Parents and the Pill

The comments r more interestin in most of the cases instead of the article.

Ms. Rizvi,

What a poignant and delightful read :). Had I known such gems were being produced on Chowk I would frequent it more often instead of once every eon or so.

The relating of your interaction with your Abbu is entirely precious (and comical). My dad (whom I adore) would count himself as among the most liberated of desi parents but I can’t imagine approaching him about topics such as this.

I would venture a guess that most desi young men and women feel that way. So, your point about there being a “no-talk zone” on anything and everything related to sex definitely reverberates.

Re:rsridhar#520

Ba$tard ugly madraasi....sala noodle-dicked impotent dravidian a$$hole. Tu apne wife ko satisfy nahin kar sakta.... sala kala-kaloota bhangi, chamaar....go to hell!!

re:#519 by amit

``No wonder even your wife dumped your madraasi a$$.``
Actually, she caught me in the act with your wife.
How about that, you north indian mofucker?
Sridhar
P.S: Itna kaafi hai ki aur theree gaand maroon?

Re:rsridhar #515

Just shut up and get lost, you patronizing scumbag. Who cares about you either? No wonder even your wife dumped your madraasi a$$.

Re: 513 by amit

[I believe that Indo-Pak relations are evolving as we speak. If India is smart and puts its emotions aside, it can capitalize on the current thaw in relations to clean up a major irritant in its backyard, that hinders us from reaching our true potential as a nation. In 5 years, the contours of Indo-Pak relations will be totally different from what it is today. If we remain hawkishly attached to the past, the status quo will continue which is not in our best long-term interest. While it is true that we are outpacing Pakistan in everything, still it is a nuisance to have a hostile neighboring country.

I guess, at the end of the day, all I am saying is that the battle is over. We have pretty much won the fight for dominating the subcontinent. The other side is now trying to work out a face saving truce. Why should we continue fighting anymore?]

I forgot to mention the most important thing of all.

WHY SHOULD WE MAKE OVERTURES TO PAKISTAN NOW?


Now that India is succeeding, in spite of Pakistan’s best efforts to bloody our nose, to begin to succeed in the world, why should we?


Let them carry on ANY WAY THEY WANT.

THERE WILL BE NO COMPROMISE. ON KASHMIR, OR ANYTHING ELSE.

LET THE TYPES LIKE ALI_1 AND ECHOBOOM KEEP WAGING JIHAD.

LET’S SEE WHO WINS IN THE END.

WE ARE WINNING NOW. AND WILL CONTINUE TO WIN.

THERE WILL BE NO COMPROMISE UNTIL THE OTHER SIDE SURRENDERS.

AS SIMPLE AS THAT.

LEFTY BA$TARTDS CAN GO TO HELL.

re: Are Hindus and Pakistanis related by blood
I asked a question some posts ago: How many Pakistanis think they are converts from Hindus and have hindu blood flowing in their veins? Nobody, not even Amit`s best friend on Chowk Tahmed, has answered my query.
Should i just presume they are just embarassed? ashamed? don`t care?
Whatever the reason, this should be an eyeopener for Amit.
Sridhar

re: Is Pak`s Mushy a changed man?
Arun Shourie has some pearls for mentally challenged people like Amit.
Pak has not changed. Mushy was forced to change his stance towards India due to change in ground realities.
http://www.sulekha.com/news/nhc.aspx?cid=423737
(Has Musharraf’s heart changed? And why?
While US is looking at India to counter the growing power of China, Beijing is making overtures to ensure that New Delhi is not available to Washington as an instrument to ‘contain’ it. The result is the Musharraf of the changed heart.
The collapse of the Soviet Union threw our foreign and defence policies into a spin. With great, and invisible, skill Narasimha Rao landed these on their feet. He initiated the first steps for India to ‘‘look East’’. He strengthened relations with Iran. He opened a line to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan...

But as a sort of iron-ball tied to the legs, Pakistan continued to hold both our foreign and defence policies down. Not just that: even as it continued to send terrorists to kill and maim in India, it continued to be propped by its patrons — the US, China, Saudi Arabia. This immobility is what confronted Atal Behari Vajpayee and his senior colleagues as they took office. They saw that as long as India remained tied down to Pakistan it would not be able to play any significant role in world affairs — that whatever it said even on Pakistan, for instance about cross-border terrorism, was liable to be discounted — ‘‘Oh, that is the usual stuff — just India and Pakistan making allegations against each other.’’

They decided on a many-pronged response:

• Accelerate growth, in spite of what Pakistan is doing — apart from other things, this will in the end register with the people of Pakistan.

• Strengthen relations with a number of other countries and regions — Central Asian Republics, ASEAN, others.

• Ensure continued military superiority so that, should Pakistan lunge at India, it can be roundly defeated.

But the backing that Pakistan received from the US and China remained — of course, it also got much succor and morale boosting from countries in the Middle East: but these would in the end be influenced by what the US did. It was, therefore, necessary not just to outgrow and out-gun Pakistan, India had to outflank it. Three judgements, and a set of fortuitous events set the course.

The first point was evident: Pakistan is a dependent State. It cannot function without the help of the US, China, etc. The second insight seemed more of a conjecture at the time: while the US today remains transfixed by China, the reasoning went, sooner or later it will begin to see that the main threat to it 15-20 years hence will come from China — it will, therefore, look for possible counters to the growing power of that country. The third point concerned China itself: ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, its apprehensions have centered around the US — it has long been convinced that the US is out to ‘‘contain’’ it, and that countries like India are the ones the US will yoke as instruments for this purpose.

Hence, the reasoning went,

• Engage the US.

• That will get China to re-examine its stance towards South Asia.

• These tectonic shifts will narrow Pakistan’s options.

The fortuitous events that helped were 9/11, and the continuing attacks by Pakistani terrorists in India. The US experienced first hand what India had been saying for so long — that Pakistan had become the University of Terrorism, that Taliban and terrorists of other hues were not the cause of what was happening; they were the result of the progressive Talibanisation of Pakistan’s State and society over 50 years. We had been repeating all this for years. To little avail. Secure in distant lands, American policy-makers couldn’t care two hoots. I well remember, and the day is not that long ago, when visiting diplomats and security and intelligence personnel from the USA, told about the way Pakistan was arming, training, financing, giving sanctuary to terrorists to kill and maim in India, would ask, ‘‘But where is the proof?’’

I would sigh with the poet,

Ai baad-e-balaa unko bhi zaraa, do chaar thapede halke se

Jo log abhi tak saahil se toofan kaa nazaaraa karte hain...

(Oh, strong and contrary wind, a blow or two, gently, to them too, Who from the comfort of the shore survey the storm...)

9/11 changed the standards of proof that were necessary!

As a result, events have taken the course that was envisaged by Vajpayee and his core team. Over the last five years, important segmets of the US policy establishment have begun to voice the apprehension that 15-20 years from now China will indeed be a potential threat to US interests, and that a country like India is among the few that can be a counter-weight in this region to an ever-stronger China — Mapping the Global Future put out by the National Intelligence Council1 is representative of such assessments.

On the other side, the steps that the US and India took towards dialogue and cooperation indeed registered in Beijing. It has in turn made a few overtures to ensure that India does not make itself available to the US as an instrument in the way that, in China’s assessment, it had made itself available to the USSR.

The result is the Musharraf of the changed heart. ‘‘Phir wohi dil nahin laya hoon,’’ he said during his visit to Delhi in April 2005. ‘‘Main naya dil laya hoon.’’

Our press was, as usual, swept off its feet: ‘‘Man of the match: Musharraf’’; ‘‘Laid bare: Perrez’s ‘new heart’’’; ‘‘Sunday win for both, one-day win Pak bonus’’; ‘‘General peaces it together’’; ‘‘Musharraf hits it out of Kotla.’’

This was customary hyperbole. But there was some incidental confirmation — from the ideologues of jihad in Pakistan, even from some of the mainline commentators.

Musharraf ‘‘has crossed all limits in appeasing India’’, Professor Hafiz Saeed, the founder of the Lashkar-o-Toiba told Nawaiwaqt and the staff of his own Jama’at ud-Dawa. The so-called confidence building measures that Musharraf is taking depart from the ‘‘principled position’’ that Pakistan has maintained on the Kashmir issue all through, he charged. The statement that Musharraf has agreed to disregard the UN Resolutions which have been the very foundation of Pakistan’s stand on Kashmir. Apart from everything else, the steps to build confidence and the statement foment distrust between the Kashmiri and Pakistani people, Saeed maintained. Building confidence with India while fomenting distrust with our own people is not wisdom, he said.

Four militant groups declared in a statement that Musharraf has ‘‘sold out Kashmir for trade and tourism’’. ‘‘This is the first time in Pakistan’s history that a Head of State has given in to India,’’ they declared. ‘‘We will not give up jihad till Kashmir becomes free.’’

General Hamid Gul was as upset. He declared: ‘‘The Indo-Pak joint statement indicates that our Government has lost its destination and position on the Kashmir issue. The text of the statement says that we are ready to hand over even Azad Kashmir to India instead of acquiring Kashmir. It seems that Azad Kashmir will be destroyed... We have deviated from our position. It will yield a dangerous result...

‘‘It is very sad for us that this decision has been taken by a ruler who is an Army man. This is the Army which has kept the Kashmir issue alive to achieve self-determination. But by ignoring the sacrifices of the Pakistani Army and the Kashmiri people, pro-Indian decisions are being accepted now. This declaration neither represents the aspirations of the Kashmiri people nor does it reflect the sentiments of the Pakistani people. It is nothing but a fraud.’’

Aijaz Afzal, the head of the Jama’at-e-Islami in POK was no less minatory. He said that ‘‘Musharraf plans to finish the National Kashmir Policy... One man is handing Kashmir to India without seeking confidence of Parliament.’’ Parliament’s Kashmir Committee should explain what Pakistan’s policy on Kashmir is, he demanded. The millat of Pakistan has had no role in the change of policy that Musharraf has engineered, he pointed out, and warned, ‘‘If political parties remain silent for sake of power, then accession of Kashmir to Pakistan will be very difficult.’’

Afzal maintained that ‘‘India has come to the negotiating table because of the sacrifices of and determination of the Kashmiri people. It is neither a miracle of Musharraf nor is it a diplomatic achievement.’’ ‘‘If we neglect the role of the mujahideen, past record shows that India will consider cunning and lie-telling as sacred deeds,’’ he declared. Options such as joint control and division of Kashmir are products of Musharraf’s imagination. They are impractical as well as dangerous...

The Jasrat, affiliated to the Jama’at-e-Islami, gave ‘‘credit’’ to ‘‘India’s successful policy and defence of its stance so much so that, without displaying the slightest flexibility, India has managed to push Pakistan away from its principled stand on Kashmir.’’

The Nawaiwaqt complained, ‘‘Pakistan is willing to accept any and every step that is in India’s interest, every step which will push Kashmir into the background, and transform the ‘‘core’’issue into the ‘‘korrh’’ (leprosy stricken) issue...’’

Even some mainstream commentators were furious. Much to the surprise of readers in India, Ayaz Amir lamented in Dawn, ‘‘Going to war over Kashmir? Of course not. Folly in the past, it is not even an option now. But saying farewell to Kashmir like this, and dancing to India’s tune in the process, abandoning the Kashmiris to their fate, and getting nothing in return — not even an undertaking to settle Siachen or solve the dispute over the Baglihar Dam, this surely is a novel way of waging peace.

‘‘We may have beaten India in cricket but the self-inflicted thrashing Pakistan is receiving in the diplomatic field is a higher plane of endeavour altogether. Musharraf needn’t have gone all the way to Delhi to be told there could be no ‘‘re-drawing of borders in Kashmir’’. That’s the Indian line, always has been, much before Manmohan Singh’s baptism as Prime Minister.

‘‘While India is entitled to take what position it likes, there should have been no compulsion for a Pakistani leader to go along without even a whimper about the UN resolutions calling for a plebiscite in Kashmir, the basis, after all, of our Kashmir policy. Drive a stake through the plebiscite/ self-determination principle and Pakistan is left with no leg to stand on as far as the Kashmir dispute is concerned.

‘‘But time to ‘think outside the box’, Pakistan’s soldier-President advises. Excellent if this was a two-way process, if not only Pakistan but India too was ready for the same walk. What do we see instead? Pakistan under military guidance doing all the visionary thing by itself: not only thinking outside the box but frantically jumping out of it, consigning the carcass of its Kashmir policy to the waters of the Arabian Sea, even as India sticks resolutely to its own box, not prepared to give so much as a centimetre either way.

‘‘Why did Musharraf invite himself to Delhi? What gates of Somnath was he hoping to bring back? What he has achieved is a lesson in Indian diplomacy: Manmohan Singh mincing no words in restating the Indian position that Kashmir geography was set in stone and that the utmost to be hoped for lay in the new mantra of ‘porous borders’.’’

From our point of view, these are high testimonials. So, has Musharraf’s heart changed? Is it prudent to rely on a change of heart in one man?)
End of article.
Look to the continuation of this article by Arun Shourie.
If there are those there who think Pak has suddenly changed because some angel whispered into Mushy`s ears or its Awaam suddenly found the Indoos not Kaafir enough, they are mistaken.
It is just realpolitik guys.
Pak has lost the jehad. It is losing out on Kashmir. Mushy is making the best of a bad situation. That`s all.
Sridhar

re:#511 by amit
Oh, really.
So, u had some Tam Brahm friends and u know everything about them.
Well, i am one Tam Brahm and i am telling u:
You are full of Bull!
Get that!
I thought i will be nice to u. YOu are not just full of Bull, you are a fukcing racist.
Now go back to your Paki A$$-licking, which is the only thing u are good at.
Sridhar
P.S: Who the fukc wants to have a dialogue with a moron like u?

Re: #513 by amit

I will illustrate once again here how everything you say is such utter nonsense:

[Re:Ajeya 512

The point of having an argument or a discussion is that while we have our own views, we are also willing to listen to the other side and analyze what the other side is saying.]

“willing to listen”

Not only did I listen, I did one better. I took each and every line you wrote, every time, and showed why each of those lines were wrong.

Every time, on all threads, at the end, you had NOTHING to refute my agrgument.

[You have already made up your mind and are unwilling to listen to any other opinion. ]

ONCE AGAIN. This is an ad-hominem attack. And of course, untrue.

[You believe that Pakistan is our eternal enemy and that is that. Anyone against that belief is against India etc.]

AGAIN MORE RUBBISH.

I NEVER SAID THAT YOU ARE AGAINST INDIA.

[It is kind of surprising to me that someone with such strong views against Pakistan is such a keen visitor to chowk, but that is something I notice among all the hardliners. ]

WATCH ME REFUTE THIS ONE.

As I have mentioned before, on another post on Chowk, THE ONLY REASON I VISIT THIS SITE AND TRY TO REFUTE YOUR PATHETIC ARGUMENTS IS BECAUSE THERE IS AN INTERNATIONAL AUDIENCE TO ALL THIS, AND THIS AUDIENCE NEEDS TO KNOW THE TRUTH.

INTERNATIONAL OPINION ABOUT INDIA IS EXTREMELY CRUCIAL TO INDIA’S WELL-BEING.


[I believe that Indo-Pak relations are evolving as we speak. If India is smart and puts its emotions aside, it can capitalize on the current thaw in relations to clean up a major irritant in its backyard, that hinders us from reaching our true potential as a nation. In 5 years, the contours of Indo-Pak relations will be totally different from what it is today. If we remain hawkishly attached to the past, the status quo will continue which is not in our best long-term interest. While it is true that we are outpacing Pakistan in everything, still it is a nuisance to have a hostile neighboring country. ]

NOPE! WRONG AGAIN.

AMERICA DEVELOPED JUST FINE WITH THE USSR AS ITS ARCH ENEMY, A MAJOR IRRITANT. AND CUBA ON ITS DOORSTEP.

[I guess, at the end of the day, all I am saying is that the battle is over. We have pretty much won the fight for dominating the subcontinent. The other side is now trying to work out a face saving truce. Why should we continue fighting anymore?]

WHO’S FIGHTING? EXCEPT THE JEHADIS? AND THEIR SUPPORTERS?
I AGREE WITH YOU. THE BATTLE IS OVER.
BUT I DISAGREE ABOUT ONE THING. THE ONLY PEOPLE LEFT WHO NEED TO CHANGE THEIR PERSPECTIVES ARE THE JEHADIS AND THEIR SUPPORTERS. NOT US.

Re:Ajeya 512

The point of having an argument or a discussion is that while we have our own views, we are also willing to listen to the other side and analyze what the other side is saying. You have already made up your mind and are unwilling to listen to any other opinion. You believe that Pakistan is our eternal enemy and that is that. Anyone against that belief is against India etc. It is kind of surprising to me that someone with such strong views against Pakistan is such a keen visitor to chowk, but that is something I notice among all the hardliners.

I believe that Indo-Pak relations are evolving as we speak. If India is smart and puts its emotions aside, it can capitalize on the current thaw in relations to clean up a major irritant in its backyard, that hinders us from reaching our true potential as a nation. In 5 years, the contours of Indo-Pak relations will be totally different from what it is today. If we remain hawkishly attached to the past, the status quo will continue which is not in our best long-term interest. While it is true that we are outpacing Pakistan in everything, still it is a nuisance to have a hostile neighboring country.

I guess, at the end of the day, all I am saying is that the battle is over. We have pretty much won the fight for dominating the subcontinent. The other side is now trying to work out a face saving truce. Why should we continue fighting anymore?

Re: #511 by amit

The worst thing about people like yourself is that you do not have the integrity to admit it when you are wrong. When you have reached the end of the line in your arguments. On all the threads of arguments, you had nothing to refute what I said. But you just shut up and continue in the same vein with avenger, sridhar, mahesh etc.

Selective amnesia.

Kind of like the Pakistanis on this board. When they have nothing more they can say, they just start talking to someone else, along exactly the same lines as I was arguing with them which they were unable to defend. As if they had never talked about those topics with me before.

This is another thing that makes me wonder if you really don’t have any Pakistani affiliations. (I do believe, of course, that you don’t. But it’s just a strange coincidence).


Anyways. Have fun. Carry on. And just restate the same things over and over again.

Re:rsridhar#510

If you want to have a dialogue with me, get rid of your condescending, patronizing attitude. If I express an opinion, I am pontificating, while you can expound on every topic under the sun be it Indo-Pak relations, music or what not?

I have lived in India for most of my formative years and next door to Tam Brahms. Also I have friends from IIT Delhi who are Tam Brahms. So I know a lot more than you think.

re:#502 by amit
You are stepping on unchartered territorry here. My advice is that u should read up a little on the Tam Brahms before u start to pontificate.
``It is their casteist attitudes in the past, that resulted in the fierce backlash from the DMK, so much so that Brahmins cannot get admission or jobs in Tamil Nadu.``
The backlash has to do with total dominance in all spheres by brahmins in T.N until the 50sand a political party promising the voters (nonbrahmin) that it would create a level playing field. After DMK came to power, it put into effect the most stringent affirmative action seen anywhere in the world.
It is not as if brahmins can`t get into a govt job but it is much harder. When i went for my postgraduate course in Madras (through an All India merit based quota) many years ago, some local candidates were brahmins but they said it was much harder. The brightest of the lot were also from this category (you got to be good to get selected with so much pitted agains u, right?).
This has resulted in many brahmins moving away from the state, many branching into other areas. My own uncles are into business and are doing very well in Pondicherry. In other words, a salutatory effect was less dependence on govt jobs. I do not think brahmins have suffered in the end. The level of competence in areas of higher learning (without a merit based selection) in T.N is just abysmal.
AS far as looks dept is concerned, i do not think u can generalize.
Sridhar

Avenger,

You are just showing your low class upbringing. I feel sorry for your parents. I have enough respect for women not to curse your family members.

Amit....continuing on the matter of your great expertise - comparisons between Pakis , north Indians , south Indian brahmins and rest of south Indians , could you please consult your no doubt experienced Mrs. and enlighten us as to the relative lund size of each group ?

(Although it must be said that Mrs.Amit is no match for her husband as far as knowledge of paki lunds are concerned , despite her best efforts. Amit way ahead of the game there...)

re:#501 by amit
You, like many good hearted mens, are hoping for the best. I wish u luck. I hope what u are saying (Pak`s ideology crumbling in front of your eyes) comes to pass. I doubt it will ever happen until the demon of Pak Army is defeated and Army put back into the barracks. Pak Awaam has to do it. Nobody else can. But why would they? They derive their pride from the Army. Why would they do anthing to humiliate their own Army?
Read the following article to know how deep Pak Army`s involvement in civilian affairs is:
http://www.sulekha.com/news/nhc.aspx?cid=423559
Sridhar

Re: #501 by amit

[The fact is that we have love-hate relationship with the Pakistanis.]

Speak for yourself.

You know, you may not believe it, but I am an Indian as well, and probably older than you, and have probably known more Indians over the years than you.

I think that other than the few people who used to have their homeland in Pakistan, most Indians would rather not even think about Pakistan.

Pakistan is like a recurrent bad dream to us. At every level, they have done the most they can to damage India and India’s image to the rest of the world. Stunting our growth in the process (Please don’t start with “Oh, they have been affected too” kind of stuff. Because it’s their own doing.).

Love them all you want. Or love them and hate them. But keep it to yourself.

For most of us Indians, we would like to see Pakistan drift away on a tectonic place to somewhere far, actually to somewhere right next to the USA if there is any justice in the world.

Re: amit

I thought so.

Looks are a subjective issue. My views are based on my own observations.

People getting killed by Jehadis is definitely not a subjective issue. Get that into your head.

Don`t make your observations sound like absolute truth here when you make claims like north Indians are better looking than south Indians.

You are stereotyping most Pakistanis as bloodthirsty jehadis and you are calling me a racist? That is totally laughable.

I have credible opinion polls behind me. I have credible evidence that Pakistan is sponsoring Jehad in India and most of the Pakistanis support that. Not some personal experience that you are pushing around here.

Mahesh,

You are stereotyping most Pakistanis as bloodthirsty jehadis and you are calling me a racist? That is totally laughable.

Looks are a subjective issue. My views are based on my own observations. Also most of my South Indian friends admit this in private. In fact, South Indian brahmins, particularly Tamil Brahmins are extremely stringent about inter-caste mariage. It is their casteist attitudes in the past, that resulted in the fierce backlash from the DMK, so much so that Brahmins cannot get admission or jobs in Tamil Nadu. By the way, I never said anything about intelligence. Please dont put words in my mouth.

Re:rsridhar

I also love Sa Re Ga Ma on Zee TV. In fact, they call it Sa Re Ga Ma Pa, these days. Not only Ghulam Ali, but other musicians from Pakistan have judged that show many times. And, yes, they are treated with tremendous respect. In fact, almost any Pakistani visiting India is treated like royalty. The reverse is also true when Indians visit Pakistan. So if Pakistanis hate all hindus and want to kill us, why do they treat Indians like royalty? Also if my views are so ignorant and blissful, how come other Indians are extending the royal treatment to Pakistanis?

The fact is that we have love-hate relationship with the Pakistanis. I agree that Pakistan is an ideological state that has tried to build its identity as being anti-India. However, that effort has largely failed. For all its attempt to erect barriers and carry out jihad, the people have never forgotten their connections based on ethnic/cultural/language similarities. Today the ideologic state is crumbling in front of our eyes. That does not mean that we will physical ly unite because both countries have diverged from each other. It just means that Pakistan is rediscovering its identity as something else besides being anti-India. Their establishment has tried to resist this process but has succumbed after getting sandwiched between two forces - bottom up pressure from ordinary people, top down pressure from US combined with poor economic conditions.

Re: #490 by amit

[Ajeya,

Since you are so curious about my background, here it is - I am a North Indian brahmin. I attended IIT Delhi and did my Ph.D. in the US and am settled on the east coast. I have no personal relations with Pakistanis or muslims, except that I have close friends from grad school and at work. ]

Thanks. I was just curious. The bell curve is true then. It indeed takes all types to make up this world.


[In life nothing is black and white. I hope you can understand that. Ever since I had close Pakistani friends, I have been very curious to learn about Pakistan, beyond what is taught in the history books.]

Me too. And I have known MANY Pakistanis and had MANY Pakistani friends.
When it comes right down to it, they are ALL for Kashmir either going to Pakistan, or becoming independent. You ask them, why do you want it to be independent if you don’t want it? Guess what – they cannot stand to see their Muslim brothers oppressed by the horrible Hindus (but Pandits being made refugees in their homeland – A-OK). Then you tell them – Kashmiris are more autonomous than any other state, and the military thing started AFTER the Jehadis started killing. They always change the subject.

About the “black and white” stuff. Some serial killer used that line on the jury. The jury still gave him a life sentence.

[How can I have such great personal relations with people who are supposed to be my enemies?]

I’m not sure what you are asking here. Could you rephrase your question?

[When you dig into the history and social structure of Pakistan, you get a very interesting picture. You see a people whose mindset have many layers. The external layer is the Islamic layer, which in some cases is manifested by the typical jingoistic stuff against hindus. Scratch the surface a little bit, and you see a very different people who are still deeply wedded to their pre-Islamic customs and habits. Their schizophrenic attitude of love and hate towards India and everything Indian is evidence of this internal conflict. ]

Schizophrenia is a mental disease. Many schizophrenics are so dangerous that they are kept locked up in mental asylums.

Yes, Pakistanis can be, and often are, dangerous to Indians.

[I suggest you read some Pakistani authors like Ayesha Jalal. Please read about the Unionist Party leaders like Sikandar Hayat Khan (the chief minister of pre-partition Punjab) who vehemently opposed partition. Or read about Badshah Khan from NWFP, the frontier Gandhi. Did you know that till 1946, most people in Punjab and Sindh were against partition? Did you know that the Muslim League won the NWFP plebiscite in 1946 by a whisker?]

Did you know that they WON the plebiscite? You usually win by majority.

And the situation is MUCH different now. Did you read about the study I mentioned?

Regarding Jehad, I will believe it when Pakistanis actually disown it. Not because it is just a matter of convenience at the moment.

What makes you think the Pakistani population, majority of which considers India to be an enemy will have a sudden change of heart and consider it their friend?

And I can`t believe you are still sticking with Brahmins are better looking than non-brahmins. You are one heck of a racist!!! Do you also believe Brahmins are more intelligent than non-brahmins?

re: Amit`s post
``Ever since I had close Pakistani friends, I have been very curious to learn about Pakistan, beyond what is taught in the history books.``
One of the programs on Indian channel i like watching on Dishnet (otherwise i hardly ever watch any Indian programs) is a musical program called Sa re ga ma. It used to be conducted by Sonu Nigam. Now, another singer by name Shaan conducts it.
This time around, Ghulam Ali was the chief guest. A very noble soul with total dedication to music. That he is also a Pakistani is immaterial. Indians gave him a standing ovation. Every participant including Shaan touched his feet to get his blessings.
One need to recognise the fact that there are plenty of individual Pakistanis who are good peopple and have nothing to do with the wrong ideology that i have been talking about. But, these people are in a minority and they do not get to decide on politics and how to run the country. That dept belongs to the Army.
I attended another local Indian function (the first such in many years). One program included a tribute to Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan. Who can argue about his talent and greatness?
So, like Mahesh said: u need to differentiate between individuals and the society. When the whole of Pak society starts to reflect the individual aspirations of its people (and this can happen only in a true democracy), then Pak would be at peace with India and there would be no reason for any enmity.
Sridhar

re: common ancestory of Indians and Pakistanis
Amit says that Pakistanis are all hindu converts and that they have hindu blood running in them. That this should be the basis of good friendship!
Even if i grant him that argument, how many Pakistanis in Chowk believe this to be true. Let us first start with Tahmed. Do u sir, believe that:
1. All Pakistanis were once hindus
2. That all Pakistanis have hindu blood flowing in their veins?
Let us see how many answer in the affirmative. My bet is most Pakis will remain silent on the matter as it is terribly embarassing for them. Some, like Ali, have in the past said that they have Turkish blood and have nothing to do with the hindus.
Sridhar

re:#488 by amit
Sometimes ignorance is bliss. This guy Amit lives in such a bliss.
There is nothing wrong in hoping for a better future and friendly relations. But one must not live in ignorance.
Paki society has done ethnic cleansing plus conversion of hindus to the extent that they are barely 2-3% of population today.
One can go to the following link on a very detailed analysis of how all this happened:
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE6-2/sridhar.html
Pakistan has done immense harm to India in the last 50 years. Only a fool like Amit will say that this is not true. Regardless of what Paki origin is (Rajputs or Jats, who cares), the fact remains that it is an ideological state. That is how it was conceived. The ideology that Pak has espoused has been in direct conflict with India.
I am posting a link to an ariticle that was published in a Paki newspaper. The article was written by one belonging to the ruling elite (viz the Army):
http://www.pakobserver.net/200505/06/Articles02.asp
Excerpts:
Talking of the Kashmir problem, this benighted soul (who goes by the name of Lt Col (R) M Zaman Malik) says:
(The matter rests with UN and Pakistan does not swear to adhere with its verdict with bad intentions. We stick to what we promise. In that case India should rather be ruled by Muslims who have been ruling it since 712 AD. And the J&K Muslims will rule India as their forefathers have been ruling them. So, this is what India can get from the Muslims of J&K, if it takes a U-turn from pledge acceptance of UN resolutions. Before British for a short while (they had to go back in any case) we were the rulers of India. We shall claim any part now under the occupation of India. India belongs to us. It is the Muslims who gave it the name of ‘Hindustan’. Prior to that it had no name. Every small state had its different name. There were Hindus however, in the Karnataka/Southern India. Tuzk-i-Babri though in Persian tells all about this and Emperor Jehangir had further elaborated upon what his father had said in his Tuzk-I-Jehangiri. In any case, Babar also came from the areas from where the Aryans had come many long centuries before he came.)
One look at the above para is good enough to convince anyone that ideology in Pak is well and thriving. Read carefully the above para. It is not only factually wrong but presupposes that muslims had always ruled hindus. The author (who is a classic eg of idiots ruling that country) thinks muslims have a right to rule India for various flimsy reasons, including that they gave it the name of ``hindustan``!
Sridhar

Mahesh,

You are the one living in the past. The jehad against India has gone down considerably if not stopped altogether. Now the only action is by die-hard militants who are acting on their own and refusing to give up. Once they get eliminated, it will be over.

Also what is so insane about stating the obvious regarding looks? All the South Indian hero/heroines in hindi movies are brahmins like Kamal Hasan, Sridevi, Hema Malini. I dont see any Karunanidhi types there.

Mahesh,

Read Ajeya`s post #472. Ajeya wrote,``This is a convenient cover to conceal the roots of the divide – the whole Hindu-Muslim issue. The legacy of suffering of Hindus in the hands of the Muslims. And the jihadis currently. And their sympathizers – which is the majority of pakistanis today.``

My post was addressed to him since he specifically reduced it to a hindu-muslim issue. If you are above it and treat it as Indo-Pak issue, good for you. Understand?

I suggest you read some Pakistani authors like Ayesha Jalal. Please read about the Unionist Party leaders like Sikandar Hayat Khan (the chief minister of pre-partition Punjab) who vehemently opposed partition. Or read about Badshah Khan from NWFP, the frontier Gandhi. Did you know that till 1946, most people in Punjab and Sindh were against partition? Did you know that the Muslim League won the NWFP plebiscite in 1946 by a whisker?

So what??!!!! You are the one with your head stuck in the past. Talk about the present. Pakistan is waging jehad against India now. Reasonable people make decisions based on current realities.

Anyway, I am done arguing with you. Anybody who entertains hare-brained ideas like north Indians are better looking than south Indians and Brahmins are better looking than non-brahmins can not be sane in any sense of the word.

How can I have such great personal relations with people who are supposed to be my enemies?

A sane person will learn to differentiate between individual Pakistanis and the Pakistani state.

You have preconceived notions of why Indians hate Pakistanis. I think you hated Pakistanis for whatever reasons you listed in that long post of yours which are flimsy. Indians are not idiots. Indians have moved well beyond Ghori and Ghaznavi and are willing to embrace Pakistanis if only Pakistan stops sponsoring jehad.

Indians will make friends with any Pakistani who disowns jehad. As for the rest, Indians will not have anything to do with them.

We hindus tend to have this mindset that if someone leaves our fold, we cut them off forever and excommunicate them. That has certainly hurt us in the past. In the future, we should revisit that attitude.

Amit, will you stop parroting this as the reason for animosity between Indians and Pakistanis. DO NOT MAKE IT A HINDU MUSLIM PROBLEM.

IT IS NOT!!! It is a India-Pakistan problem.

Get that into your thick head.

Ajeya,

Since you are so curious about my background, here it is - I am a North Indian brahmin. I attended IIT Delhi and did my Ph.D. in the US and am settled on the east coast. I have no personal relations with Pakistanis or muslims, except that I have close friends from grad school and at work.

In life nothing is black and white. I hope you can understand that. Ever since I had close Pakistani friends, I have been very curious to learn about Pakistan, beyond what is taught in the history books. How can I have such great personal relations with people who are supposed to be my enemies? When you dig into the history and social structure of Pakistan, you get a very interesting picture. You see a people whose mindset have many layers. The external layer is the Islamic layer, which in some cases is manifested by the typical jingoistic stuff against hindus. Scratch the surface a little bit, and you see a very different people who are still deeply wedded to their pre-Islamic customs and habits. Their schizophrenic attitude of love and hate towards India and everything Indian is evidence of this internal conflict.

I suggest you read some Pakistani authors like Ayesha Jalal. Please read about the Unionist Party leaders like Sikandar Hayat Khan (the chief minister of pre-partition Punjab) who vehemently opposed partition. Or read about Badshah Khan from NWFP, the frontier Gandhi. Did you know that till 1946, most people in Punjab and Sindh were against partition? Did you know that the Muslim League won the NWFP plebiscite in 1946 by a whisker?

Re: #488 by amit

[Ajeya,

You wrote,``On the contrary, newly converted muslims become much more virulent. In fact there is even a saying in my language to that effect – that new converts are the worst`` ]

[Once again you are being swept away by mythis. ]

By the way, THAT is an ad hominem.

[The passion of a new convert depends on the way he or she is converted. If the conversion is voluntary such as being influenced by a sufi, you are right. ]

Did you know that ANY AND ALL philosophical content in sufism is derived from hinduism? A lot of Hindus, after being FORCIBLY converted to Islam, still couldn’t let go of their Hindu spiritual moorings. THAT is how Sufism was born.

Nothing voluntary there.

[If the conversion is by force or in the hope of economic benefits, the passion is much lower. ]

Do you have any facts of figures to support this, or is it another theory that you developed?

[We do not hear of Punjabi or Sindhi muslims trying to forcibly impose Islam on neighboring provinces. In fact in Punjab, the population of muslim-non muslim was nearly 50-50, which is why the province got split in 1947.]

Did you read the posts on another board on Chowk recently (if you haven’t, I’ll find it for you) about how the Hindu population has dwindled in Pakistan AND Bangladesh since partition?

Any trends there? Or is it us Indians hallucinating here?


[Sindhis did not try to convert Rajashthan or Gujarat. If there was so much religious zeal as you think, you would see muslims from these areas spilling to the Indo-Gangetic valley trying to proselytize. Do you know of any such incident? Just because there are a few zealous converts does not mean, everyone is like that. ]

Yes, they did. Before, they had the support of the ruling classes. Now they don’t. But they do as much proselytizing as they can in the “Indo-Gangetic valley”.

[You wrote,``So what? They faced the brunt, got defeated, and then JOINED HANDS WITH THEIR ERSTWHILE OPPRESSORS``

This is blatantly untrue in Indo-Pak context. Show me where did Punjabi and Sindhi muslims join hands with their oppressors? Did Punjabi/Sindhi muslims participate in the Afghan rule? Did they participate during Mughal rule?]

Yes they did. Throughout Muslim rule in India. Everywhere, and in every province.

And they still are. Which is why Hindu population is dwinding in Muslim-dominated countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh and even in Kashmir.

Just ask the Pandits.



[On the other hand, our own Rajputs joined hands with the Mughals during Akbar`s rule. I challenge you to show me one incident during 800 years of muslim rule, where Punjabi and Sindhi muslims oppressed North Indian hindus or even hindus in their own province? Show me one incident where they destroyed temples or vandalized hindu property? ]

In fact, till the early 20th century, the Punjabi and Sindhi muslims were on good terms with non-muslims. It was the madness during 1947 that engulfed both sides.

You also wrote,``NO. THAT IS PRECISELY THE MINDSET OF THE MUSLIMS. ``

Have you heard the term ``mlechhas`` that was used to ostracize muslims? Also till very recently, hindus would not even sit at the same table and eat with muslims. We would not drink water from the same source. Things have changed in the past 10-20 years, but dont say that we are very broad minded. ]


Yes. That has to do with their eating beef. Which was a custom LONG BEFORE muslims appeared in India.

And as far as looking down on another religion is concerned, Hindus have always reacted very differently to Parsees (who got shelter in India when they fled Islamic persecution in Iran), Christians and Jews (who have been persecuted EVERYWHERE ELSE in the world), as compared to Muslims. Muslims made their reputation themselves.

All through the ages, Zoroastrians have BEEN MUCH BETTER TREATED IN INDIA than in their home country, Iran. Guess why.


[You said,``So how do we accept this? By giving away Kashmir?``

Who said anything about giving away Kashmir? Kashmir is just a symptom. The real malaise is our attitude against each other. Both sides need to address that if we want to have normal relations.]

Yes there are two sides to this. Just like there are two sides to a police and criminal relationship. We are and have been attacked. We are the defenders. THEY are the offenders. Only ONE side needs to change their jehadi mindset.

THAT WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM.


To summarize, I could give you a thousand instances of riots etc. where Hindus have been the victims at the hands of the muslims. But of course if I do that, you would insist that the blame is 50-50.

So instead, I can ask you to look at the big picture:

1) See how non-Muslims are treated in Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Bangladesh.

2) See how Muslims are treated in non-Muslim countries like India, USA, Europe etc.

3) In India, the Muslim population is increasing. In Pakistan and Bangladesh, the Hindu population is decreasing.

4) In India, the President is a Muslim. Do you think a Hindu would EVER be in a similar position in Pakistan?

5) Hindus are not hell-bent to convert non-Hindus and thus create heaven on earth. Muslims are.

6) Hindus have not been practicing and preaching Jihad. Muslims are.

7) Hindus have not gone into Muslim lands and killed and looted and converted. Muslims have done this to Hindus. For hundreds of years.


So, Once again, I repeat.

THIS IS NOT A 50-50 SITUATION.

SO STOP TRYING TO MAKE IT OUT TO BE ONE.



And another question. Just for my curiosity. Do you have any personal involvements with anybody Muslim? In any way? I’m just curious.

Ajeya,

You wrote,``On the contrary, newly converted muslims become much more virulent. In fact there is even a saying in my language to that effect – that new converts are the worst``

Once again you are being swept away by mythis. The passion of a new convert depends on the way he or she is converted. If the conversion is voluntary such as being influenced by a sufi, you are right. If the conversion is by force or in the hope of economic benefits, the passion is much lower. We do not hear of Punjabi or Sindhi muslims trying to forcibly impose Islam on neighboring provinces. In fact in Punjab, the population of muslim-non muslim was nearly 50-50, which is why the province got split in 1947. Sindhis did not try to convert Rajashthan or Gujarat. If there was so much religious zeal as you think, you would see muslims from these areas spilling to the Indo-Gangetic valley trying to proselytize. Do you know of any such incident? Just because there are a few zealous converts does not mean, everyone is like that.

You wrote,``So what? They faced the brunt, got defeated, and then JOINED HANDS WITH THEIR ERSTWHILE OPPRESSORS``

This is blatantly untrue in Indo-Pak context. Show me where did Punjabi and Sindhi muslims join hands with their oppressors? Did Punjabi/Sindhi muslims participate in the Afghan rule? Did they participate during Mughal rule? On the other hand, our own Rajputs joined hands with the Mughals during Akbar`s rule. I challenge you to show me one incident during 800 years of muslim rule, where Punjabi and Sindhi muslims oppressed North Indian hindus or even hindus in their own province? Show me one incident where they destroyed temples or vandalized hindu property?

In fact, till the early 20th century, the Punjabi and Sindhi muslims were on good terms with non-muslims. It was the madness during 1947 that engulfed both sides.

You also wrote,``NO. THAT IS PRECISELY THE MINDSET OF THE MUSLIMS. ``

Have you heard the term ``mlechhas`` that was used to ostracize muslims? Also till very recently, hindus would not even sit at the same table and eat with muslims. We would not drink water from the same source. Things have changed in the past 10-20 years, but dont say that we are very broad minded.

You said,``So how do we accept this? By giving away Kashmir?``

Who said anything about giving away Kashmir? Kashmir is just a symptom. The real malaise is our attitude against each other. Both sides need to address that if we want to have normal relations.

Re: #483 by amit

[Ajeya,

All I am saying is that Pakistanis are basically our own people who faced the burnt of muslim invasions. They valiantly defended the subcontinent for centuries and absorbed the intensity of these invasions. While they themselves converted, they managed to prevent a complete conversion of the subcontinent, unlike Iran or Afghanistan.]

This is complete falsification of facts. Let’s parse the sentences.

“While they themselves converted, they managed to prevent a complete conversion of the subcontinent, unlike Iran or Afghanistan.”

This sentence would indicate that the converted Muslims tried to prevent the remaining Hindus from getting converted.

THIS IS A BALD-FACED LIE.

On the contrary, newly converted muslims become much more virulent. In fact there is even a saying in my language to that effect – that new converts are the worst.

“All I am saying is that Pakistanis are basically our own people who faced the burnt of muslim invasions.”

So what? They faced the brunt, got defeated, and then JOINED HANDS WITH THEIR ERSTWHILE OPPRESSORS.

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT THIS?


“They valiantly defended the subcontinent for centuries and absorbed the intensity of these invasions.”

Yes, they did. WHEN THEY WERE HINDUS.



[The hostilities of the past 60 years should not take away from that. ]

From WHAT?


[Both hindus and muslims in the subcontinent are brainwashed for centuries against each other. Both sides need to undo this brainwashing in order to have normal relations.]

I beg to differ. We Hindus are NOT brainwashed. WE ARE NOT WAGING JIHAD.

THIS IS NOT A 50-50 situation.

Please get that into your head.

[We hindus tend to have this mindset that if someone leaves our fold, we cut them off forever and excommunicate them.]


NO. THAT IS PRECISELY THE MINDSET OF THE MUSLIMS.

DO YOU WANT SOME QUOTES FROM THE QUORAN REGARDING THIS?


[That has certainly hurt us in the past. In the future, we should revisit that attitude.]

So THAT is what has hurt us in the past.

Hmm…I see now.

Not the Muslim invaders that looted and murdered millions. Hmmm…

Thanks… I see now that we Hindus made a BIG mistake. If only we were more broad-minded, they would not have plundered and killed.

Umm… How about the Persians? Were they narrow-minded too?

I wonder…


[I am not talking about reconversion but acceptance of the other side as our own people.]

So how do we accept this? By giving away Kashmir?

What else can we do? Any suggestions? Maybe we should impose a tax on us Hindus (like Aurangzeb). To raise funds for Pakistan.

How about medical treatment for free? Oh! We do that already.

Okay… I’ll need some time to think on this.


[Similarly Pakistanis must change their attitude that they are somehow linked to muslim invaders besides just sharing the faith. ]

So you DO agree that that is their attitude. Okay. We are making progress here.


[If we can overcome this cumulative brainwashing, the subcontinent can be united again at a cultural and economic level like the European Union and reach its full potential in the world. ]


WE ARE NOT BRAINWASHED. YOU MIGHT BE, BUT WE HINDUS ARE NOT.

THESE ARE CALLED AD-HOMINEMS. Give proof before you make an accusation.

[Anyway, what is your solution? We can certainly keep on fighting forever with proxy wars, terrorism, jihad, counter-terrorism etc. It does not matter that Ghaznavi, Ghauri and Abdali are long dead and we cannot even find a trace of their descendents today.]

HERE’S MY SOLUTION.

Maintain the status quo. They (Pakistanis) will lose out in the race inevitably. And hopefully this will force them to change their attitude. If they do, they will reap economic rewards. If they don’t, they’ll suffer economically.

That’s all.

As far as India is concerned, they will cease to be even marginally significant very soon.



I hope in your next post you go over some new ground instead of making these same statements that prove the opposite of what you are trying to say.

re:avenger

Shut up ba$stard. Go suck a madraasi dick.

re : amit.

whatever c*nt. Go suck some puki dick.

Re:avenger

Just shut up, you ba$tard. If you dont have the manners to speak properly, keep your trap shut.

Ajeya,

All I am saying is that Pakistanis are basically our own people who faced the burnt of muslim invasions. They valiantly defended the subcontinent for centuries and absorbed the intensity of these invasions. While they themselves converted, they managed to prevent a complete conversion of the subcontinent, unlike Iran or Afghanistan. The hostilities of the past 60 years should not take away from that.

Both hindus and muslims in the subcontinent are brainwashed for centuries against each other. Both sides need to undo this brainwashing in order to have normal relations. We hindus tend to have this mindset that if someone leaves our fold, we cut them off forever and excommunicate them. That has certainly hurt us in the past. In the future, we should revisit that attitude. I am not talking about reconversion but acceptance of the other side as our own people. Similarly Pakistanis must change their attitude that they are somehow linked to muslim invaders besides just sharing the faith. If we can overcome this cumulative brainwashing, the subcontinent can be united again at a cultural and economic level like the European Union and reach its full potential in the world. Anyway, what is your solution? We can certainly keep on fighting forever with proxy wars, terrorism, jihad, counter-terrorism etc. It does not matter that Ghaznavi, Ghauri and Abdali are long dead and we cannot even find a trace of their descendents today.

Amit,

Please stop making ridiculous arguments.

1. Indians do not hate Pakistan because Pakistan consists of converted muslims. Indians hate Pakistan because most of the Pakistanis view India as the enemy and are busy waging Jehad against India.

2. You keep stating again and again how Pakistanis have a view of themselves that is separated from reality and that precisely is the reason why we should make friends with them. Does this even make sense?

3. You must have refused to believe Pakistanis are waging jehad against India in 2002 as well. After all, you have been friends with your Pakistani hunk much before then. Doesn`t that opinion poll negate what you personally feel?

4. Any reasonable person will not extrapolate from personal experience. Take the case of my American colleague who says that everytime he hears an Indian accent in the US he immediately thinks that person is very smart. Would he be right in extrapolating his US experience to all of India?

5. Whatever the reasons behind Pakistanis waging jehad against India don`t Indians have the right to protest against Jehad? Should Indians go and hug even jehadis just because we happened to have the same blood eons ago?

6. There are many Muslims in India. Please do not equate hatred for Jehadi Pakistanis to hatred for all Muslims. So, your sermonizing to Indians about not hating all Muslims is a waste of time simply because we don`t.

re: Amit`s post
``The real question is how do we move forward? Should we remain trapped in our historical mindsets?....``
Not at all. The 2 countries should definitely move forward and forge a friendly relationship shorn of any ideologies. Pak has to give up its ideology which created so much hatred in that country against hindus. We see it in books, in their movies, in their local vernacular news. Things are getting better but the indoctrination is deep and still continuing. Mushy has failed dismally in making the changes in Madrassas that he promised.
So, one has to wait and see if Pak has given up Jehad for good or if this is just a tactical retreat. After all, Mushy may be getting ready to fight another battle another day when things are better for Pak.
One good thing happening is more people to people contact but this is only tip of iceberg. Those jehadi minded people in Pak are never going to visit India (and by same token the RSS cadre and Shiv Sainiks do not care much about Pak). So, the ideologies that seperate th 2 countries are to be fought and conquered. This is going to take time. Meanwhile it is good to have trade, people to people contact. I read in news that Indian Newspaper barons want their papers published in Pak and have applied for permsision to Mushy. If granted, this would be a big step in brinigng the 2 countries together. Right now, Pakistani people just read a load of bull about India mostly from Urdu papers and have no real knowledge of India (except for movies).
Sridhar

re:#477 by amit
``However, if you do any research, you will realize that Pakistanis are not the descendents of those invaders. The vast majority (> 99%) are of rajput, jat origin - Punjabis, Sindhis, Mohajirs etc.``
Pakistan thinks it has inherited the muslim legacy in toto. So, all the muslim invaders Md bin Qasim onwards are its heroes. Paki missiles are all named as such. Bin Laden is a hero too in Pakistan.
So, the question is not what Paki muslims are but how they behave?
It is deeply ingrained in their brains that they have been rulers (despite the fact that the muslim rulers ruled both hindu and muslim subjects) of the subcontinent before British came. You can read about it every now and then in their own editorials. I will post more on this issue in my future posts.
It is clear that you are emotional on this issue and are not thinking logically.
Sridhar

Re:#477 by amit

Once in a blue moon you come across a piece of writing so riddled with fallacies and doublespeak that you don’t know where to begin.

But I’ll try.

By the way, before I start, I must admit that I have a strong suspicion that you might be Muslim (or maybe have a Muslim girlfriend or something).

Because the urge to rationalize at any cost is too strong in you. There is something wrong with the picture.

[Re:Ajeya

You wrote, “This is a convenient cover to conceal the roots of the divide – the whole Hindu-Muslim issue. The legacy of suffering of Hindus in the hands of the Muslims. And the jihadis currently. And their sympathizers – which is the majority of Pakistanis today.``

I am well aware that historically Hindus suffered at the hands of Muslim invaders. However, if you do any research, you will realize that Pakistanis are not the descendents of those invaders. ]

NOBODY CLAIMED THEY WERE. NOT US INDIANS ANYWAY.

The only people that claim that descendency are the Muslims themselves.

As I have said innumerable times, most of them were Hindus, FORCED TO CONVERT. (This is of course part of the Muslim oppression. And once converted, they become the worst fanatics themselves).



[The vast majority (> 99%) are of rajput, jat origin - Punjabis, Sindhis, Mohajirs etc.]

Exactly. So? Once they were forced to convert, they became worse than their erstwhile masters. This only proves my point.


[There is no historical record of people of Pakistan areas attacking anyone in rest of India.]

Take this statement for example. What a fallacious statement!

Pre-Partition: There was NO India and Pakistan. So the sentence is IRRELEVANT.

Post-Partition: Other than them sending hordes of terrorists to India – Kashmir, the attack on Parliament, a million other examples etc, how about Kargil? Eh?

Are you crazy or something?


[In fact, the were the first line of defense against external aggression. For example, the Hindushahi kings (who were Hindu) in Kabul and Peshawar fought valiantly for years to protect India`s northwest frontier before succumbing. Today the descendents of the Hindushahis are the Janjuas, who are blue blooded Punjabi elite in Pakistan.]

ONE example of doublespeak.

He says, “They (meaning Muslims) were the first line of defense against external aggression”.

Then he says, “For example, the Hindushahi kings (who were Hindu) in Kabul and Peshawar fought valiantly for years to protect India`s northwest frontier before succumbing.”

Oh I see. So they were the first line of defense when they were Hindus?

So how does it make your point that Muslims helped Hindus? You are just making the point that Hindus fought against the Muslim invaders, got defeated, and then were forced to convert – all part of the oppression.

SO WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

[It is our collective mistake that we blame Pakistanis for historical hindu-muslim conflicts. The Pakistanis display the same mistake as well on the reverse side (reinforcing my view that we are the same people) as they name their missiles Ghauri and Abdali, when those people had nothing to do with Pakistan.]

SECOND example of doublespeak.

If Pakistanis are such nice people, WHY do they name their missiles Ghauri and Abdali?
Huh? What is that trying to say?

[The entire jihadi fever in Pakistan came from an inflated absurd view of themselves as religious warriors. ]

THIRD example of doublespeak.

So you admit, that THAT IS HOW THEY VIEW THEMSELVES? Doesn’t this refute the point you are trying to make?

[Why do both sides have such myths and hang on to them?]

What “myths” are we Indians hanging on to? You STILL haven’t explained that one.


[As muslim invaders conquered and ruled the subcontinet, they wanted to create a loyal class of natives who would support them in their alien surroundings. This is similar to Macaulay`s attempt to create a loyal anglophile population with western education. Therefore, muslim rulers and the muslim clergy have deliberately blurred the lines between conquering muslims and the muslims who are local converts, as far as myths and mindsets are concerned.]

So?

[Of course in actual power and privileges, the muslim invaders including the Mughals always gave higher priority to external muslims from Central Asia, rather than the local converts. We never see any Punjabi or Sindhi muslim holding any position of power in Mughal times and pretty much having the same status as hindus (in fact, hindus actually fared better due to the hindu Rajput alliance with Mughals). ]

WHO CARES that the new converts were treated as lesser beings under the Mughals?

That’s how new converts are treated. So what? What does that prove?

The relevant point is, when these new converts became old converts, they took on the mantle of their masters, and oppressed the Hindus.


[The real question is how do we move forward? Should we remain trapped in our historical mindsets? We seemed to have made peace with the Islamic world, given that we have great relations with all countries in the Middle-east and Central Asia. It is time for us to analyze and update our mindset towards converted Muslims.]

Would it be okay with you if we kept the update on hold UNTIL they stop trying to get Kashmir by hook or by crook?


[They are basically our people with the same blood who have become estranged when they switched religions.]

They never “switched” religions. They were “forced to switch” religions.


[Since jihad has basically been crushed and economically we have taken off, we should try to undo the last vestiges of Islamic invasions that have still kept us disunited in the subcontinent, so that we can recover our lost glory.]

So to recover our lost glory we need to unite with Pakistan. You, my friend, have your head in the sand. With every passing day, Pakistan will become less and less relevant to India, and will cease to be even a minor irritant. India’s IT revenues are set to surpass the entire GDP of Pakistan by about 2015 (I think, or thereabouts).


[That does not mean negating their religion, rather it is to create a paradigm shift in mindsets where we see each other as desis following different religions - nothing more, nothing less.]

What do you mean by negating their religion?

Could you be little bit more clear on this?

I’m not sure I am following you on this one.

Amit :``reinforcing my view that we are the same people``

It is also your view that as far as looks and ability to woo women are concerned , Pakistanis > North Indians > South Indian Brahmins (since according to you they are north Indians who migrated to South) > South Indians.

As I said , you are just a stupid middle aged c*nt.

Re:Ajeya

You wrote,``This is a convenient cover to conceal the roots of the divide – the whole Hindu-Muslim issue. The legacy of suffering of Hindus in the hands of the Muslims. And the jihadis currently. And their sympathizers – which is the majority of pakistanis today.``

I am well aware that historically hindus suffered at the hands of muslim invaders. However, if you do any research, you will realize that Pakistanis are not the descendents of those invaders. The vast majority (> 99%) are of rajput, jat origin - Punjabis, Sindhis, Mohajirs etc. There is no historical record of people of Pakistan areas attacking anyone in rest of India. In fact, the were the first line of defence against external aggression. For example, the Hindushahi kings (who were hindu) in Kabul and Peshawar fought valiantly for years to protect India`s northwest frontier before succumbing. Today the descendents of the Hindushahis are the Janjuas, who are blue blooded Punjabi elite in Pakistan.

It is our collective mistake that we blame Pakistanis for historical hindu-muslim conflicts. The Pakistanis display the same mistake as well on the reverse side (reinforcing my view that we are the same people) as they name their missiles Ghauri and Abdali, when those people had nothing to do with Pakistan. The entire jihadi fever in Pakistan came from an inflated absurd view of themselves as religious warriors.

Why do both sides have such myths and hang on to them? As muslim invaders conquered and ruled the subcontinet, they wanted to create a loyal class of natives who would support them in their alien surroundings. This is similar to Macaulay`s attempt to create a loyal anglophile population with western education. Therefore, muslim rulers and the muslim clergy have deliberately blurred the lines between conquering muslims and the muslims who are local converts, as far as myths and mindsets are concerned. Of course in actual power and privileges, the muslim invaders including the Mughals always gave higher priority to external muslims from Central Asia, rather than the local converts. We never see any Punjabi or Sindhi muslim holding any position of power in Mughal times and pretty much having the same status as hindus (in fact, hindus actually fared better due to the hindu Rajput alliance with Mughals).

The real question is how do we move forward? Should we remain trapped in our historical mindsets? We seemed to have made peace with the Islamic world, given that we have great relations with all countries in the Middle-east and Central Asia. It is time for us to analyze and update our mindset towards converted muslims. They are basically our people with the same blood who have become estranged when they switched religions. Since jihad has basically been crushed and economically we have taken off, we should try to undo the last vestiges of Islamic invasions that have still kept us disunited in the subcontinent, so that we can recover our lost glory. That does not mean negating their religion, rather it is to create a paradigm shift in mindsets where we see each other as desis following different religions - nothing more, nothing less.

#471 by amit
You are the one to take a chilling pill and think logically.
What that opinion poll showed was that ideology is deeply ingrained in Paki culture and that no amount of people to people contact will dilute that ideology.
You need to think of Pak as the inflammed appendix that was surgically removed in 1947 before it got gangrenous and affected the whole body (of India).
That appendix is now getting gangrenous. Pak spread jehad worldwide and Mushy is now in the process of doing some firefighting. Has anything changed vis-a-vis India? I am not sure?
Sridhar

ntsyed : ``The hateful people here represent a noisy minority that has its equal counterpart in Pakistan.``

Look. Its may be self-serving and assuring for you to assume that the lone poster with an Indian sounding name who is lovey-dovey about Pakistan represents majority Indian thought , while the rest , who to you are hate spewing hindooo fanatics , only represent a noisy minority. But it certainly is not true. Go to any Indian dominated chat room or interactive website on the net , or engage in a conversation with Indians you meet about issues like Kashmir , Pakistan and so on. You will find over 90% of them to be a part of that `noisy minority`.

But what do you expect ? When you eye ouR land , our territory , when you sponsor terroRism in our country , you would be foolish to expect us to take it on the chin and smile at you.

Re: #471 by amit

Has it ever occurred to you that some of these other people on Chowk might have met Pakistanis like you, and they are all not necessarily completely blinded by their ignorance and hatred?

In the survey I quoted, 15% of Pakistanis saw India as a “Potential friend”. These are the same people who are highly educated compared to the rest of the population, and more westernized. Exactly the type you have been meeting here in the USA.

I know you’ll be citing Stuka’s travelogues into the heart of Pakistan to counter this, but find out why Indian store-owners in Pakistan are reluctant to put up Hindu-sounding names for their stores. Their sales would go down!

Just today an Indian Army Major died fighting Pakistani terrorists in Kashmir. And we are supposed to feel lovey-dovey about Pakistan because the idiot Amit found out to his surprise that the average Pakistani is just like the average Indian (2 hands , 2 legs , 2 eyes , 2 ears , single nose , et. etc. )....and if we do not agree with Amit , we get labelled as hate-mongering fundooos.

Re: #471 by amit


[Calm down!! ]

Okay…I’m gripping the sides of my chair now to steady myself…

…Ok…I’m alright now. Whew…… Thanks!


[The poll you are referring to was taken in 2003 when a year back in 2002 we were about to have a war. In the subcontinent, we are basically very emotional people and it drives us to take extreme positions - both in love and hate. It does not mean much.]

No doubt you are basing this argument on other polls taken when we were NOT about to have a war. Could you cite a few?


[The same Indians and Paksitanis who butchered each other in 1947, treat each other as royalty when they visit each other` country. In third countries, Indians and Pakistanis become close friends. My experience is not an exception. Almost everyone who has visitied the other side or met people from there in third countries, have a positive experience. If you do not believe me, I suggest you interact with some Pakistanis to find out for yourself. ]


I had a friend who told me how nice a few Pakistani friends he had were. “It’s as if they have no grudge against us!” he said.

He cooled down considerably after I reminded him that it is PAKISTAN that is sending the terrorists into India, NOT the other way around. So, rather that have a grudge, they should actually be apologetic. And it is WE that should be having a grudge.

It is not a 50-50 situation.


[It is an unfortunate legacy of the subcontinent that we have always had a culture of fratricide. Right from the time of Mahabharat, people with blood relations have formed opposing camps that are ``enemies`` of the other side. When the dust settles, people wonder what they were fighting about. The entire chronicle of Indian history is littered with neighboring kingdoms being bitter enemies, who invite a third party to show up and help them. Of course, the third party takes charge after eliminating both the feuding fools. Raja Porus and Raja Ambhi had a bitter rivalry, so that the latter aligned with Alexander. Prithviraj and Jaichand were such bitter rivals that the latter aligned with Ghori. Rana Sangha invited Babar to ``help`` him agaist Ibrahim Lodhi. Mir Jafar collaborated with the Brits to topple Siraj-ud-daula. It is a rich legacy that continues to this day.]

[Can you see the same pattern between India and Pakistan? The same level of state sponsored propaganda, hatred etc, Pakistan going to China for help, India going to the USSR. At the end of the day, we fools are doomed to repeat our own history.]


The pattern you see is universal. Like Taiwan going to USA for help. Cuba going to USSR for help. I could give you a million examples from all over the world. It’s called geo-politics. Nothing that is unique to our sub-continent.

This is a convenient cover to conceal the roots of the divide – the whole Hindu-Muslim issue. The legacy of suffering of Hindus in the hands of the Muslims. And the jihadis currently. And their sympathizers – which is the majority of pakistanis today.

Ajeya,

Calm down!! The poll you are referring to was taken in 2003 when a year back in 2002 we were about to have a war. In the subcontinent, we are basically very emotional people and it drives us to take extreme positions - both in love and hate. It does not mean much. The same Indians and Paksitanis who butchered each other in 1947, treat each other as royalty when they visit each other` country. In third countries, Indians and Pakistanis become close friends. My experience is not an exception. Almost everyone who has visitied the other side or met people from there in third countries, have a positive experience. If you do not believe me, I suggest you interact with some Pakistanis to find out for yourself.

It is an unfortunate legacy of the subcontinent that we have always had a culture of fratricide. Right from the time of Mahabharat, people with blood relations have formed opposing camps that are ``enemies`` of the other side. When the dust settles, people wonder what they were fighting about. The entire chronicle of Indian history is littered with neighboring kingdoms being bitter enemies, who invite a third party to show up and help them. Of course, the third party takes charge after eliminating both the feuding fools. Raja Porus and Raja Ambhi had a bitter rivalry, so that the latter aligned with Alexander. Prithviraj and Jaichand were such bitter rivals that the latter aligned with Ghori. Rana Sangha invited Babar to ``help`` him agaist Ibrahim Lodhi. Mir Jafar collaborated with the Brits to topple Siraj-ud-daula. It is a rich legacy that continues to this day. Can you see the same pattern between India and Pakistan? The same level of state sponsored propaganda, hatred etc, Pakistan going to China for help, India going to the USSR. At the end of the day, we fools are doomed to repeat our own history.

Re: “Almost Punjabi” Amit

I am eagerly awaiting your logical response to posts #468 and #469.

For a secular, “non-fundo” and unbiased intellectual like yourself, it should be quite easy to show everybody why you (and ntsyed) are right and this survey is completely wrong.

Go ahead, show everybody!

Or, has the cat got your tongue now?

I just wanted to highlight one line from the survey to contrast Amit’s assertions:

Here’s Amit the “non-fundo” intellectual:

[My personal experience with Pakistanis has been very positive. It is not just one or two people but virtually every Pakistani guy I ever met. So I find it hard to fill myself with venom against that country. It could very well be that the government there, which is unrepresentative, hates India, although now even that is changing. At the people level, there is no hatred. The fundo Indians on chowk have probably never met or interacted with any Pakistanis and have convinced themselves that the other side is evil. They are filled with hatred, which is a negative and corrosive force. I just feel pity for them.]


Here’s the real survey:

Also, 54 percent saw India as the “enemy”, while 31 percent viewed India as a “rival” and only 15 percent felt India was a “potential friend.”

Re: #467 by ntsyed

[Dear Amit,

… The hateful people here represent a noisy minority that has its equal counterpart in Pakistan. ]


Re: #466 by amit

[My personal experience with Pakistanis has been very positive. It is not just one or two people but virtually every Pakistani guy I ever met. So I find it hard to fill myself with venom against that country. It could very well be that the government there, which is unrepresentative, hates India, although now even that is changing. At the people level, there is no hatred. The fundo Indians on chowk have probably never met or interacted with any Pakistanis and have convinced themselves that the other side is evil. They are filled with hatred, which is a negative and corrosive force. I just feel pity for them.]

Below are some “impersonal” viewpoints on how pakistanis REALLY think.



Because Amit is obviously an intellectual who can think independently and clearly, unlike the noisy and biased ``fundo`` crowd here at chowk, I’m expecting a reply here.

India Discovers What Pakistanis Really Think

By Shireen M Mazari

Every time it comes to the crunch, ordinary Pakistanis show that they have a deep commitment to the country and know what is in the national interest. Thus, it is extremely reassuring to find that the media and NGO hype notwithstanding, Pakistanis are viewing the rapprochement process between Pakistan and India with caution. Nor have they been overwhelmed by the Track-II euphoria into forgetting the very real issues with India. All this has come up in a poll commissioned and published (August 25) by India’s Outlook magazine and conducted by Gallup-Business Research Bureau, the Pakistani affiliate of Gallup International.

The poll was conducted on 3-4 August, 2003 and almost half those polled were women. The sample represented a cross-section of income groups and education segments across the four provinces of Pakistan, and the sampling was divided proportionate to the population of each province in the total national population. The cities included in the poll were the four provincial capitals plus Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Sukkur, Hyderabad, Multan, Faisalabad, Gujrat, Sahiwal, Sargodha and Mardan.

While most of those polled felt that 62 percent of Indians yearned for peace, 47 percent regarded Prime Minister Vajpayee’s recent peace initiative as a “gimmick” and only 26 percent felt he was serious while 27 percent opted for the “don’t know” category. In contrast, 52 percent rated President Musharraf’s “efforts in ushering peace with India” as “serious”, with 23 percent regarding them as a “gimmick” and 25 percent claiming that they “don’t know”. Also, 54 percent saw India as the “enemy”, while 31 percent viewed India as a “rival” and only 15 percent felt India was a “potential friend.” Nevertheless, only 6 percent felt that there was a “high chance” of war after the August 2003 peace initiatives, while 44 percent still felt there was a “moderate chance”, and 47 percent saw only a “low chance” of war. This is significant because in January 2003, 37 percent saw “high chance” of war and only 8 percent saw a “low chance” - with 55 percent feeling that there was a “moderate chance” of war.

Perhaps the most telling revelations were on Kashmir, given how some lobbies in Pakistan claim that Kashmir is not an important issue with most Pakistanis. 79 percent of those polled felt that it was necessary to resolve Kashmir first in order to establish peaceful relations between Pakistan and India, and only 29 percent agreed with the idea of accepting the conversion of the LoC into an international border. 69 percent did not agree to this suggestion, and only 2 percent fell into the “don’t know” category on this question. Interestingly, 43 percent felt that since August 2003, in the wake of the new moves for Pakistan-India dialogue, bilateral negotiations were the most suitable way to resolving the Kashmir dispute. 26 percent still felt that UN negotiations were the best way, while only 12 percent saw US mediation as the most suitable option and 17 percent saw war as the most suitable way.

When asked whether they would trust the US to “broker peace between India and Pakistan”, 33 percent responded with a “yes”, 62 with a “no” and 5 percent with a “don’t know” response. Also a very interesting revelation related to what most considered as the most important political issue. The choice was: Fundamentalism, Democracy, Kashmir Issue. 17 percent ranked Fundamentalism as number one, 19 percent opted for Democracy as the first while 64 percent saw Kashmir as the number one political issue of importance.
Equally important, most of the Pakistanis polled felt that while their Establishment was not a roadblock to peace, India’s was. For instance, when asked whether the Pakistan army and ISI were a roadblock to Pakistan-India relations, 32 percent answered “yes”, but 52 percent answered “no” while 16 percent fell in the “don’t know” category. In contrast, 63 percent responded with a “yes” to the question, “Is the Indian army and RAW a roadblock to Indo-Pak relations?” Only 28 percent responded in the negative to this question and 9 percent felt they “don’t know”.
…Finally, two other revealing responses were on trade with India and Kargil. When asked if Pakistan should have trade relations with India, 63 percent responded with a “yes” response and 35 with a “no” while only 2 percent chose the “don’t know” option. Given the massive propaganda against Kargil both from within Pakistan and from India, the response on the Kargil question is revealing. Those polled were asked, “What is your opinion about Kargil?” The choices offered were “useful operation”, “mistake”, “unavoidable”, and “don’t know”. 40 percent saw Kargil as a “useful operation”, 31 percent saw it as a “mistake”, 21 percent as “unavoidable” and 8 percent chose the “don’t know” option.
The reality is that many Pakistanis may enjoy Indian music and films just as they enjoy Western music and films, but they are well grounded in their Pakistani-ness. Nor can the barrage of propaganda hide the truth, or undermine the ability to see things through a Pakistani perspective. In other words, if peace is to come then it must be based on real interests, including the resolution of the very real conflicts that prevail. Emotive appeals based on false cultural premises are not the way; nor is trying to paint the state structures as the villains disrupting the peace process. There are real issues and presently the