abhishek_sharma wrote:Is there a thaw developing in India-Pakistan relationship ? Pakistan Watch Blog
For reference:ManuT wrote:Mindset of Rushdie is that of a small man, Imran Khan tells NDTV
If anyone cares to read it here:
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/minds ... dtv-188230
Comment
Sometime back she had flown all the way to London to interview Gen Mushasraf at his apartment.
The Mushasraf guy was talking about the unfortunate killing of Salman Tasser and explaining how the "those ones" are moderates.... she was gently corrected by her that ST's killer was "exactly that". The general did his famous downhill sking... and now this. Great going.
It seems, Ms Barkha of Radia tapes fame is turning into a Javed Naqvi clone.
the Money shotThis Ahmed Rashid guy should be treated with care. On the one hand, he carefully cultivates a pro-west and borderline anti-Pakistan image and then carefully slips in suggestions like:Arun Roperia wrote:I was listening to this event's (Pakistan on the Edge: The Future of Pakistan and the U.S. Response) podcast and Bruce Reidel makes some important points, viz.,
1. His guess is Ayman al-Zawahiri might be found in PoK, close to Rawalpindi.
2. He says that al qaeda's new strategy (under Zawahiri) includes doing mini-Mumbai type operations in western cities by folks trained in the "Land of Pure". He highlights the fact that the French shooter killed this morning, who admitted to training in the "Land of Pure", fits that pattern.
3. Af Taliban are fed up with TSPA.
Some noteworthy points by Ahmed Rashid
1. Mullah omar might be in Karachi.
2. Taliban might not have a confrontational approach to Yindoos after 2014 given its lavish aid program.
I recommend listening to the podcast.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... gh_KashmirThe military's Inter-Services Intelligence directorate still allows Afghan and Central Asian terrorist groups to operate from Pakistani soil and refuses to clamp down on the anti-Indian terrorist groups operating from Punjab province, including the Lashkar-e-Taiba, which launched the 2008 Mumbai attacks...This malign neglect has allowed foreign militants to radicalize Pakistani Pashtun tribes, which have now linked up with militant groups in Punjab.....America's biggest mistake is its failure to recognize Pakistan's near-fatal obsession with India. Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Pakistan's chief of Army staff, and his corps commanders are more consumed with so-called Indian expansion in the region than any of their predecessors...But his fears about India are also deeply rooted in a Pakistani military mindset that will require major Indian overtures before it changes...While the United States has remained silent on Kashmir, a new Indo-Pak rivalry has erupted over the battle for influence in a post-U.S.-withdrawal world, manifested in terrorist attacks on Indian diplomats and road workers in Afghanistan and, Pakistan claims, Indian-sponsored unrest in Baluchistan...Obama cannot afford to keep ignoring this blood feud. Some blunt public speaking, not just cautious private messages or boilerplate rhetoric about improving relations between India and Pakistan, could serve as a wake-up call. There can be no peace in Afghanistan until these two neighbors sit down and talk about a common approach to both Kabul and Kashmir, rather than negotiating by proxy war.
This should be printed on a Cricket bat and every WKK and wester "think tanker" should be hit on the head with it.There is a difference between appeasement and settlement, and that the difference is an essential one. Appeasement means buying off the aggressor by conniving at his acts of murder, rape, arson and loot against innocent persons who happen for the moment to be the victims of his displeasure. On the other hand, settlement means laying down the bounds which neither party to it can transgress. Appeasement sets no limits to the demands and aspirations of the aggressor. Settlement does. ... If Pakistan is a settlement, it is a proposition worth consideration. As a settlement it will do away with this constant need of appeasement and ought to be welcomed by all those who prefer the peace and tranquillity of a settlement.
Thankfully someone wrote a humorous counter to it:Consequently, what the United States needs to do, and this is not at all an easy job, is bring the Kashmir issue to the forefront. If they can come to some sort of conclusion concerning Kashmir, Pakistan will have no use for terrorist cells and hence create a more stable Subcontinent. Pakistan will be able to focus more on their economic welfare and the wellbeing of their citizens.
Great quote of Ambedkar.Anujan wrote: Ambedkar once said:
This should be printed on a Cricket bat and every WKK and wester "think tanker" should be hit on the head with it.There is a difference between appeasement and settlement, and that the difference is an essential one. Appeasement means buying off the aggressor by conniving at his acts of murder, rape, arson and loot against innocent persons who happen for the moment to be the victims of his displeasure. On the other hand, settlement means laying down the bounds which neither party to it can transgress. Appeasement sets no limits to the demands and aspirations of the aggressor. Settlement does. ... If Pakistan is a settlement, it is a proposition worth consideration. As a settlement it will do away with this constant need of appeasement and ought to be welcomed by all those who prefer the peace and tranquillity of a settlement.
It is as relevant more than 60 years after as it was then. Pakistan should be asked to STFU, stay within its border and punished for its transgressions, instead of appeasing it. They wanted a country for themselves, they have it now. A settlement has been reached.
Ambedkar thought that because he was expecting an exchange of population.johneeG wrote:
Great quote of Ambedkar.
So, Ambedkar thought of Pakistan as a settlement. Perhaps, many others of his time shared the view. In hindsight, the question is whether Pakistan was a settlement or appeasement?
Experience shows that constitutional safeguards did not save the minorities. Experience also showed that even a ruthless war on the minorities did not solve the problem. The states then agreed that the best way to solve the problem is by exchanging alien minorities within its border, with those of its own which were outside its border, with a view to bringing about homogeneous states. This is what happened in Turkey, Greece and Bulgaria. Those who scoff at the idea of transfer of population, will do well to study the history of the minority problem, as it arose between Turkey, Greece and Bulgaria. If they do, they will find that these countries found that the only effective way of solving the minorities problem lay in an exchange of population. The task undertaken by the three countries was by no means a minor operation. It involved the transfer of some 10 millon people from one habitat to another. But undaunted, the three shouldered the task and carried it to a successful end because they felt that the considerations communal peace must outweigh every other consideration.
That the transfer of minorities is the only lasting remedy for communal peace is beyond doubt. If that is so, there is no reason why Hindus and Muslims should keep on trading in safeguards which have proved so unsafe. If small countries, with limited resources like Greece, Turkey and Bulgaria, were capable of such an undertaking, there is no reason to suppose that, what they did, cannot be accomplished by Indians. After all, the population involved is inconsiderable and because some obstacles require to be removed, it would be the height of folly to give up so sure a way to communal peace.
The only way to make Hindustan homogeneous is to arrange for exchange of population. Until that is done, it must be admitted even with the creation of Pakistan, the problem of majority versus minority will remain in Hindustan as before and will continue to produce disharmony in the body politic of Hindustan.
http://www.janasangh.com/jsart.aspx?stid=141
Wasn't he the one who made all the local men wear kurta pyjama like women or was it Jassa Singh Ahluwalia or Ranjit Singh? Many men in Muslim populated areas of India only wear kurta pyjama, has become a Muslim dress code, maybe they dont know the history behind it.SBajwa wrote:The town of Haripur was created by the Marshall of the Khalsa Sardar Hari Singh Nalwa!!In 2004 he settled into a house in Haripur only 20 miles from the capital before moving to the Abbottabad hideout in 2005.
apples to oranges. they were different ethnicities. indians are not. if we go down this path, it will lead to another partition of india.Surasena wrote:Ambedkar thought that because he was expecting an exchange of population.johneeG wrote:
Great quote of Ambedkar.
So, Ambedkar thought of Pakistan as a settlement. Perhaps, many others of his time shared the view. In hindsight, the question is whether Pakistan was a settlement or appeasement?
His exact words:Experience shows that constitutional safeguards did not save the minorities. Experience also showed that even a ruthless war on the minorities did not solve the problem. The states then agreed that the best way to solve the problem is by exchanging alien minorities within its border, with those of its own which were outside its border, with a view to bringing about homogeneous states. This is what happened in Turkey, Greece and Bulgaria. Those who scoff at the idea of transfer of population, will do well to study the history of the minority problem, as it arose between Turkey, Greece and Bulgaria. If they do, they will find that these countries found that the only effective way of solving the minorities problem lay in an exchange of population. The task undertaken by the three countries was by no means a minor operation. It involved the transfer of some 10 millon people from one habitat to another. But undaunted, the three shouldered the task and carried it to a successful end because they felt that the considerations communal peace must outweigh every other consideration.
That the transfer of minorities is the only lasting remedy for communal peace is beyond doubt. If that is so, there is no reason why Hindus and Muslims should keep on trading in safeguards which have proved so unsafe. If small countries, with limited resources like Greece, Turkey and Bulgaria, were capable of such an undertaking, there is no reason to suppose that, what they did, cannot be accomplished by Indians. After all, the population involved is inconsiderable and because some obstacles require to be removed, it would be the height of folly to give up so sure a way to communal peace.
The only way to make Hindustan homogeneous is to arrange for exchange of population. Until that is done, it must be admitted even with the creation of Pakistan, the problem of majority versus minority will remain in Hindustan as before and will continue to produce disharmony in the body politic of Hindustan.
http://www.janasangh.com/jsart.aspx?stid=141
So what?V_Raman wrote:
apples to oranges. they were different ethnicities. indians are not. if we go down this path, it will lead to another partition of india.
Saar,Yogi_G wrote: Wasn't he the one who made all the local men wear kurta pyjama like women or was it Jassa Singh Ahluwalia or Ranjit Singh? Many men in Muslim populated areas of India only wear kurta pyjama, has become a Muslim dress code, maybe they dont know the history behind it.
It is more than clear that Hindus and Muslims reached a settlement with Partition. In Pakistan, went all those Muslims who felt that they could not live together with a Hindu majority, and in India stayed all those Muslims who felt their religion did not pose an impediment in coexistence with a Hindu majority, which dictates the worldview of the state.johneeG wrote:So, Ambedkar thought of Pakistan as a settlement. Perhaps, many others of his time shared the view. In hindsight, the question is whether Pakistan was a settlement or appeasement?
Before that it was the current Paki clothing the bhooka-nanga.johneeG wrote: a) If Muslim men were introduced to Kurta Pyjama by Ranjith Singh or his commander, then what was their attire before that?
Merah had been on the radar of the French intelligence service for several years. He'd been detained in Afghanistan in 2010 and repatriated to France -- only to return to the Afghan-Pakistan border area in August of last year. He'd been interviewed by the French security services last November after returning from the Af-Pak area a second time. But he had apparently persuaded them, even showing photographs he had taken, that he had been on a tourist trip.
US senators also against discontinuation of drone programme. PHOTO: AFP/FILE
ISLAMABAD:
Parliament’s unfamiliar path to guide foreign policy has already hit its first roadblock. The United States has allegedly refused to revisit its policy governing drone use in Pakistan’s tribal badlands.
The message was conveyed by US Ambassador Cameron Munter in a meeting here on Thursday with Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, sources say, where the two discussed the revised terms of engagement with the US tabled before parliament earlier this week.
The 40-point report of the all-party Parliamentary Committee on National Security (PCNS), presented in a joint sitting of the National Assembly and Senate, included calls for US and Nato forces in Afghanistan to pay charges for the transit of their supplies via Pakistan, an “unconditional” US apology for a deadly attack on Pakistani border posts in November and a halt to drone attacks in Pakistan’s tribal areas.
According to sources, the US envoy informed the foreign minister that even though Washington was willing to tender a formal apology over the Nato airstrikes that killed at least two dozen Pakistani soldiers in Mohmand Agency, he ruled out the possibility of revisiting US policy of relying on unmanned aerial vehicles to pursue its battle against al Qeada and Taliban in the tribal areas.
According to a statement issued by the foreign ministry, the US ambassador said that the US fully respected Pakistan’s parliamentary process and was looking forward to putting relations back on track on the basis of mutual respect.
The Obama administration considers the CIA-led drone campaign in the tribal areas of Pakistan as a vital tool to dismantle the ability of al Qaeda and its affiliates to target US interests.
But the policy has stoked widespread anti-American sentiments in Pakistan and the civilian leadership sees it as counter-productive to its anti-terror efforts, even though there is suspicion that Islamabad might have a secret understanding with Washington on the use of drones.
An overturn of drone policy has also been ruled out by US Congressman Senator Joe Lieberman. Lieberman rejected the demand, saying “drone strikes are critically important to America’s national security. So obviously, I do not believe they should stop.”
US Senate Intelligence Committee chairwoman Dianne Feinstein believes that the drone campaign is needed due to an absent aggressive effort by Pakistan to root out terrorists and radical militants.
“I think the key is whether Pakistan will go into North Waziristan and other places and take out those terrorist leaders who are essentially fuelling and leading attacks against our troops in Afghanistan,” said Feinstein.
Foreign ministry spokesperson Abdul Basit rejected Feinstein’s assertion, insisting that there was no question of Pakistan’s capacity to fight the war with its own resources.
“Pakistan has killed and arrested over 700 al Qaeda operatives so there is no question about our capacity. We are very confident. We can deal with it through our own national resources provided there is sharing of real-time intelligence,” Basit said.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 23rd, 2012.
Anujan wrote: This should be printed on a Cricket bat and every WKK and wester "think tanker" should be hit on the head with it.
johneeG my reply here:johneeG wrote:Surasena ji,
thanks for that quote. I tend to agree with Ambedkar's view. The population exchange would have been a settlement. Painful, but the chapter would have been closed. Because there was no population exchange, the existence of Pakistan loses its meaning. And it seems to me that it turned out to be an appeasement.
It seems Ambedkar is of the view that 'alien minority' can never reconcile with majority and vice versa. It seems that muslims were viewed by Ambedkar as the 'alien minority' and Hindus were viewed as majority. It is interesting to note that Ambedkar does not differentiate between Hindus and considers that all Hindus(from all regions, sects, and castes) to be one group. Since, Ambedkar is projected as a Dalit icon(even though, I personally consider him a national icon), Ambedkar's view is interesting. Because, of late, there is an attempt to club the Dalits and Vanvasis(who are being called Adivasis) with the minorities.
Ambedkar's view, that 'alien minority' cannot reconcile with the majority, does open a pandora's box. Because there has been rise of 'alien minority' within India since 1947. Specially, christian variety. And Ambedkar's view has been even proved correct in certain states like Nagaland.
Again, thanks for the quote. My respect for Ambedkar has risen because it seems he had a pretty good handle on the issues.
BTW, it would be interesting to know why the transfer of population did not take place? Who opposed the idea and why?
Saar,Yogi_G wrote: Wasn't he the one who made all the local men wear kurta pyjama like women or was it Jassa Singh Ahluwalia or Ranjit Singh? Many men in Muslim populated areas of India only wear kurta pyjama, has become a Muslim dress code, maybe they dont know the history behind it.
I have heard of this story on net several times. I would want to know whether this is history or legend or a mix of both.
Two doubts that rise in my mind when I listen to this are:
a) If Muslim men were introduced to Kurta Pyjama by Ranjith Singh or his commander, then what was their attire before that?
b) Kurta Pyjama was Punjabi women's clothing. Who introduced this attire to Punjabi women(or Indian women)? In short, what is the origin of kurta pyjama? Traditionally, I understand, that women's clothing in India is Saree.
A Pakistani court has acquitted a key al-Qaeda operative and an alleged plotter of the November 2008 Mumbai terror attacks in a murder case, with witnesses withdrawing their testimony, likely in fear of reprisals.
Major (retired) Haroon Ashiq, also known as Abu Khattab, is a former Special Service Group (SSG) commando of the Pakistan Army who became a Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) trainer after he left the forces in 2000.
Carried out by a group of LeT terrorists who were allegedly trained in Pakistan, the Mumbai episode was actually the revival of an old plan by the ISI to distract the Pakistan Army from the Waziristan tribal region and focus on fighting India instead.
In TSP it is only image that matters. They are more than happy if they have a 'moderate' face to show the world while they themselves know nothing can be farther from truth. Pakis lie to themselves more than they do for the consumption of others.ramana wrote:But whats the use?
Its only a mask and not a face of moderate Pakistan.
"We have lost some revenue, just around Rs.1 crore. They are always banning our movies. Kurbaan was also banned," Saif told IANS adding that "We also shot in Pakistan without their permission."
"Agent Vinod is for Indians but it is not against Pakistanis," said Saif and added with a smile: "But I understand if they get upset because we are beating them up quite often in the film."
Directed by Sriram Raghavan, Agent Vinod has Saif in the title role and Kareena Kapoor as the female lead. Talking about characterization of Pakistanis in Agent Vinod, he said: "We have shown the Pakistani Army involved with the Taliban and Afghanistan. We have shown them assassinating their own ISI chief. We have shown them encouraging terrorist activities in India and financing the LET. If you feel this is unreasonable or not true, then it is fair enough."
"I think it is all quite true. May be they didn't like that but they do know," he added.
First, complete the quoteSurasena wrote:Ambedkar thought that because he was expecting an exchange of population.johneeG wrote:
Great quote of Ambedkar.
So, Ambedkar thought of Pakistan as a settlement. Perhaps, many others of his time shared the view. In hindsight, the question is whether Pakistan was a settlement or appeasement?
His exact words:Experience shows that constitutional safeguards did not save the minorities. Experience also showed that even a ruthless war on the minorities did not solve the problem. The states then agreed that the best way to solve the problem is by exchanging alien minorities within its border, with those of its own which were outside its border, with a view to bringing about homogeneous states. This is what happened in Turkey, Greece and Bulgaria. Those who scoff at the idea of transfer of population, will do well to study the history of the minority problem, as it arose between Turkey, Greece and Bulgaria. If they do, they will find that these countries found that the only effective way of solving the minorities problem lay in an exchange of population. The task undertaken by the three countries was by no means a minor operation. It involved the transfer of some 10 millon people from one habitat to another. But undaunted, the three shouldered the task and carried it to a successful end because they felt that the considerations communal peace must outweigh every other consideration.
That the transfer of minorities is the only lasting remedy for communal peace is beyond doubt. If that is so, there is no reason why Hindus and Muslims should keep on trading in safeguards which have proved so unsafe. If small countries, with limited resources like Greece, Turkey and Bulgaria, were capable of such an undertaking, there is no reason to suppose that, what they did, cannot be accomplished by Indians. After all, the population involved is inconsiderable and because some obstacles require to be removed, it would be the height of folly to give up so sure a way to communal peace.
The only way to make Hindustan homogeneous is to arrange for exchange of population. Until that is done, it must be admitted even with the creation of Pakistan, the problem of majority versus minority will remain in Hindustan as before and will continue to produce disharmony in the body politic of Hindustan.
http://www.janasangh.com/jsart.aspx?stid=141
Then read Ambedkar directly, instead of through Jana Sangh lens, on what he actually said, in the very same book about the exchange of population:Admitting that Pakistan is not capable of providing a complete solution to the communal problem within Hindustan, does it follow that the Hindus on that account should reject Pakistan?
Consider the effect of Pakistan on the magnitude of the communal problem. That can be best gauged by reference to the Muslim population as it will be grouped within Pakistan and Hindustan.
Figures indicate that the Muslims who will be left in British Hindustan will be only 8,545,465 and the rest 47,897,301 formig a vast majority of the total Muslim population, will be out of it and will be the subjects of Pakistan. This distribution of the Muslim population, in terms of the communal problem, means that while without Pakistan the communal problem in India involves 6.5 crore Muslims, with the creation of Pakistan it will involve only 2 crores. Is this to be of no consideration for Hindus who want communal peace? It seems that if Pakistan does not solve the communal problem within Hindustan, it substantially reduces it, becomes of minor significance and therefore much easier of peaceful solution.
It cannot be disputed that if Pakistan does not wholly solve the communal problem within Hindustan, it frees Hindus from the turbulence because of Muslims being predominant partners. It is for the Hindus to say whether they will reject such a proposal, simply because it does not offer a complete solution. Some gain is better than much harm.
It is very clear that Ambedkar did not expect wholesale migration of Muslims out of Hindustan, and he did not expect a huge migration of Hindus out of Pakistan either.So much for the problem of boundaries. I will now turn to the problem of the minorities which must remain within Pakistan even after boundaries are redrawn. There are two methods of protecting their interests.
First is to provide safeguards in the constitution for the protection of the political and cultural rights of the minorities. To Indians this is a familiar matter and it is unnecessary to enlarge upon it.
Second is to provide for their transfer from Pakistan to Hindustan. Many people prefer this solution and would be ready and willing to consent to Pakistan if it can be shown that an exchange of population is possible. But they regard this as a staggering and a baffling problem. This no doubt is the sign of a panic-stricken mind. If the matter is considered in a cool and calm temper it will be found that the problem is neither staggering nor baffling.
To begin with consider the dimensions of the problem. On what scale is this transfer going to be ? In determining the scale one is bound to take into account three considerations.
In the first place, if the boundaries of the Punjab and Bengal are redrawn there will be no question of transfer of population so far as these two Provinces are concerned.
In the second place, the Musalmans residing in Hindustan do not propose to migrate to Pakistan nor does the League want their transfer.
In the third place, the Hindus in the North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan do not want to migrate. If these assumptions are correct, the problem of transfer of population is far from being a staggering problem. Indeed it is so small that there is no need to regard it as a problem at all.
Assuming it does become a problem, will it be a baffling problem ? Experience shows that it is not a problem which it is impossible to solve. To devise a solution for such a problem it might be well to begin by asking what are the possible difficulties that are likely to arise in the way of a person migrating from one area to another on account of political changes.
The following are obvious enough :
(1) The machinery for effecting and facilitating the transfer of population.
(2) Prohibition by Government against migration.
(3) Levy by Government of heavy taxation on the transfer of goods by the migrating family.
(4) The impossibility for a migrating family to carry with it to its new home its immovable property.
(5) The difficulty of obviating a resort to unfair practices with a view to depress unduly the value of the property of the migrating family.
(6) The fear of having to make good the loss by not being able to realize the full value of the property by sale in the market.
(7) The difficulty of realizing pensionary and other charges due to the migrating family from the country of departure.
(8) The difficulty of fixing the currency in which payment is to be made. If these difficulties are removed the way to the transfer of population becomes clear.
The first three difficulties can be easily removed by the two States of Pakistan and Hindustan agreeing to a treaty embodying an article in some such terms as follows :—
" The Governments of Pakistan and Hindustan agree to appoint a Commission consisting of equal number of representatives and presided over by a person who is approved by both and who is not a national of either.
" The expense of the Commission and of its Committees both on account of its maintenance and its operation shall be borne by the two Governments in equal proportion.
" The Government of Pakistan and the Government of Hindustan hereby agree to grant to all their nationals within their territories who belong to ethnic minorities the right to express their desire to emigrate.
" The Governments of the States above mentioned undertake to facilitate in every way the exercise of this right and to interpose no obstacles, directly or indirectly, to freedom of emigration. All laws and regulations whatsoever which conflict with freedom of emigration shall be considered as null and void."
The fourth and the fifth difficulties which relate to transfer of property can be effectually met by including in the treaty articles the following terms:
" Those who, in pursuance of these articles, determine to take advantage of the right to migrate shall have the right to carry with them or to have transported their movable property of any kind without any duty being imposed upon them on this account.
"So far as immovable property is concerned it shall be liquidated by the Commission in accordance with the following provisions:
(1) The Commission shall appoint a Committee of Experts to estimate the value of the immovable property of the emigrant The emigrant interested shall have a representative chosen by him on the Committee.
(2) The Commission shall take necessary measures with a view to the sale of immovable property of the emigrant"
As for the rest of the difficulties relating to reimbursement for loss, for payment of pensionary and charges for specifying the currency in which payments are to be made the following articles in the treaty should be sufficient to meet them :
" (1) The difference in the estimated value and the sale price of the immovable property of the emigrant shall be paid in to the Commission by the Government of the country of departure as soon as the former has notified it of the resulting deficiency. One-fourth of this payment may be made in the money of the country of departure and three-fourths in gold or short term gold bonds.
" (2) The Commission shall advance to the emigrants the value of their immovable property determined as above.
" (3) All civil or military pensions acquired by an emigrant at the dale of the signature of the present treaty shall be capitalized at the charge of the debtor Government, which must pay the amount to the Commission for the account of its owners.
" (4) The funds necessary to facilitate emigration shall be advanced by the States interested in the Commission."
Are not these provisions sufficient to overcome the difficulties regarding transfer of population ? There are of course other difficulties. But even those are not insuperable. They involve questions of policy.
The first question is : is the transfer of population to be compulsory or is it to be voluntary ?
The second is : is this right to State-aided transfer to be open to all or is it to be restricted to any particular class of persons ?
The third is : how long is Government going to remain liable to be bound by these provisions, particularly the provision for making good the loss on the sale of immovable property ? Should the provisions be made subject to a time limit or should the liability be continued indefinitely ?
With regard to the first point, both are possible and there are instances of both having been put into effect. The transfer of population between Greece and Bulgaria was on a voluntary basis while that between Greece and Turkey was on a compulsory basis.
Compulsory transfer strikes one as being prima facie wrong. It would not be fair to compel a man to change his ancestral habitat if he does not wish to, unless the peace and tranquility of the State is likely to be put in jeopardy by his continuing to live where he is or such transfer becomes necessary in his own interest. What is required is that those who want to transfer should be able to do so without impediment and without loss. I am therefore of opinion that transfer should not be forced but should be left open for those who declare their intention to transfer.
As to the second point, it is obvious that only members of a minority can be allowed to take advantage of the scheme of State-aided transfer. But even this restriction may not be sufficient to exclude all those who ought not to get the benefit of this scheme. It must be confined to certain well defined minorities who on account of ethnic or religious differences are sure to be subjected to discrimination or victimization.
The third point is important and is likely to give rise to serious difference of opinion. On a fair view of the matter it can be said that it is quite unreasonable to compel a Government to keep open for an indefinite period the option to migrate at Government cost .There is nothing unfair in telling a person that if he wants to take advantage of the provisions of the scheme of State-aided migration contained in the forgoing articles, he must exercise his option to migrate within a stated period and that if he decides to migrate after the period has elapsed he will be free to migrate but it will have to be at his own cost and without the aid of the State There is no inequity in thus limiting the right to State aid. State-aid becomes a necessary part of the scheme because the migration is a resultant consequence of political changes over which individual citizens have no control. But migration may not be the result of political change. lt may be for other causes, and when it is for other causes, aid to the emigrant cannot bean obligation on the State.
The only way to determine whether migration is for political reasons or for private reasons is to relate it to a definite point of time. When it takes place with in a defined period from the happening of a political change it may be presumed open for an indefinite period the option to migrate at Government cost. There is nothing unfair in telling a person that if he wants to take advantage of the provisions of the scheme of State-aided migration contained in the foregoing articles, he must exercise his option to migrate within a stated period and that if he decides to migrate after the period has elapsed he will be free to migrate but it will have to be at his own cost and without the aid of the State.
There is no inequity in thus limiting the right to State-aid. State-aid becomes a necessary part of the scheme because the migration is a resultant consequence of political changes over which individual citizens have no control. But migration may not be the result of political change. It may be for other causes, and when it is for other causes, aid to the emigrant cannot be an obligation on the State. The only way to determine whether migration is for political reasons or for private reasons is to relate it to a definite point of time. When it takes place within a defined period from the happening of a political change it may be presumed to be political. When it occurs after the period it may be presumed to be for private reasons. There is nothing unjust in this.
The same rule of presumption governs the cases of civil servants who, when a political change takes place, are allowed to retire on proportionate pensions if they retire within a given period but not if they retire after it has lapsed.
If the policy in these matters is as I suggest it should be, it may be given effect to by the inclusion of the following articles in the treaty:
" The right to voluntary emigration may be exercised under this treaty by any person belonging to an ethnic minority who is over 18 years of age.
" A declaration made before the Commission shall be sufficient evidence of intention to exercise the right.
" The choice of the husband shall carry with it that of the wife, the option of parents or guardians that of their children or wards aged less than 18 years.
" The right to the benefit provided by this treaty shall lapse if the option to migrate is not exercised within a period of 5 years from the date of signing the treaty.
" The duties of the Commission shall be terminated within six months after the expiration of the period of five years from the date when the Commission starts to function."
What about the cost ? The question of cost will be important only if the transfer is to be compulsory. A scheme of voluntary transfer cannot place a very heavy financial burden on the State. Men love property more than liberty. Many will prefer to endure tyranny at the hands of their political masters than change the habitat in which they are rooted. As Adam Smith said, of all the things man is the most difficult cargo to transport. Cost therefore need not frighten anybody.
What about its workability ? The scheme is not new. It has been tried and found workable. It was put into effect after the last European War, to bring about a transfer 15 [f.15] of population between Greece and Bulgaria and Turkey and Greece. Nobody can deny that it has worked, has been tried and found workable. The scheme I have outlined is a copy of the same scheme. It had the effect of bringing about a transfer* of population between Greece and Bulgaria and Turkey and Greece. Nobody can deny that it was worked with signal success. What succeeded elsewhere may well be expected to succeed in India.
The issue of Pakistan is far from simple. But it is not so difficult as it is made out to be provided the principle and the ethics of it are agreed upon. If it is difficult it is only because it is heart-rending and nobody wishes to think of its problems and their solutions as the very idea of it is so painful. But once sentiment is banished and it is decided that there shall be Pakistan, the problems arising out of it are neither staggering nor baffling.
Maybe we should make the Chota Nawab the foreign minister.....Tamang wrote:Pakistan ban won't affect 'Agent Vinod' revenues: Saif
"We have lost some revenue, just around Rs.1 crore. They are always banning our movies. Kurbaan was also banned," Saif told IANS adding that "We also shot in Pakistan without their permission."
"Agent Vinod is for Indians but it is not against Pakistanis," said Saif and added with a smile: "But I understand if they get upset because we are beating them up quite often in the film."
Directed by Sriram Raghavan, Agent Vinod has Saif in the title role and Kareena Kapoor as the female lead. Talking about characterization of Pakistanis in Agent Vinod, he said: "We have shown the Pakistani Army involved with the Taliban and Afghanistan. We have shown them assassinating their own ISI chief. We have shown them encouraging terrorist activities in India and financing the LET. If you feel this is unreasonable or not true, then it is fair enough."
"I think it is all quite true. May be they didn't like that but they do know," he added.
Haven't seen the movie yet. Will hold judgement. But in the quote above he gave the smoothest knockout punch to the Pakis. Krishna should learn from him.Manish_Sharma wrote:^^ In fact 'chhota nawaab' is carrying out porki's message in this movie, that is it is Hindu baniya doing terriorism not porki isi, army or 'lashkar-e-taiba'
By Rafia Zakaria
21st March, 2012
THERE are those who wear the burqa for purely pragmatic reasons: to ward off the catcalls of men loafing at bus stops and in bazaars, to stanch the slick rumour-mongering tongues of neighbours, to better protect the outfit underneath from the grime of city life.
Their needs are simple and can be met easily. The burqa is a covering and so must be hardy and resilient, a sort of armour for the woman underneath trying with fabric to put some space between herself and the encroaching public world.
These recipes would be simple if the only women who wore the burqa in Pakistan were the practical, hard-nosed urbanites for whom anonymity is essential to making inroads into worlds and spaces previously unknown to their gender.
These would be the female students who have to use public transport to get to and back from a faraway college, recently migrated village women who must now ply the city streets to do the shopping and middle-aged housewives for whom educating the last son or daughter has meant manning a store counter. The encompassing blackness of the heavy fabric reduces not simply the time required to dress and become presentable, it coats need and necessity with respectability.
There are some others who have chosen to wear the burqa in recent years, women who are neither of the aspiring middle class wresting education or a job from a wasteland of men and opportunity, or the apologetically poor, interested only in warding off the leers of guards and gardeners.
These are the women of tea parties and coffee parties, newly reincarnated in (post) ‘war on terror Pakistan’ as the newly religious. Like the would-be dieter that happily collects her gear and gets up before the onerous task of actually eating less, the paraphernalia of piety is far more crucial in this game than the actual act.
Among the newly pious, partaking of tea and pastries in drawing rooms, the allure of the burqa as a beautiful eccentricity — a newly discovered hobby that elevates morally and distinguishes socially — presents some unique dilemmas. Survival in this social set follows a longstanding set of rules, the first of which is conspicuous consumption.
If bags and shoes and scarves and outfits cannot speak for themselves, or shrouded under burqas, speak at all, they lose both their power and their social purpose. What good is that diamond bracelet under the tight-buttoned cuffs that cannot be rolled up? What value is there to that couture outfit denied a voice under an itchy piece of beige polyester?
All this leads to the vexing conundrum of projecting both wealth and piety at the same time. What to do when women with no vocation other than the propagation of status find themselves addicted to an exploration that contradicts the competitive spending required of the newly wealthy?
One solution could have been a choice, where the dictates of one is chosen over the other. As per this recipe, the diamonds and drawing rooms would be abandoned for the muted greys and browns that would make the begum undistinguishable from the driver’s wife and go off to collect tomatoes and potatoes from the neighbourhood market.
This could have disastrous consequences. Newly covered aunties would look out from the tinted windows of their Toyota Prados to find the same pale blue geometric hijab from that one shop on Karachi’s Tariq Road staring back at them from the heads of women riding on the backs of Honda motorcycles. Everyone knows that Pakistani society cannot tolerate such confusion of class, mistakes that would make the rich look poor.
Some of the problems emanating from the challenge of projecting piety and wealth with a single garment are pre-empted by the steadily growing influx of Khaleeji Swarovski crystal-encrusted abayas and hijabs.
None of these troubles, however, seem to have provoked the question that one would have expected to evolve from the curious marriage of piety and wealth. With wealthy Pakistani women swarming to religious revivalism, redefining burqa styles and investing previously dowdy hijabs with the finesse of their distinctively expensive tastes, alarmingly few seem interested in exploring the connections between modesty and poverty.
The revived burqa of the rich begum can, it seems, traverse all the boundaries of unfettered spending and showmanship, sport crystals and pearls, cost more than the salaries of maids, chauffeurs and maybe a couple of office clerks combined, and yet magically invest its wearer with instant purity and piety.
Its form, ultimately, is more important than its function. Largely disconnected from the power relations of the society around it, it can absolve the sins of greed and exhibitionism in one easy act of covering. Wrapped in an expensive couture burqa or in a Hermès scarf, the society madam of old is no longer simply wealthy but also devout and spiritually laundered.
There can be only one explanation for this lack of focus on the meaning of the begum’s burqa: that those who have taken on the task of making religion fashionable for the wealthy have glossed over the ethics of wealth in favour of promoting the garb of piety.
Why not inveigle the reluctant with the choicest angles of revived faith, new avenues for material competition and newly discovered inroads for fashion innovation before bogging them down with the challenges of charity, restraint and honesty?
Under this recipe, wearing scarves and designing hijabs bears not just a worldly but a transcendent value, making the begum’s burqa the most fashionable route to paradise.
The writer is an attorney teaching political philosophy and constitutional law.
Source: The Dawn, Karachi
Add another milestone to the T-20 between Paki Greens and Paki Greeners. 10 militants killed in suicide attack on mosque in Pakistansaip wrote:Today lots of matches going on and some runs are being scored in Pakiland: Today is Pakistani day. This must be some kind of celebration.
Mirror, mirror on the wall; Who is the greenest of them all?At least 10 militants were killed and several injured when a suicide bomber today targeted a mosque inside a base of the banned terror group in the Khyber tribal region of northwest Pakistan, officials said. The attacker struck at the time of Friday prayers at the base of Lashkar-e-Islam in the remote Tirah Valley, which borders Afghanistan.
The Kurta Pyjama is actually Male Dress and Salwar Kameez is Female Dress (originated in Persia/Iran). The punjabi real dress is close to Rajasthani dress of "Kurta Chaadra" for males and females., different colors though. The difference between Salwar and Pyjama isby Yogi_GWasn't he the one who made all the local men wear kurta pyjama like women or was it Jassa Singh Ahluwalia or Ranjit Singh? Many men in Muslim populated areas of India only wear kurta pyjama, has become a Muslim dress code, maybe they dont know the history behind it.SBajwa wrote:
Quote:
In 2004 he settled into a house in Haripur only 20 miles from the capital before moving to the Abbottabad hideout in 2005.
The town of Haripur was created by the Marshall of the Khalsa Sardar Hari Singh Nalwa!!
At his instance, the police recovered a consignment of two pistols, four magazines and 50 rounds from Jallandhar in Punjab. Police claimed the arms was meant for use against a religious leader in Punjab.
"The arrested man -- Narender Singh -- had come to India from Germany in the first week of February. He received the consignment in the second week of March and his job was to ensure that it was kept safely for future use," a police officer said.
"Initially, he was tasked to go to India and contact the families of slain militants in Punjab and provided them monetary assistance. In November 2011, he and Hardevinder Singh went to Pakistan. There he underwent training in handling of arms and explosives," police added.
As I see it, Pakistanis have been pretending moderation for decades. The unfortunate part is most nations in the world believe it. As an unprovable aside there may well be an element of racism in the way Pakis are able to look like and gel with western TFTAs while they pretend moderation. They become "one of us" with the currently dominating "world order" led by the west.Dilbu wrote:In TSP it is only image that matters. They are more than happy if they have a 'moderate' face to show the world while they themselves know nothing can be farther from truth. Pakis lie to themselves more than they do for the consumption of others.ramana wrote:But whats the use?
Its only a mask and not a face of moderate Pakistan.
In rich, persuasive detail, Rashid describes corrupt leaders and a despairing population, an army that obeys orders only when it wants to, a stagnant economy, disastrous relations with neighbouring countries - and above all, a persistent national tendency, exemplified by Zardari, to blame others when anything goes wrong. Americans are often seen to be at fault, and sometimes Israelis. India is considered permanently blameworthy.
Half of school-age Pakistanis don't attend school. At the state's founding in 1947, 52% of the citizens were literate; in 65 years that number has been raised to 57%. In the last 20 years, Rashid notes, Pakistan has not developed a single new industry or cultivated a new crop. On the level of imagination, it has died or lapsed into a coma.
