I agree, I think President Obama handled those questions very well. What a change from the Bush White House days. I remember wincing anytime Bush said something about Islam or South Asia.

Pakistani forces are waging a half ass battle against Taliban as there are many Talibani sympathisers among the top brasses of Military. ISI has strong connections with taliban with their own agenda, otherwise why would a soverign nation hand of a province- SWAT to Taliban? It would be a shame if Pakistan fails as a nation to contain insurgent forces and also a major threat to India which is a soft target for any invaders.

the military is simply too strong

Agreed. What's your over-under on a new military coup? 2 months?!

I think everything he said was wise politically. But-- I'm not sure if he "assured" the American people.

That said, I'm glad he avoided typical Wester hubris where we believe we have the best methods of solving crises abroad.

It is very likely that the nuke warheads are safe and the Taliban will never get control. However, the nuclear material is an entirely different story. I think it was Richard Engel who raised this issue on Colbert, that it is enitrely likely that Taliban could get hold of some nuclear material for a "dirty bomb". Maybe I am a cynic but I am not convinced that the Pak army is "cracking down" on the Taliban.

I'm really disappointed in Obama's foreign policy so far. He's just throwing billions of dollars (that we don't have) at the Pakistanis, knowing that the money will go into the pockets of corrupt politicians, instead of attaching strings to the aid. IT'S OUR MONEY (which we don't have). Make the damn Zardari government use it RESPONSIBLY to destroy the militants. But apparently Obama is afraid of pissing the Pakistanis off. I never knew he would be so...weak and bad at this. I voted for him.

"On the military side, you’re starting to see some recognition just in the last few days that the obsession with India as the mortal threat to Pakistan has been misguided."

Two words. Mumbai massacre.

I was wondering, there isn't more than one or two hospitals in all of Balochistan, or Sindh that can treat deadly diseases despite there being something like 41 Medical Schools in the country. Also job opportunities, and an adequate education, FOOD AND WATER are hard to find anywhere outside of Lahore, Karachi, Islamabad.

You can fight terrorism with an army, but the reason why the Taliban has sway on some quarters is the fact that (a) Sharia Courts offer "quick and easy justice" when there are no local courts to settle disputes and (b) it certainly seems like no one in Islamabad or major cities cares about their fellow countrymen.
We could have vaccinated polio out of the country, but electricity black outs destroyed the vaccine. All we had to do (and I was in Lahore at the time), was ask Lahorees, Karachites and Islamabadis to do without electricity for another 18 hours so they could preserve the medicines in Peshawar.

What do you think Amardeep?

Hi Basim (love your band by the way), Well, I'm a little unsure.

The story you're telling is similar to what Obama is saying: the Taliban are growing in influence because the central government has been unable to live up to its commitments.

On the other hand, wiping out polio in the example you described, is clearly a western/foreign priority. There is a real story from a few months ago, where the same, "radio Mullah" in the Swat Valley I blogged about a few weeks ago, blocked an actual working polio immunization program run by an NGO, arguing that the immunizations were actually part of a conspiracy to make the men of Swat Valley sterile: link.

People who are ruled by the Taliban will get swift, Draconian "justice" via the Shari'a courts, which might be good for certain kinds of disputes (say, property disputes). But they won't get: women's rights, infrastructure/economic development ... or polio vaccinations.

I would want to see Obama trying to convince Zardari to do a better job at providing the services that rural Pakistanis need. I also think the west has to be willing to talk to the Taliban to ultimately get the better of them. But I don't think it's wise to presume that they will ever be good partners in producing the kind of South Asia I think most of us are hoping for.

While Obama has shown an admirable degree of nuance in dealing with Pakistan, unlike Bush's hope that the Pakistanis would do the right thing - his overall South Asia approach is still unclear, and early signs seem to suggest that he leans towards rehyphening India-Pakistan. There was the initial attempt to have Richard Holbrooke include India, or the Kashmir issue, in his AfPak portfolio - which New Delhi successfully blocked. But after that, Obama seems to be ignoring the largest country in the region. My guess is that he is waiting until India completes its elections, so as to not appear that he was favoring one faction over another. Hopefully, Obama will not actually undo progress in one of Bush's few foreign policy successes.

Are there ethnic tensions in Pakistan?

Do Punjabi Pakistani's get along with the rest of Pakistan or is it all rainbows and butterflies?

Are there ethnic tensions in Pakistan?

Hmm.. Isn't it a couple of days back when Pasthun-Mohajir clashes in Karachi killed around 30 people or so??.

The problem is not the bombs falling into the hands of the Taliban, 'cuz the military is too strong. The problem is, in the absence of a strong government and chaos, some top military person sneaking off nuclear bombs/material to the terrorists, i.e., the threat is from within the Pakistani military.

Obama Admin is looking for practical solution to Pakistan problems. Few days ago Hillary Clinton admitted US also responsible for current situation in Pak.

Pakistani people need jobs. Instead of investing in weapons all western government and Pakistani government should invest in Industry but of course it is only possible once there is peace.

The Pakistani government, the Pakistani military and ISI and the Taliban are all on the same side. They are not real enemies. Never have been. Each scratches the others back. NY Times Article: Right at the Edge http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07pakistan-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

And we in the US pay billions of $ for them all, and a lot of our tax payer dollars we have no idea how it was used in Pakistan.

As for Zadari, he may be a weak PM, but his wife Benezir Bhutto and wife's family were well involved with funding the extremists for decades, and Yossef Bodansky's articles on Pakistan elaborates in more detail http://www.kashmir-information.com/Bodansky:
Pakistan's Kashmir Strategy
Islamabad's Road Warriors
Pakistan's Nuclear Brinkmanship
Pakistan, Kashmir, and the Trans-Asian Axis

You don't need the Taliban to get their hands on the nukes for nukes to spread far and wide when the Pakistani government itself has been trying at it for years:
Saudi-Pakistani Nuclear Linkage Marks The Opening Of A Sunni Muslim Security Umbrella
Pakistan's Islamic Bomb

As for education, it also matters what is being taught by schools: "And this great historic discovery is taught to Std V students, "Previously, India was part of Pakistan." " from the article Pakistan Text Books Build Hate Culture Against India

Education (even undistorted education), money, and jobs alone will not prevent some people from becoming terrorists. The 9-11 terrorists were middle class and educated I believe. OBL is a Saudi billionaire, and their are other professionals in the terrorists cells. It may deter some, but there are plenty of educated, middle class or higher people who join as well. It did not stop either Bhutto from encouraging and strategically using extremist in their geopolitical goals as the articles in the previous post describes.

With an ally like Pakistan, the US does not need enemies like Al-Qaeda: "...Contrary to President Zardari's claims, the LET is no "stateless actor." In fact, the LET is and always was a creature of the ISI.

Throughout the war against Soviet forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the United States, as well as other states, all sponsored the Afghan resistance fighters or mujahedeen. But Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were principally responsible for creating and sponsoring the most radical Islamic terrorist groups within the mujahedeen's ranks. This nexus is what first gave us Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda and, later, Mullah Omar's Taliban.

The same nexus also gave us the LET. In fact, bin Laden and his spiritual mentor, Abdullah Azzam, reportedly played instrumental roles in the LET's founding. In the late 1980s, they met with members of the Markaz-ud-Dawa-wal-Irshad (MDI), an Islamist political party in Pakistan, and convinced its leaders to create a militant wing responsible for waging jihad in Kashmir. The result was the LET. And the struggle for control of Jammu and Kashmir, territory sandwiched between China, India, and Pakistan that had been disputed since the partition of 1947, would never be the same.... " excerpt from article Pakistan's Jihad.

FYI LET is in the US and other Western countries. Pakistan is the way it is because they have been busy since partition trying to expand their power through the military or through extremist forces who are their proxy force.
Pakistan's Militant Groups Build Web of Western Recruits
"The Pakistani extremist group suspected in the Mumbai rampage remains a distant shadow for most Americans. But the threat is much nearer than it seems.

For years, Lashkar-e-Taiba has actively recruited Westerners, especially Britons and Americans, serving as a kind of farm team for Islamic militants who have gone on to execute attacks for Al Qaeda, a close ally. The Pakistani network makes its training camps accessible to English speakers, providing crucial skills to an increasingly young and Western-born generation of extremists..."

Mumbai Terror Group Trained American Jihadists
"... In April, 2000, for instance, Virginia native Randall Todd Royer (pictured) went to a LeT camp in Kashmir. The place wasn’t hard to find, according to an opinion from U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema. Online newsletters gave out the group’s phone number and e-mail address, with the assurance that "requests for information about the jihad in Kashmir are welcome." A recruiting center operated openly in Lahore, one of Pakistan’s largest cities.

Royer spent a month at the LeT camp, firing AK-47s and other weapons, and going through endurance training. In August, Seifullah Chapman made a similar trip, arranged by Royer, who called it a "straight path" to global jihad. There, Chapman spent thirty days in "weapons training" and "performing military drills." ..."

Besides all the other countries Pakistan is training and supplying extremists (India, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, American and other Western Jihadists...), Pakistan was also involved in training terrorists in Chechnya:

"...Islamabad became directly involved in the active support for the Chechen Jihad already in the spring of 1994. At that time, the ISI-sponsored Taliban offensive endangered the flow of Heroin from Afghanistan which served to finance the Chechen revolt. Islamabad intervened to ensure the continued flow of drugs, as well as capitalize on the relationship between the Chechens and ISI-sponsored Afghans, then maintained via Gulbaddin Hekmatyar's Hizb-i-Islami as a front, in order to expand the ISI's direct relations with the Chechen leadership. Consequently, between April and June 1994, a high-level Chechen delegation headed by a lieutenant of Dudayev's named Shamil Basayev visited the ISI-sponsored terrorist training infrastructure in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, the Chechens visited the ISI's training facilities in the Khowst area, then run under the banner of Gulbaddin Hekmatyar's Hizb-i-Islami. In Pakistan, the Chechens had a series of high level meetings with the Pakistani leadership -- particularly with Gen. Babar, Defense Minister Gen. Aftab Shahban Mirani, and General Javid Ashraf of the ISI (who was presented as the head of the ISI branch in charge of support for, and sponsorship of, Islamist causes). These three officials became the patrons of the Chechen Jihad, arranging for the establishment of a comprehensive training and arming program for the Chechens in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Chechens also met with former ISI Chief, General Hamid Gul, and an aid of his named Col. Imam, who would assist the Chechens in arranging for local connections and contacts for their drugs and weapons smuggling operations. Moreover, Gen. Babar intervened with the Taliban leadership already in early 1994 to ensure the uninterrupted flow of Heroin from the Helmand valley. However, the Heroin was now shipped northwards to the airfield near Chitral from where the drugs, as well as a growing number of Chechens and 'Afghan' volunteers, were flown to Chechnya.

The training of the Chechens began immediately. The first hundred or so Chechens were added to the ISI-run training camps near Khowst where between two and three hundred Uzbeks and Tajiks were already being trained in guerrilla warfare and prepared for the export of the Islamist revolution into their homelands. Most important were the advanced sabotage and guerrilla warfare courses provided to a select few Chechens in the Markaz-i-Dawar center in Pakistan. In the Fall of 1994, in order to expedite the flow of expertise to Chechnya, the ISI organized mixed detachments made of recently trained Chechens and veteran Pakistani operatives, most of them with long combat experience in the ranks of the Mujahedin in Afghanistan. These forces brought with them large quantities of weapons and ammunition. In addition, fighters from an ISI battalion of Afghan Mujahedin stationed in Pakistan were also dispatched to Chechnya in late 1994 to bolster the Pakistani-Chechen detachments. These Pakistani-led detachments saw combat already around the first of 1995. Significantly, the ISI retained combat and tactical control over these detachments. The Pakistani commanders maintained radio communications with their HQ in Pakistan, not dissimilar to communications maintained between the Islamist forces in Kashmir and their rear bases in Pakistan...." excerpt from CHECHNYA The Mujahedin Factor

The hard truth is that terrorists do already have nuclear weapons, they already are in the wrong hands. Just not the stateless terrorists like Al-Qaeda. It is state sponsored terrorism - Pakistan. As the articles in the earlier post talk about, Benazir Bhutto meant that nuclear weapons brinkmanship be vis-a-vis both India and the US, and when Iran and Saudi Arabia get nukes thanks to Pakistan again as elaborated in the articles in the above posts, nuclear brinkmanship will be used against the US and other countries in those regions as well.:

"....We were all warned of this many years ago. When the Clinton administration sent cruise missiles into Afghanistan in reprisal for the attacks on our embassies in East Africa, the missiles missed Osama Bin Ladin but did, if you remember, manage to kill two officers of the ISI. It wasn't asked loudly enough: What were these men doing in an al-Qaida camp in the first place? In those years, as in earlier ones, almost no tough questions were asked of Pakistan. Successive U.S. administrations used to keep certifying to Congress that Pakistan was not exploiting U.S. aid (and U.S. indulgence over the anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan) to build itself a nuclear weapons capacity. Indeed, it wasn't until after Sept. 11, 2001, that we allowed ourselves to learn that at least two of Pakistan's top nuclear scientists—Mirza Yusuf Baig and Chaudhry Abdul Majid—had been taken in for "questioning" about their close links to the Taliban. But then, in those days, we were too incurious to take note of the fact that Pakistan's chief nuclear operative, A.Q. Khan, had opened a private-enterprise "Nukes 'R' Us" market and was selling his apocalyptic wares to regimes as disparate as Libya and North Korea, sometimes using Pakistani air force planes to make the deliveries.....Recent accounts of murderous violence in the capital cities of two of our allies, India and Afghanistan, make it appear overwhelmingly probable that the bombs were not the work of local or homegrown "insurgents" but were orchestrated by agents of the Pakistani ISI. This is a fantastically unacceptable state of affairs, which needs to be given its right name of state-sponsored terrorism. Meanwhile, and on Pakistani soil and under the very noses of its army and the ISI, the city of Quetta and the so-called Federally Administered Tribal Areas are becoming the incubating ground of a reorganized and protected al-Qaida..." excerpt from Pakistan is the Problem, Christopher Hitchens in Slate

Let's not forget Pakistan's training of terrorists in East Asian - Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia, Burma, and Malaysia.... - with the help of Iran and China:

"...The case of the Islamist terrorism in and around the Strait of Malacca is extremely important not just because of the strategic ramification of the distabilization of such countries as the Philippines and Thailand. Taken together, this terrorism campaign is a classic case of the true meaning of state-sponsored terrorism. In this specific case, the Islamist subversion of several countries is intensified because of the strategic interests of a third party -- the PRC -- and, to a lesser extent, of its close allies. However, it is the close allies -- Pakistan and Iran -- who bear the brunt of the sponsorship of, and support for the terrorist escalation. They do so more because of the strategic calculations concerning the PRC than having vital interests in the Far East.

This is not to say that the bulk of the locally active terrorist and subversive are completely artificial. On the contrary. Local issues, outstanding grievances of the local population, existing indigenous terrorist and subversive organizations are exploited by the sponsoring states as the basis for their operations and a source for local support and legitimization. Once the sponsoring states take over an indigenous subversion and terrorist movement, the intensity of the armed struggle markedly rises and the character of the modus operandi of the local forces is altered, at times drastically, in order to serve the interests of the sponsors.

The local forces are active and willing participants in this cynical game of nations because it is in their self-interest to escalate their own fight against the local governments. In order to affect the desired escalation, the sponsoring states provide tremendous all around assistance -- training, expertise, weapons, and funds -- which the local organizations use for both the pursuit of their own indigenous objectives as well as for operations on behalf of the sponsoring states. Moreover, it should not be ignored that in principle, the intelligence services involved -- mainly the Iranian VEVAK and the Pakistani ISI -- the various Islamist operatives that they use to organized local on-site networks, and the local terrorists are all ideological brethren and genuine solidarity does exist among all the participants.

The mere presence of operatives and terrorists of the sponsoring states in the ranks of the local organizations legitimizes and sanctifies the close cooperation in what is essentially the furthering of the global strategic interest of the PRC and the Trans-Asian Axis (of which the Islamists are a major component). As will be discussed below, one of the outcomes of this state-sponsored escalation is the consolidation of a major forward base for exporting Islamist terrorism into the United States itself.

Indeed, Islamist forces sponsored by Iran and Pakistan and spearheaded by thoroughly trained local 'Afghans' are distabilizing the local states overlooking the Strait of Malacca. The Islamists are currently winning in Indonesia and Malaysia, influencing policies of local governments that are otherwise pro-Western. The Islamists are subverting Thailand -- using both the local Patans in the countryside and spectacular operations by experts terrorists arriving from the sponsoring states -- while also maintaining subversive infrastructure in Indonesia as deterrence for Jakarta, as well as taking over the struggle of the Rohingya Muslim minority in Burma to exercise additional pressure on Rangoon to cooperate with Beijing...." excerpt from BEIJING'S SURGE FOR THE STRAIT OF MALACCA

Pakistan is not the US's ally. There is no point is funding billions of dollars to Pakistan since it pretty much goes to funding Pakistan's geopolitical strategy via terrorism.

I love how Sameer takes over any post related to Pakistan, and starts Pakistan-bashing. Is it too much to expect any sensible discussion of Pakistan on Sepia? Also, see the Indian-elections post which for a while was full of people talking about how Pakistan was being taken over by the Taliban. Granted, the country has its problems (many of them) but there is no need for this constant stream of Pakistan bashing. I get that Sepia is an Indian-American dominanted blog (as the desi community in the US more generally is), but this kind of discussion makes non-Indians (and Pakistanis in particular) feel very unwelcome here. Just putting that out there.

Kabir, It's useless trying to make your point here. It's not just Pakistan bashing: do you see the nonsensical and vague crap the Hinduvat-American-Indians throw around about Bangladesh? It's comically ignorant. Muslims are not welcome on this site, period. Most of the commentators are hardcore Indians, Hindus, raised on American media's coverage of Muslim countries, a coverage that is pitifully empty on substance and reality. This is not a site for Pakistanis or Bangladeshis, and certainly not for Muslims. Racist Muslim-hating, Israel-loving posters like Yoga Fire or rob (or bloggers like Ennis and Amardeep and that other guy) are welcomed on the site, and would never be banned or warned. Save your breath and just come here just to quietly get a feel for what kind of empty rhetoric the posters throw out. I rather know what garbage they are swilling than not.

Also, this makes Obama's appointments of Indian-Americans and zionists in high positions that much more terrifying. If those appointees have 1/4 of the ignorance and 1/8th of the hatred of Muslims showed by regular posters who dominate the threads on this site, we are screwed. I wonder how many Muslim-Americans are noticing this trend and really understanding the magnitude of the kinds of policies these habitually and viciously Muslim-hating group will produce. If Muslims are not worried yet, they should be.

Wow Nilufer, I am surprised at the vitriol, that too from a Bangladeshi point of view ?? I must say I am really surprised. While I totally agree with Kabir that the posters like Sameer are absolutely irritating, and any Pakistan-related topics are generally too one-sided, but I must say that I cannot say the same for Bangladesh. Apathy, yes, but not antipathy. Also, have you visited many of the Muslim-dominated blogs, where death of kafirs are openly and frequently declared by the educated lot ?

Speaking from personal viewpoint, I even did some pro-bono work for Bangladesh. The officials there were very thankful and blessed me for my help. I did it because I felt this deep south-asian connections, and I never ever cared that they were Muslims and I am Hindu. And here you are sending out all these hate. While I understand Pakistan and India had this deep dark history behind them (insurgency, Kashmir etc etc), they are still bitter, but being of Bangladeshi origin, I just cannot fathom your hate. Did you forget your Muktijoddha's so soon ?

This is not a site for Pakistanis or Bangladeshis, and certainly not for Muslims. Racist Muslim-hating, Israel-loving posters like Yoga Fire

What I've taken from this is that I'm just good at pissing off extremists who are long on passion and short on logic.

What I've taken from this is that I'm just good at pissing off extremists who are long on passion and short on logic.

wow. you are so smart yaar. and such humility too.

Racist Muslim-hating, Israel-loving posters like Yoga Fire or rob

Wow, Nilufar, just wow--the fact that you appear to think "Israel-loving" is an epithet in the same league as racism or religious bigotry cert. demonstrates your, shall we say, rather large remove from American political culture. I'm just a simple Yindu-American lad grateful for the trade in arms and technology that India has developed (and, vice-versa) with our Yankee and Yehudi friends. . . .not as if India has any historical enemies or anything, right?

the trade in arms and technology that India has developed (and, vice-versa) with our Yankee and Yehudi friends. . .

we are talking about the same israel that sent mossad to train ltte terrorists, as well as arm them, at the same time they were "helping" the indian forces, right? just checking...

we are talking about the same israel that sent mossad to train ltte terrorists, as well as arm them, at the same time they were "helping" the indian forces, right? just checking...

Yes, that same Israel--not the political entity that controlled Jerusalem in c. 950 BC!
Well, I don't think Mossad are little angels (cert. the US and India have to be careful about tech. transfers to Israel, lest they end up sold to China), but the Gandhi's and their lackeys were supporting the LTTE too, before they were intervening on their behalf, and then fighting, them, right?

Well, I don't think Mossad are little angels (cert. the US and India have to be careful about tech. transfers to Israel, lest they end up sold to China)

they are part of the establishment and well entrenched. israel's success has been by playing all sides of the game board very successfully. so, while you want to get what you can, the best you can assume is that it will allow you to keep up with your enemies since israel probably is in bed with them too.

They are part of the establishment and well entrenched.

Sure, fair points and all.
But, nonetheless, I'm doubting that the Israeli arms-industry formed by these guys, which has become the largest supplier of weapons to India (by $-value) are exactly selling the same stuff to Pakistan. The Israelis are weird on China, I agree--probably because the former view themselves through the lens of a regional power. Perhaps India and us ABD's can get Unkill to reign them in! ;-)

I don't agree with Nilufar or particularly condone the way she made her case, but I think we need to get back to the larger point about why discussion of Pakistan is so biased on Sepia. I don't particularly think of myself as a "Muslim" and I'm certainly not an apologist for the actions of the Pakistani-government (whichever one is in power at the time), but I dislike seeing vitriol being spouted against the whole country any time a topic concerning Pakistan is brought up. If Sepia is meant to be a South-Asian American blog (rather than an Indian-American blog), I think this issue needs to be addressed. Either don't talk about Pakistan at all, or discuss it sensitively and in context.

Also I think this rhetoric of Indians and Pakistanis as "enemies" has grown really old and is totally counterproductive. I don't have problems with particular commentators here, though some of them (like rob) have self-professed ideological sympathies that perhaps prevent them from seeing issues objectively (unless all those posts about giving money to the BJP or RSS were a joke).

"Also I think this rhetoric of Indians and Pakistanis as "enemies" has grown really old and is totally counterproductive."

seriously? Pakistanis just massacred over 175 civilians in Bombay. The fact that Pakistan is an enemy of India, and of the civilized world is not rhetoric, and its not old.

The Pakistanis who are suddenly pontificating about being against extremists are just hyperventilating because the monster they created is starting to consume them. Karma can be a bitch!

Bhramastra, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not a troll and thus responding to you. "Pakistanis" didn't commit the Mumbai attacks. A particular group of terrorists did. Yes, they were supported and trained by certain elements within the ISI, but it is completely unwarrented to blame an entire population of 170 million people for that act.

Anyway, the larger point is that this process of "otherizing" each other and creating this type of rhetoric has over the last 60 years proven not to be constructive. It's certainly not going to help us achieve a prosperous South Asia for all of us in the region.

Kabir, although you seem to be very well intentioned, something we certainly appreciate, and while there may be many other pakistanis such as your self who espouse such a well-intentioned world-view, I think there have been many books, such as the one written by Aatish Taseer (Pakistani on his father's side) that sadly have given Indians little reason to feel good about relations with Pakistan. Taseer had a very insightful interview with Outlookindia (the link can be found here) discussing the "other"izing of India in Pakistan. If anything, Indians have tried very hard over there years to avoid "other"izing Pakistanis, but here is the pattern we see:

Simla Accord --> Khalistani terror support
Cricket Diplomacy --> Kashmiri terror support
Lahore Declaration --> Kargil, Red Fort Attack
Agra Summit --> Parliament attacks, Kaluchak Massacre, Delhi Diwali blasts, Mumbai train attacks (7/11)
Joint Terror Mechanism --> Jaipur attack, Hyderabad attack, Bangalore attack, Ahmedabad attack, Mumbai (26/11)

Although your attitude on sepia is certainly positive, sadly, it is but a drop of goodwill in the tidal wave of hate that has been repeatedly hitting India. Most Indians would be content to forget about Pakistan and embrace globalization, but as Taseer's account shows us, the attitudes in Pakistan are far from encouraging. Indeed, all India has received in returned for its goodwill and willingness to forgive is more blood and the unbridled hatred of the Pakistani Army. We know these attacks are meant to sow hate within India and to hurt its economy (death by a thousand cuts and all...)--so actions speak louder than words. Until the ISI and its terror nursery is dismantled, Hafeez Syed and Co handed over to India, and the Army sent back to the barracks (in practice not just in name), I'm afraid most Indians will be less than receptive to any new overture, and rightfully so. But thank you for your sincere comments.

Satyajit, No one is discounting the history between India and Pakistan, but let's remember that it take two to Tango. India has not been wholely blameless in Indo-Pak relations. Anyway, my point is that comments like Bramastra's above are riddled with fallacious logic. How does it make sense to blame an entire nation for the actions of one terrorist group? It would equally stupid for Pakistanis to blame all Indians for Gujrat or Americans to blame all Arabs for 9/11.

Regarding your and rob's views on Babri, I didn't get a chance to reply before that thread was closed, but basically I again think the logic is flawed. To me, the destruction of Babri (as someone I think pointed out) is an analgous act to the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas by the Taliban. It's not even proven that there was a temple located where the mosque stood, and even if there were, it doesn't follow that just because temples have been destroyed in the past, it's justifiable to destroy mosques. These kinds of actions don't suit India's motto of "Unity in Diversity".

Sepia is (I think) intended to be a South-Asian American space, not an Indian-American space (If I'm wrong, tell me and I'll leave the site alone). But if that is so, Indo-Pak relations need to be discussed sensitively and respectfully. Most of us are here in the diaspora, so we should have some distance from the communalism and rhetoric that is ever present in the Indian and Pakistani media

Kabir, whatever may be the comments of others, I think we both know that you and I have been able to have a respectful and largely productive conversation (barring the initial and incidental sparring).

Regarding, Babri, garv's typically ill-informed comments were again in true form when he discussed Bamiyan. The Buddhas of Bamiyan are dated to the Kushan period and were destroyed (dynamited) by the islamic fundamentalist Taliban, supported by Pakistan, to erase what remains of Afghanistan's Pre-Islamic history. This is in line with the routine temple destruction which continues to take place in Pakistan and Bangladesh. The Buddha statues were not built upon, or even accused of being built upon, a Muslim structure. The entire foundation of the Babri Masjid, however, was thoroughly in line with Hindu architecture, and its demolishment (like that of the Mathura Krishna Temple and the Kasi Vishwanath of Varanasi) was thoroughly in line with the policy of Muslim empires on the Subcontinent. Archaeologists have written reams about this, and the efforts of Romila Thapar et al, have done very little to alter the truth: One of the most sacred temples in hinduism was destroyed to make way for the mosque. After the ulema refused to return that land for the construction of a temple and negotiations failed , babri was demolished. That garv is unskilled in basic logic to recognize the absence of an analogy here is unsurprising; however, I know you are a much more intelligent commentator than he is, so I think we'd be best to leave that comparison alone.

The Gujarat riots involved bloodshed among indians: muslim mobs attacked hindu innocents and hindu mobs attacked muslim innocents. Those riots were not directed at Pakistanis and did not take place on Pakistani soil. The thousands of indians (mostly hindu) who have died in Pakistani Army-sponsored attacks are in every way shape and form related to Pakistan and their deaths the result of Pakistani policy. The victims are Indians--not Pakistani. I'm sorry, Indians are innocent here and are rightfully upset at Pakistan.

Finally, you are right, this is a South Asian space and I absolutely enjoy exchanging viewpoints with other south asians, indian and non indian. But this is also a space for candid and constructive exchange. That means it should be about more than just lovey-dovey rhetoric so that we can all sing kumbaya. It means that here we can call a spade a spade (politely) so that we can hopefully exchange real insights among populations that can change attitudes. As for perspectives on Pakistanis, my comments earlier stand. While you indeed are seemingly polite and well-intentioned, Aatish Taseer's experiences and story paints a very different picture about what is said and thought when the Sepia windows are closed or the Qawwali performances conclude. In short, I think many of the attitude changes you are rightfully and sincerely advocating need to start in your homeland first. As I said before, most Indians would be happy to forget about Pakistan and focus on the new century; however, there are many Pakistanis that begrudge India's rise and India's destruction remains front and center of the Pakistani radar. While I do appreciate being able to discuss these matters politely with you, that doesn't mean I have any reason to forgive and forget the hatred that has been sown from Rawalpindi and Muridke alike.

On one count though, I do think you are correct, and that is that this post is meant to talk about political developments in Pakistan, which I think we absolutely should do. If you would be kind enough to oblige, I would be interested in hearing your insights on the average Pakistani's view of Zardari, Kayani as well as Sharif's chances of regaining power. Thoughts?

I think the point of Sameer's posts was to prove that the fallacy around the thought 'the nukes are safe with Pakistani state'.

Kabir,

Though it is perfectly natural for you to feel the way you do about 'posts involving Pakistan', please appreciate that what Sameer has posted is very relevant in the current context.Also, the Pakistani people are not targeted in most of the comments (trolls are the exception), it is always the Pakistani elite -Army, Political/Feudal Class, ISI, militant islamis fundamentalist groups- that is talked about.

So, I think you can give the benefit of doubt to this forum as well.Interestingly, as a center-right person myself, I found that bloggers here take extreme care to sound politically correct, and have always attempted to keep the context and sensitivities of people in mind.At times, the 'fixation with Manmohan', the unchecked venom from communal socialist types here grates on my nerves as well.But I found that there are very few places where we see a balanced discussion.On SM, on most posts, I find such balance.

I don't think we can equaate bashing of pakistani institutions and the elite with pakistan bashing.Unless you happen to belong to one or more of these institutions or social class.

Satyajit, I think we just have to agree to disagree. I don't find anything wrong with Garv's analogy. To me, destroying a part of your heritage for ideological reasons is similalary repugnant whether done by muslims or hindus.
Also, Wikipedia informs me that that Archeological Society report has faced heavy criticism as being biased, so it has not been completely proved that there even was a temple there. However, like I said that's not the issue.

Also, I feel you are again being too one-sided and it seems to me blaming Pakistan for a conflict that involves both countries. The Kashmir problem is complicated, and Pakistan perhaps has a legitimate opinion that a plebesite should be held or that Kashmir should be part of Pakistan (I'm not saying I totally agree with this view, I think Kashmiris should have a right to decide if they want to be independent). Of course, this doesn't excuse "jihad" or proxy war or whatever, but let's not pretend India is the innocent victim, because that's intellectually dishonest.

I don't know what the average Pakistani's views are about anything. I am an American and have spent most of my life here in the states. I do know most people don't like Zardari very much. He has no qualifications to be president other than he is Bhutto's widower. Most Pakistanis (esp. Punjabis) don't want to live under the Taliban's version of Islam. Even in Swat and NWFP, much of the demand for sharia was because the civil justice system is ineffective in addressing people's concerns (I've gleaned much of this from reading the NYT, various blogs, and from speaking with the people I know, who are educated professionals)

Kumar, I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you. Sameer has a history of posting on Pakistan-related posts, and he always posts articles that paint the most negative and biased version of what is going on in Pakistan. Also, when it comes to Pakistan related posts, I have often come across sentiments like "whatever is happening, they deserve it" or "wouldn't it be great if the whole country disintegrates". Thus, there is absolutely a balance problem when it comes to discussion about Pakistan. There's a fine line between criticism of Pakistani institutions and blanket bashing of the whole country, and I find that at times commentors cross that line.

Kabir,

You make a few sound points, but, damn!--you do go way overboard:

"Pakistanis" didn't commit the Mumbai attacks

I'm sorry--that statement is flat-out false. As in, "Did Pakistanis commit the Mumbai attacks?" Correct answer: "Yes." "Did Brazilians commit the Mumbai attacks? Correct answer: "No." Please try not to jettison Logic 101 in your defense of the "land of the pure." (And who, exactly, is your bogey-man that wants to punish all 170 million Pakistanis for the attack--I'm a Hindu-nationalist "extremist," and yet even I only want targeted attacks plus the "independence" of Balochistan (w/ US naval base at Gwadar) plus de-nuclearization.) ;-)

Kabir,

Thanks. I didn't realize you were a pakistani-american. Anyhow, I appreciate your insights on Zardari--which, pretty much corroborates what other pakistanis have said. What about Kayani and Sharif? There are rumors that Kayani is basically waiting for Zardari's misrule to hit a fever pitch so he can institute a popular and official military takeover. Considering sharif's investment in hair implants, I imagine he hopes to make a powerplay some time in the near future. What do think those chances are given your ear to the ground there?

Just to address the points you made, the analogy that garv made is utterly ridiculous. the babri masjid was destroyed NOT because it was emblematic of islam's history in india but because it was specifically built to desecrate a hindu temple in the second holiest city of hinduism. That some wikipedia contributors would attempt to question the Archaeological Survey of India's unbiased findings is unsurprising considering that people like Romila Thapar actually tried to whitewash temple destruction by Mahmud of Ghazni--who was noted to have gazed upon the Keshavdeo Temple at Mathura, remarked that such a wonder would take 200 years to construct, and then incinerated the temple with naptha and sulpher. So, none of this changes the fact that the foundations and pillars are in line with Hindu architecture and its destruction in line with the practice of many of the Mughal Emperors, Delhi Sultans, Islamic Raiders (especially considering Babur gave up wine and declared himself a Ghazi shortly before the Battle of Khanua against Rana Sangh). Rob's analogy, though rather impolitically phrased, is more apt. What would muslims have done if mosques in Medina or if the Kaaba had faced the same fate and a church were constructed upon them or it? If hindus were bent on erasing the history of islam in India, I don't think the Quwwatul Islam (Might of Islam) Mosque or Qutb Minar in Delhi would be left standing as they are today. That most hindus concur with your perspective on preserving one's heritage should be obvious to anyone who has visited India. And really, Pakistan and Bangladesh seemed to have made a virtual annual ritual of tearing down temples, so it's really the pot vs the kettle here.

As for being one-sided, I think any objective account of history would validate what I'm saying, especially considering Pakistan, which hired pathan raiders (who raped and pillaged kashmiris) to take over that princely state in 1948, first injected violence into the dispute. Moreover, I think if you asked the almost half a million Kashmiri hindus who were ethnically cleansed from kashmir at gunpoint, or the 100,000 Ladakhi buddhists, I think they might have another opinion on Kashmiri independence or joining Pakistan. Heck, if you talk to Kashmiris in POK, I think they too might have another opinion on joining Pakistan, considering the Punjabi colonialism that has transpired there and the oppression of the Baltis in the Northern Areas. History has shown that an Indian Kashmir has a future for hindus, muslims, sikhs, and buddhists. A Pakistani or titularly independent Kashmir (which would either be a colony of Pakistan or another vassal state of China anyway) does not. Frankly, all things considered, Pakistan has no locus standi on the matter, and the Indian sense of victimhood justified.

Anyhow, as you said earlier, let's just agree to disagree and move on. I would much rather refocus the discussion on political developments than unrelated and unproductive tangents such as babri or temple demolishment in pakistan/bangladesh. I do appreciate your insights on the political situation in Pakistan so please do keep them coming. Thanks for the perspectives.

"Pakistan and Bangladesh seemed to have made a virtual annual ritual of tearing down temples"

Can you provide some evidence of this -- and by that I don't mean sources that see feverish imaginations as reality. Peer reviewed articles would be great since annual rituals are such fun fodder for academics.

Some good analysis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikKJgd7GlZ8

Nations with worst religious tolerance by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom's annual report(2008)..

A U.S. government panel listed 13 countries Friday as "egregious" violators of religious freedom.(http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/05/01/religious.freedom/index.html)

No surprises..Pakistan is well placed in the top 10!!

I don't buy this whole "few bad apples" in Pakistan being terrorists theory.

The elite in Pakistan had no issues with sponsoring and supporting these "few bad apples" to murder Indian citizens - Muslim and Hindu. Now that these monsters are getting closer and closer to Punjab, the "moderate" Pakistanis suddenly have a problem with them.

Also, I've had enough of Pakistanis trying to equate internal issues of India with Pakistan sponsored terrorism foisted up other nations. India is a democratic country with Internal problems that Indians will deal with using internal mechanisms available. There are plenty of Muslims, lower castes and other in power in India, and localized conflict is something that India needs to deal with, and does not need any help, or advice from Pakistan.

For all I care, Pakistan can do whatever the hell it wants internally, as long as they dont foist terrorism upon us.

rob, it's nice to see that you are once again calling for the dismemberment of Pakistani territory, true to your Hindutva beliefs. Something that I totally do not agree with. Pakistan must retain it's territorial integrity.

Brahmastra, Pakistan cannot leave India alone for the same reason that India cannot leave Pakistan alone. Our post-Partition history is still fraught with issues, chief among them Kashmir. Kashmir has to be settled diplomatically, one way or the other (either LOC made permanent border, Kashmir made independent, whatever), otherwise conflict will continue. Many commentators including Arundathi Roy and William Dalrymple have made that point. I realize they are not really popular among the BJP/Hindutva fest that this site has become. I just hope you guys don't get elected in India. All we need is Pakistan to fall to Muslim fascists and India to be taken over by Hindu facists.

Oh yeah, and rob Pakistan isn't giving up any nukes until India does so as well. With "Hindu nationalists" like you around, it would be extremely foolish to do so.

Pakistan should be forcibly denuked by all civilised countries of the world. India is a democratic country with sane people who have a no-first-use policy on nuclear weapons. Pakistan does not.

Also, the extremists of Pakistan belong to an entirely different class than the "Hindu fascists" of India. I know it's fashionable for Pakistanis to group India and Pakistan, Pakistani Islamic extremists and Hindu extremists together and sing kumbaya saying "we are like each other onleee" but the reality is far far different.

Kashmir is an internal problem of India. Pakistan needs to deal with its internal problems and stop pretending to be some kind of saviour of Indian muslims. Most Indian muslims know otherwise and are doing much better in India than they will ever do in Pakistan.

Bhramastra, Kashmir is not an internal problem of India, it is an international problem concerning both India and Pakistan. In case you've forgotten, the issue has been taken to the UN. Pakistan has a legitimate view that as a majority-Muslim state, Kashmir should have been part of Pakistan at Partition. Regardless of the outcome, the issue must be solved diplomatically.

You have no right to act like Pakistan is not part of the "civilized world" and India is. At this point, I am going to treat you like a troll and stop respondingto you.

Sorry Kabir, if the Pakistanis have a legit point of view on Kashmir based on the Two Nation theory then the Sangh Parivar conception of India as a "Hindu state" also has merit. Do we really want to go there? Why should Kashmir's minorities accept being absorbed into a country that is constitutionally defined as Muslim? Self determination as a secular nation is a fair request, but I am unimpressed by UN resolutions favoring what is tantamount to ethic cleansing and religious discrimination

Kashmir may have a muslim majority, but it has a significant number of other minorities. It is far more likely that muslims will have equal rights in a secular nation than hindus and buddhists having rights in an extremist islamic nation as evidence by the "jaziya" tax being collected on Sikhs in Pakistan now with the increased presence of the Taliban types.

At this point Pakistan has no legitimate claim to Kashmir and does not speak for all muslims of the subcontinent.

I know that most Hinduvats don't read, which accounts for the astounding simplicity of their arguments, so I will post videos to aid their education. Here is analysis from people in the know, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4w3MoSga80

Nilufar, sure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus

Here's the section on Bangladesh (all the citations are at the bottom of the wiki page):

Bangladesh

The HAF report documents the long history of anti-Hindu atrocities in Bangladesh, a topic that many Indians and Indian governments over the years have preferred not to acknowledge. Such atrocities, including targeted attacks against temples, open theft of Hindu property, and rape of young Hindu women and enticements to convert to Islam, have increased sharply in recent years after the Jamat-e-Islami joined the coalition government led by the Bangladesh National Party.

Bangladesh has had a troublesome history of persecution of Hindus as well. A US-based human rights organisation, Refugees International, has claimed that religious minorities, especially Hindus, still face discrimination in Bangladesh.[54] The government of Bangladesh, a nationalist party openly calls for ‘Talibanisation’ of the state.[55][56][57] However, the prospect of actually "Talibanizing" the state is regarded as a remote possibility, since Bangladeshi Islamic society is generally more progressive than the extremist Taliban of Afghanistan. Political scholars conclude that while the Islamization of Bangladesh is real, the country is not on the brink of being Talibanized.[55] In 1971 at the time of the liberation of Bangladesh from East Pakistan, the Hindu population accounted for 15% of the total population. Thirty years on, it is now estimated at just 10.5%.[58] The ‘Vested Property Act’ previously named the ‘Enemy Property Act’ has seen up to 40% of Hindu land snatched away forcibly. Since this government has come into power, of all the rape crimes registered in Bangladesh, 98% have been registered by Hindu women. Hindu temples in Bangladesh have also been vandalised.[59][60] The United States Congressional Caucus on India has condemned these atrocities.[61]

Bangladeshi feminist Taslima Nasrin's 1993 novel Lajja deals with the anti-Hindu riots and anti-secular sentiment in Bangladesh in the wake of the destruction of the Babri Masjid in India. The book was banned in Bangladesh, and helped draw international attention to the situation of the Bangladeshi Hindu minority.

In October 2006, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom published a report titled 'Policy Focus on Bangladesh', which said that since its last election, 'Bangladesh has experienced growing violence by religious extremists, intensifying concerns expressed by the countries religious minorities'. The report further stated that Hindus are particularly vulnerable in a period of rising violence and extremism, whether motivated by religious, political or criminal factors, or some combination. The report noted that Hindus had multiple disadvantages against them in Bangladesh, such as perceptions of dual loyalty with respect to India and religious beliefs that are not tolerated by the politically dominant Islamic Fundamentalists of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. Violence against Hindus has taken place "in order to encourage them to flee in order to seize their property".The previous reports of the Hindu American Foundation were acknowledged and confirmed by this non-partisan report.[62]

On November 2, 2006, USCIRF criticized Bangladesh for its continuing persecution of minority Hindus. It also urged the Bush administration to get Dhaka to ensure protection of religious freedom and minority rights before Bangladesh's next national elections in January 2007.[62]

Just a small snippet on Pakistan:
Temple Destruction

Several Hindu temples have been destroyed in Pakistan. A notable incident was the destruction of the Ramna Kali Mandir in former East Pakistan. The temple was bulldozed by the Pakistan Army on March 27, 1971.The Dhakeshwari Temple was severely damaged during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, and over half of the temple's buildings were destroyed. In a major disrespect of the religion, the main worship hall was taken over by the Pakistan Army and used as an ammunitions storage area. Several of the temple custodians were tortured and killed by the Army though most, including the Head Priest, fled first to their ancestral villages and then to India and therefore escaped death.

In 2006, the last Hindu temple in Lahore was destroyed to pave the way for construction of a multi-storied commercial building. The temple was demolished after officials of the Evacuee Property Trust Board concealed facts from the board chairman about the nature of the building. When reporters from Pakistan-based newspaper Dawn tried to cover the incident, they were accosted by the henchmen of the property developer, who denied that a Hindu temple existed at the site.[70]

Several political parties in Pakistan have objected to this move, such as the Pakistan People's party and the Pakistani Muslim League-N.[71][72] The move has also evoked strong condemnation in India from minority bodies and political parties, including the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the Congress Party, as well as Muslim advocacy political parties such as the All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat.[73] A firm of lawyers representing the Hindu minority has approached the Lahore High Court seeking a directive to the builders to stop the construction of the commercial plaza and reconstruct the temple at the site. The petitioners maintain that the demolition violates section 295 of the Pakistan Penal Code prohibiting the demolition of places of worship.[74]
See also: Decline of Hinduism in Pakistan

Hmm, denial of the existence of a previous hindu temple...sounds familiar.

Anyhow, as I wrote to Kabir, the one point that I do agree with you all on is that this post shouldn't be an all you can eat hate-fest. I think the mutineers want it to be about political developments in Pakistan. I know you are Bangladeshi(-American?), Nilufar, but if Kabir or other posters with links to Pakistan could respond to my question about Kayani or Sharif, I think it would go a long way towards refocusing the debate to what it was meant to be. Thanks.

Wiki entries? Really? Try again.

I know you are Bangladeshi(-American?), Nilufar, but if Kabir or other posters with links to Pakistan could respond to my question about Kayani or Sharif,

---
India's Muslims See Bias in Housing

Muslim India struggles to escape the past
"Indian Muslims often feel under pressure not to antagonise the Hindu majority and this sets them apart from many of their brethren in the rest of the Islamic world."

"More worrying, Muslims are falling behind Hindu Dalits, or untouchables, seen as the lowest social class. "In terms of educational achievement, Indian Muslim men in cities are less literate than their Dalit peers," says Abusaleh Shariff, a member of the prime ministerial committee conducting a socio- economic survey of Indian Muslims.
...
Academics say that rather like African Americans, Indian Muslims have become victims of history and discrimination. Some suggest that mimicking US policy on African Americans might help.

And Hindu-Talibans are not just in India -- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7321186.stm

--

And the beat goes on, badum dee dum.

Actually, Nilufar, in your excitement to rebut these facts prematurely, and with newspaper articles, you neglected to notice that I pointed out the citations to the wiki entry i posted, which include US Department of State Reports on human and religious rights. So yes, a bunch of vigilante clowns running around manhandling "pub going and loose women" one time is really the same as the institutionalized rape and and forced conversion of hindu women over the last 60 years. 98% of rape victims in bangladesh are hindu women...quite a record that you are defending there.

Anyhow, as I noted earlier, I do want to keep our discussion civil. In tandem with the state department report that was cited on that wiki article. Here's amnesty

http://www.amnestyusa.org/annualreport.php?id=3E98866CD771713180256BAE0056CB65&c=BGD

Commission on International Religious Freedom
http://www.uscirf.gov/images/AR_2006/bangladesh.pdf

in case you are worried about another "hindu-zionist" conspiracy, here's bangladesh's own Awami League:
http://www.albd.org/humanright/ai/01122001attacks.htm

And just so that Pakistan doesn't feel left out:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,MARP,,PAK,,469f38c678,0.html

There is a pretty comprehensive report by the Hindu American Foundation, but, I know you'll cast it aside anyways, so didn't bother posting.

Finally, I think any comparison of Indian Muslims to African Americans is ridiculous and misguided. African Americans did not conquer the United States and rule large parts of it for 600 years. Also, last time I checked, I don't think there is African American Personal Law administered by an African American Personal Law Board in the United States, and no Kwanza pilgrimmages to Africa subsidized by the US Treasury, with federal Kwanza houses dotting the eastern sea board. Also, is billionaire Azim Premji a hindu? cause last time I checked, he wasn't, and Bollywood continues to be dominated by the Khans. I would like to see such stories possible in Pakistan or Bangladesh, but I suppose one can only dream. Considering the virtual extinction of hindus in Pakistan and the impending extinction in Bangladesh (population has dropped from 30%-10% since partition--and from 16%-10% since 1971), I really don't think your case will benefit by going down this path considering the muslim population in India has actually grown. As I said before, let's stick to talking about political developments in Pakistan since that is what this post is about. Thank you.

Satyajit, why is the Mughal empire such an issue for you? I sincerely don't understand why it bothers BJP supporters that India was a for a long period ruled by kings that were Muslim. Their reason for conquering India was not religiously-based, it was normal at that time for kings to come and raid neighboring kingdoms,etc. Over time, the Mughals assimilated and became "Indian". They were not an occupation force or anything. There's an interesting post over that www.thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com called "Hinduism 7: The Wall of Amnesia" which focuses on Raja Man Singh and points out how many of Akbar's nauratan's were actually Hindu (the minister of finance and the military commander among them). The post points out how the Muslim/Hindu "enemity" is actually fairly recent and dates back to the British institution of seperate electorates. It's not a useful way to examine historical issues.

Also, the fact that hindu temples have been destroyed in Pakistan and Bangladesh (which I'm not disputing), doesn't mean it's alright for India to demolish mosques. After all, Pakistan is an "Islamic Republic" while India is a secular state. I don't think claiming moral equivalence is particulary useful or appropriate. After all, in no other context does India want to emulate Pakistan; why do so in this case?

Getting back to your questions about Kayani and Sharif, I don't think the US should encourage another military coup. While Zardari is unpopular and corrupt, he is the elected leader. I think it is important that democratic institutions be allowed to function. Regarding Sharif, I don't think the US should be trying to put him in place as the next leader of Pakistan; this strategy of meddling in internal affairs hasn't worked in the past. It doesn't make sense to keep propping up one chosen leader and then replacing them with someone else. Again, democracy has to be allowed to work. Only then can it develop.

the Mughals assimilated and became "Indian". They were not an occupation force or anything.

LOL--talk about "negationism." Just repeating falsehoods 100x doesn't make them truly, I'm sorry to say.

Rob,there's no arguing with you. You are blinded by your ideology and are reinterpreting history based on that. There's a vast amount of scholarship on the Mughals which makes the case that I am making. Look it up if you can take off your ideological blinders. I'm done talking to you because you're not interested in genuine, intellecutal debate.

"98% of rape victims in bangladesh are hindu women...quite a record that you are defending there"

What's your source for this again? The same place you pull most of your stuff out of?

Finally, I think any comparison of Indian Muslims to African Americans is ridiculous and misguided. African Americans did not conquer the United States and rule large parts of it for 600 years.

So Muslims in India are outsiders and interlopers but Hindus don't discriminate against them because Hindus are so forgiving and loving and don't have prejudice and discrimination inherently built into their system of belief. In your imaginary homeland, the plight of Indian Muslims -- endemic poverty and discrimination -- is not the result of prejudice, even though Muslims shouldn't be in India in the first place.

And if you think that a few Khans in Bollywood and one Muslim CEO represent the true condition of Indian Muslims then you're ...oh --- oh --- oh, wait, you do believe that. That's cool -- that's the kind of thinking that has made your posts so amusing on this site. You're a true comedian, yaar.

And if you think Zionism is any more loving of Hindus than it is of Muslims, think again. Just because the enemy of your enemy is ethnically cleansing your enemy o'er there -- the kind of ethnic cleansing you can only dream of -- doesn't mean that you will be welcomed into their arms. How about instead of flooding the Gulf States with your millions of Hindu workers, start sending them to Israel and see how well they are treated there. Hint: There are special roads and schools just for Jews.

Kabir,

I never said the Mughal Empire was an issue for me? Where have I written that here? If anything, my friends to the right called me a dhimmi (though half jokingly) for complimenting Akbar's rule (yes, between Man Singh and Todar Mal--his finance minister--, and the repeal of the jaziya, he did provide for enlightened rule). The Taj Mahal, tandoori chicken, the urdu shayari, even Sikhism are all products of the syncretism between India and Islam. Second, I have not called for the destruction of anything. All I did was recount the events that took place accurately and draw attention to the fact that muslims should also consider that not all of our history is Akbar, much of it is sadly Aurangzeb. And you're right, India is a secular state and must behave so, which is why there continue to be legal proceedings surrounding the Babri Masjid/Ram temple.

At the same time, I do think it's important that muslims be mindful that at least a few of these mosques were constructed upon the most sacred sites in hinduism. Many of them, like Babri, are not in use and were only constructed to insult hindus. While I certainly cannot and will not advocate vigilantism, I also do not see the harm in the waqf board negotiating with the hindu community regarding a choice few of the most sacred sites so that an honorable agreement for both sides can be reached. History must be properly accounted for not to condemn the son for the crimes of the father, but rather so that all communities can come to terms with the good and the bad that took place (on either side), address problems, and unify to move forward to a better future for all. That's why hindus take issue with the NCERT history textbook controversy since we are continued to be taught the ridiculous tripe that the British fed Indians (and modern day Pakistanis/Bangladeshis) to divide them and make them feel inferior. My point is that, whether it was the power of the Mauryas, the culture of the Guptas, or the fabulous wealth of the Mughals, there is much to be proud about in Indian history (whether hindu or muslim). Aurangzeb is a contemptible figure for me, but I still took relish in the defeat he inflicted upon the British. Tipu Sultan was often an iconoclast himself, but all Indians appreciate the thrashing he periodically gave the EIC. And while Ghiyasuddin Balban certainly was no friend to the hindus, his determined resistance (along with Alauddin Khilji's) kept the Mongol Empire out of the subcontinent when they had demolished the other half of the civilized world. So no, there is much that I appreciate as well. Please understand, that I am just trying to broker a polite yet candid exchange.

Thanks for your response on Kayani and Sharif. I appreciate your resetting the discussion to more productive topics. Let me know if you have any questions that I may be able to answer.

Best,

Satyajit Wry

Kabir wrote:

While Zardari is unpopular and corrupt, he is the elected leader.

Aren't elected leaders, by definition, supposed to be popular (ie, have popular support)?

Kabir wrote:

There's an interesting post over that www.thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com called "Hinduism 7: The Wall of Amnesia" which focuses on Raja Man Singh and points out how many of Akbar's nauratan's were actually Hindu (the minister of finance and the military commander among them).

OK, so Akbar had a few Hindu officials in his government. What does that prove?
The British Raj also drew extensively from the local population. That didn't make them any more friendly towards their subjects.

Nilufar, all the facts are there for you to read them if you really want to. I think at this point, no matter what I say, you'll find some thing to hate on. I have said many kind words about aspects of islam's history in India and consider indian muslims to be as much a part of our modern society as anyone else--from the looks of things in Bangladesh, I gather the converse doesn't apply to hindus in your country of origin. Based on your vitriol filled messages, I really don't think you're interested in productive discussion or even polite debate. Perhaps you should take a page out of Kabir's book. He believes very strongly in his views, many or most of which I disagree with, but he's been able to discuss the topic politely and productively. I really think you should at least try to do the same.

Satyajit, I appreciate the clarification. I thought you had an issue with the Mughal Empire because of what you wrote above: "African Americans did not conquer the United States and rule large parts of it for 600 years". I took this as a reference to the Mughal Empire. rob certainly has a problem with the Mughal Empire, but I am glad to see that you are more nuanced and open-minded than he is.

I don't like Aurangzeb either, but I think it is important to put in context that these were dynastic rulers who killed and imprisoned their own fathers/brothers, much as the Roman Emperors or the English kings did. Aurengzeb was probably not always motivated out of a hatred of hindus, though he was certainly one of the most intolerant of the Mughals. There is a play written by Akbar Ahmed, a professor of Islamic Studies at American University, called "The Trial of Dara Shikoh" which dramatizes the conflict between Dara and Aurgenzeb. It's important for people (esp. Americans) to recognize that not all Muslims were like Aurangzeb, many were like Dara as well. It's just that in these times fundamentalist voices have much greater credibility than moderate one's and this has a lot to do with reasons of geopolitics that are much too complicated to get into here.

Based on your vitriol filled messages

Pot, meet kettle.

TTCUSM, Yes elected leaders are supposed to have popular support, but that is not the case with Zardari, who anyway only came to power because Benazir was murdered. I think his coming to power mostly reflected the hatred of military dictatorship. Anyway, the point is that he was elected, and it's not right to support replacing him with a military coup. If we do that, then democracy will never develop in Pakistan.

Regarding the Mughal Empire, the point is that our modern tendency to interpret everything through the Muslim vs. Hindu dichotamy is not the most appropriate way to interpret history. As has been pointed out on www.thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com, this dichotomy only gained strength after the British introduction of seperate electorates. The Mughals happened to be Muslim; that was not necessarily the most important aspect of their rule. As the SouthAsianIdea makes clear, the empire was rule of the elite over the masses, not of "Muslims" over "Hindus".

Kabir, sure, no problem. I too agree about Dara--truly a tragedy. As you may have noticed on our previous thread, I did point out that we all would have been better off had he secured the throne in place of Aurangzeb. A Mughal emperor that was able to translate the Gita into Persian certainly would have had a seat at my table...

I know in your caste-driven world, it is hard to imagine cross-cultural associations so it will surprise you to know how many Pakistanis and Bangladeshis share in-laws and relatives, languages, and of course religion. But it's okay -- stay in your comfortable world of sanctified and stratified spaces.

Don't be so patronising, and don't be such an ignorant bigot. The idea that Islamic societies are not stratified is preposterous. As for cross-cultural associations, there are more cross-cultural associations in India than your reduced-by-bigotry mind can filter or imagine. Get off your pompous horse. The most pathetic thing about you is that whilst your heart bleeds for Muslims in India minorities in Bangladesh are hounded, persecuted, mistreated and lead a hellish life. If you had any humanity at all you'd be admitting to that and attending to it. Instead you spend your time pissing hatred for Hindus on this blog, like a vile thug, building a forcefield of persecution. Deal with the facts ... Hindus aren't even humans to thugs like you are they?

Razib Khan who blogs here can attest to that supra-bigotry in the fabric of Bangladeshi society. It exists amongst Pakistanis too.

Just because the enemy of your enemy is ethnically cleansing your enemy o'er there -- the kind of ethnic cleansing you can only dream of

God almighty, typical brain-maddened, crippling pathetic OBSESSION with Jews.

So talking of dreams, what you actually mean is the ACTUAL ethnic cleansing that more or less wiped Hindus and Sikhs off the face of Pakistan, that has taken place in Bangladesh, and was actually enacted by the Pakistani army in 1971 when they carried out a genocide of Bengali Hindus and Muslims? Wash your mouth out with soap you shameless, racist liar.

It's enough to make you want to re-read Taslima Nasreen's Lajja .... hounded out of her homeland, persecuted, ostracised, death threat upon death threat spat on her head, hated, treated as vermin, betrayed by her own people...Why? Because she wrote a novel about the persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh. Yeah, Bangladeshis, attend to your own minorities and we'll attend to our own, save the ummah Islamist Jew obsession for websites seething with your own type of bigot. You couldn't give a flying fart for the Muslims of India, all those bleeding hearts just want to spit at India and Hindus in totality. Same kind of rhetoric and mentality you see amongst many Pakistanis (those brave brothers of cross-cultural non-stratified unity who killed hundreds of thousands in cold blood in 1971 oh how non-stratified they are)

Ammo,

Take a chill pill, you freaking pscho. You're the racist liar here, not me.

How about feeding your millions of starving slumkids instead of OBSESSING over Muslims.

While your heart bleeds for Hindus in Bangladesh, millions of your Hindu kids are starving in slums in India. It goes both ways, you freak.

It's this blog that makes pissing on Muslims a pass time, so don't dish it if you can't take it.

Wash YOUR mouth out. Why do you and rob go feed the 250 million malnourished kids, you sputtering moron, instead of picking on Muslims as a daily enterprise on this site? You want to talk about OBSESSION?

I am quite familiar with Razib from this blog. Who cares what he has to say. Your sources for validation are a joke.

Yes, Ammo, please just refer to one book by one author and make that the national narrative.Typical response from readers on this board. Interesting how commenters here insult Muslims on a daily basis, but the vitriol starts spewing when India's inadequacies are suddenly pointed out.

You don't give a flying fart about Hindus in other countries. Focus on feeding your own starving kids and dowry-burning bahus and stop worrying so much about how women and children are faring in Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Nilufar the Islamist BIGOT

My heart doesn't bleed for Hindus in Bangladesh -- they are meat for racist Jew OBSESSED Islamist cannibals like you. I feel sorry for them and hope they can secure their rights. It's quite likely there won't be any Hindus left in Bangladesh at all in a couple of generations. But there will always be Muslims in India. I hope and pray they secure advancement in a just and equitable society one day.

It's interesting how you use malnourished children as a taunt --- first of all it's blackly funny coming from a Bangladeshi, which is full of malnourished, poverty stricken children.

Secondly because it shows the cannibalistic mentality that treats human suffering as a rhetorical device to denigrate other people. This is aform of MENTAL SICKNESS. Malnourished children are helpless, suffering innocents, and you view them as meat for your rhetorical grinder. Hoe utterly repulsive.

Here's the deal. You fix up the starving slumchildren in Bangladesh, and India will attend to the sick and poor in India. It doesn't happen overnight, you know.

Yeah, Razib Khan is great. He tells the TRUTH.

"Rob,there's no arguing with you. You are blinded by your ideology and are reinterpreting history based on that. There's a vast amount of scholarship on the Mughals which makes the case that I am making. Look it up if you can take off your ideological blinders. I'm done talking to you because you're not interested in genuine, intellecutal debate."

Kabir/Rob,

Generally when a discussion reaches the point of reference show-and-tell, and one side can only cite one source (Elst in this case), I am struck by the parallel of John Hagee attempting to debate an paleontologist on the fossil record--one of the participants could cite no sources, present no degree and still sound more authoritative to the audience than the other. Care to guess the popularly chosen and thus effectively credentialed party in this hypothetical debate?

Kabir, I believe I have a nuanced view of the Mughal empire - some good guys, some bad.

Nevertheless,I don't know if you've ever been to the area of Uttar Pradesh known as Braj. There is a famous mandir there, the Govind Deva Mandir, pictured here. As you can see, this temple is missing a top. It used to be 7 stories high but now it is only 3 stories high because it was razed, or the top 4 stories were chopped off because the Mughal king of the area was jealous and furious that he could see the high top of the temple from as far away as his distance so he destroyed it.

A number of other temples in Braj, the region of 5,000 Krishna temples, were destroyed and new ones later had to be built. There was a time when due to all of this the sacred Radha Krishna deities in the temples had to be moved underground in the dead of night to Jaipur and Udaipur in Rajasthan (so that the grave offense of smashing deities would not take place), and that is why the original Deities of Braj reside in Jaipur and later duplicates were made to fill the temples in Braj.

This is living history that you can see with your own eyes even today.

Go to Jaipur, go to Braj. Its living history.

Lets not over-romanticise the Mughal period, hai na?

You are blinded by your ideology and are reinterpreting history based on that. There's a vast amount of scholarship on the Mughals which makes the case that I am making. Look it up if you can take off your ideological blinders. I'm done talking to you because you're not interested in genuine, intellecutal debate.

I think the same argument can be used against you.

Yes, Ammo, please just refer to one book by one author and make that the national narrative.Typical response from readers on this board. Interesting how commenters here insult Muslims on a daily basis, but the vitriol starts spewing when India's inadequacies are suddenly pointed out.

I really wish there was a way to let hatemongers like you reap what you've sown without having to drag the sensible folks in the middle down with you.

Ponniyin, I don't think so. I'm perfectly willing to hear other points of view, as long as they are given in a respectful manner. I have a nuanced view of the Mughal Empire and am not defending all the rulers as assimilating and becoming "Indian". Satyajit and I both agree that Aurungzeb did far more harm than good. Rob on the other hand gives a blanket condemnation of the Mughals, citing a partisan historian. Arguing that the Mughals were a relgiously-motivated occupying force is just wrong and historically incorrect.

Anyway, I am happy to productively debate with other commenters, even if they hold political views I disagree with, as long as no one talks of dismembering Pakistan (like rob did). I think I've exhausted what I have to say on this thread, so I'm done here, but I'm not by any means letting the BJP types win the debate.

I would say that destroying temples is religiously motivated, wouldn't you?

Surely if the Govind Deva Mandir was a mosque, it would still have its top.

Ponniyin, I don't think so. I'm perfectly willing to hear other points of view, as long as they are given in a respectful manner. I have a nuanced view of the Mughal Empire and am not defending all the rulers as assimilating and becoming "Indian". Satyajit and I both agree that Aurungzeb did far more harm than good. Rob on the other hand gives a blanket condemnation of the Mughals, citing a partisan historian. Arguing that the Mughals were a relgiously-motivated occupying force is just wrong and historically incorrect.

Equally arguing that Islam or the various hateful verses of Quran and Hadiths against polytheists did not play a role in the treatment meted out to Hindus under Mughal/Islamic rulers is just wrong and historically incorrect.

to Nilufar..

Check your facts before you cry about Indian Hindus working in gulf..

Indians Hindus or Muslims are the most law abiding citizens in Gulf..yes India is the biggest trading partner to Saudi Arabia and Dubai. India’s trade with UAE is 8 billion USD and with Saudi its more than 10 billion USD per year…same withn Qatar and Oman.So there is a mutual benefit for both of us. Indians never claimed that they have built the gulf states or gulf states never proclaimed that they are helping Indians by proving jobs. Because we all know its in mutual interest. If one see the free zones in UAE 50% of the companies are owned by Indians. Most of the Gulf royal families invested in India whether its Dubai, Qatar or Oman etc.

Only Pakistanis cry because they cannot even come close to competing with Indians in Gulf and they keep on crying that we are Muslim country AND Indians are dominating etc...But local Arabs don't care. they care for only their self interests! I live in Dubai and this is my experience. I found most of the Pakistanis work as laborers or as cab drivers (more than 80% of them).

Another bitter fact:

Three Pakistani drug offenders were executed in Saudi Arabia last Friday..Saudi Arabia regularly hangs Pakistani people. almost 5 to 10 so called Pakistani Muslims each month for various offenses.

My Indian Muslim friend in Saudi told me that they check Pakistani passport holders in a separate line at Saudi Arabia and they don't bother Indians…Hindus or Muslims!! That tells the story for you.

So don't talk trash as if Pakistan owned gulf states just because you are a Muslim country or what ever. In gulf states there are 4 times more Indians (all religions) than Pakistanis…and once Mushraff has called Gulf states to expel Indians... they just laughed and moved on!!

a corretion..

Bilateral annual trade between India and the UAE(Dubai)is more than 19 Billion USD and with saudi arabia 18 billion USD.

Ponniyin, I have never denied that some Mughal rulers (ex. Aurungzeb) used "Islam" as a justification for their actions, such as temple destruction, but I think it's unfair and inaccurate to argue that everything Aurangzeb did was because he was a Hindu-hating Muslim. He did a lot of things to consolidate his power (he was an emperor after all) including having his own father imprisioned and his own brother killed. That's what emperors all over the world did (read about the Romans or the English kings if you don't believe me).

Mandir Madam, Mughal Begum-- Again, I'm not denying that temples were destroyed. That would be intellectually dishonest. I just think that one can't generalize from that and form a blanket condemnation of the Mughals and treat them as a foreign occupying force. The Mughals were reponsible for some of the most beautiful parts of India's heritage, for example the Taj Mahal. If you guys hate the Mughals so much, why not give the Taj to Pakistan? I've read people argue that the Taj was not a mausoleam for a Muslim king's wife, but a Hindu temple. That's rewriting history, wouldn't you say? We South-Asians have a complicated history, which includes both good and bad. Up to 60 years ago, we were all Indians. I think reinterpreting history based on our modern political circumstances does history and us a great disservice.

Kabir, while touring large swaths of India as a child, there was one thing that struck me: almost ALL temples were damaged by various Muslim rulers. It is incorrect to blanket blame all the Mughal rulers, only because of one exception: Akbar, but none of the others can be thought that way. That large temples like Kashi Vishwanath (Benaras) and Jagannath (in Bhuvneswar, Orissa) were destroyed several times are a common knowledge (they were akin to St. Peter's Basilica in Rome for Hindus), but finding the nose of every deities broken or their head blown off all over India is still an interesting sight that still stands.

But bringing up the past will only bring up more bitterness, but one must be aware of the truth; otherwise rabid hatemongers like Nilufar would have field day spreading lies.

I have never denied that some Mughal rulers (ex. Aurungzeb) used "Islam" as a justification for their actions, such as temple destruction, but I think it's unfair and inaccurate to argue that everything Aurangzeb did was because he was a Hindu-hating Muslim. He did a lot of things to consolidate his power (he was an emperor after all) including having his own father imprisioned and his own brother killed. That's what emperors all over the world did (read about the Romans or the English kings if you don't believe me).

Going by the records it does seem like Aurangazeb is driven by the anti polytheist / idolatory zeal. Just because the Roman/English kings did similar things (is it because of Catholic / Puritanical reasons) does not absolve Mughals / Muslim rulers' hatred of polytheists/idolators for religious reasons.

It is unfair and inaccurate to absolve the "religion" when all evidence (in the form of sacred verses in Quran and various hadiths and personal records of various rulers) points to that being an important cause in the anti idolatory / temple breaking zeal of the Muslim rulers.

( Off Topic
Kabir: This is only for you. These are Kabir's poem and Kabir's songs in India. I thought I would share with you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im3SdoVUnj8&feature=related
folk songs (Kabir Gayan):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPLbOL7OakU&feature=related
)

I know in your caste-driven world, it is hard to imagine cross-cultural associations so it will surprise you to know how many Pakistanis and Bangladeshis share in-laws and relatives, languages, and of course religion. But it's okay -- stay in your comfortable world of sanctified and stratified spaces.

Hmm.. Are you sure that there is no caste in Pakistan / Bangladesh. I checked a Pakistani matrimonial site.

http://www.pakrishta.com/

Other than the castes mentioned in the first page (Syed, Arain, Rajput, Yousufzai) there is a bunch of castes mentioned under other castes

********
Abbasi Abidi Afridi Agha Arain Awan Bajwa
Baloch Bhatti Bihari Burra Butt Chattah Chaudhary
Chishti Christian Chugtai Deoband Durrani Farooqui Goraya
Gujjar Hashmi Hindko Hyderabadi Jaat Jafri Janjua
Jatt Junjua Jutt Kakay Zai Kamboh Kashmiri Khan
Khatri Khattak Khokhar Kiani Lodhi Mahajir Malik
Memon Mirza Mughal Niazi pathan Qazi Qureshi
Raja Rana Rehmani Sardar Saroya Sayal Shaikh
Sheikh Siddique Syed Tannoli Tunio Yousaf Zai Zaidi
Zubairi
********

Of course I think some entries like Christian are not castes. But with your first hand knowledge you have to let us know if they are really castes or not and explain to us even though people mention their caste when searching for brides or grooms in Pakistan they are not really caste driven like in India and I'll believe you. :-)

BTW which of the above is considered low caste??

Mandir Madam, Mughal Begum-- Again, I'm not denying that temples were destroyed. That would be intellectually dishonest. I just think that one can't generalize from that and form a blanket condemnation of the Mughals and treat them as a foreign occupying force. The Mughals were reponsible for some of the most beautiful parts of India's heritage, for example the Taj Mahal. If you guys hate the Mughals so much, why not give the Taj to Pakistan? I've read people argue that the Taj was not a mausoleam for a Muslim king's wife, but a Hindu temple. That's rewriting history, wouldn't you say? We South-Asians have a complicated history, which includes both good and bad. Up to 60 years ago, we were all Indians. I think reinterpreting history based on our modern political circumstances does history and us a great disservice.

I don't "hate" Mughals. I don't know any Mughals in fact. But there are patterns of behaviour gleaned from that period. The Taj Mahal is nice, but I'd rather that it not have been built if it means so many hundreds (thousands?) of ancient temples could have remained standing as is, in tact.

It's not as if that part of the world known as India at the time was bereft of any art, architecture or culture. Quite the contrary. I don't think it needed anything to be added. Certainly not at the expense of taking some away.

Zee, Again I'm not denying that temples were destroyed. But I think it's unfair to use that as the only criteria by which to judge Mughal (or "Muslim", though I don't agree with the conflation of the two concepts). As William Dalrymple points out in his book "The Last Mughal" even in 1857, when Indian sepoys, both Muslim and Hindu, rose against the British, they went straight to Bahudar Shah Zafar and asked him to lead their rebellion. If there had been so much anti-Muslim feeling at the time, I doubt they would have done so. Incidently, Zafar's mother was a Hindu, which in itself tells us something about the Mughal assimilation. Aurangzeb was the exception rather than the rule.

By the way, thanks for sharing the poems of Bhagat Kabir. I'm actually named after him and have studied several of his bhajans. I particularly like "Mo ko kahan dhunday banday, main to teray pas hoon" :)

Kabir @ 81:

The Mughals were reponsible for some of the most beautiful parts of India's heritage, for example the Taj Mahal. If you guys hate the Mughals so much, why not give the Taj to Pakistan?

The Mughals were responsible for some of the most expensive projects in India. This bankrupted the Mughals. Compare Taj Mahal with Bibi's maqbara. constructed a few decades later. And that was the beginning of the end. The Taj Mahal and etc... may be beautiful but it was beauty that came at great expense to the Muslim world.

We want the Taj in India to pay for it--3 million tourists annually at Rs 100 a tourist.
Btw, I visited Dilwara in Mt. Abu last week. The main temple is sublime. Probably better than the Taj.(I haven't visited the Taj since my childhood so can't make a direct comparison). And yes, the muslims made their way there too, but the chopped noses and all have mostly been repaired.

The Mughals were reponsible for some of the most beautiful parts of India's heritage, for example the Taj Mahal

All ancient to medieval Indian temples that I've been to surpass the Taj in architecture. The beauty of the Taj lies mainly in its size, not its style of architecture. It is very minimalist and stark. I also appreciate minimalist design, but generally prefer the intricate carvings of traditional Indian temples.

Anyway, whats done is done. We just have to make sure it doesn't happen again, thats all.

As William Dalrymple points out in his book "The Last Mughal" even in 1857, when Indian sepoys, both Muslim and Hindu, rose against the British, they went straight to Bahudar Shah Zafar and asked him to lead their rebellion. If there had been so much anti-Muslim feeling at the time, I doubt they would have done so. Incidently, Zafar's mother was a Hindu, which in itself tells us something about the Mughal assimilation. Aurangzeb was the exception rather than the rule.

Mughal rule was characterized multiple separate goals. A few include wanting to govern over the subcontinent, to Islamify the subcontinent, and to draw as much money as they could. When these goals conflicted they'd prioritize one or another. So where the "Islamify" goal would have met with too much resistance that would compromise the "govern" and "make money" goals they'd be inclined to back down on it. So you will find yourself with your Akbars who were more prone to ruling and governing and looking out for the people.
At other times the power of the Ulemma waxes and you wind up with Aurunguzebs who pick up the bloody work of razing temples again.

Generally I don't think of kings, emperors, or dictators as individuals either. What a king can do is constrained by the political powers at play in his court. He's going to want to maintain the viability of his dynasty so he won't compromise his standing if, say, a powerful Ulemma is pressuring him to stop coddling the idolaters. Even if he would otherwise be an okay guy what are you going to do when your cousin is chomping at the bit to have you sidelined? Raze a temple and continue to live large or respect the rights of your subjects?

So looking through the period of Mughal rule you can assess whether it was "good" by what kinds of impulses and what sort of culture pervaded its institutions. I'd argue that there was some good there from the trade, culture, and unity they provided. There was also some very bad there from the kleptocratic levels of taxation and a level disrespect for Hinduism that at various times would range from tolerable to repugnant.

Kabir

Zafar's mother was a Hindu, which in itself tells us something about the Mughal assimilation.

But was it Mughal assimilation or Hindu assimilation? You mentioned Dalrymple. I think he describes the court of this one and that one--he wrote a few books--as being all Persian/Turkic and in one case they even had a prominent Moroccan courtier. Akbar was the exception, not Aurangzeb.

I too like Kabir's bhajans--I think it is Kabir.

Ok, Madam Begum, I get that you have an asthetic preference for medieval Hindu temples vs. the Taj Mahal. That's fine. However, I don't think we have to make either-or judgements. Also, I never claimed that India before the Mughals did not have beautiful art and architecture. I am aware of Ajanta Ellora. South Asia and India have been blessed (in my view) to have a beautiful, syncretic heritage. The Taj, and the monuments in Delhi and Lahore are evidence of this. My whole point is just that we shouldn't let ideology blind us to the beauty and complexity of our composite heritage.

my_dog_jagat, you're absolutely right that the Taj is a tourist attraction, but so is the Mughal Empire in general. I don't see why we need to entrench ourselves in fundamentalist positions of any sort. The Mughals were neither completely benign or wonderful nor were they an "occupying force". Anyway, I think that's enough on this topic.

Yoga Fire, I agree with you. I think you've put it very sensibly. Dynasties have competing interests and priorities and can't be judged to be wholly good or bad based on some narrow criteria.

my_dog-jagat, Dalrymple describes (if I recall correctly) that Zafar's court celebrated Holi. I think there was both Mughal assimilation and Hindu assimilation. I don't think we can use our current Hindu vs. Muslim framework to accurately assess the Mughal era.

On a related note, it's interesting how many of India's UNESCO World Heritage sites date from the Mughal period. Among them: Fathepur Sikri, Humayun's Tomb, Qutub Minar, the Red Fort, and of course the Taj. I was lucky enough to visit Delhi and Agra some years back and see many of these monuments in person. Of course, on my trips to Pakistan, I have also been to the Badshahi Masjid and the Shai Kila, which are beautiful as well. We have lots to be proud of and celebrate, rather than get bogged down in accusations and counter-accusations.

On a related note, it's interesting how many of India's UNESCO World Heritage sites date from the Mughal period. Among them: Fathepur Sikri, Humayun's Tomb, Qutub Minar, the Red Fort, and of course the Taj.

And yet the amazing temples of the Braj region are not UNESCO World Heritage sites and many of them could use a facelift.

it's interesting how many of India's UNESCO World Heritage sites date from the Mughal period. Among them: .. Qutub Minar,

We are not disputing that Mughal architecture, the combination of Hindu craftsmanship and Islamic aesthetics, was beautiful. But as someone else said, India already had a rich and highly developed culture. But both the Muslims and later the British showed a lot of contempt and disregard towards it. In that sense, we can lump the British and the Muslims together as one hell of a "bad experience"..

Ok, it's your right to think of the Muslims and the British together as a "bad experience." I personally don't think that's the most helpful or useful way to view South Asian or Indian history, but if that's your viewpoint, so be it.

i do hope hindus fight against other hindus too to restore the demolition of temples and plundering of idols that has always occurred as a feature of conquests. if you are going to turn back the clock to prehistory, do it right, i say!

Given these perceived connections between temples, images, and their royal patrons, it is hardly surprising that, as Richard H. Davis has recently shown,14 early medieval Indian history abounds in instances of temple desecration that occurred amidst inter-dynastic conflicts. In 642 A.D., according to local tradition, the Pallava king Narasimhavarman I looted the image of Ganesha from the Chalukyan capital of Vatapi. Fifty years later armies of those same Chalukyas invaded north India and brou ght back to the Deccan what appear to be images of Ganga and Yamuna, looted from defeated powers there. In the eighth century Bengali troops sought revenge on king Lalitaditya by destroying what they thought was the image of Vishnu Vaikuntha, the state-d eity of Lalitaditya's kingdom in Kashmir.

In the early ninth century, the Rashtrakuta king Govinda III invaded and occupied Kanchipuram, which so intimidated the king of Sri Lanka that he sent Govinda several (probably Buddhist) images that had represented the Sinhala state, and which the Rashtr akuta king then installed in a Saiva temple in his capital. About the same time, the Pandyan king Srimara Srivallabha also invaded Sri Lanka and took back to his capital a golden Buddha image that had been installed in the kingdom's Jewel Palace. In the early tenth century, the Pratihara king Herambapala seized a solid gold image of Vishnu Vaikuntha when he defeated the Sahi king of Kangra. By the mid-tenth century, the same image was seized from the Pratiharas by the Candella king Yasovarman and instal led in the Lakshmana temple of Khajuraho.

In the early eleventh century, the Chola king Rajendra I furnished his capital with images he had seized from several prominent neighbouring kings: Durga and Ganesha images from the Chalukyas; Bhairava, Bhairavi, and Kali images from the Kalingas of Oris sa; a Nandi image from the Eastern Chalukyas; and a bronze Siva image from the Palas of Bengal (see Figure 4). In the mid-eleventh century, the Chola king Rajadhiraja defeated the Chalukyas and plundered Kalyani, taking a large black stone door guardian to his capital in Thanjavur, where it was displayed to his subjects as a trophy of war (see Figure 5). In the late eleventh century, the Kashmiri king Harsha even raised the plundering of temples to an institutionalised activity; and in the late twelfth and early thirteenth century, while Turkish rulers were establishing themselves in north India, kings of the Paramara dynasty attacked and plundered Jain temples in Gujarat.15

We are find with acknowledging all of that. Why not? What's annoying is the denial of any of it, from any quarter. But anyway, the days of destroying temples and idols are over. No use arguing over it and I certainly don't think any Hindu alive today is planning to physically fight/invade anyone over it. Have you ever heard of any Hindus chasing down Muslims or other Hindus over because they destroyed temples in the HERE AND NOW?

. Have you ever heard of any Hindus chasing down Muslims or other Hindus over because they destroyed temples in the HERE AND NOW?

you are right. there is no hindu movement that vilifies muslims. but all i am requesting is to please, please restore my wounded hindu pride by demolishing these hindu temples which were built out of plunder. it hurts me so, so much.

But anyway, the days of destroying temples and idols are over.

i agree. it's mosque destroyin time now! only because we want to do the right thing, of course.

Dr. Koenraad Elst has refuted Eaton's nonsensical claims about Hindu iconoclasm.

http://koenraadelst.voi.org/articles/ayodhya/eaton.html

Looting an "idol" to install it in your own temple is not iconoclasm (except maybe in the ulta pulta world of brown sahibs)

Garv, what muslims are destroying temples now and what hindus are fighting them over it?

The only thing that is happening is people are quarrelling on the internet over PAST ISSUES.

Babri Masjid was ONE incident only. Mosques are safe and sound in India, as long as no terrorist from you know where decides to do a suicide mission inside one.

Dr. Koenraad Elst has refuted Eaton's nonsensical claims about Hindu iconoclasm.

just as dr. william dembski has refuted darwin's nonsensical claims about evolution :)

Looting an "idol" to install it in your own temple is not iconoclasm

ok :) i will go loot some temples now, it seems like it is the RIGHT thing to do. don't worry, i am a hindu too, so it's a-ok!

Babri Masjid was ONE incident only. Mosques are safe and sound in India, as long as no terrorist from you know where decides to do a suicide mission inside one.

there is no need to call advani and togadia terrorists!

The biggest threat to the safety of Indian Muslims right now is not Priyanka next door, but other Muslims (next door).

The biggest threat to the safety of Indian Muslims right now is not Priyanka next door

is that what advani and varun like you to call them, madam?

What do people think of this statement? I have a couple of thoughts below.

There is an interesting column on it in Dawn
Damn Yankees

MR. OBAMA: I’m confident that we can make sure that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is secure, primarily, initially, because the Pakistani army, I think, recognizes the hazards of those weapons falling into the wrong hands.

Second, his refusal of the question is wise,

(Pakistanis see friends’ $5 billion pledge as political boon)

& it might be all the rage to bash the Pak govt on cutting a deal with the Taliban, but what heck was the Obama Adminstration thinking when it stated aloud that Talks with Taliban moderates were 'worth exploring'. Did that not undercut the administration's line vis a vis Pak's own deals(taliban moderates?!),

Obama is going in a lot of goodwill in the subcontinent, and is squandering it left right and center, with a mixture of arrogance and incompetence. It almost makes one wish for a new republican president in 2013.

Ok, it's your right to think of the Muslims and the British together as a "bad experience." I personally don't think that's the most helpful or useful way to view South Asian or Indian history, but if that's your viewpoint, so be it.

Bad or good, the later Mughals were definitely Indian: they were not draining the money to a different country (like the British) altogether. Their were also many Hindu rulers who were no good for their subjects, so this debate makes no sense. I think all that some people are trying to point out that it should be acknowledged that many of the Muslim rulers systematically plundered many of the temples and Hindu culture. Yes, that should be acknowledged, and also that many Hindus in Bangladesh have been ill-treated. But that should NOT be the excuse of the VHP to plunder any Islamic sight. That not only hurts and antagonizes the Muslim population and gives Pakistani terrorists an excuses (yes they were Pakistani), but also ultimately leads to the last laugh for the British...as we continue their pogrom of divide and rule even today very efficiently. Sad!

& it might be all the rage to bash the Pak govt on cutting a deal with the Taliban, but what heck was the Obama Adminstration thinking when it stated aloud that Talks with Taliban moderates were 'worth exploring'.

exactly. it is stunning that there isn't enough critical examination of this in the us media. or if obama's statement is looked at, it is seen as a pragmatic choice given the overextended american troops.

It almost makes one wish for a new republican president in 2013.

he is going by petraeus' advice - this is exactly the strategy, paying off sunni tribal leaders and supplying them with weapons provided they fought "terrorists" is one of his leading counterinsurgency strategies. so it would be naive to think that a different president would do anything different. karzai was a bad choice for pm given how corrupt he has been - but what's the alternative. nation building is neither cheap nor of a short time duration. the q is given that things in af-pak are pretty far gone and given that the commitment in iraq is going to be significant, what realistic hope does the us have of nation building in afghanistan? (and let's not mince words, nation building is what's needed).

Zee @ 107, I totally agree with you. Btw, I never said above that the Mumbai terrorist weren't Pakistani, I just meant that they don't represent an entire nation of 170 million people, just as the VHP doesn't represent all 1 billion Indians. They (the 11/26 terrorists) were a group funded and trained by certain sections of Pakistani society (the ISI), but I don't think it's fair to say they represent an entire population.

Typical secular doublespeak.Those were just wars between Indian kings.

no, no! i am agreeing with you. i am just saying that i am going to break down some temples and steal the idols. FOR LOVE!

Kabir, I am glad for that! I bet you will also agree that for a better future of our countries, we can only acknowledge the past and move on. But, the past should not be allowed to be a tool for politicians (VHP/BJP) and establishments (like ISI). I will be glad if more money from US would be spent on non-religious studies in Pakistani madrasas, like in many of the Indian madrasas. After all, empty mind is a devil's workshop; and that is what is happening in many cases, where religion is filling the void (instead of science, art, music, technology). Nothing can achieved if we keep staring in our rear view mirror and try to think only wrt our religions. Religions are part of our ancient heritage and thought process of our ancestors, but hey, science is our future. That is what should be taught be in school. Also, religion doesn't quite alleviate poverty.

Ancient Persians....

Bahais and Zorarastrians of Iran are very disappointed by what happened to their country and its pre-Islamic cultures. Well, to be fair, sunni muslims are not too happy there either.

However, Orthodox Christianity in Kerala is very old. Even older than many of the later sects of "Hinduism" that sprouted up. I don't think there were ever any issues between Orthodox Mallu Christians and Hindus though, were there?