Can we Stop the War

Your article brings forth the effeciveness of yet another mode of expression...the timeless cliche of non-violence, that too in numbers. Making one`s voice heard and an idea introduced thus, need not take the form of a raging war or an unreal act of terrorrism.

Really, is there any place on earth that is free from strife today? Forget the earth, even space has not been spared. There is such distrust rife in humankind that the first reaction to the Shuttle Colombia`s fate was the probability of it being a terrorrist attack! The unfortunate event actually shifted focus from Bush`s unrelenting war-rant for a few days. There was not a single headline on CNN or MSNBC with the words `` Iraq`` or `` Saddam Hussein`` in it. Why can`t the world take a hint? The astronauts; may their souls, at least, rest in peace.

I have found such gatherings kindreds of train, plane, airport acquaintances, in general. With one difference, maybe two: hope is their inner soul; a quintessence of opitimism. I know the reasons why. And they do make a difference. I know that too.

I have enjoyed your essay very much. It is effective, honest, sincere, light and best of all, devoid of difficult words.


PS. I have not read any replies so far. Perhaps that`s my loss; or, my good fortune!

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

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

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

re:#185 by ali87

``In all this they forget that most hindus would not vote for a Mulsim candidate no matter how good he is.``
I can tell you that if someone like Abdul Kalam were to float a political party and stand for elections, he will win hands down. But then he is in a different league. I have yet to see a good muslim politician. Is Syed Shahabuddin good? Or is it Shahi Imam? Name one good muslim politician in India.
Muslims in India need to come out of their self-imposed isolation by forging an alliance with hindus. I am gland that we have not seen a muslim party standing for elections. Experience shows that a muslim party when popular will not be acting in India`s interest (see what muslim league did to India). Muslims when in majority seem to want independence and when in minority, demand secularism. One thing about secularism is to keep religion out of politics. You seem to say that you want religion to be a part of politics. Don`t you see the harm that BJP is doing by mixing religion and polity? Muslim in India should above all learn from mistakes of Pak and Bangladesh and try to assimilate with the majority. This means sending your children to govt schools, taking to education in a big way and becoming lawyers, doctors, engineers etc. There is no reason why muslims in India should be confined only to arts, music and cinema. Religion in politics is divisive and should be shunned.
Sridhar

ali87 #185
Just curious, if you believe in Two Nation Theory, why do you call yourself an Indian? If Muslims can never get a fair deal from Hindus, do you see some other solution to your leaving the country? Get to it now, Indian Muslims, quick march.

re:#182 by arjun_m
Kasuri is not just deluded but outrightly stupid. In that interview with Wolf Blitzer in CNN, this guy Kasuri was desperately trying to malign India and ended up sounding like a jerk. When asked about killing of christians and Daniel Pearl in his country, this guy tried to shift focus to India and talked about Gujarat carnage and muslim bashing by BJP. Really pathetic.
Sridhar

#142 by AmericanExpress on January 23, 2003 10:04pm PT

Perhaps when they see their mothers and sisters they are not reminded that they clothe themselves because of the influence of Islam.

Just a starters on how 1300 years have been a waste..


Just feeling in a monday mood taking cheap potshots...

#134 by stuka on January 23, 2003 12:13pm PT
#140 by pmishra2 on January 23, 2003 7:28pm PT
#138 by Ralph on January 23, 2003 1:02pm PT


Your demographic weightage means breaking up muslim majority MLA and MP constituiencies and lumping them with hindu majority areas so that muslims cant get elected.

I have a friend who was elected as a Congress candidate as Muncipal counciller last elections by a small margin despite lots of rigging by rival BJP canditate.

JD filed for reelection and then all the parties including his own joined together to defeat him because he was muslim. Now this is not imagination this was told to us by the Hindu friends in JD as well as Congress.(Not all are communal minded but majority are in varying degrees)

Most so called secular Hindus simply dont dwell on this bias in elections and also call this as persecution complex if pointed out. Any person from Hyderabad or Bangalore can point out crazy mapping of constiuiecies just because some one doesnot want to accept Muslims getting elected from mulsim majority areas.

Theory is fine. Reality is different..

Or like it is told by many of my hindu people I interact with when the facts cant be challenged.. the comment comes `` why should mulsims expect their candidates elected? if they can come with the suppourt of all people then they should come to legistative bodies.`` In all this they forget that most hindus would not vote for a Mulsim candidate no matter how good he is.

so how do mulsim get to represent their issues? answer comes `` We should not have religous issues come in national life`` My answer goes if every aspect of distinction among people comes up as pressure group which requires representation why not religon? Answer comes that ``religion divides``. So you could have Caste, Language, geographic location(Hill people with their hill councils) nature of living(ie tribal, agricultural) every aspect of soical diffrentiation is legitmate reason for representation but religion(If religon is a major cultural and social differentiator in india.) if it means giving muslims representation divides.

So muslims should get the approval of mainly hostile Hindu electroate in crazily contirvived electroal constituences loaded against them to get their issues represented or depend on (disintrested) Hindu representatives to put up their issues in governing bodies..

I think this is exactly what was forseen by people who went in for The Two nation theory..

Now dont get started on how bad pakistan or bangaladesh is doing... It sounds just too similar to what the British say about their colonies..

Just ponder on it.

#135 by stuka on January 23, 2003 12:13pm PT

You mean that you have forgotten the last 1000 years..

---

Just a cheap take in response to another cheap pot shot.


.....Just showing how the argument could go.

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

re: Is Pak`s future secure?
Just saw Kasuri`s (Pak`s foreign minister on a visit to US) interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN. Kasuri was very defensive. When asked if Pak will support US in case of a war with Iraq, Kasuri gave an evasive anwer. When asked if Pak had given nuclear technology to North Korea in the past (Blitzer pointed to Hersh`s article in NY Times), Kasuri denied flatly that any such things had ever happened. Not very convincing, considering the fact that a North Korean scientist, who defected to Japan, had been singing like a bird.
(also, read Seymour Hersh`s report implicating Pak in nuclear tech transfer to North Korea: http://www.satribune.com/archives/jan27_feb02_03/newyorkerreport.htm).

Kasuri then brought India into the picture and asked why US was not asking India how it got the nuclear technology. I thought this was the stupidest answer anyone can give. Blitzer turned the screws on further by asking about Daniel Pearl`s murder and killings of christians in Pak.
Things seem to be changing for Pak. Media in US is slowly turning the screws on. The signs are unmistakable.
I also recently read article by Shaheen Sehbai in SATribune : http://www.satribune.com/archives/jan27_feb02_03/P1_policychange.htm
None other than Mansoor Ijaz with James Wooley (former CIA chief?) had written an artilce on Jan 12, 2003 (now archived) in LA times directly implicating Pak in transfer of technology to North Korea. The proof is unmistakable and substantial. One wonders where Pak`s diplomats get their training. This guy Kasuri is lying when he says Pak is not involved.
Pakistan will be the focus after Iraq business is wrapped up. I suggest to Pakistanis in this chowk worry about that rather than what will happen to Iraq.
Sridhar

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

Re: Shankar

Agreed!

The Americans, I knew, even in politics, had a limited knowledge of the world. The majority of the Americans were eager to learn and did make the effort to learn, but only if the issue was of a topical interest. They made the effort, because it was a ``popular issue`` and not to increase their own knowledge. You would be a better person to comment on the average American`s attention span? Need I say more? LOL

Shankar, let me share a learning experience with you. When I moved to the United States, from Ottawa, Canada, for college, I was shocked by the total ignorance of the Americans. My dorm assistance asked me where I was from and being told, asked if ``Canada had in-door plumbing?`` She also asked if the Canadians lived in igloos!!! She was a junior, majoring in anthropology!

Re: nasah

I am not underestimating the power of dissent. I am questioning if any one is actually listening to that dissent! United States is an image society and even if there is dissent, protests and peace marches, and those events are not covered by the media - then they did not happen! That was my concern. Has the media woken up and realized that while it was waving the flag and parroting the offical wisdom, representative democracy in the United States had been replaced by an imperial oligarchy?

Re: stuka

The similarity between Vietnam and Iraq is about the politics of the American presidents and their policies of leveraging their domestic problems with foreign policy successes.

Weapons of mass destruction does not make for a valid argument. If such is the case, then why are such weapons tolerated in states likes India, Pakistan, France, China, Britain, Russia? Every nation in the world, including the United States, has chemical and biological weapons or atleast the capability to make them.

Are those not weapons of mass destruction? What about the factories in the third world nations polluting posion in the air as a by-product of their corporate greed? Are they not weapons of mass destuction? When the Union Carbide disaster happened in Bhopal and thousands of Indians died, could that act not be considered as an act of mass destruction killing innocents? Can businesses and corporations be considered as weapons of mass destuction, when they flout the environmental laws and pollute the evironment and kill thousands?

What about the use of depleted uranium ammunitions by the Americans and the British in the last Gulf War? Was the Gulf War Syndrome not a result of using weapons of mass destruction?

Stuka, the issue here is not the weapons of mass destruction. The real issue is hypocricy! The United States has no right to preach to others, what it foresakes for its own self! Japan preaching against the weapons of mass destruction will have a more powerful argument than the United States, given the historic experience of the weapons of mass destruction and their use. If there is a law against the weapons of mass destruction, and I support such a law, it should be for all laws nations without exceptions. The hypocricy is that the United States wants the world to obey, what it does not want to be applicable to itself. That my friend is wrong and cannot be justified!

Coming to Vietnam and Iraq, the critical similarity is that the United States sought to use its military in Vietnam to settle a political problem just like in Iraq it wants to use force to effect a regime change. What does regime change have to do with weapons of mass destruction? Will removing Saddam from power make such weapons any less potent? If the issue is really of getting rid of Iraq`s weapons of mass destruction, is a regime change really necessary? Did effecting a regime change in Afghanistan really make a difference? Did getting rid of the Taliban bring any improvement in the lives of the Afghan people? Is Afghanistan any better off without the Taliban?

Stuka, the most unnerving similarity between Vietnam and Iraq is that United States entered Vietnam, and seems to be entering Iraq, with an ill informed public opinion, under wrong political assumptions and after completely misreading the situation. Was the Gulf of Tonkin a caus belli or an excuse for war? One more similarity - both Lyndon B. Johnson and Bush are, and were, determined to fight a war.

Ciao

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