The Future Is Another Country: 2050 And Beyond

Re: Sigalph235

Can you give us a primer on the politics of the major political parties of Bangladesh? What are the ideologies, source of support, etc. BTW, you mentioned that Zia ur Rehman `fought` against India? When?

Re: Satyawadi

``...Nehru and Indira were both known to be not particually inhibited about sex (Khushwant Singh)...``

Mr. Singh used to write a column called `With Malice Towards All` in the 80s when he was the editor of The Hindustan Times. If anyone here recalls, the cartoon that accompanied the column always had a busty, bare chested woman -- all this in a mainstream daily newspaper that made it to most middle class homes in Delhi. That column quickly identified Khushwant as one having an appetite for raunchy details. Once, a friend of mine (in 10th grade in Delhi) ran into Khushwant Singh at school. The first question that popped out of Sardarji`s mouth was, ``Son, do you have a girlfriend?`` In light of the above, I am not at all surprised that Khuswant Singh will say the things that he does.

re cutandpaste 374 and Kuldip Nayar

Mr Nayar`s age is showing as he falls for the garbage of Awami propaganda.

``The second group supports Prime Minister Khaleda Zia. Her husband, Ziaur Rahman, headed free Bangladesh through a coup.``

Second group? The martyred General Ziaur Rahman, whom Nayar implies as being anti-Bangladesh, was the man who declared the Independence of Bangladesh on March 26 1971 when Mujib (Hasina`s dad) and all of Awami cowards had either surrendered or fled to India. This was done in the midst of Pakistan Army`s offensive in Chittagong that was being fought off by the 2nd East Bengal regiment as their 2nd in command was making the historic announcement. It was Ziaur Rahman who was bearing the brunt of the Pakistani Army`s Operation Torchlight II when Hasina`s `uncles` were enjoying the nightlife of Calcutta on Indian taxpayer`s generosity. Please! It is a pity that some Bengalis and pro-Awami Indians and anti-BAngladesh Pakistanis tend to paint Zia and his followers as `anti-liberation`. If the man who risked it all on the frontlines of freedom is `anti-liberation`, then I am too. Nincompoop Awami Leaguers and their misguided Indian apologists simply don`t get it. They`re just mad because Ziaur Rahman was a true patriot who fought Pakistan and India both.

Khushwant Singh in Outlook (not verbatim):

Maulana Azad was a big fan of Scotch.

Nehru and Indira were both known to be not particually inhibited about sex.

Any comments on these revelations - specially YLH, Hamidm, Sadna, Zafar, Harimau, Tahmed, Rsaxena (and others I may have missed)?

Reply Urstruly # 363

``The acid on unburqa-ed women was a RAW thing.``

Absolutely right, Urstruly Saheb. Please also tell these people how Mossad (yes! Mossad!) was the one responsible for flying those places in the WTC.

(Al-Qaida, in case anybody was wondering, is a social uplift organisation which focuses on the empowerment of women. See how CNN twists the truth.)

``It is utter bigotry to look down upon the people who do not subscribe to your political or antireligion agenda.``

Charity begins at home, baybee.

Your fan,

Zafar

A country still at war

http://www.dawn.com/2002/02/02/op.htm#2

By Kuldip Nayar

Every time I go to Bangladesh - and I go regularly - I find the country still in the midst of war. The guns of 1971 stopped long ago but conflicts and tensions have not. The society remains divided from top to bottom. The people of Bangladesh can be categorized into two groups: pro-liberation and anti-liberation forces.

The first claims to represent the forces which fought against Pakistan to create an independent Bangladesh. It mostly favours Sheikh Hasina, daughter of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the founder of Bangladesh. The second group supports Prime Minister Khaleda Zia. Her husband, Ziaur Rahman, headed free Bangladesh through a coup.

After 30 years of independence who did what during the liberation struggle is getting hazier every day, but not the prejudice. Some impressions about people - a few may well be true - remain implacable. The worst part of it is that there is no mood of forgetting and forgiving. The liberation or the anti-liberation label has become such a prized possession that the fakes and failures use it to settle scores politically and, worse, violently.

The cleavage, really speaking, is like India`s caste system, with its prejudices and biases. Appointments, transfers and even allocations of funds are made in Bangladesh on the basis of who was on which side. ``All of us are pro-liberation,`` says the foreign minister. But his remark does not span the distance which is yawning relentlessly.

True, the country went through hell in the nine months of operations by the Pakistan army. All tiers of government were used to crush defiance and local administrative machinery was wrecked. Freedom fighters were the worst sufferers. Not many people sided with Pakistan at that time. That was three decades ago. Now the situation is different: `We and They.` Some way has to be found to overcome the bitterness which continues to cast a shadow over the nation`s homogeneity.

The two leaders, Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia, representing two opposite viewpoints, could have integrated the society. But their hatred of each other is so deep that when one of them comes to power, the other stokes the fires of revolt. Hasina denounced the elections when she lost.

Her party, Awami League, has started a countrywide agitation to throw out Khaleda`s government. The latter`s response is repression.Khaleda`s Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) was agitating till a few months earlier when Hasina was in power.

This political see-saw and the welter of the hatred have not allowed anything common, not even a strain of emotion, to come up. It is a nation which is perpetually tearing itself apart. It is more than cussedness. There are no two opinions that Mujib is the father of the nation. Why should the Khaleda government not give him that recognition? The Sangh parivar has no love for Mahatma Gandhi.

Still, the BJP, the parivar`s member, hails him as the father of the nation and extends him all the honour due to him. In a way it has helped the BJP to hide its Hindutva fangs.

Khaleda has removed even the picture of Mujib from Bangladesh currency notes. She wants to amend the act which prohibits people from pulling down Muijib`s picture from public places and government offices. Probably, Khaleda wants to hang the picture of her husband, General Zia, along with Mujib`s. Officially it is possible. But how do you put the founder of Bangladesh and an army general on the same pedestal?

Bangladesh continues to suffer from non-issues. I try every time to find an answer to my question from the faces in the long queue of people before the immigration authorities at the airport. The scene is reminiscent of what I watched in early 1972. Then passengers were shouting `Jai Bangla`. They wanted to reach the promised land. They still do. But the queue I see at the airport moves slowly. And the people, mostly young in years, are taking outward flights. Pride is still writ large on their faces but there are signs of strain and sorrow.

It looks as if the zeal exhibited during the days of struggle against West Pakistan has burnt itself out. As happens in every liberation struggle, a better way of life was expected from the time guns fell silent. That did not come true. Most people still live on the periphery of existence. Liberation has brought them sovereignty, not economic betterment. This was the main reason why they broke away from West Pakistan to create a new country.

Still poor, the nation has come a long way from the time when every farmer had lost either his bullocks, ploughs or seeds after the withdrawal of the Pakistani forces. The countryside has repaired itself. It is self-reliant. The 1999 cyclone saw farmers managing the ravages of a big calamity though they had skimpy resources. Hardly anyone has gone to the streets of Dhaka, a practice for years to seek help.

Where I see the nation slipping is in its secular ethos. Muslim fundamentalists went berserk in the wake of the victory of Khaleda. So shocked was liberal press opinion that it brought out special editions to highlight the plight of minorities to shame the Muslim majority. In a special issue titled ``A Puja marred,`` The Star, a leading daily, reported how ``rape, arson, robbery and forced eviction of Hindu families in some parts of the country, have left the community in shock and fear``. Shalier Kabir, author and documentary filmmaker, exposed the naked cruelty against the Hindus. The government imprisoned him for anti-national activities.

When I questioned Khaleda about the incidents, she was defensive. Her explanation was that it had happened mostly at the time when the caretaker government was in power. The other argument she advanced was that it was the ``doing of the Awami League,`` which expected the Hindus to vote for it but ``pounced upon them`` when it found that they had voted for the BNP. ``You can ask the Hindus,`` she said. ``I shall give you their names.`` When she saw that I looked unconvinced, she said that she had ordered a judicial inquiry. She went on in the same vein to blame the Awami League.

Incidentally, one of the two Jamaat ministers is in charge of the social welfare ministry, which is supposed to look after the Hindu community as well. Khaleda was equivocal on Bangladeh`s relations with India. But there was no anti-India remark from her.

She said that there were some kinks. They would have to be ironed out. She was keen on the Ganga water treaty being reviewed. I asked her point-blank to specify the problems between Bangladesh and India. ``Tension on the border between the police of both countries,`` was her reply. Reported infiltration of religious fundamentalists into India may aggravate the problem.

The reason why there are lengthy queues at Dhaka airport is the failure of successive governments to provide opportunities. Even the reservoir of gas, which could have been utilized to keep the wheel of industry in the country moving, has remained untouched. The ruling BNP did not allow the sale of gas when it was in the wilderness. Now the Awami League is deadly opposed to it.

My assessment over the years is that both parties, indeed, both ladies, have done little to solve most of the country`s troubles. All that people could do was to ensure that the military stayed in the barracks. They have restored democracy. But what they have failed to do is to put pressure on the two ladies to change. They join them during the agitations. What will happen next? ``Much will depend on the groundswell of opinion in our favour,`` a tall Awami League leader told me when I asked him about the prospects of an agitation to throw out Khaleda.

Shankar

Write this post again when you are calm.

The best thing that could happen to Paksitan and the cause of freedom of Kashmiris is that hindu keeps on thinking that he is getting away with murder of human beings in Kashmir.

That is the reason I say that Hindu has already lost this war. It is just matter of time that it becomes official.

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

Re Samina 356

Incidentally the article is also on the newyorker web site.

A quick read of Raban`s excellent analysis and one can understand the perverted ultra-narrow ostrich-like ideology of urstruly and company. You are simply wasting your time. You`re better off with those anti-davos protests.:)

re hamzad and contras

I think you`re still upset because Reagan, unlike earlier US presidents, stood up to evil communism and beat it it cold. Hence we see the hypocricy of you, who always taunts commies/pinlos/socialists, bemoaning the drubbing that the totalitarian Sandanistas got. But we know better. At the end of the day, Islamism and Communism share a powerful fundamental approach to society: they want absolutist control of every facet of an individual`s life. This is diametrically opposed to the concept of civilization itself, as we have come to know it. Therefore, this Islamist threat too will go down the drain of history like its companion Communism, Fascism, and Nazism. The good news is that unlike in the Cold War, America`s first president in the new War against Evil Ones is a man of Ronald Reagan`s no-nonsense approach: ie freedom doesn`t have to wait 40 years to find a shining knight. This is president under whom there will be no detente, no breather to the Axis of Evil, and absolutely not an inch given.

Go and feel free to calculate how many goris convert to Wahabi Islam or how many Israeli traitors refuse to serve in their army. Keep happy thus because we are winning the battle, the war, and the future.

``America will stand tall for the non-negotiable values of human dignity`` George W Bush, State of the Union 2002

Urstruly,

{{Whether it is the murder of sikhs or hindu kashmiris, hijackiing of their own planes or shooting their own cops everything has become a joke around the world. Hindu has screamed ``Wolf, Wolf`` so much so that {no one} beleives him anymore``

Haha! the depth of denial among Pakistani bigots like you is absolutely, psychotically incredible!!

When it comes to ``believability`` of propaganda, Pakistani credibility is Z-E-R-O. Let me say it again Z-E-R-O!! Wake up & smell the coffee!

I`m not refering to Indians; but Pakistan has Z-E-R-O credibility in the eyes of the WORLD!

Lemme tell you why:

A) Pakistan is SCREAMING--SCREAMING mind you, to everybody who will listen, for the last 12 yrs, about Hindian atrocities in Kashmir. Do you think ANY OTHER Muslim nation slams India?!. Ooooh they are willing to slam Israel, but NO..NOT India!! Why?! Mullah Urstruly...is it because:

1) they dont believe Pakistan?! Hey Einstein! Those pathetic OIC resolutions re: Kashmir are then given to the Pakistani FO, to be used as toilet paper!!

-or-

2)They BELIEVE Pakistan--but JUST DONT GIVE A SH *T about how Pakistan or Kashmiri muslims feel!! Whoah! Thats even worse than (1). Talk about a slap in the face for Pakistan! After what Pakistan has done for the Islamic world! Its the HEIGHT of ingratitude! Hey with ``brothers`` like that you dont need enemies!

B)What is the rest of the world doing to India re Kashmir? When no country in the world twists India`s arm? Ahemm...unless you are TOTALLY unable to see reality, isnt that a slap in the face for Pakistan`s credibility!

What are we Hindians doing? slipping 5 bucks under the table to ever visiting dignitary that comes to Delhi? Oh yeah! for an opportunity to sit with the spouse & get a picture taken in front of the Taj, every world leader sells out Kashmir! Except, ofcourse, Honest Abe Mushy! Ooops, in the past few weeks, I`m not too sure..

C) During Kargil, Pakistan DENIED that their armed forces were involved! Who believed them?! Time magazine had an article on the confession of a Pakistani soldier! Even your all weather friend China, did`nt support you! NS has to be summoned to the White House to be given a scolding! Ah well ..its history...but WHO was the laughing stock of the world?!--India or Pakistan?!

D) If the ``incident`` at the Indian Parliament was an elaborate conspiracy; how come NOT a single country in the world (except Pakistan, ofcourse) has even OFFICIALLY questioned India`s mischief? Has any newspaper of repute (non Pakistan, ofcourse); in their editorials suggest it is an Indian plot?!

Was it Mushy or Vaju, who made a ``stategic U-Turn``? Mushy abandoned the violent jihad in Kashmir when Uncle Sam twisted his arm. Boy ! That must have pissed you off! I mean if Pakistan acts like a condom, it`ll be used like one.

So, my educated, intelligent, articulate Osama Bin Urstruly---WHO is the laughing stock? India or Pakistan?

WHO has Z-E-R-O credibility? India or Pakistan?!

Hey who knows! After all, maybe you believe that the WTC bombing was the work of CIA-RAW-Mossad conspiracy!

http://www.majinnah.cjb.net

Zafar,
This is offtopic :):
http://www.satirewire.com/news/jan02/australia.shtml

http://www.satirewire.com/briefs/message.shtml

India Sends Message by Invading

New Delhi, India (SatireWire.com) — In what observers say is likely to further strain already tense relations between the two countries, India today sent a stern message to neighboring Pakistan by invading it.

Nearly two million Indian ground troops, supported by fighter jets and bombers, quickly overran Pakistan, which has been at odds with New Delhi over the fate of Kashmir. Pakistan was defeated and absorbed into India.

``Let this be a message to our neighbors that they must be serious in their crackdown on violent groups in Kashmir, or else,`` Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee said at a press conference.

``Or else what?`` he was asked.

``Or else... um...``

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf quickly jumped on Vajpayee`s response, insisting it was a sign that India had run out of options, which may give Pakistan the diplomatic upper hand as the standoff continues.

From The Hindustan Times today..


Third party involvement on Kashmir is increasing
JN Dixit


International concerns have been focussed on Afghanistan as well as South Asia, particularly Pakistan and India, since the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States and the December 13 strike against the Indian Parliament. A consequence has been an incrementally activist role adopted by the United States and other major powers on India-Pakistan relations.
The attack on the Indian Parliament and the government`s firm political and decisive operational response have palpably heightened tensions between New Delhi and Islamabad, almost to the levels that existed in the weeks preceding the India-Pakistan war of 1971.

The visits of a number of leaders of foreign governments since mid-December to defuse India-Pakistan tensions have not been mere advisory exercises. They were, in fact, exercises in generating direct diplomatic and political pressure on India and Pakistan to prevent their standoff from deteriorating into a military conflict.

In objective terms, these exercises are a third party intervention in India-Pakistan relations while India continues to reiterate that it will not accept any third party mediation or intervention in India-Pakistan relations, particularly on the Kashmir issue. The Indian stand is also that United Nations resolutions passed from 1947 onwards have no relevance for resolving the problems related to Kashmir because the situation in the state has undergone profound constitutional and political changes in terms of the integration of the state with the Indian Union.

The basic reason for this attitude is India`s disappointment at the partisan manner in which the major powers have dealt with the Kashmir issue in the United Nations and in their bilateral interactions with India and Pakistan.

Their objective has been rooted in their respective geo-strategic interests and not on the merits of the case - the constitutional validity of Jammu and Kashmir`s accession to India and the repeated attempts of Pakistan to undo this by aggression and violence.

Conversely, Pakistan`s policy is to advocate the implementation of the UN resolutions and to emphasise the need for third party mediation and intervention because the issue has not been resolved bilaterally. Pakistan also bases its policy on the argument that the UN resolutions question the Indian thesis about the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India.

At the formal level, there is this fundamental impasse between India and Pakistan on the question of third party involvement on Kashmir. The political reality, however, is that it is third party interests which created the dispute and it is India which took the initiative in bringing about third parties to the dispute.

The colonial British government, while determining the legal framework for the future political status of the princely states of India, had hoped that the larger princely states would remain independent, that the sub-continental empire would consist of the dominions of India and Pakistan and that a number of large princely states would constitute the third geo-political ingredient of the South Asian sub-continent.

The British government further expected that these princely states and Pakistan would maintain close links with Britain to ensure it a long-term politico-strategic influence in the sub-continent.

When the majority of princely states acceded to India, the British plans went awry. The aspirations of Maharaja Hari Singh of Jammu and Kashmir to convert his state into an independent country was a sort of last opportunity which the departing British rulers wished to utilise to strengthen their influence and to create a strategic equation with Pakistan to meet this purpose.

The likelihood of international involvement or intervention, particularly by the US, is now on the cards for the following reasons:

First, whatever India`s convictions, the international community considers the problem of Jammu and Kashmir to be a territorial dispute in which Pakistan has a status and stake. Neither the accession of the state to India nor the issue of Pakistani aggression forms part of its perceptions.

Second, despite the passage of more than 50 years, the dispute remains unresolved and has sparked off major conflicts between India and Pakistan.

Third, the anxiety about such conflicts has qualitatively increased in the international community because of the acquisition of nuclear weapons and missile capacities by India and Pakistan over the last decade. The Kashmir issue is thus perceived as a nuclear flashpoint.

Fourth, the phenomenon of cross-border terrorism and pan-Islamic militancy has become a matter of international concern after the attacks on the US. The assessment is that this pernicious phenomenon finds fertile ground in disputes like those of Jammu and Kashmir. There is also speculative assessment that stability in Afghanistan is indirectly dependent on the resolution of the Kashmir issue and the normalisation of India-Pakistan relations.

These considerations have been compounded by the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament and the consequent military and political pressure generated by India on Pakistan. An important factor in third party intervention is the consensus among the major powers on preventing a conflict situation rooted in the Kashmir issue. Also, India does not have the leverage any more of its special equation with the former Soviet Union.

What is happening now is incremental third party involvement in the Kashmir issue. The United States and other major powers continue to affirm that they have no desire to mediate between India and Pakistan unless both countries agree. They say that they are willing to play the role of a facilitator, if agreed upon, for cosmetic purposes.

The factual position is different.

The insistent advice to New Delhi to remain restrained and moderate vis-à-vis Pakistan and the pressure generated on Islamabad to desist from sponsoring terrorism against India manifest third party involvement.

The active political and physical monitoring of the evolving political and military situation on the sub-continent by the major powers - through the visits of their leaders - is another manifestation of the phenomenon.

Unconfirmed reports about India having moved out the commander of a strike corps of the Indian Army, apparently on the suggestion of the United States, because be orchestrated a high military stance on the Pakistan border, is indicative of US activism in India-Pakistan relations.

New Delhi must clearly understand that there is every possibility of the US intervening in the sub-continent, not just politically but operationally, if there is an impending nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan. The US will have the support of the international community in such an exercise. India has to be responsive to this particular possibility.

If New Delhi wants to avoid third party involvement, India must give the highest priority to resolving the internal dilemmas of Jammu and Kashmir.

(The author is a former foreign secretary)

shammi #361
``I will apply the same standard as I applied earlier in reverse -- will the US seek India`s permission/approval before launching its own missiles or look towards India for permission first to do the same (deploy troops within its borders)? The answer is plain.``

I was pointing out, by your own standards, that India didnot seek US approval for either mobilization of its troops or launch of its missiles.

``Everyday on Chowk you can read the elites of `our people` hurl insults and sow the seeds of another conflict``

Perhaps or perhaps they are remnants of past conflicts. The French and German are still not longlost pals, but both agreed to a common currency(for instance) as did the Turks and Greeks if I am not mistaken. And there is the larger issue of whether these so-called elite are able to influence their governments policies or even want to.