Who do you mean by "in terms of curriculum in the schools and the cultural mindset of ordinary Pakistanis"? The curriculum is not different from any other country. Are you talking about madrasas? Madrasas are perfectly legitimate schools throughout the Muslim world, not unlike religious schools--like Sunday school or Jewish centers for kids (yes, I know that people will come in here and argue that Christians and Jews don't breed terrorists, but I beg to differ--just because the weapons are more sophisticated--cluster bombs that can kill 1300 people in 22 days versus bombs strapped to a body--doesn't mean the ideology is any less terrorizing).

Zardari taking these measures to stop these legitimate voices is unacceptable. Democracy is democracy--everyone gets to speak and should be able to speak.

Any country will slide towards one or the other end of the pendulum (theocracy, neoconservatism, socialism, etc) when a state is fragmented and under siege (as Pakistan has been for 8+ years, and Afghanistan for 30+ years). Silencing voices is not the way to move forward. If whole scale murderers like Netanyahu and Sharon can have legitimate political voices, then why not others? Just because one is deemed a friend and another a terrorist, doesn't make it reality.

It would be nice to let Pakistanis determine their own fate--without outside interference. Pakistan has more to fear from the fact that on one side it has a hostile India coalition with racist and anti-Muslim Israel and on another side hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops occupying Afghanistan. It is surrounded by hostile forces. My heart goes out to Pakistan and its people.

Nilufar, First, I think there are some people looking at this that are thinking that what is happening is not simply the expression of free speech, but a rather naked attempt at a power-grab by Nawaz and Shahbaz Sharif. Given the security crisis in the country, a protest movement like this could be seen as irresponsible.

Second, I was paraphrasing Hoodbhoy in that sentence you quote. Hoodbhoy clearly feels that it's not just Madrasas, but Pakistan's government /public school curriculum that has contributed to this. Here is a long quote from Hoodbhoy where he talks about the issue of Islamization in the public school curriculum in Pakistan:

"Similar sentiments exist in a large part of the Pakistani public media. The commonly expressed view is that Islamic radicalism is a problem only in FATA and that madrassas are the only jehad factories around. This could not be more wrong. Extremism is breeding at a ferocious rate in public and private schools within Pakistan’s towns and cities. Left unchallenged, this kind of education will produce a generation incapable of living together with any except strictly their own kind. Pakistan’s education system demands that Islam be understood as a complete code of life, and creates in the mind of the schoolchild a sense of siege and constant embattlement by stressing that Islam is under threat everywhere.

"The government-approved curriculum, prepared by the Curriculum Wing of the Federal Ministry of Education, is the basic road map for transmitting values and knowledge to the young. By an Act of Parliament, passed in 1976, all government and private schools (except for O-level schools) are required to follow this curriculum. It is a blueprint for a religious fascist state.

"The masthead of an illustrated primer for the Urdu alphabet states that it has been prepared by Iqra Publishers, Rawalpindi, along “Islamic lines”. Although not an officially approved textbook, it has been used for many years by some regular schools, as well as madrassas, associated with the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Islam (JUI), an Islamic political party that had allied itself with General Pervez Musharraf.

"The world of the Pakistani schoolchild was largely unchanged even after September 11, 2001, which led to Pakistan’s timely desertion of the Taliban and the slackening of the Kashmir jehad. Indeed, for all his hypocritical talk of “enlightened moderation”, Musharraf’s educational curriculum was far from enlightening. It was a slightly toned-down copy of that under Nawaz Sharif which, in turn, was identical to that under Benazir Bhutto, who inherited it from Zia-ul-Haq.

"Fearful of taking on powerful religious forces, every incumbent government refused to take a position on the curriculum and thus quietly allowed young minds to be moulded by fanatics. What might happen a generation later has always been a secondary matter for a government challenged on so many sides.

"The promotion of militarism in Pakistan’s so-called “secular” public schools, colleges and universities had a profound effect upon young minds. Militant jehad became part of the culture on college and university campuses. Armed groups flourished, invited students for jehad in Kashmir and Afghanistan, set up offices throughout the country, collected funds at Friday prayers, and declared a war without borders. Pre-9/11, my university was ablaze with posters inviting students to participate in the Kashmir jehad. After 2001, this slipped below the surface.

That said, Zardari's over-zealous response to threats to his authority has had a lot in common with Musharraf's own response.

I strongly agree with this, there tends for Pakistani leaders to conflate regime security with that of the state. Accordingly any protests against a regime or government thend to be turned into entire confrontations with the state itself. (this is actually a disturbing trend that exists in other states across the region as well but that is a separate topic). I think there is a broader need to formulate a wider and stable consensus on issues concerning political power and resource distribution that impact Pakistanis' political and economic health but this does tend to be resisted by the elites in power.

You point out valid concerns about the membership of parts of the protest movement; but in reality, anybody familiar with broad-based movements in this region will know that many supporters will not be particularly liberal or progressive in several ways. I don't think this means that their demands should not evoke sympathy or not be supported. My broad impression is that demands for more accountability and less centralisation of power are far more popular than the Jamat et al. themselves. In making the state less insulated and more accountable such popular demands seem very necessary. It is difficult watching the symbolism, used by this kind of political yatra in support of democratic rights against a state that is perceived to be witholding them, which has deep reverberations for anybody influenced by the history of the region to remain neutral.

Also what is it with all these recurring mentions of Imram Khan that crop up across the blogosphere on this issue - is he really taken seriously as a politician outside the celebrity media?

There appears to be two different issues going on here--and possibly I am responding to your conflating the two. Hoodbhoy is talking about the legitimately alarming wahabization of Islam (and this is something most Muslim countries have been trying to counter for years)--which he is connecting to militarism. I think Hoodbhoy equates young people volunteering to fight for justice with militant jehadism. The reality is that young Pakistanis volunteering to fight with their brothers in Afghanistan or Kashmir is no different than young American men and women volunteering to serve in Iraq or Afghanistan. One is considered patriotic and the other "militant Jehad."

On the other hand, the protest in this case is against the exrajudicial rules by which Zardari is running the country--which is unrelated (insofar as anything is unrelated) to the supposed Islamization (whatever that even means) of Pakistan. I don't see this as a power grab at all. I see it as Zardari reacting like the closeted dictator that he appears to be.

I think it is really dangerous to Islamicize everything related to Muslim countries. It only feeds the boogeyman that legitimizes India's, Israel's, and America's ever increasing stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, and makes anything that happens in Muslim countries a counter to that in the West. It's an artificial dichotomy and a dangerous rhetorical game.

I agree with Amardeep re the extent of Islamization in Pakistan. I spent two years at LUMS (one of the best schools in Pakistan) and was in an Islamic Studies class for a while (until I was switched out due to scheduling reasons). On the very first day, the US-returned Prof. told all of us that there was no such thing as a secular or cultural Muslim and that anyone who wasn't born a Muslim or subsequently converted was unfortunately going to hell. Needless to say, I found such rhetroric pretty disturbing. Islamization is pervasive in the society, and not just restricted to madrassas

In the issue at hand, Zardari is acting exactly like Musharraf, using the courts to get rid of his political opponents. While the Sharifs are not the most wonderful people in the world, the PML-N was the democratically elected party in Punjab. Getting rid of them and imposing governer's rule in the most populous province was really not a good move. Pakistan's tragedy is that all the so-called "leaders" don't really care about the people or improving society, they care about staying in power at any cost. It is our stupidity as citizens of Pakistan or members of the diaspora, that we keep letting the same jokers into power.

Amardeep, I'd like to point you to another blog that is also carrying live reports from the 'long march.' I think these are more up-to-date that the blog on Dawn The

http://teeth.com.pk/blog/

the teeth.com live reports are updated nearly every minutes. As I write this, I see someone post that the Pakistani PM is going to address the country (no date or time given).

This morning Teeth Maestro also posted about an email by Pakistani journalist Afzal Khan titled "The Deal is clinched, but the show must go on." An interesting read.

DAWN live tv on the web is saying Gilani is set to address the nation soon.

Shehla

Shehla

The reality is that young Pakistanis volunteering to fight with their brothers in Afghanistan or Kashmir is no different than young American men and women volunteering to serve in Iraq or Afghanistan. One is considered patriotic and the other "militant Jehad."

Who do you mean by "in terms of curriculum in the schools and the cultural mindset of ordinary Pakistanis"? The curriculum is not different from any other country.

And the CSM is on it as well. I've known them to give a pretty fair shake to most issues in the past.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0121/p04s03-wosc.html

This book, though, I find to be the most effective in pointing out how these ideologues are sowing the seeds for continued enmity between India and Pakistan in order to secure their hold on power. If there aren't problems they will make sure to stir some up. (See Mumbai 26/11).
http://outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20090323&fname=Aatish+Taseer+(F)&sid=3

Any country will slide towards one or the other end of the pendulum (theocracy, neoconservatism, socialism, etc) when a state is fragmented and under siege (as Pakistan has been for 8+ years, and Afghanistan for 30+ years).

Silencing voices is not the way to move forward. If whole scale murderers like Netanyahu and Sharon can have legitimate political voices, then why not others? Just because one is deemed a friend and another a terrorist, doesn't make it reality.

Amardeep, very nice post. I read Hoodbhoy's article last night myself with great concern. I think the broader problem Pakistan is facing is a crisis of both institutional legitimacy for state institutions and personal legitimacy for the major politicians, who are each compromised and flawed in some way. The motley crew of supporters for the Long March - from Imran Khan to Sharif to the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) - have only one thing in common - they detest the present dispensation (not just Zardari himself or the PPP-led government, but the broader politico-military socioeconomy of Pakistan) and hope to replace it with something else, on the details of which they each differ.

The long-running lawyer's movement has given them all a convenient bandwagon, and they have all jumped on it. On the JI, it must be said that they tend often to play the role of the Trojan horse in Pakistan politics - they join coalitions only to jettison them at critical moments - often, it is said, at the bidding of the ISI. But this can work both ways, and if they are seen to be part of this, they could end up broadening the constituency that finds them appealing, and that is certainly of concern.

To me it seems clear that, no matter the details of what unfolds in the next few days or weeks, Zardari will lose in relative terms: Kayani plus Gilani plus Sharif plus the non-Zardari (old Bhutto) wing of the PPP - might even manage a loose troika-like arrangement, while he continues as a figurehead, if even that is allowed as a figleaf. Some Western strategists now seem to think this combination will have greater credibility in a modified strategy of negotiating with elements of the Taliban, while taking the fight to the hardcore AQ + Taliban. Zardari is no use to anyone (internally or externally) unless he has some, even if not broad, legitimacy within Pakistan, and that he does not have.

Indian elite attitudes are also interesting in this context. They seem to favor a stronger role for the Army in Pakistan, see Zardari as essentially powerless but needlessly polarizing, and some even favor a return to power by Musharraf.

Nilufar, I don't have quotes but have been told that Pakistani schoolbooks repeatedly and forcefully paint Indians and Hindus as villains and enemies. And portray a very different version of sub-continental history than is accepted by any other historians anywhere else. And I'm talking about normal schools, not madrassas. The curriculum itself very aggressively pushes forth a hateful and propogandistic agenda.

"I think Hoodbhoy equates young people volunteering to fight for justice with militant jehadism. The reality is that young Pakistanis volunteering to fight with their brothers in Afghanistan or Kashmir is no different than young American men and women volunteering to serve in Iraq or Afghanistan. One is considered patriotic and the other "militant Jehad.""

--------------------

Wow. Your logic train never left the station on that one. What scares me though is that you don't come of as Tr0ll either, you actually believe that Pakistani Jihadi's gunning down pilgrims, unarmed men women and children, blowing up schools and beheading dissenter as a 'Fight for Justice". I guess you make the ideal case for the Pakistani educational system and curriculum.

I don't understand this political problem in Pakistan at all. The Chief Justice had issues with Musharaff but with him gone, why doesn't Zardari just reinstate the judges ? Does he fear that the corruption cases against him will be reopened by the activist judges ? I don't understand why Sharif has to be disqualified either. Or does Zardari fear that a non-PPP heavyweight will erode his authority ? I have a suspicion that this is a deliberate mayhem and an indirect way of showing disapproval for the war on terror. After all Sharif is the face of Saudi patronization (and the infamous Kargil withdrawal drama with Clinton, followed by the refusal to allow Musharaff's plane to land and the coup), which have been the source of all the present day problems for Pakistan.

Yoga Fire:

American men and women abide by certain norms.......We grant that willfully targeting civilians because we're too scared to face off against an adequately armed foe is an act of cowardice.

The usual ignorant brainwashed rightwing nonsense. America nuked 100s of thousands of women, children and other civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki for precisely that reason. If that was not the worst war crime in history then there is no such thing as a war crime.

It is the fight between moderate Army factions (whose leaders are Musharaff and Kyani)currently have US and western world support and militant Army faction (Zia sympathizers) who fund their agenda with money and weapon smuggling. Reinstating chief justice means defying Musharaff and in turn making all moderate Army mad and seriously nobody can afford it. As for Zardari and Jilani they both spent 8 and 7 years respectively in jail during Sharif tenure.

Priya things are more complex the it looks, Same District Coordination Officer (DCO), Deputy Inspector General (DIG) Operation Lahore and Deputy Attorney General of Pakistan (DAGP)who resigned in protest were nowhere near when Sri Lankan team was fired upon. Something tells me fundamentalist faction of Army still running the show. BTW that Mumbai attackers were also from Punjab and Benazir Bhutto too was assassinated in Punjab. So giving in to these goons means making moderate faction of Army mad who in the only ray of hope in these hard times.

Pakistani Jihadi's gunning down pilgrims, unarmed men women and children, blowing up schools and beheading dissenter as a 'Fight for Justice". I guess you make the ideal case for the Pakistani educational system and curriculum.

well said Neha you know they call Lal mosque goons shaheed and ironically never come on roads when these injustices are done to s.

The usual ignorant brainwashed rightwing nonsense. America nuked 100s of thousands of women, children and other civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki for precisely that reason. If that was not the worst war crime in history then there is no such thing as a war crime.

Now Dresden, that was a war-crime. The firebombing of Tokyo can also be argued as a war-crime. But Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not really.

But more importantly, worst war crime in history? In history? Seriously? This happened during World War II.

World
War
Two

Does that ring any bells? Do you vaguely sort-of kinda remember who we were fighting against during World War II? I'm not sure if you recall, but the German reich had built these camps into which they marched ethnic minorities (mostly Jews and Romani), people with disabilities, and other "undesirables" and gassed them to death before grinding their bones into char for industrial factories, processing their flesh as feed for animals, their fat as fuel for candles, and their skin for tanning leather.
Meanwhile, the Japanese raped Nanjing. They didn't just rape individuals in Nanjing, oh no. The rapine and pillage was so thorough that they were considered to have raped the city of Nanjing herself. This was barbarism that rivaled the heyday of such illustrious figures as Pizarro or Hulagu Khan.

But it must be interesting living in your world where -5 and -5,000 are the exact same number. What's it like to have no sense of scale or proportion?

About school books Nawaz Sharif went one step further and he introduced Shariat law.

16 · Neena said

About school books Nawaz Sharif went one step further and he introduced Shariat law.

I suppose if he's going to act a fool it's best to do it right after the military was taken out of power since they'll probably not be in a position to set up an orderly coup.
Boldly marching his country off a cliff.

doc,

I think you seem to have forgotten that whole sticky "Rape of Nanjing" thing. Y'know, where the Japanese slaughtered between 200K to 300K civilians, as well as raped 80K women. Or, if we just want to focus on sheer numbers, we can turn to the fact that the Japanese killed anywhere from 3 to 10 MILLION Chinese during the course of the Second World War.

Sorry, but saying that the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are "the worst war crime in history" is woefully ignorant of the history of the Sino-Japanese conflict and frankly insulting to the Chinese, Koreans, Indonesians, Filipinos and others who lost their lives at the hands of the Japanese Imperial war machine. I mean, we're talking about a regime whose military was sanctioned to "Kill All, Burn All, and Loot All," yet we're calling the nuclear bombings there the greatest war crime in history?

Please.

this is why nuclear proliferation sucks. you have to read about messed up countries and pretend that you really care about the people, as opposed to all the insane things they might get up to....

19 · razib said

this is why nuclear proliferation sucks. you have to read about messed up countries and pretend that you really care about the people, as opposed to all the insane things they might get up to....

Nuclear proliferation also sucks because it makes it easier for nukes to get into the hands of utterly amoral organizations like Al Qaeda. The more unstable regimes that get their hands on nuclear toys, the more likely we are to see a nuke set off in the middle of a major city by some d-bag doing it in the name of some "cause."

Wow. Your logic train never left the station on that one. What scares me though is that you don't come of as Tr0ll either, you actually believe that Pakistani Jihadi's gunning down pilgrims, unarmed men women and children, blowing up schools and beheading dissenter as a 'Fight for Justice". I guess you make the ideal case for the Pakistani educational system and curriculum.

One million Iraqis dead. Largest American military base in Iraq. Afghanistan occupied. Southern Lebanon decimated in 2006. 1,300 killed in Gaza. Millions of Palestinian refugees. Dictators in Egypt, Saudia--installed and sustained by you-know-who. Since the 1950s, Arab and South Asian Muslim countries have been under siege.

But despite all that, I suppose Muslims should not be fighting back at all. If they do, they are militants.

Wow, your logic train was never in the station. Are you arguing that YOU have not been indoctrinated to see the Muslims as killing machines? Are you not being brainwashed at all? Where are you getting your Islamophobic world view? Isn't all of American media an extended version of a madrasa? Where do you all get your hatred of anything Muslim? The very foundation of your thought is Muslims=bad, Christians and Jews=good. Where do you get that? American soldiers=good, Iraqi fighters=bad. Israeli soldiers=good, Palestinian fighters=bad. And your knowledge basis is not the result of propaganda?

Is there no strong Christian apocalyptic foundation to American empire building (good versus evil?) ? Isn't Israel created on militant Jewish principles? But those militant presences are okay because of the veneer of "civilized" thought and action they project?

You are parroting back American and Israeli propaganda about Arabs and Muslims. You are just as indoctrinated as those Pakistanis you mock.

I recommend you read 17, 18th and 19th century rationale given by civilized Europe while it wiped out natives in the West Indies, Americas, and Australisia. Read the way Muslims are portrayed throughout the colonial period of the 15-20th (500+ years) centuries, and there is no difference between now and then. Europeans and Americans have never seen Muslims as human--and have portrayed all things Muslim as backward, savage, etc. And that propaganda is your madarasa-style indoctrination. That's why no one batted an eye over the butchery of Gazans in January--or the fact that Israel is even now refusing much needed food and medicine in or the fact that Gaza has been in lock down and starving for 2+ years. Who cares, right? Those jihadis beheading people are horrible, but the whole scale starving of Palestinians is just? How many Afghanis have been killed by U.S. forces? Do you know? Do you care? The cluster bombs (worse than land mines) littering southern Lebanon--that's civilized? But Hezbollah--which has never occupied another country--is evil?

Whose propaganda are you spewing?

Yoga: Your justification of American and Israeli terror is amusing, even cute. Anyway, I am fully aware of how the dominant narratives make butchery palatable and even celebratory. One person's patriot/hero is another person's terrorist.

I suppose you think that Afghanistan should have just been left in Russian control? And what about most of the Arab world? Algeria should still be a French colony? Iran should have kept the Shah in power? There should still be American military bases in Saudia and Beirut?

I know how you will answer--and it will be a cute answer.
---

Anyway, this conversation is not about Islam at all. It is about the fact that Zardari should be reinstating judges, and returning the country to true civilian rule.

If that was not the worst war crime in history then there is no such thing as a war crime.

That means that what you are saying is that you think that there is no such thing as a war crime.

Luckily for you the US does not feel the same way, or it would have been more accurate to rename the land of the pure as the land of glass and everlasting glow by now.

If one is going to state on the one hand that "it is really dangerous to Islamicize everything to do with Muslim countries" then perhaps it is unwise, as a rhetorical, tactical and logical device, to equate Americans fighting in an American army in Afghanistan with Pakistanis fighting in Kashmir and Afghanistan for their "brothers". Since the "brothers" are not Pakistani, and since the Pakistanis are not fighting in Congo (presumably because those folks are not their "brothers"), what commonality is it that makes Afghanis and Kashmiris "brothers"--skin colour? If so, there are a few places in Central America and hell, South Central L.A., that could also use Pakistani help. Moreover, as far as I am aware, Pakistan is formally a U.S. ally regarding the U.S. activity in Afghanistan. Ergo, if Pakistanis are fighting for their "brothers" by fighting against the U.S. in Afghanistan, they are also fighting against themselves and are traitors to their country, just as John Lindh Walker is a traitor to his country. Now, one may state that a greater ideology or brotherhood overrides mere geographical boundaries, but then, assuming that the brotherhood is one of membership in the Muslim community, one is bound to accept the "Islamicized" characterization. Finally, if one is going to make the war one of ideology about "brothers", then presumably one has absolutely no problem with U.S. activities in the region being proudly described as a "crusade". After all, lots of families have brothers.

This is not an attack on the merits of the argument about the true threats to Pakistan and the argument that Pakistan is reflecting the impact of various external forces. It is merely a reminder that it is bad form to want to have the debating cake and eat it too.

Whose propaganda are you spewing?

Nilufar,

Cultural relativism, eh? So, in other words, all causes are equally justifiable, given their cultural framework?

Are you arguing that YOU have not been indoctrinated to see the Muslims as killing machines? Are you not being brainwashed at all? Where are you getting your Islamophobic world view?

Oh oh oh, I wanna play this game! Wanna know where? I remember being a young, liberal, "open-minded" student at a major American university and meeting with some of the students at a Muslim student booth and asking how I, a young Jewish American male, could help build bridges.

The answer? "GTFO." I mean, not in those words exactly, but those were the words. I was then handed a pamphlet on Jew-evil and sent on my merry way. Then, when I lived in Japan, I had a guy I talked to on occasion who, up until the point that he knew that I'm a blood-sucking Joo, was quite nice to me. The moment he found out about my Joodom, he stopped having anything to do with me.

Again, warm and fuzzies.

Now, I may not be "Islamophobic," and I am still interested in building bridges and all that happy poopy stuff, but I'll tell ya, it's been a real uphill struggle to come out of my impressionable college youth years feeling like the people on the other side of the divide are interested in meeting in the middle. Poor sample? Perhaps. But my "Islamophobia" has very little to do with the big bad omnipresent media machine transmitting messages of anti-Muslim thought into my weak and servile brain.

How many Afghanis have been killed by U.S. forces? Do you know? Do you care? The cluster bombs (worse than land mines) littering southern Lebanon--that's civilized? But Hezbollah--which has never occupied another country--is evil?

Holy crap... war is evil? I think you may be on to some original thought here! I dare say that you could win some sort of prize for this.

Your justification of American and Israeli terror is amusing, even cute. Anyway, I am fully aware of how the dominant narratives make butchery palatable and even celebratory. One person's patriot/hero is another person's terrorist.

Ah, moral relativism. The same school of thought that led someone to saying that "George Washington is not necessarily any different from a terrorist."

I suppose you think that Afghanistan should have just been left in Russian control? And what about most of the Arab world? Algeria should still be a French colony? Iran should have kept the Shah in power? There should still be American military bases in Saudia and Beirut?

Here's a shocker: YES. The bases should be there. The bases are a stabilizing factor in the region. We all like to imagine that if the big bad evil weevil US just left, then everything would be hunky dory, but that's a load of bull. Any halfway decent IR scholar can tell you that American hegemony is, despite its ills, a stabilizing force worldwide. International anarchy ain't pretty, and having one fewer big player to moderate the scene is worse than the vacuum.

Remember Hobbes? Y'know, that whole "nasty, brutish, and short" thing? That's the world without stabilizing powers. Are you also going to say that East Asia would be worse off without the 7th Fleet hunting down pirates in the Strait of Malacca?

Scwartz: As a Muslim, I have had my share of warm and fuzzy treatment by [Jews], so let's stop the woe-is-me, those-nasty-muslims-victimized-me-when-I-just-want-to-build-bridges." I have had Israelis and [Jews] scream in my face and call me antisemite (the oh-so-familiar-argument), so save your victim-mantra. Yeah, Muslims treated you so badly--and [Jews]don't treat Muslims like shit? And now your argument is that even the Japanese treat you badly. Wow. You poor thing. I guess the Muslims have gotten to the Japs, eh? Let's nuke the Japs? Who's with me?

And yes, please, build more military bases in Muslims countries to save the Muslims from themselves. Thank you, avuncular superior being, for saving the world. While you are at it, build more settlements in the West Bank and set up more road blocks. Those bridges you are advocating are so especially awesome for world peace. And please bobby trap the entire region--we are a bunch of savages anyway.

Ibeedforpakis: "The only conclusion is that the western schools must be teaching something that the islamic world ought to follow."

Nilufar,

This is a warning. Please refer to people from religious groups (such as Jews) without making fun of their names. I edited your previous comment to correct the way you spelled it, which was insulting.

If you continue to make comments that could be deemed insulting along those lines, you risk being banned.

27 · SM Intern said

Nilufar,

This is a warning. Please refer to people from religious groups (such as Jews) without making fun of their names. I edited your previous comment to correct the way you spelled it, which was insulting.

If you continue to make comments that could be deemed insulting along those lines, you risk being banned.

Intern: I was mimicking/mocking the way SCHWARTZ was spelling the word. Read his post and note how he has spelled the word. Be consistent, please.

Yoga Fire:

the alternative would have been to launch a full-scale land invasion of Japan with a loss-of-life that would have been just as heavy. Just because the loss-of-life from a bombing is more lopsided in our favor doesn't make it heinous.

What a totally amoral hypocrite. Nuking 100s of thousands of women and children to avoid american military casualties is nothing heinous at all to this yogi who just self-righteously boasted that "We grant that willfully targeting civilians because we're too scared to face off against an adequately armed foe is an act of cowardice."

The Schwartz:

I think you seem to have forgotten that whole sticky "Rape of Nanjing" thing. Y'know, where the Japanese slaughtered between 200K to 300K civilians, as well as raped 80K women.

Another amoral bloodthirsty hypocrite. So you actually think that the atrocities of the japanese military in WWII somehow justifies deliberately killing innocent japanese women and children??? Absolutely disgusting.

Scwartz: As a Muslim, I have had my share of warm and fuzzy treatment by Joos, so let's stop the woe-is-me, those-nasty-muslims-victimized-me-when-I-just-want-to-build-bridges." I have had Israelis and Joos scream in my face and call me antisemite (the oh-so-familiar-argument), so save your victim-mantra. Yeah, Muslims treated you so badly--and Joos don't treat Muslims like shit? And now your argument is that even the Japanese treat you badly. Wow. You poor thing. I guess the Muslims have gotten to the Japs, eh? Let's nuke the Japs? Who's with me?

Actually, it was a Muslim in Japan who stopped associating with me the second he found out I'm a blood-sucking Jew. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that.

See, I wasn't looking for pity, but to show you that your argument that it's the media and the propaganda machine that's making me fear teh Muslims. It's not. If anything, the American media goes way too out of its way to be PC and preface every story about militant Muslim activities with a "moderate" Muslim spokesperson. Unless, of course, you're referring to stupid shows like 24, in which case I say it's just timeliness. I mean, would it make a lot of sense to have a British M:6 agent as a bad guy?

Really, though, the problem is your argument that it's the big bad media machine that's brainwashing Westerners into thinking badly of Muslims. That's a component, to be sure, but it's hard to have a big bad media machine reporting endlessly on bad apples if you simply have few bad apples.

I wonder if Northern Irish Catholics felt they were portrayed unfairly by the Western media in the past?

Oh, wait...

Nice quip about nuking the Japanese, by the way. Considering that I work for a Japanese firm, have lived in Japan for almost 2 years of my life, and speak, read, and write Japanese, your argument is pretty hollow. Just because I don't think that the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki = The Rape of Nanking in terms of evil doesn't mean I think they were good things. Again, moral relativism rears its head.

And yes, please, build more military bases in Muslims countries to save the Muslims from themselves. Thank you, avuncular superior being, for saving the world. While you are at it, build more settlements in the West Bank and set up more road blocks. Those bridges you are advocating are so especially awesome for world peace. And please bobby trap the entire region--we are a bunch of savages anyway.

No, you see, I live in "the real world." In "the real world," international relations isn't huggles and snuggles! It's guns and occasional handshakes-with-knives-behind-the-back.

You see, in the world I live in, there are military bases all over the world, including Asia, Latin America, and Europe. I don't hear the Okinawans saying they have a Marine base there because the big bad Americans are picking on the poor widdle Asians. They just tell us to GTFO. I find that perfectly reasonable from their perspective. However, I also don't believe that East Asia would be better without American presence, just like I don't think that Western Europe would be better off without American presence.

Again, there's this "real world" thing you don't learn about in the sociology of victimhood classes.

And now your argument is that even the Japanese treat you badly. Wow. You poor thing. I guess the Muslims have gotten to the Japs, eh? Let's nuke the Japs? Who's with me?

And yes, please, build more military bases in Muslims countries to save the Muslims from themselves. Thank you, avuncular superior being, for saving the world. While you are at it, build more settlements in the West Bank and set up more road blocks. Those bridges you are advocating are so especially awesome for world peace. And please bobby trap the entire region--we are a bunch of savages anyway.

This is great. You can hold Indians and Israelis and Americans to saintly standards of liberty and tolerance while completely excusing any barbarism being perpetrated by jihadis who, in your mind, are just masters of karate and friendship for everyone.

I already said before, you might want to be careful how willing you are to justify immoral actions with moral relativism. The only reason Pakistan still exists is because India holds itself to an ethical standard higher than "Anything goes as long as we can come up with some minor infraction against us to justify it." You can't insist that everyone else play fair from one side of your mouth and then excuse unfairness from the other. Eventually people will get fed up with that crap and wise up to the duplicity.

What a totally amoral hypocrite. Nuking 100s of thousands of women and children to avoid american military casualties is nothing heinous at all to this yogi who just self-righteously boasted that "We grant that willfully targeting civilians because we're too scared to face off against an adequately armed foe is an act of cowardice."

This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.

He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler's crowd or Stalin's did not discover this atomic bomb. It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful...

I find it fascinating that you still can't see the difference between -5 and -5,000.

doc,

Another amoral bloodthirsty hypocrite. So you actually think that the atrocities of the japanese military in WWII somehow justifies deliberately killing innocent japanese women and children??? Absolutely disgusting.

Learn to read. I said that your argument that the nuclear bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima are the "worst war crimes in history" rings hollow relative to many of the other horrific acts of World War II. I just think you can't be bothered to look past some strange form of anti-Americanism to realize that there were far worse acts committed during the two World Wars-- hell, the fire bombings of Tokyo were probably a more criminal and downright CRUEL act than the nuclear bombings. But y'know, that involves knowing more than just the pop history most of us learn about the Second World War.

Never mind that the alternative to the two nuclear bombings may have actually been far worse. But I suppose that it's moral to kill hundreds of thousands more as long as you do it on the ground, right? It's only bombs that make it an immoral act.

Personally, I find it FAR more amoral to say that the deaths of about 240K is the WORST WAR CRIME IN HISTORY when put up against the tapestry of horrific acts of World War II alone. I dunno about you, but I think killing upwards of 10 MILLION is a worse act.

But then again, I think that 10 million is a bigger and more shocking figure than 240K. I might be off on the math there.

BREAKING NEWS: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry reportedly to be restored as Chief Justice of Pakistan.

Who do you mean by "in terms of curriculum in the schools and the cultural mindset of ordinary Pakistanis"? The curriculum is not different from any other country.

If this was more than rhetoric and you really were looking for answers look at: The subtle Subversion: A report on Curricula and Textbooks in Pakistan.

It is a report done by the Sustainable Development Policy Institute based in Islamabad.

Obviously curricula are increasingly different from any other country!

34 · Anil said

BREAKING NEWS: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry reportedly to be restored as Chief Justice of Pakistan.

Fantastic news! A win for Pakistan--and for a, hopefully, wholly civil government.

I will leave the rest of the commenters here to conjure up ways to colonize those nasty Muslims for world peace.

Note to the SM interns/bloggers: If you will cover Pakistan or Bangladesh, please try to do so without making us out to be a bunch of Islamofascists, whose moves (protests, etc.) are determined only by our savage understanding of the Ko-rayn. Most of us actually have critical and intellectual faculties fully working--even if you don't believe that to be possible.

What kind of yoga is Yoga Fire doing that he is advocating dropping bombs?

Bomb them with love!!!

OM SHANTI. SHANTI. SHANTI.

So what kind of plan does India have in case Pakistan implodes or explodes. Can we expect migrations like 1947, but 10 times larger. Any plans India seems to have to handle this? There are no real alternatives than India for any Pakistani not leaving on an airplane.

The Schwartz:

I said that your argument that the nuclear bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima are the "worst war crimes in history" rings hollow relative to many of the other horrific acts of World War II.

So the "strategic" slaughter of 100s of thousands of japanese women and children "rings hollow" to you? Show us another war crime in history that killed so many innocent women, children, old folks in such a short span of time as the deliberate mass murders of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Yoga Fire:

Hey, don't let facts get in the way of coming up with ridiculous moral equivalencies.

The fact that you just cant justify away is that the americans who you lied never "willfully target civilians" have done just that numerous times in their history with the most criminal example being the deliberate strategy of bombing civilians from the air while they sleep, Hiroshima and Nagasaki being the culmination of this criminal behaviour. It is pretty obvious from your posts that you are incapable of thinking morally or rationally.

I think it is futile to get into who is morally right or who is morally wrong in issues like war/violence.

Unless you are Gandhi and are totally against violence you cannot justify one side over the other. For example, US missiles repeatedly whack the tribal regions of Pakistan and kills scores of people.

I'm sure not all those killed are folks who deserve to be killed. It could be that not even one person deserves the fate.

· Anil on March 15, 2009 07:41 PM · Direct link · “Quote”(?)

BREAKING NEWS: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry reportedly to be restored as Chief Justice of Pakistan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If this true and Iftikar chaudhry is resored as supreme court cheif justice, I wonder what must have been the deal between sharif and zardari.I don't think Mr.10% president Mr.Zardari will be fool to agree for his corruption caseso
be reopened and investigated by chaudhry.Will chaudhry investigate the cases against Mushrraf for dissolving the pakistani constitution and supreme court judges?If this is not the case what is the big deal?all this mess for Mr.Chaudhry to get his salary and pension? or to divert the attention of international community?

Lets consentarte on the important issues, Pakistan’s commitment against fighting internal terrorisam,taliban and al-Quida. India is waiting for Pakistan’s action regarding the Mumbai terror attacks by its non-state terrorists.

36 · Nilufar said

Note to the SM interns/bloggers: If you will cover Pakistan or Bangladesh, please try to do so without making us out to be a bunch of Islamofascists, whose moves (protests, etc.) are determined only by our savage understanding of the Ko-rayn.

Or else ?

Also what is it with all these recurring mentions of Imram Khan that crop up across the blogosphere on this issue - is he really taken seriously as a politician outside the celebrity media?

I wondered about that as well. Off Topic, Vir Sanghvi has this funny anecdote about Imran:

The Loin of the Punjab’s defence of sharia law reminded me of the famous Private Eye cover when his marriage to Jemima Goldsmith was announced. The Eye carried a picture of Khan speaking to Jemima’s father. “Can I have your daughter’s hand?” Imran was supposedly asking James Goldsmith. “Why? Has she been caught shoplifting?” Goldsmith replied. So much for sharia law.

In reply to Nilufar's:

Europeans and Americans have never seen Muslims as human--and have portrayed all things Muslim as backward, savage, etc.

There is a reason for this. Briefly, the modern European outlook on civilization is based on rationality -- only if you have a history and culture based on logic and experimentation and fine distinctions, you are considered rational, and civilized. Everyone and everything else is savage and backward. This big brush was used to paint everyone other than Europeans as savage. However, the Indians and Chinese fought back, and showed that both civilizations have a history of science and rationality. It helped that both of them had sympathetic supporters in the West, and both pursued science and technology in earnest. Islamic nations, on the other hand, were busy fighting among themselves, making money selling oil to the West, and buying weapons from them to continue their fights. They never invested in image-building, so they are stuck with the savage label. And the current indiscriminate protests is only adding more power to the brush.

You can use your relativism to argue that both Indians and Chinese bought into the western standards of epistemology, and you may be right to some extent. However, rejecting the Western epistemology wholesale, while depending on the technology churned out by the West for survival, is not going to improve the image of Muslims either. You cannot change your image through anarchy fueled by Western technology. Even in the unlikely scenario of Muslim radicals winning their global war against the West, the remaining folks will still see Muslims as savages. The only way to change the image is to construct a credible alternative to the dominant western narrative. Outrage and destruction is cheap, so they never get anyone respect.

This Nilufar guy is a troll, right? I am certainly going to treat him as such...

I assume people who say things like

Pakistan has more to fear from the fact that on one side it has a hostile India coalition with racist and anti-Muslim Israel and on another side hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops occupying Afghanistan

are either deranged or are trying to get their favorite conspiracy theory charged up...

So the "strategic" slaughter of 100s of thousands of japanese women and children "rings hollow" to you? Show us another war crime in history that killed so many innocent women, children, old folks in such a short span of time as the deliberate mass murders of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Oh, so it's the span of time that matters, and not the total number. I see. So it's better for them die slow, agonizing deaths than for them to be vaporized instantly?

So it's worse that the US, which was at war with Japan and had at least some strategic reason to drop the weapons, ended the war as quickly as possible with a terrifying show of absolute force than for the Japanese to spend nearly a decade raping, pillaging, burning, and murdering China and its citizens?

REALLY?

It's worse than the deliberate genocide of the Armenians, Tutsi, and Jews? REALLY?

So basically, the length of time is more important than the number of people killed? So it's worse if I kill ten people in a day than a hundred in a week?

What kind of sick logic is it where time matters more than the number of lives? I DARE you to tell the Chinese that the nuclear bombings of Japan were a worse crime than what the Imperial Japanese military did to Japan. I DARE you to say that to the Koreans. To the Filipinos. Ugh. I SPIT on your logic. It's an atrocious attempt to try to justify base anti-Americanism for the sake of anti-Americanism. Absolutely disgusting.

Go read "The Rape of Nanking." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

The Japanese killed 200K to 300K in about two months. You want a race against time? You can have it. But you see, the Japanese spent an ENTIRE decade committing Rape of Nankings. A decade of nothing but wholesale slaughter of human beings and human experimentation.

No. You're nothing but a petty moral relativist who can't admit that you phrased something badly, and you want so badly now to be right that you're willing to throw even a shred of actual decency and honesty out the window. Hell, if you really want to hit the Americans where it hurts, you'd at least go after the deliberate destruction of the Native Americans. But no. An act that actually had some strategic value and may have saved lives in the long run is worse because it killed more in a short span.

Disgusting.

in terms of curriculum in the schools

Class dismissed in Swat valley - a must-watch documentary. [link]

Thanks for the link to Prof. Hoodbhoy's article, Amardeep, that was quite illuminating (if chilling).

Rob, see Vir Sanghvi's piece for an Indian perspective on Pakistan's shift towards the Arabian peninsula.

ImageChange--yes, thanks--I read Sanghvi's piece--pretty hard-hitting!

Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Deepak Chopra and Ken Wilbur need to give seminar tours in Pakistan. Ken Wilbur specifically is looking for a Muslim scholar to join this

Let's see if anyone bites. I sure hope so. He's got well-known and established scholars of Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism and Christianity participating, it sure would be nice to see a Muslim there as well but Ken says he's having a hard time finding one willing to participate. It's time for Islam to get it's new age groove on like the rest of the world's religions. It's all about love, baby.

It's time for Islam to get it's new age groove on like the rest of the world's religions. It's all about love, baby.

I like how "new-age" is a belief system you feel the world should convert to. The more things change eh?

36 · Nilufar said

34 · Anil said

BREAKING NEWS: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry reportedly to be restored as Chief Justice of Pakistan.

Fantastic news! A win for Pakistan--and for a, hopefully, wholly civil government.

I will leave the rest of the commenters here to conjure up ways to colonize those nasty Muslims for world peace.

Note to the SM interns/bloggers: If you will cover Pakistan or Bangladesh, please try to do so without making us out to be a bunch of Islamofascists, whose moves (protests, etc.) are determined only by our savage understanding of the Ko-rayn. Most of us actually have critical and intellectual faculties fully working--even if you don't believe that to be possible.

That's kind of hard to tell, if you're one to go by.

37 · Brown said

What kind of yoga is Yoga Fire doing that he is advocating dropping bombs?

Bomb them with love!!!

OM SHANTI. SHANTI. SHANTI.

Not only is this offensive, but you're also a dumbass. Yoga Fire is not advocating dropping bombs; he is relativizing the moral wrongness of one act of violence over another. Acknowledging differences between war and terrorism is not equivalent to advocating dropping bombs (as opposed to blowing yourself up), and just because someone disagrees with you gives you no right to mock what you perceive their religion to be. Asshole.

Talking about Vir Sanghvi and his so called piece is demeaning to the spirit of this blog. He sounded like scores of fundamenalist Indians on this blog who try to convince us that Indians are different than Pakistanis. Please under stand we are all the same, we are all South Asians. Sometimes we just love to kill each other, but thats a very small difference compare to the color of our skin.

Talking about Vir Sanghvi and his so called piece is demeaning to the spirit of this blog. He sounded like scores of fundamenalist Indians on this blog who try to convince us that Indians are different than Pakistanis. Please under stand we are all the same, we are all South Asians. Sometimes we just love to kill each other, but thats a very small difference compare to the color of our skin.

Seriously, you don't think Pakistanis try to convince themselves they're different from Indians? Some Pakistanis I know would be offended by this statement. They pride themselves on being of a different racial/ethnic stock, lighter-skinned, taller, stronger, etc. And honestly, 'We are all South Asian' is a meaningless statement on the subcontinent itself (i.e. it's only meaningful in the diaspora, and probably mostly in the U.S. at that).

They pride themselves on being of a different racial/ethnic stock, lighter-skinned, taller, stronger, etc.

I know, and I hate that. That's why I get such a perverse thrill out of allying myself with, e.g., the Flemish right.

He sounded like scores of fundamentalist Indians on this blog

Except that he is part of the liberal brigade, and hates the Hindu radicals.

Pakistan has walked so far down the Wahabbi road that even the liberals have given up on them.

I like how "new-age" is a belief system you feel the world should convert to.

I'm glad you like it. However, there's nothing to convert to. And there's no "belief system". Just an attitude.
A chilled out, laid back attitude of love, baby.

Not only is this offensive, but you're also a dumbass. Yoga Fire is not advocating dropping bombs; he is relativizing the moral wrongness of one act of violence over another. Acknowledging differences between war and terrorism is not equivalent to advocating dropping bombs (as opposed to blowing yourself up), and just because someone disagrees with you gives you no right to mock what you perceive their religion to be. Asshole.

Wow. PMS much? Where in the world did you get "mocking" someone's "perceived religion" from?

And I totally don't get how the concept of love bombing is "offensive".

Take a chill pill, sweetheart.

fundamenalist Indians... who try to convince us that Indians are different than Pakistanis. Please under stand we are all the same, we are all South Asians

Please under stand we are all the same, we are all South Asians

Assuming you are not a troll: I do not share your religion, cuisine, culture, language, script, film or music, let alone your country. Your country has a terrible reputation in the country I live in. Deservedly, by many accounts. Please do not insult me by boxing me with you.

Wow, preach on brother!! You are harsh, and I, as a pro-India AB(c)D, am lovin' it!!

60 · ibleed4pakists said

Assuming you are not a troll: I do not share your religion, cusine, culture, language, script, film or music, let alone your country. Your country has a terrible reputation in the country I live in. Deservedly, by many accounts. Please do not insult me by boxing me with you.

Are you Norwegian ?

Assuming you are not a troll: I do not share your religion, cusine, culture, language, script, film or music, let alone your country. Your country has a terrible reputation in the country I live in. Deservedly, by many accounts. Please do not insult me by boxing me with you.

We are all one race - human race!

People, grow up.

Religion, cuisine, culture, language, script, film, music and geographical borders are all external to the SELF.

We are all human and we all bleed red. We all breath air, crave love, and get hunger pains.

I can't believe this has to be spelled out to ADULTS! Well, I guess I'm not surprised. Children seem to get these basic facts of life better than jaded, bitter grown ups.

looking at some of the comments above i would suggest the discussion board on rediff.com as a good source of talking points for future comments

45 · The Schwartz said

the US, which was at war with Japan and had at least some strategic reason to drop the weapons, ended the war as quickly as possible with a terrifying show of absolute force

Ending a war quickly can never justify the unmitigated evil of murdering babies, children, pregnant women, old folks and other innocent civilians. That you and your ilk can make such demonic rationalizations shows how morally bankrupt you really are. Shame on you!

What makes the nuclear holocausts infilicted by America so contemptible is that they were ordered by the american president himself and were part of the overall anglo-american strategy of targeting civilians in cities with the openly declared intention of terrorizing the enemy population.

So basically, the length of time is more important than the number of people killed? So it's worse if I kill ten people in a day than a hundred in a week?

We are not talking of tens of people or weeks here. We are talking of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians incinerated in seconds. Something that was unprecedented in human history and that has never been repeated. And it was not some renegade general that ordered the bombings it was ordered by the american president himself and was the culmination of a criminal strategy of terrorism. Yet you have the nerve to claim the moral high ground!

The Japanese killed 200K to 300K in about two months.

The japanese did not kill indiscriminately as the americans did in their fire-bombings and nukings of enemy cities not just in WWII but also in Korea and Vietnam. Besides, how does that justify America committing atrocities on japanese civilians?

looking at some of the comments above i would suggest the discussion board on rediff.com as a good source of talking points for future comments

Right, b/c the concerns and aspirations of ordinary Indians should be mocked and subordinated to the whims of Romila Thapar, the Gandhi family, and whichever washed-up Russian leftist has rolled into town most recently.

we all bleed red. We all breath air, crave love, and get hunger pains

We are all one race - human race!

Religion, cuisine, culture, language, script, film, music and geographical borders are all external to the SELF

Nuclear proliferation also sucks because it makes it easier for nukes to get into the hands of utterly amoral organizations like Al Qaeda. The more unstable regimes that get their hands on nuclear toys, the more likely we are to see a nuke set off in the middle of a major city by some d-bag doing it in the name of some "cause."

nuclear weapons aren't toys. and only states probably have the capital wherewithal to deploy them.

only states probably have the capital wherewithal to deploy them.

Well, so far, yes--good point, Razib, but--why should we expect this to continue into the future? I know it's expensive, but. . . .

Amardeep, I've been meaning to say this for a long time. Thanks very much for the well-researched, timely, and balanced posts in the last 5-6 months.

why should we expect this to continue into the future?

in the future we're all dead. aliens could invade. children with down syndrome could be gene therapied so that they could win spelling bees. but i'm sure such vague comments as "in the future" will be eminently plausible to data-ignorant morons; i.e., most humans.

Razib, with all due respect, you need a better argument for nukes staying out of the hands of non-state actors than "it hasn't been done in the past"--the point is, it could happen under not-implausible scenarios in the next decade.

according to me pakistaan is in big trouble , i think so all united country should help to survive pakistaani people and also not to pakistaani govt.

according to me pakistaan is in big trouble , i think so all united country should help to survive pakistaani people and also not to pakistaani govt.

WTF!?

"Take Ansar Ullah, a Bengali leftist from the old school. Like many secularists of his generation, his life has been dominated by the struggle against Jamaat-e-Islami...The allegation that Jamaat would want to exterminate liberals was hardly far-fetched. Maulana Mawdudi, its founder, has as a great a claim as Sayyid Qutb of the Muslim Brotherhood, to be the first to argue for a totalitarian Islamic empire. "The establishment of an ideological Islamic state requires the Earth," he said. "Not just a portion, but the entire planet."...When I asked Shiraz Maher, the co-author of the Policy Exchange report, why he had not offered his work to the leftish Fabians or Institute for Public Policy Research, he guffawed. They would never print what he wrote. For this Muslin liberal, the left was no longer a home but an obstacle. Ed Husain did not laugh but exploded with anger. "Where is the centre-left movement combating extremism?" he thundered. "Who on the left stands on the side of Muslims who want to support secularism and pluralism? Do they think that fascists only have white skins?"" http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/15/islam-britain-jamaat-labour-extremists

(FYI - I am not the Sameer of post #64)

73 · mayur said

i think so all united country should help to survive pakistaani people and also not to pakistaani govt.

Did you mean to say that we must unite and help each other so that we may survive the actions of the pakistani people and their govt? :-).

9 · Amitabh said

Nilufar, I don't have quotes but have been told that Pakistani schoolbooks repeatedly and forcefully paint Indians and Hindus as villains and enemies. And portray a very different version of sub-continental history than is accepted by any other historians anywhere else. And I'm talking about normal schools, not madrassas. The curriculum itself very aggressively pushes forth a hateful and propogandistic agenda.

Wow, "being repeatedly told" means it *must* be fact.

Just to shift the direction of this conversation sideways... does anyone predict another coup?

66 · rob said

mocked and subordinated to the whims of Romila Thapar, the Gandhi family, and whichever washed-up Russian leftist has rolled into town most recently.

excellent rediff comment.

56 · rob said

That's why I get such a perverse thrill out of allying myself with, e.g., the Flemish right.

agreed, mr. rediff commenter.
the jews in europe were obnoxious, so i got a perverse thrill out of...
japanese-americans during ww 2 ate sushi, so i got a perverse thrill out of...

Pretty amazing. I'll just quoate Chapati here:

Since 2006, the ordinary people of Pakistan have repeatedly mobilized, peacefully and forcefully, in the streets to 1. kick a military dictator out of both army and civilian power 2. get an election done despite the assassination of a popular leader and 3. keep the matter of justice and the judiciary alive and come out against the civilian regime of zardari after it broke its campaign promises.

Wow.

More on civil disobedience in pakistan (from NYTimes)

“The officers had been asking us to defend, but when we saw the mob was so powerful we retreated and the officers told us to retreat,” said Constable Mohammed Imtiaz. He supported the call for the restoration of the judiciary, he said. “We need the rule of law.”

One of the senior officials in the Lahore government, the chief magistrate, Sajjad Bhutta, said he had resigned and refused to carry out what he called the illegal acts of the police crackdown. He appeared among the crowds on the Mall, surrounded by cheers and waving flags.

Tough to say how it will all turn out, but a popular uprising motivated by a desire for the Rule of Law -- that's great.

This is good for India too. In two different ways. One, while dealing with a democratic government can be very messy, it is, in my opinion, preferable to dealing with a military junta. Second, many (elite) Indians pride themselves on their country being a "democracy" in contrast to Pakistan. The imperfections of our democracy (illiteracy, malnutrition, caste inequality, gender inequality, communal violence,...) are often forgotten or glossed over - presumably, the fact that we are a "democracy" covers all ills.

Now that Pakistan is also a democracy (imperfect, yes, like ours), one of the ways in which we elite Indians can feel "superior" is gone. Perhaps we can now get down to the hard business of correcting our own imperfections. It is worth noting that on many human development indicators, Bangladesh has outdone India over the last 20 years or so. (It's an underreported story.)

In the meantime, well done and all the best to Pakistanis.

Note to the SM interns/bloggers: If you will cover Pakistan or Bangladesh, please try to do so without making us out to be a bunch of Islamofascists, whose moves (protests, etc.) are determined only by our savage understanding of the Ko-rayn. Most of us actually have critical and intellectual faculties fully working--even if you don't believe that to be possible.

I dont speak for SM bloggers but I have to say that this is not the fault of SM Bloggers. They do a very good job of monitoring these pages but they cannot control the content of the commenters. This thread is actually not that bad. A lot of SM commenters are not much different from rediff or LGF commenters. Thats the market place speaking at some level. There is nothing anyone can do about that.

Since 2006, the ordinary people of Pakistan have repeatedly mobilized, peacefully and forcefully, in the streets to 1. kick a military dictator out of both army and civilian power 2. get an election done despite the assassination of a popular leader and 3. keep the matter of justice and the judiciary alive and come out against the civilian regime of zardari after it broke its campaign promises.

India should not be celebrating the new found people power of Pakistan. It is the time for India to speak softly (while it reaches for..)

DizzyDesi, please stick to one handle per thread -- preferably just one handle, period.

Nilufar in # 4 - "The reality is that young Pakistanis volunteering to fight with their brothers in Afghanistan or Kashmir is no different than young American men and women volunteering to serve in Iraq or Afghanistan. One is considered patriotic and the other "militant Jehad.""

One difference is that, these young Pakistanis, who crossed into Kashmir to help their [Muslim] brethren get rid of India, were responsible for the ethnic cleansing of Kashmir's [minority] Hindu population. Just a few months after the first group of Pakistani volunteers, you so kindly sent, arrived in our valley in 1989, the Kashmiri Hindus [aka Kashmiri Pandits], who had lived peacefully with their Muslim neighbors since Islam came to our valley nearly seven hundred years ago, were targeted for assassinations, rape, terror and finally, expulsion.
And, thanks to your "volunteers" , we will forever have to live with the guilt of remaining silent when these monsters were trampling Kashmir's pluralism under their Wahhabi Jack Boots, so that they could herald the Nizam-e-Mustafa.
And before you or any one else responds with, so what, the Indian Army is killing Kashmiri Muslims, please tell me, do you advocate the killing of American citizens because the American Army is in Iraq and Afghanistan?

And the other major difference is that, the American Army is not running rampant in American cities, blowing up compatriots to smithereens by the thousands, controlling an American state [like Swat], burning down girls' schools, decapitating American leaders and hanging their dead bodies in the town square; and neither is the U.S. Army demanding that women, like you and me, live our lives according to the bible.

Paagal wrote:
Thats the market place speaking at some level. There is nothing anyone can do about that.

No. Bloggers have a great deal of influence over the tone of their comments, from the type of posts they write, the moral suasion they exercise in the comments, and the kinds of commentors they ban. Bloggers are not responsible, but they are accountable, for their comments.

Dizzy wrote:
India should not be celebrating the new found people power of Pakistan. It is the time for India to speak softly (while it reaches for..)

Sure. The desire for Rule of Law in Pakistan may not be consistent with the interests of the government of India. But why should we westerners, who happen to be South-Asian (North) Americans, care about the interests of the Government of India?

I do agree with the suggestion to speak softly, tough, and I look forward to you implementing that recommendation immediately.

But why should we westerners, who happen to be South-Asian (North) Americans, care about the interests of the Government of India?

Well, why should anyone care for what is happening in Pakistan at all for that matter? It's part of the discussion.

I hate to say it, but I can't help feeling that very very dark days are ahead for Pakistan, and because of that, for India, too, and there will be dark echoes for the Pakistani diaspora too, and in as much as British boys of Pakistani origin blowing themselves up and murdering innocent people in the name of the 'ummah' affects any of us with brown skin, it will affect the Indian diaspora too.

Reading that essay by Pervez Hoodhboy was spinechilling, and very, very truthful.

Wow, "being repeatedly told" means it *must* be fact.

Actually, if you read Pervez Hoodhboy's article, and scroll down, you'll see an extract from the Pakistani school Social Studies curriculum. It makes for very grim reading indeed.

One of the key factors for the recurring and ongoing instability in Pakistan is the lack of strong institutions. Because of the Army rule, these never got an opportunity to get off the ground and gain strength. Institutions are what is required to ensure that vagaries of individuals does not lead a nation astray.

88 · Ikram said

I do agree with the suggestion to speak softly, tough, and I look forward to you implementing that recommendation immediately.

Zing!

46 · dipanjan said

Class dismissed in Swat valley - a must-watch documentary. [link]

Dipanjan, thank you so much for the film (It has been emotionally draining, but it is certainly worth seeing). I hope that this talented 11-year old and her brave family remain safe.

"Note to the SM interns/bloggers: If you will cover Pakistan or Bangladesh, please try to do so without making us out to be a bunch of Islamofascists, whose moves (protests, etc.) are determined only by our savage understanding of the Ko-rayn. Most of us actually have critical and intellectual faculties fully working--even if you don't believe that to be possible. "

If you have such critical faculties, I dont see how you can get so worked up over the actions of the Israeli, Indian or American states without applying the same logic to the Pakistani state. Do you forget, 1971? The coldblooded massacre of central asians in afghanistan in the 1990s? That blood is on the hands of the pakistani civil-military establishment.

Where is the muslim outrage over the massacre of kurds, armenians, and most recently, the sudanese?

More on pakistani textbooks - in distinct contrast to the views of troll Nilufar - here is a study by pakistani academic Tariq Rahman.

http://www.tariqrahman.net/language/Images%20of%20the%20'Other'.htm

Conclusions - The images of the "Other" in pakistani textbooks
potray hindus, christians and western people in negative terms.
The state controlled textbook Boards focus on creating
nationalistic opinion againts India so as to create a garrision state
mentality among the citizens.

Y'know, that whole "nasty, brutish, and short" thing?

66 · rob said

Right, b/c the concerns and aspirations of ordinary Indians

They pride themselves on being of a different racial/ethnic stock, lighter-skinned, taller, stronger, etc.

I know, and I hate that. That's why I get such a perverse thrill out of allying myself with, e.g., the Flemish right.

So your affection for right-wing extremism arose from a desire to assuage your own insecurities or a concern for the aspirations of ordinary Indians? Both?

86 · SM Intern said

SM Intern on March 16, 2009 12:26 PM · Direct link · “Quote�(?)

DizzyDesi, please stick to one handle per thread -- preferably just one handle, period.

Sry... Autofill in this PC. I'm using the the Ibleed4paskists handle in this thread. Could you change #85

As a concerned South Asian-American of Pakistani origin, I'm actually really disappointed by the turn this thread has taken. Most of the comments are not even on topic, having more to do with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or the ills of Muslims everywhere rather than with the protests in Pakistan which are ostensibly the topic of the post. I made a comment (number 5) which I felt actually carried the discussion forward along the lines that Amardeep had set out, but no one bothered to respond to it. I like Sepia Mutiny and I appreciate the hard work the bloggers put into it (knowing that they all have day jobs), but I'm inclined to agree that if they decide to discuss Pakistan than they have a responsiblity to make sure that the discussion unfolds in a civil manner. I have no problem with legitimate criticism of the Pakistani government (I have my own share of criticism), but too often posts about Pakistan become a place for commenters (largly Indian and non-Muslim) to spew all sorts of vitriol against Pakistanis and Muslims in general, which doesn't exactly further an academic or intellectual discussion. I've read comments on threads where people literally come out and say "Wouldn't it be great for India if Pakistan totally breaks up?" As a Pakistani, I am offended by this type of rhetoric. When we all fault Ahmedinjad for wishing for the destruction of Isreael, what gives us the right to wish for the breakup of any other country that we just happen to not like for some reason?

By definition, for them terrorism is an act that only Americans can commit.

Sound familiar? While some Indians can pat admirable Hoodbhoy in pointing to Pakistani Social Science textbooks, let's hope that smugness does not blind us to the skeletons which lurk in our closet too:

Hindus could not be terrorists because it was neither in their genes nor in their character, the BJP's chief ministerial candidate for Delhi VK Malhotra said on Monday while accusing the Mumbai Police's Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) of lying and conspiring with the UPA government.

BJP today said it was wrong to use the term “Hindu terrorists” for the alleged extremists arrested on charges of the Malegaon blasts and charged “some section” of trying to malign the majority community....One is trying to give a bad name to the majority community just because one or one and a half act. No one has the right to use the word Hindu terrorists..

and finally, agem, from Bal Thackeray:
"If they (Hindu terrorists) are (behind the September 29 Malegaon blast), I would be glad. Terrorists should be born among Hindus, I have begun to feel," he said in an interview given to his party's mouthpiece 'Samaana'.

but too often posts about Pakistan become a place for commenters (largly Indian and non-Muslim) to spew all sorts of vitriol against Pakistanis and Muslims in general

You'll notice that the discussion was taken in that direction (Hiroshima - -Nagazaki -- Perfidy of Jews and Indians - Suffering of Ummah) by Muslim Pakistani posters like Nilufar.

Also, the discussion was placed in a wider context in the original post be referencing the article by Pervez Hoodbhoy.

I've read comments on threads where people literally come out and say "Wouldn't it be great for India if Pakistan totally breaks up?" As a Pakistani, I am offended by this type of rhetoric

Kabir, there is a direct line that can be drawn between the crisis Pakistan finds itself in now, and a state sanctioned policy to use jehadis to break up India in Kashmir over the last 20 years. It does sound horrible for people to say that about Pakistan, but this is a fact. The institutional cultivation of jihadi ideology and organisations intended to loosen the territorial integrity of India is rebounding on the Pakistani state right now. As ugly as these statements are, they are directly linked to the denial of this by Pakistani commentators who for years cheered jehadis for the havoc they caused everywhere except outside Pakistan.

I don't want Pakistan to break up, by the way, because I don't want India to have to deal with the hell that would be unleashed if it did happen.

You'll notice that the discussion was taken in that direction (Hiroshima - -Nagazaki -- Perfidy of Jews and Indians - Suffering of Ummah) by Muslim Pakistani posters like Nilufar.

A lot of discussions on SM about Pakistan devolve into Paki-Muslim hate-fests not unlike the discussions on Pakistan at rediff and other websites where the commenters are rabid Paki-haters Indian patriots. That happens without the likes of Nilufar usually.

I like Sepia Mutiny and I appreciate the hard work the bloggers put into it (knowing that they all have day jobs), but I'm inclined to agree that if they decide to discuss Pakistan than they have a responsiblity to make sure that the discussion unfolds in a civil manner

No. Bloggers have a great deal of influence over the tone of their comments, from the type of posts they write, the moral suasion they exercise in the comments, and the kinds of commentors they ban. Bloggers are not responsible, but they are accountable, for their comments.

As I said earlier, this type of tone in the comments is not set by the bloggers. I have been reading SM for years and the bloggers (including Vinod) take a rather sensible approach to Pakistan. Is it America-centric? Yes, but the bloggers are Americans so that should not be a surprise. I think we will be hard pressed to find a post by a blogger which was patently unfair to Pakistan.

correction:

who for years cheered jehadis for the havoc they caused everywhere except INSIDE Pakistan.

102 · Bobby said

and a state sanctioned policy to use jehadis to break up India in Kashmir over the last 20 years.

instigated, supported, and funded beyond measure by the great communicator and that most wonderful of leaders, ronald reagan himself.

Pakistan is a buffer state for India now - saving it from the crazies of the world.

Let's have a real conversation (i.e. please ignore all rabid anti-Pakistani people subsequent to this), because what is happening in Pakistan is significant in its own right, as something that is happening in South Asia, and as something that is simply interesting. We can save the discussion about "Muslim" attitudes towards "Kurds" and "Armenians" for another thread, eh? And perhaps the SM intern could take a stronger hand and start deleting comments (including any that I make) that drive the conversation towards oblivision.

is perspective on what is happening in Pakistan is quite alarming to me. Among other things, Hoodbhoy’s article makes me think that it almost doesn’t matter who is running the show in Islamabad; in terms of curriculum in the schools and the cultural mindset of ordinary Pakistanis, the Islamization Zia initiated nearly thirty years ago has steadily continued to progress even under subsequent leaders. (At least, that is what Hoodbhoy seems to be arguing. Any comments from Pakistani readers on this argument?)

I don't understand how anyone can imagine that anything else could have happened given the limited amount of power that Pakistan has in the world, the enormous amount of money thrown at Zia (and others) by outside forces, the sabotauging of any semblance of the Pakistani state from the very beginning (see Ayesha Jalal), and the geography and history that made sound industrial policy basically impossible. Perhaps it's teleological, but given how recent the Pakistani nationalist movement was when the state became independent (they hadn't even fully settled the question of whether it was to be one or several states!), in hindsight, was anything else possible given the global and regional trends towards neoliberalism/islamism/Hindutva/other kinds of fundamentalism?

However, all that said, what I'm more interested in are SPECIFIC interventions that could be made - in the same way that people are fighting the Hinduization of textbooks in Karnataka, the way that the Bangla language movement fought against the imposition of Urdu (successfully, i might add - bangla was added as a state language in paksitan in 1956 i think), whether there was anything that could have stopped the PPP from falling apart in the 70s given its social base, etc. You can only build a large enough coalition to be sustianable in a country with a combination of three things: ideology; subsidies to people; and selective use of force. Otherwise, shit falls apart.

But for me the more interesting question, though is what TYPE of Muslim state Pakistan is. Given that Pakistan was founded on the idea of Muslims as a social and cultural group which has gradually turned towards one version of Islam as a political and legal framework, it would be interesting to hear how things can be directed towards a different kind of Islamic politics / legalism. The Muslim Family Law Ordinance is an interesting attempt at reconciling divorce law i think it is in a way that could be considered islamic and a marginal improvement over what had existed before. The revolution in iran and what it represents (islam + democratic revolution) has had lasting effects that are very different from the type of "islamic" regime that the Saudi government represents, both of which are very different from Pakistan or Bangladesh (which are in turn different from each other).

Many people (my favorite being abdolkarim soroush) have tried to construct a notion of political islam that is sustainable and somewhat democratic, that tries to carve a middle path (e.g. the quran is infallible, but our knowledge of the quran ebbs and flows and is social in nature) between fundamentalism and ardent secularism, etc. How could Pakistan move towards being a "Muslim" state/society along the lines that India is a "Hindu" state/society? Or is it impossible as long as the military controls the economy and the state and authority is bureaucratised, fragmented, at odds with itself, and vulnerable to external threats (usually in the form of aid? ;). Aside from the military, is social and economic power still rooted in the landlords? These are the things I wonder about.

Kabir -- The problem you describe is one SM has always had. Comment threads on pakistan are crap. Uninformed, full of trolls, idiots, and always veering to the question "is it good for india". On other controversial topics, like the LTTE in Sri lanka, SM has productive intelligent, topical, if heated, threads, full of people making smart arguments in favour and against.

Whatever you may say about this comment thread, you wouldn't call it smart.

To have a good discussion, you need people knowledgable on the topic discussing the issue, seriously, in a non-trollish fashion. The SM blog doesn't attract readers who can do that for Pakistan, and the SM bloggers don't think it is a priority that it do so.

(Bangladesh posts have a similar problem, but with fewer trolls.)

Paagal wrote:
As I said earlier, this type of tone in the comments is not set by the bloggers

Paagal, you are wrong. Bloggers set the tone of the comments in a blog, directly and indirectly, through active intervention and through neglect.

Paagal, you are wrong. Bloggers set the tone of the comments in a blog, directly and indirectly, through active intervention and through neglect.

You do realize that this is not dailykos and the bloggers here are not getting paid. The kind of moderation you want will require a full time person to constantly throw flags.

Nilufer:

The curriculum is not different from any other country. Are you talking about madrasas? Madrasas are perfectly legitimate schools throughout the Muslim world, not unlike religious schools--like Sunday school or Jewish centers for kids

Have you ever seen Jewish kids/teenagers come out of their sabbath prayers screaming for the death of Muslims? That, unfortunately is a regular practice after Friday prayers in most Muslim countries, especially Pakistan.

There are other important lens through which the situation in Pakistan must be analyzed.

1. Regional/Ethnic: The power struggle between Zardari and Sharif is not just between two political parties, but also between Sindhi and Punjabi groups. These two groups who have either together or alternatively been in control of Pakistan for most of history. The Baluch's and Pashtuns have had no significant representation in Pakistans history. So, what we have in Pakistan is also a power struggle between different groups. The third important group within Pakistan - the armed forces is mostly Punjabi. Analyzing Pakistan through this framework can sometimes provide interesting insights.

2. Plutocracy: About a 100 extended families/clans control about 90% of Pakistan's wealth. The really unfortunate thing about this fact is that the list hasn't changed much in over a century. It was the same wealthy class that bankrolled Jinnah and the formation of Pakistan and which still controls most of the levers. Most people we think are players are really pawns in the ever running soap opera of this intra-country power realignments.

All said and done, by a failure to form a cogent nation and fast slipping into a chaotic tribal factionalism, Pakistan leaves most of its neighbours (and western nations) no option but to treat it not as a nation but a complex set of allies and foes - frenemies we need to have temporary alliances with in a constant chess game.

Ironically it may become necessary that India make friends with rich and powerful among the Punjabi and Sindhi elite and armed forces and use them as a buffer against the more insane amongst a nation gone crazy.

Bobby, I grant that the discussion was taken off topic by Nilofur, who is ostensibly a Muslim Pakistani. However, since she is also clearly a troll, why do otherwise sensible people bother responding to her remarks and further derailing the thread?

Second, to address your point about Kashmir and Pakistan trying to "break the terratorial integrity of India". I'm afraid the situation isn't as simple as your making it out to be. the Kashmir issue is a complicated geopolitical issue, similar to the Israel/Palestine issue. the LOC has been disputed for the last 50+ years, I think. Therefore, there is not one point of view. Many would argue that Kashmir has not been settled to be uneqivicolly part of India in the same way as say Mumbai. There is a Kashmiri freedom movement and Pakistan can have a legitimate point of view that Kashmir belongs to Pakistan. This is of course not to say that "jihad" is justified. I personally would like to see the issue resolved diplomatically in the same way that other countries are trying to implement a two-state solution in Isreael. Also, regardless of the whole jihad issue, it's unacceptable for Indian commenters to gloat whenever bad things happen in Pakistan or wish for the breakup of the country.

Ikram, I totally agree with you. I'm just disappointed that we as a disapora community can't have any sensible discussion of Pakistan-related issues. Perhaps some of it has to do with blogging in general, and people's freedom to say whatever they want, even in a field of study that they are not knowledgable in. I'm sure most of the commenters on Sepia are not International Relations experts. Neither am I for that matter, which is why I feel it is important to respect certain norms of civility. Both Pakistanis and Indians have greviences (both legitimate and not) against the governments of the other country. But hopefully, as members of the larger South Asian diaspora we can come together on a neutral site such as Sepia and have a dialogue, where we learn to respect differing points of view. Is that too much to ask?

Pakistan is a buffer state for India now - saving it from the crazies of the world.

Many people (my favorite being abdolkarim soroush) have tried to construct a notion of political islam that is sustainable and somewhat democratic, that tries to carve a middle path (e.g. the quran is infallible, but our knowledge of the quran ebbs and flows and is social in nature) between fundamentalism and ardent secularism, etc. How could Pakistan move towards being a "Muslim" state/society along the lines that India is a "Hindu" state/society?

India as a Hindu society gets put in quotes because India actually has a large minority of non-Hindus in it. Pakistan has no minority religious groups that are large enough, wealthy enough, or empowered enough (having been relegated to second-class citizenship by the government's failure to enforce the law equitably) to be at politically consequential. You don't have notable Hindu writers, lawyers, or film stars in Pakistan anymore the way you have them in India. You can't have a pluralistic society if you don't have a pluralistic electorate, so I think the idea of a democratic Islamic republic that respects the rights of minority religions would be a pipe dream. If you want to respect the rights of the minorities you can either not be democratic or not be Islamic. You can't have both unless you are willing to let the electoral or political power of those minority groups swell to the point where they can adequately safeguard their own interests.

You don't have notable Hindu writers, lawyers, or film stars in Pakistan anymore the way you have them in India.

I don't know if this is a useful post on my part or not, as it only deals with my personal experience, but when I hear and read all of this talk of Young Pakistanis volunteering for the Jihad in Kashmir and Afghanistan, I'm honestly puzzled as to where these "Jihadis" are coming from?

I think I've talked on this blog being about my background: second generation Pakistani Canadian whose extended family is still mainly settled in the villages of the Potohar region of Northern Punjab. I have a huge family, 100+ first cousins, most of whom are not that educated or well off and are just common everyday people who I would consider a very run of the mill, mainstream representation of Pakistanis, rural or otherwise. The kind of people whose young men of working age either go into the army to become foot soldiers or get into debt to work as general laborers in the middle east or in the major cities of Pakistan, or if they are really lucky and hit the jackpot and get an arranged marriage to a girl cousin settled in the UK. Most of the youth didn't even seem that interested in going to the masjid, even the ones that had become Hafiz and memorized the quran....they'd rather be out with their hunting dogs, riding their motorcycles or playing with singing birds...

Whenever I have traveled back to the home country or visited my cousins in their labor camps in the UAE, I did not get the impression of a rising current of fanaticism, fundamentalism or hatred. The last time I went back, was after 11 years of being away, and believe me, I was *really* looking for sympathies for the Taliban or Al-Qaeda...based on what I read beforehand about the country and where it was going. Yet, I did not hear of a single young person from my pind or the surrounding areas that had "volunteered" to fight in Kashmir or Afghanistan, or was that "radicalized" in their beliefs to the point where they were more focused on that "politics" than say watching indian movies, pakistani dramas, gearing up for next week's bull racing or kabbadi festival, or bitchin' about the price of atta and the bus fares

Granted my sample size was small but what I sensed, at least in the corner of Pakistan that I spent time in, was not a rising tide of fanaticism but more concerns regarding personal safety due to family disputes that were previously settled with discussion, now being settled by the gun and paid killings (using pataan refugees) and the rise of thuggery. They just don't believe in the govt. or anyone, being able to effectively police the state or provide basic services to its people. So definitely the picture is not rosy in Pakistan, there's definitely a lot of hopelessness, but is it a state whose ordinary citizens are frothing at the mouth with hatred against everyone else, marching in step to some Jihadi agenda? Hardly.

I read Pervez Hoodbhoy's article and while it has some elements of truth, on the whole it seemed to exaggerate reality for the purposes of fear mongering.

Second, to address your point about Kashmir and Pakistan trying to "break the terratorial integrity of India".

Kabir, the Pakistani establishment created, armed, gestated, fertilised and promoted an entire generation of jihadist ideologues and organisations with the aim of breaking up the territory of India, death by a thousand cuts. From within Pakistan, from the intellectuals, the writers, the journalists, from everyone, silence on this. And now these same people are killing Pakistan.

Also, regardless of the whole jihad issue, it's unacceptable for Indian commenters to gloat whenever bad things happen in Pakistan or wish for the breakup of the country.

But gloating about, and attempting to facilitate the break up of India, has been the central policy of the Pakistani state through the sponsorship of jihadi ideologists and organisations, for the better part of twenty years. From Pakistani liberals and people in the diaspora there was absolute silence about this. When the same people turn on the Pakistani state, suddenly there is horror and outrage. Can't you see why people are calling this hypocrisy? Are they only freedom fighters when they're killing Indians, or Jews, or Westerners?

112 · Kabir said

I'm sure most of the commenters on Sepia are not International Relations experts.

I think ditching an International Relations perspective might be a good way to begin approaching a sensible discussion on Pakistan - whether one is an 'expert' or not.

Take the approach from most of the mainstream media when something major happens in the country. The question seems to be: How does this affect stability in the region, and how does this affect the War on Terra?

How about asking first: How does this affect the people of Pakistan?

Naive and over-simplistic, perhaps, but... hearts and minds, anyone?

Bobby, to me it seems that you are overly simplyfing a complex issue. Pakistan is not interested in grabbing random parts of India or breaking up the country. There is a specific historical dispute over a particular region, namely Kashmir, that was historically a Muslim-majority area. At the time of partition, Muslim-majority areas were supposed to form Pakistan. Granted, Kasmir was a princely state and the Maharaja had the right to choose to accede to India or to Pakistan. He chose India. Now clearly, it is problematic for a Muslim-majority area to become part of a Hindu-majority country just because the Hindu ruler decided so. Also, when the boundry lines were drawn, by the British, Muslim-majority areas such as Gurdaspur that techically should have gone to Pakistan went to India, presumably because of access to Kashmir. My point with all this information, is that the Kashmir issue is a complex geopolitical, and international issue which there have been several UN resolutions over. You cannot simplify it as simply Pakistan wanting to break up India. That you are doing so reflects your inability to accept different points of view on a complex issue.

Anyway, Kashmir is really not the point. I don't support Pakistanis who gloat about negative events in India, neither do I support Indians who gloat about the breakup of Pakistan. I think there are more productive things we could be doing with our time and better ways to ensure a peaceful South Asia for all of us.

Vivek (# 117), I agree with you. My point about Sepia commenters mostly not being IR 'experts' was that these threads really become a kind of free-for-all, where people feel free to say whatever random thing comes to their minds, mostly based on their own life experience or what they have been taught growing up in a specific country. Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. It just means that we should all strive to be civil to each other and respect that we have differing viewpoints, none of which are completely right.

I totally agree that the central question should be "How does this effect the people of Pakistan?" Unfortunately, as with most Pakistan related issues, it's hard to totally seperate India/Pakistan relations out of the discussion

. I assume that your point here is that when one realises the true nature of the SELF, all external divisions melt away, and the SELF is seen as an indistinguishable part of the absolute. One with the universal consciousness. This discovery brings much peace and happiness. Now try explaining the above to Mullah Fazlullah.

I'd be happy too. In fact, I do alot of inter-religious dialogueing. The world needs more of it. Just because some few violent fanatics somewhere lack brain cells and compassion does not mean I have to come down to their level, does it? Let them come up to mine. It may take a lifetime or two, or several. But I will not regress myself. Let them progress themselves.

I have difficulty in understanding the kind of state the 'ideal' Pakistan would be.
What was the original vision of Jinnah? He did want a country based on an exclusive muslim identity, didn't he?
Yet, in his Aug 11 1947 speech, "He spoke of an inclusive and impartial government, religious freedom, rule of law and equality for all. He also seemed to advocate the separation of church and state". Are all these things compatible with a new nation founded on the premise that it would be a "separate homeland free of external domination, based on the lofty ideals of Islam, where the Muslims of the subcontinent could live in accordance with the tenets of Islam" (link)
I think the ideology was schizphrenic to begin with.
It seems natural that Pakistan, whose diverse sub-nationalities were held together by the sole common glue of religious purity would have had to become more rigid and orthodox as time went on, to prevent the dilution of the it's binding principle by secular and liberal influences. It also needed to find another substitute unifying factor, which it's rulers did in the hatred of the 'other'- India and the West.
We might blame Raegan and America for exploiting these tendencies, but they were just catalysts (and powerful ones at that). The substrate was already there.
The democratic/civilian governments have not done Pakistan any service in this regard. ZA Bhutto was partially responsible for the 1971 fiasco. Benazir Bhutto nurtured the Taliban, and set the ball rolling for the Kashmir Jehad. Nawaz Sharif is a friend of the islamists, and may or may not have known about the Kargil while signing the Lahore declaration. His probity is also extremely questionable, with a net worth of $1.4 Billion.
Where are the land reforms? Where is the probity?

As far as the world is concerned, democratic Pakistani governments are trickier to deal with, because they have the shield of deniability. They can pander to the extremists, and then blame the 'non state actors', or leave the field open to speculations about the role of the army and the ISI. At least with the Army, we are sure that we are dealing with the real power centre.

At the time of partition, Muslim-majority areas were supposed to form Pakistan.

Granted, Kasmir was a princely state and the Maharaja had the right to choose to accede to India or to Pakistan. He chose India.

Then the UN said there should be a plebiscite. Both India and Pakistan agreed, but one of the conditions was that Pakistani forces would have to leave the parts of Kashmir that India had not pushed them out of. 60 years later they are still there, so obviously no plebiscite could ever be conducted and now that ethnic cleansing has already been perpetrated against anyone not sympathetic to the anti-secular cause, a fair plebiscite is no longer possible.

Now clearly, it is problematic for a Muslim-majority area to become part of a Hindu-majority country just because the Hindu ruler decided so.

Pakistan is not interested in grabbing random parts of India or breaking up the country.

You cannot simplify it as simply Pakistan wanting to break up India.

Since Pakistan is under the heavy political influence of a praetorian military regime, even during periods of democracy it consistently chooses the latter course of action. I can't really blame them. They are a military after all. Their political support is dependent on there being an outside enemy and their potential as a military power can only be achieved by eliminating the competition.

Also, when the boundry lines were drawn, by the British, Muslim-majority areas such as Gurdaspur that techically should have gone to Pakistan went to India, presumably because of access to Kashmir.

Since you are talking about technical points, just FYI, Gurdaspur is not Muslim majority considering that the population ratio was almost even between Muslims and non Muslims. The whole of Gurdaspur district had just 51% Muslims according to 1941 census. And the fact that Ahmadiyas (who had a substantial presence there) were included as Muslims in the 1941 who were made non -Muslims by law by the Pakistan government in 1974 , I think it is ok for India to get the district.. Non muslims are technically in the majority. :-)

Wait a political Islam that is democratic? Isn't that exactly what the Hindutva movement is about? Is this a special case where what's good for the goose is not good for the gander because I seem to recall you being pretty anti-Hindutva.

he..he.. looks like you don't know the history of "secular progressives" like Dr. A. Dr. A is on record in sepia mutiny claiming that Rama is a mythical god, but when I asked whether Dr.A. considers Allah to be real and present or Allah to be mythical Dr.A went silent.

They use different scales for different people / countries / religions.

It would probably be in the best interest of all if both Bangladesh and Pakistan acceded to India but remained autonomous, like Goa. I mean, India has the best GDP of all 3 and a United SASC (south asian sub-continent) with pooled resources might actually have a chance at becoming a "super-power". United we stand, divided we fall (or kill each other). Forget Kashmiriyat, Desiyat is the new buzzword. We need to draw upon our shared histories and cultures, Sufism could probably become the state religion by default (since it covers all bases), and all is well with the world.

he..he.. looks like you don't know the history of "secular progressives" like Dr. A.

Excuse me while I go throw up.

Since you are talking about technical points, just FYI, Gurdaspur is not Muslim majority considering that the population ratio was almost even between Muslims and non Muslims. The whole of Gurdaspur district had just 51% Muslims according to 1941 census.

Not true.

The Punjab Boundary Commission led by Radcliffe awarded the three tehsils (sub-districts) of Gurdaspur District of Punjab to India inspite of these three tehsils having a clear Muslim majority (i.e. more than 51%) The fact that Gurdaspur itself had only a minor 51% Muslim majority is irrelevant.
In fact the argument used by India at that time was if the three tehsils were awarded to Pakistan, then Amritsar would have been completely surrounded by Pakistan.
Lets also remember that these three tehsils provided the only land route which connected India to Kashmir by land in 1947 and without these three tehsils India would lose Kashmir on the 'contiguous land route rule'.

Also 51% would still mean that the district should have gone to Pakistan because the rule was numerical majority (not super-majority) plus contiguous land route.

Sufism could probably become the state religion by default (since it covers all bases)

I mean, India has the best GDP of all 3 and a United SASC (south asian sub-continent) with pooled resources might actually have a chance at becoming a "super-power".

Not true.

I don't have the exact data. But the wiki says otherwise. the majorities are very close

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurdaspur#Pakistan_and_the_.22Gurdaspur_conspiracy.22

The Gurdaspur district in the undivided Punjab had on the basis of the 1941 census an overall Muslim majority of 51%, which came about in the first decades of the 20th century, mainly due to the out-migration of 45,000 Sikhs to the Chenab colony between 1891 and 1901. Gurdaspur had four tehsils (sub-districts) viz., Shakargarh (51.3% Muslims), Batala (53% Muslims), Pathankot (65% non-Muslim) and Gurdaspur it self (50.5% Muslims). Gurdaspur straddled a major river of the undivided Punjab of India, the Ravi, with Shakargarh Tehsil on the West Bank of the river and the rest of three Tehsils on the East Bank.

Also 51% would still mean that the district should have gone to Pakistan because the rule was numerical majority (not super-majority) plus contiguous land route.

That's right. What I said was in jest. Now that Ahmediyas have been made non Muslims, anyways non Muslims were in the majority in Gurdaspur district at that time. that'd be an argument to console folks who are still not reconciled with what happened then.

:-)

>Pakistan is not interested in grabbing random parts of India or breaking up the country.

Not true. They fund extremists in places as far away (from Kashmir) as Kerala, and recruit Muslims from Kerala to fight in Kashmir. They print counterfeit Indian currency, and smuggle it into India to fund Jehadi organizations, and try to engineer communal riots by setting of bomb blasts in communally sensitive places. The stated policy is to "balkanize" India. Unfortunately, the balkanization seems to be starting at home.

There is a covert actor in this show no one mentions -- China. One reason the Pakistani Army cannot pull back its support for the Jehadi organisations is because China considers them a very effective way of containing and distracting India. In fact, after the Mumbai attacks, Pakistan sent a Chinese special envoy to India to negotiate on their behalf, and stated that he had a blank cheque from Pakistan. According to some views, India took that quite seriously, and when it didn't get anywhere with the negotiations, promptly banned Chinese toys. Suddenly there was a lot of cooperation from Pakistan. There will be more such trade episodes now.

Pakistan is Saudi Arabia's social experiment gone horribly wrong. Americans funded the experiment, but the design, procedure and materials came from Saudi Arabia. Now China is trying to keep it running, even though history shows that the experiment has had significant blowback effects for the previous two sponsors. Pakistan's dependence on aid limits its wriggle room. Ideally it should ask all these people trying to use it as a geopolitical wedge to get lost, but that is probably not going to happen. But since these external folks have invested significantly in Pakistan, they will also try to keep it together, to some extent.

119 · Kabir said

"How does this effect the people of Pakistan?"

No, the question from my prespective should be, how does this affect the People of India? Academics and Historians can debate why Pakistan is where it is today. The likelihood of a break-up of Pakistan is high, which is not my wet dream or nightmare, but a real possibility. The largest refugees will probably come from Punjab into Northern Indian states. Hope the army is ready for maintaining law and order during this time. Luckily for Gujarat, the reputation of Modi should keep influx to a minimum.

As for the people of Pakistan, I show the same concern that many of my Pakistani collge friends showed for Indians. They cared about me and my friends, but had no problem donating to Kashmiri Freedom Funds at the local worship place. Quid pro quo.

The real game-changer here is going to be the US' acceptance of India's offer to send troops to Afghanistan--that will put the nail in the coffin of the ill-fated US-Pakistan "alliance."

Why shouldn't those commenters who support India gloat over Pakistan's misery? We are enemies, after all.

132 · rob said

The real game-changer here is going to be the US' acceptance of India's offer to send troops to Afghanistan--that will put the nail in the coffin of the ill-fated US-Pakistan "alliance."

the great communicator, leader of all that is good, mr. teflon himself, he who would sell arms to the ayatollah's forces in iran, lights the match to set pakistan on fire, now the u.s. can all let it burn and take everybody in the neigborhood down. smells like victory!

Why shouldn't those commenters who support India gloat over Pakistan's misery? We are enemies, after all.

So Canada should accede to the US, the two Koreas should join Japan, and Taiwan should join mainland China too?

Why not?

One Love
One World

or if they are really lucky and hit the jackpot and get an arranged marriage to a girl cousin settled in the UK.

For some reason, I don't think that these young pakistani girls in the UK feel the same way.

134 · mouth breather

Why do you need a new handle for each post?
And, by being smug for not being a "mouth breather" you, uhh--reveal all too much about your cramped, sorry and small little ambitions.

Gilani's reinstatement of Chaudhry was nimble--will be interesting to see how long he can keep up the balancing act!!

Paging SM Intern - please close this thread and spare us. It appears that just the word "Pakistan" ["India"] is sufficient to trigger a Pavlov-like response (complete with the saliva) in some Indian [Pakistani] bloggers...

137 · Suki Dillon

Suki--you seriously should make a blog for yourself--I would read it (and I'm sure I'm not the only one)! I felt really icky after going to Vancouver--you could help me get over that!!

Jammu and Kashmir documents - read for yourself: http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/documents/documents.html

-Maharaja Hari Singh's Letter to Mountbatten
-Accession Of Jammu And Kashmir State To India
-Text of India's Indian Complaint to the Security Council, 1st January 1948
-Sheikh Abdullah's speech to the UN
-U.N.RESOLUTION August 13, 1948
-Resolution on Assurances adopted by U.N. Commission for India and Pakistan(UNCIP) 1948
-Article 370 of the Indian Constitution
-Excerpts from Sheikh Abdullah's Opening Address to the J&K Constituent Assembly
-The Tashkent declaration 10th February 1966
-The Kashmir Accord 13 Nov 1974
-Simla Agreement, 2 July 1972

and there will be dark echoes for the Pakistani diaspora too, and in as much as British boys of Pakistani origin blowing themselves up and murdering innocent people in the name of the 'ummah' affects any of us with brown skin,

The sad thing is there many young british pakistani men ready to do a repeat of the 7/7 London bombings and there actions will effect all of us. Even scary is that many of them could use there British passport and come to America and do something here. If that was to happen the people who would suffer from the backlash the most are my sikh uncles.

If that was to happen the people who would suffer from the backlash the most are my sikh uncles.

But why would you feel sympathy for them? They are Punjabis after all. I mean, hello, they are PUNJABIS! They are probably misogynistic, not assimilated, beat up their kids, engage in vile cultural practices and other unspeakable things Punjabis like to engage in. I would have thought you would have said something like 'right on!'

sepia mutiny should really just change its name to saffron mutiny. i've been quite amused to see the soft hindutva nationalist rhetoric that parades for commentary on this site. in any case, we should not be surprised at the anti-Muslim, anti-Pakistan flavour of this site - after all, India is one of the Democracies Against Terror, that lovely confluence of neo-con, zionist and hindutva interests. and for those of you who need to know my religious affiliation so that you can jump down my throat, i'm a communist. but then the new global indian elite hates them some commies, too. that's cool - just don't pretend that you're on the side of righteousness.

The two cows of Sepia Mutiny, a story in five parts:

Hindutva commenters: "The cows are not cows, but were originally a mandir which was torn down by the ISI. Also, in case anyone wants to talk about anythiing else: 'pseudosecular" "double standards' 'that textbook is biased' '(we will repeat this as many times as necessary until we win on volume rather than merit of argument)"

Valiant socialists and liberals: No, no, you're all wrong about the cows. You see, they're cows, not mandirs or hindus or muslims. What? No, I didn't say anything about the genocide in Bangladesh? What? no that's not what I said. No, all I was saying is that they were cows. What? No, will you stop interrupting me - I'm just saying they're f"£king cows. Oh f"£k off - you're just trolling and hijacking conversations!

Secular liberals: Please give one cow to the Hindutvadis and the other one to everyone else. That way we can respect EVERYONE'S free speech rights, regardless of how incredibly aggravating their commments are, how much they violate the comments policy, or how much their way of speaking prevents anyone else from actually being able to conduct a conversation about something other than what the Hindutva trolls are interested in talking about. But no abusive commments please.

Everyone else: Please just stfu. f"£k this - I'll just go to another thread where people won't talk about politics and we can talk about movies and books.

Hindutva commenters: You see what doublestandards the pseudoseculars use! They don't even answer our questions directly! Just like Nehru and Aurengzeb and Manmohan Singh. Anyway, let's go give some money to VHP now and hope that someone stumbles across our idiotic comments and thinks they actually make sense because they've had no exposure to any South Asian history, politics, or other information.

:)

The moral: That, my friends, is how you hijack a blog. f"£k this - I'll just go to another thread where we can talk about movies and books...just hope they're not about Pakistan...