]

Externalities have the importance you allow them. Would you argue that India would be more “modern” if Sikhs were not allowed to wear turbans? Or women were not allowed to cover their heads of faces? Because that is what Ataturk was essentially saying – and what the Pahlavis tried on in Iran when they banned the chador. I would argue that they were both missing the point. The issue is not so much what people wear – though that does indicate what’s happening inside their heads – but the fact that the decision about what they wear can be properly made by nobody but themselves. We’re segueing back to the democracy thing here.

And what is particularly unfortunate in this polarisation is that secularism becomes associated with the lack of democracy, while organised religion (with all its sexism and feudal aspects) becomes associated with democracy. Like Iran. And even bleeding Algeria. You figure.

[``Well of course it is. SM Lee had good judgement, and Singapore progressed, but even if he had had lousy judgement and Singapore had stagnated, guess what? With his political system in place, Lee would STILL BE IN POWER. I think that`s what appeals to China`s leadership as much as anything.``

“Lee retired long ago but his system still survives.”]

Actually Lee Kuan Yew stepped down as PM (a post currently held by Goh) some time ago, BUT he retains the title of Senior Minister (they made up the post when he retired) and is definitely not uninvolved in running Singapore and making strategic decisions regarding the country. (He’s still the boss.)

Further, Lee Kuan Yew’s son (whose name I now forget) is involved in Govt. (in a high profile way – he’s the one we see in Sydney when Singapore Inc. – Airlines, Singtel, etc. – is looking to buy shares in Qantas/ Telstra etc.) and I would be very surprised if he didn’t end up as PM (so long as SM Lee remains on the scene to direct it that way).

“After visiting Singapore a few times, I am convinced that the system survives because there is a high degree of societal consensus on it.”

Absolutely. But how will Singapore handle change? And what are the mechanisms for building consensus for the directions that will take? Also – consensus is not universal, and there is no mechanism to ensure that people who disagree in principal remain equal in that polity. (More below.)

“As I see it, it is based on a principle that there is no free ride in democracy, that the state will enforce your responsibilities as forcefully as it will protect your rights. And anyone making an irresponsible criticism will have to prove it, otherwise face some penalties for it.”

Given its history and geography, Singapore’s achievements are, indeed, impressive. But I have to ask: what is a “free ride in democracy”? That citizens have to uphold the laws of their country is a given (ok, often not achieved, but that’s what every democracy SAYS – how is Singapore different in this way? As a city state Singapore is just more policable than most countries.)

The way the Government of Singapore (and the ruling party – PAP) use the courts to intimidate opponents is appalling, and corrupts the system. Jayaretnam, the leader of the opposition for many years, has been bankrupted by the Government’s deep pocket recourse to courts which it fills and essentially controls. The Government of Singapore is not answerable, in any demonstrable way, to the Singpore courts – in fact it seems like the other way round. That’s a recipe for corruption – regardless of how large the cake grows. And many of the “libel” cases which the Govt takes to court are so bizarre (“so-and-so referred to Singapore as a funny country in a cartoon published in Johore Bahru thereby hurting sentiments….”, for example) that they are clearly meant to intimidate opponents into silence, not to ensure that politics remain honest.

(Btw – Lee Kuan Yew once famously referred to Australians as the White Trash of Asia. Now if anybody referred to Singapore disparagingly in the City State, you can bet they’d be sued fast and hard and left only with their second had chuddees, if that. But if I brought a case against SM Lee for hurting my sentiments with this statement, what do you think my chances of satisfaction would be? In fact, what would my chances of not being slapped with some counter-suit to shut me up and encourage the other be?)

Another issue: spending on public works in Singapore is blatantly a function of whether an area voted PAP or not. If they didn’t, no new roads, sewers, etc. for them. But these things are NOT favours a Government dispenses – these are services it provides taxpayers. And whether these people voted PAP or not, you can be sure that they paid their taxes. (It is Singapore, after all…)

“…they have decided that it is a small price to pay for maintaining peace and order in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-racial society.”

And another thing…Singapore is more than 80% Chinese (the remainder being largely Indian, Malay and Eurasian.) Peace and order is indeed maintained…but at the cost of a certain ongoing level of discrimination against non-Chinese members of society. My points being (1) it isn’t even close to perfect (next to Malaysia’s bumiputera policy anybody looks good) and (2) people who have been discriminated against don’t have any realistic recourse. (The same goes for Singaporean women, btw…) Meritocracy is a pious hope, if that.

Dost-Mittarji – please contrast your two following statements:

[“To a less honourable extent, the same goes for modern (not Mao`s) China. From what I have read, I am convinced that the average Ging Wong in China is more empowered in dealing with the state authorities than is the average Agya Ram in dealing with Sarkar Mai Baap in India.”

“Just take one example of the cost of democracy. India was the very first country to officially adopt a policy of family planning and even have a ministry of family planning. And yet, because we were not willing to use coercian, we have more than a billion people today instead of maybe 700 million and the resulting 50% greater pressure on the scarce water, forest and other natural resources.”]

Now if I was (God forbid) going to be difficult, I’d ask how you reconcile your average Chinese’s inability to tell the Govt to stay out of his/her reproductive life with YAC’s superior empowerment when dealing with the State (as opposed to your average Indian’s).

But…instead…would you agree that the power theChinese State holds over the people is greater than the equivalent in India, BUT Chinese State functionaries are (I’m guessing here) less corrupt than their Indian cousins – and so day to day interaction with State machinery is less onerous for ordinary Chinese than ordinary Indians?

(Vaisai, we don’t really know what happens in the inland provinces of China. They probably have their Bihar as well…)

A digression: many say that Indira Gandhi’s forced nasbandi program during the Emergency set back India’s family planning program by decades because it was not built on consensus. Coercion backfired. Re: China – it is now widely held that the education of women and their empowerment is the single most influential factor in reducing family size. China did use coercion in its family planning program, but it could be argued that its success in this area stems more from the increased educational status of women as its strong arm tactics. Aap ka kya khayal?

Best wishes,

Zafar

PS Sorry for the long post, but you bring up so many points in yours that I want to try to respond to...