Feeling Good

tahmed,

I gave a point by point rebuttal and showed how you were lying.
You are following al-takiyah again.

You can tell me anything - politely, rudely or whatever.
If I notice you bullshitting, I will keep exposing your intellectual dishonesty.

khudahafiz

harish hyd #75 ``Certainly doesn`t change what I said. Pakistan stood exposed after the explosions and the world knew for sure what it had always suspected. ``

I am afraid you are wrong. Your choice of words (``exposed``) indicates that Pakistan was guilty of doing something illegal or immoral, and that one ``exposed`` by your BJP geniuses, it suffered some consequences.

However, as I pointed out the only consequences Pakistan suffered was the lifting of a series of sanctions that had been placed on it over the past decade as part of the efforts to stop further progress in making the bomb. Furthermore, there was nothing illegal in what Pakistan was doing - as a soveriegn nation and a non-signatory to the test ban treaty, Pakistan was fully within its legal rights to conduct the 1998 tests. And if it was immoral for Pakistan to conduct nuclear tests, it was no less immoral than for India to conduct the tests.

you write ``not after the explosions that India and Pakistan started talking peace. The explosions took place in 1998, and the peace talks started sometime in 2002``

Wrong again, my friend. Within MONTHS after the nuclear explosions, Vajpayee visited lahore (in February 1999, not 2002) and stood at the Pakistan monument to declare Pakistan a reality or something (not that anyone other than the BJP extremists needed to understand that). Kargill and the second round of peace talks came AFTER that.

I agree with you that the policy of proxy war in Kashmir by our generals was morally wrong. I hope you will one day be able to apply the same moral standards to the actions of the Indian military in Kashmir that are documented by international agencies. In any case, this question of morality you raise does not change the point of fact I was making - i.e. that the May 1998 bombs had the net result of making BJP switch from a policy of confrontation with Pakistan to a policy of peace. As I said, with enemies like Advani and the rest of the BJP extremists, who needs friends. :-)

Finally, I really think you need to look at reality squarely in the eye - not just pick and choose things you like: As I said, I applaud ABV`s prompt conceding of defeat, and you point to this. However, you stop here, while I pointed to things that have happened since that, far from calling for applause, show the moral bankruptcy of BJP and its hindutva policy: the BJP president and senior party members displayed a contempt for the will of the Indian people, a contempt for the Indian constitution through which that will was expressed, and a blatantly racist mindset. It gives me no pleasure to say this, because I love India no less than I love Pakistan and wish nothing more than to see the long-suffering poor people in both countries improve their standards of living and for the already educated in both countries to push them towards modernization. But I dont let my wishes blind me to reality, as I think you are doing.

omar_r_quraishi #76
``i am saying this is going nowhere but i am not telling you what you should or should not read``

You seem to be suffering from a (temporary I am sure) lack of reading comprehension- I did not say you did. Not reading certain writers is MY solution to this issue of whether readers can disagree with said writers or not. `What do you say` was just a rhetorical question for which I do not expect an answer.

satyamvada #73 I had told you politely that I did not wish to engage in discussion with you. When you shamelessly came back with another long post, I obliged you with a response anyway because I thought at least you had focussed on the points I raised and didnt just blow hot air like you usually do.

In that response I pointed out that in challenging my first point (i.e. that the May 1998 explosions by BJP, and the response by Pakistan, resulted in a lifting by the US economic sanctions), you revealed your ignorance of recent events. I had gone at some length to educate you on that. My second point you had simply ignored. These were both points of fact, not opinion. You clearly dont permit facts to come in the way of your opinions.

I told you politely first that I did not wish to waste time with you. I will tell you politely again to please not waste my time and yours.

actually your profession is relevant to the debate because when you comment on what journalists should or should not do, well i am one and hence what i do, indirectly, comes under scrutiny -- in case you didnt notice i didnt write this piece so then why are you interacting with me or do you expect me to speak on beena`s behalf as a fellow journalist? i dont come on chowk to explain what i do or dont do in my professional life, as i have explained quite a few times before, and your comments on journalism expect me to explain as a journalist what we as a community should or should not do -- i am not making dissent into a personal matter sadna, i dont know where you get that from -- if you want to comment on a profession, and by the way given that i did not write this piece you specifically asked me questions concerning how journalists should carry themselves and deal with dissent or difference of opinion i think i have the right to ask you the same questions -- im sorry you see that as a sign of intolerance or not being able to deal with dissent, or making dissent a personal issue -- anyway, as i thought, you werent going to disclose what you do professionally, after that i dont think i have to explain myself to you on this board, esp. since the article isnt mine and esp. since your questions were not directed vis-a-vis its content or any remarks i might have made regarding its content -- and by the sadna, newspapers are institutions or information providers as you said of sorts, this website is different by the way -- and if at work we spend half the time explaining what we do, we will never be able to take out a 30-page newspaper every day -- as for disagreeing with me or beena, sadna, i wasnt even sure who you were disagreeing with till i read your most recent post -- well if you were disagreeing with her plz wait for her responses, and if you are disagreeing with me on something then try and leave my profession out of it, or stop making judgements of my professional competence, or lack thereof, based on my posts --

your remark: ``When called upon to explain one`s POV, one can not start ripping into the other person, his antecedents, lineage and purported ingratitude. One would be thrown out of the job if one defended a POV so poorly, if one ever managed to get hired ie.`` -- i am not sure what you`re getting into -- ripping apart into one`s lineage or antecedents is perhaps something that some interactors do on this website sadna, but im pretty sure im not one of them -- i am amazed by how you draw your conclusions about something i have never said --

you write: ``This is going nowhere as you say. What do you say, perhaps it is best for me to avoid reading a particular writer altogether if I can not disagree with what he/she writes. That way the writer gets his/her select readership and it is a win-win situation all around.`` -- no sadna i am saying no such thing, plz dont put words into my mouth -- i am saying this is going nowhere but i am not telling you what you should or should not read -- after all i do have a right to exercise my option to not respond to an interactor`s remarks on this site, just as you do, or don`t I?

#56 by tahmed32 on May 19, 2004 6:55am PT


[Prior to the nuclear explosions, Pakistan was in the economic doghouse living under all sorts of sanctions. In the weeks and months following the explosions, the sanctions were steadily lifted. Thanks to BJP, Pakistan came in from out of the cold.]

Certainly doesn`t change what I said. Pakistan stood exposed after the explosions and the world knew for sure what it had always suspected.


[Throughout the 1990`s, prior to the nuclear explosions, BJP had followed an aggressive policy of confrontation with Pakistan. After the explosions: BJP suddenly discovered the virtues of peace with Pakistan.]

Exactly the policy that even Pakistan is guilty of. Why did it go from denying that there were terrorist camps in “Azad” Kashmir throughout the 90s, to quoting the Indian Army Chief’s observation that infiltration had come down?

And note that it was not after the explosions that India and Pakistan started talking peace. The explosions took place in 1998, and the peace talks started sometime in 2002. In the interim, there were the Kargil war and the troop build-up, not something you can associate with peace. And note that the peace talks began only after the troop build up, not exactly an achievement for the brave Pakistan Army to crow about.


[Further to this, I recall that Indian leaders publicly called for Pakistan to be declared a pariah state along with countries like N. Korea and Iran throughout the 1990`s (the US not to listen to BJP`s please, but that doesnt change the fact that Indian leaders tried). This anti-Pakistan rhetoric peaked of course in 1998 in the form of Advani`s direct threats. After Pakistan responded in kind and demonstrated it was not cowed by BJP bullying, and indeed now had the power to knock Advani`s socks off, things changed. And then BJP discovered the peace process.]

The US not declaring Pakistan a pariah doesn’t change the well-documented fact that Pakistan fathered the Taliban, which in turn gave sanctuary to the Al Qaeda, the most-dreaded terrorist organization today. Thus, Pakistan IS indirectly responsible for the WTC tragedy. It also doesn’t change the fact that Pakistan trained and armed terrorists that have wreaked havoc in Kashmir. If supporting terrorists and acquiring/developing WMDs is the yardstick for being declared a terrorist state, Pakistan eminently qualifies for this label, way ahead of Iraq, Libya, or North Korea. And if it weren’t for the fact that the US had other interests in Pakistan (getting hold of Pakistan’s nukes) than merely the war on terror, Pakistan would have found itself overrun exactly the way Iraq was.


[Far from Pakistan coming under the ``US scanner`` as you think, the fact is that the US and the rest of the world now has a direct stake in stability in Pakistan.]

Doesn`t speak too highly of Pakistan, does it? If you have access to what some of the think-tanks in the US feel, you will know that some of them have even advocated taking out Pakistan`s nukes by force. And it is these think tanks that shape US foreign policy. Such is the distrust the Americans have in Pakistan`s ability to keep its nukes safe.


[I dont know which nuclear scientists you have in mind, but Qadeer Khan was questioned and publicly pardoned by Musharaff.]

Here`s what I found when I googled the Internet. Pretty simple, if you ask me.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,72-137738,00.html


[So, dont give BJP credit for what it does not deserve. India and Pakistan had started moving towards peace under Gujral - NOT under BJP. Gujral and Sharif had in fact developed good personal rapport, and conversed in Panjabi like old chums. BJP had in fact set the clock back with its anti-Pakistan rhetoric.]

But it was Vajpayee who actually moved it forward. And whatever progress has been made in Indo-Pakistan relations has been solely under his leadership. And if his party hadn`t approved of the peace process, he could have done squat.


[On your second issue, it is not a question of legalities. It is a question of leadership and support to the democratic process. In both areas BJP has miserably failed (ABVs quick acceptance of election results was the only right thing BJP did, but then ABV is I think one man and the next in line BJP leaders are blinded by their hatefilled BJP ideology).]

Vajpayee`s graceful exit is in itself proof of the BJP`s support to the democratic process. And the fact that everyone in the party, even Pakistan`s favorite whipping boy Advani has accepted him as the leader reflects the BJP`s commitment to democracy.

tahmed,

Dude,
Look at this site http://www.clw.org/atop/restrictions_timeline.html.
You are just a big time bullshitter.
Until 1990 - Pakistan was a freeloader, getting all kinds of goodies from the US
for being a frontline state. In 1995, the Brown amendment helps bypass the the
minimal useless sanctions.
It is only after the nuke explosions - big time financial sanctions from the WB and IMF
are imposed which brought the already tottering Paki economy to its knees.

You behave in typically the same manner as Musharraf - all self righteous talk
even as you support and cover up bigoted activity.

omar_r_quraishi #72
``what you do for a living and how you deal with dissent in your workplace -- i think its only fair for me to discuss further issues related to journalism provided we can talk about how such issues are dealt in your profession -- i look forward to your answer on this -- ``

You are again making dissent into a personal matter. As just another interactor like all other interactors, what does what I do for a living have to do with it?

A newspaper or other media source is a public institution of sorts. It sells news and opinion to the public as its business enterprise. So aren`t journalists in position of service providers in whatever degree, to customers, aka the reading public, irrespective of what profession the readers follow?

I do not have to tell you what I do for a living for us to discuss issues which journalists write about, nor about how journalists handle disagreement with their readers. Here Ms Sarwar is talking about India. Must I tell you my profession before I can disagree with her or with you?

And btw, there are professions(mine too) where thinking for oneself is an absolute requirement and dissent is an absolute given. When called upon to explain one`s POV, one can not start ripping into the other person, his antecedents, lineage and purported ingratitude. One would be thrown out of the job if one defended a POV so poorly, if one ever managed to get hired ie.

This is going nowhere as you say. What do you say, perhaps it is best for me to avoid reading a particular writer altogether if I can not disagree with what he/she writes. That way the writer gets his/her select readership and it is a win-win situation all around.

sadna, this is going to go nowhere

---

i think people have the right to express their own opinions and i would assume that is some sign of an inquiring mind -- actually what i find hard to stomach is people on this board telling others how they should be thinking -- they cant seem to resist that it seems -- as for valid disagreement being called personal attacks, i said the opposite -- valid disagreement is not valid when its a thinly veiled personal attack -- if you think that i meant it the other way round, well that`s your interpretation of it and you are free to have it -- of course people can learn from others, doesnt matter whether you`re a journalist or in any other profession -- so, who is disagreeing with that -- thanks for telling me about the ulti ganga thing -- i have learnt something new today -- after reading your post, sadna, it seems as if you never read my earlier posts -- no one is saying that dissent should be criminalized -- rather that it if it takes on slanderous and personal attacks then it loses it validity or relevance -- as for ignoring the slanderous or personal attacks, well why should anyone do that -- the onus should be on the one making such remarks to act in a responsible manner -- sadna have you ever worked in a newspaper or media organization yourself -- there are established channels of dealing with dissent , after all what is the letters to the editors page, if not a platform to air their views and grievance -- tell me what you do for a living and how you deal with dissent in your workplace -- i think its only fair for me to discuss further issues related to journalism provided we can talk about how such issues are dealt in your profession -- i look forward to your answer on this --

stayamvada #67

On my point 1. i.e. you write ``The sanctions were lifted only after 9/11``. You are wrong and are obviously not aware of what happened after the nuclear explosions of May 1998. In October 1998, the Brownback I law was signed by Congress that effectively lifted the various sanctions Pakistan had been put under over the past decade (Glenn, Symington, Pressler) in an unsuccessful effort by the US to stop its nuclearization program. While technically, at least one of these sanctions (Glenn) also impacted India, as a practical matter the impact of all of these was on Pakistan. (Brownback II was passed by Congress the following year making this lifting of sanctions permanent).

On point 2, you ignore the simple point I made (i.e. that peace moves had started under INC under Gujral, and BJP ended those and instead chose to try and bully Pakistan and to have it declared a pariah state - both unsuccessfully). Instead you go on to provide explanations on why India had a right to do this (including Kargil? do you know what you are talking about - that was way after that period).


The rest of your post is that usual rubbish like calling Pakistan Pakiland and parroting your BJP-taught mantra of Pakistanis getting madrassah education. From your ignorance of simple facts of recent history (as I pointed out on point above) it is clear that you are hardly in a position to pontificate on madrassah education.

mohar: I dont hate BJP. If they ever did anything right, I would applaud it (as in fact I did when ABV showed respect for the constitutional process and promptly accepted defeat in elections). But look at the shameless and racist manner in which the BJP politicians then chose to reject the will of the Indian people as expressed through the Indian constitution. If this doesnt bother you or other Indians, that is too bad.

Mullah Urstruly....

First learn about economics.

In the Indian economy, agriculture forms only a small part of it.
For the Indian GDP - Agriculture contributes only about 25% (approx) wheras
services is around 50% and manufacturing about 25%. (these are all approximations)

But, 70% of the Indian population is dependent on agriculture, which contributes
to only 25% of the total economy.

So, a growth rate of 8.4% does not affect the rural voter as much. The mistake of
the BJP was in not having proper alliances in TN, Assam and Karnataka. In UP, also
they could have tied up with Mayawati ( but that would have forced a tieup between
Mulayam and Cong - which is not in BJP interest)

The Indian policy structure is strong enough and same economic policies will continue.
Now even Mulayam will be under pressure to perform. The political fights will
continue and grow shriller - that is good for the Indian people.

... This is the strength of Indian democracy.

Correction #66
`ulti Ganga behna`

urstruly

i agree that muslims in india are likely to be in danger (as before). some triggers could be
1. modi gets a criminal trial
2. shivsena senses political expediency towards upcoming maharashtra assembly elections
3. temple campaign picks-up again

my personal feeling is that these are unlikely as politically speaking these issues are like an old chewing gum. economics will dominate much larger. i dont think bjp or anyone else is assiging lack of muslim vote as a blame for their loss. as you know well, banyas are very calculating.

so, what is the lashkar plan of action to help your ummah? whining on the chowk?

also, is it a bania or banya? what is the apropriate spelling? you must forgive my ignorance since this word is not used in india.

omar_r_quraishi #50
My questions were not sarcastic.

``as far as cases where facts are considered, what i find here is that some people, even when the facts are presented to them, insist on their version.``

It is perfectly natural that people have different perspectives. Anyone, particularly a journalist, should normally find it worth his/her while to investigate further what lies behind people`s belief in their own version, he/she is sure to learn something.

Unless of course a journalist wants to impose his/her version of the truth on everyone. This situation can be described as `ulti-Ganga` or the Ganges flowing upstream.

``if feedback is personal then more often than not the columnist or editor is quite entitled to either not respond to it or respond to it tersely``

If you had read carefully, I was not talking of personal attacks. You repeatedly cast valid disagreement as a personal attack, is there some good reason for this? This is also sometimes seen in replies to reader by columnists which are published in the letters section.

Does it not increase credibility to answer a valid point with an objective answer rather than a whiny `the world is out to get me` reply?


``im afraid, sadna, you totally overlook the fact that a lot of the responses by readers are themselves personal, insulting and slanderous -- but i suppose that reflects on those who come and interact on chowk ``

You are always free to overlook the personal insulting and slanderous responses. However terming valid disagreement as slander works only when you are in a select gathering of sympathetic friends who can eject anyone who does not back down. Or you can also try to criminalise dissent or call it immoral or call it hatemongering, you will not be the first to take this easy route. You can avoid all that by keeping an open enquiring mind- apparently that is the hardest option.

tahmed...
It would have been better for yourself, if you learn to keep quiet. You would not
make such gaffes.

Tahmed wrote:
1. Prior to the nuclear explosions, Pakistan was in the economic doghouse living under all sorts of sanctions. In the weeks and months following the explosions, the sanctions were steadily lifted. Thanks to BJP, Pakistan came in from out of the cold.

Answer:
Boss....Pakiland was in economic difficulties - but it was under no economic sanctions.
AFAIK, only the Pressler amendment was in effect - which was because the US Prez
could not confirm that Pakiland was not developing nukes.
You must be smoking or still have not woken up from your madrassa stupor if you
claim that sanctions were lifted after the nuke explosions !! ...

The financial sanctions (from IMF,WB) were imposed after the nuke explosions and
crippled Pakistan economically
The sanctions were lifted only after 9/11

---

tahmed wrote:
2. Throughout the 1990`s, prior to the nuclear explosions, BJP had followed an aggressive policy of confrontation with Pakistan. After the explosions: BJP suddenly discovered the virtues of peace with Pakistan.
Answer:
huh ? BJP was in the opposition for most of the 90`s.
From your statements, you seem to imply that it was BJP or India who did not
want peace with the pure Pakiland.
Have you forgotten Kargil, infitration of jihadis etc ?
The madrasa education comes through..even when you pretend to be sophisticated.

---

tahmed wrote:
Further to this, I recall that Indian leaders publicly called for Pakistan to be declared a pariah state along with countries like N. Korea and Iran throughout the 1990`s (the US not to listen to BJP`s please, but that doesnt change the fact that Indian leaders tried). This anti-Pakistan rhetoric peaked of course in 1998 in the form of Advani`s direct threats. After Pakistan responded in kind and demonstrated it was not cowed by BJP bullying, and indeed now had the power to knock Advani`s socks off, things changed. And then BJP discovered the peace process.

Answer:
Of course, even now India would prefer Pakiland to be labelled a terrorist state - that
is because you guys are still pushing in jihadis into India.
Advani`s (and George Fernandes`s rhetoric) were fantastic. When Advani threatened
an active policy of pursuing the jihadis into Pakiland - the Paki leadership was forced
to come out and explode the nukes. The Indian Govt succeeded in blowing the Paki
covert development.

---

tahmed wrote:
3. Far from Pakistan coming under the ``US scanner`` as you think, the fact is that the US and the rest of the world now has a direct stake in stability in Pakistan.

Answer
Indeed. The wholed world has an interest in stability (defining stability of course varies)
in P*kiland. Even India wants enough stability in Pakiland, by which
India hopes that the P*kis get enough brains to know what is good for themselves
instead of mindless attacks against the kafirs and making P*kiland purer and purer.

Finally - Realize that all education in P*kiland is madrassa education. People like
you just got to learn English and some more technical skills. Other than that, your
thinking capability is no different from that of villager who goes to
mullah school in the NWFP.