Comments on: Pakistani society in the throes of tectonic change? Perspectives on Pakistan Thu, 01 Oct 2015 19:31:05 +0000 hourly 1 By: Raza Shah Sat, 24 Jan 2009 19:22:23 +0000 For God’s sake Sanjeev…havent you ever been to Pakistan? If anything its WAY MORE modern & Westernized now than it has ever been throughout its history

Im so sick of people having malicious aims when it comes to maligning Pakistan

By: Peace Thu, 22 Jan 2009 11:50:30 +0000 Good article and i rather say well informed article but one mistake is ignorance. Islam was, is and will always be the in liveblood of every muslim in Pakistan whether he goes to mosque or not. Sanjee mentioned the blast in Lahore theater can he be more elaborate on BAL THAKRE activities in india, specially his threats to PAKISTANI celebreties in india.

By: Rajesh Rai Sun, 18 Jan 2009 12:47:01 +0000 Re: Kashmir.
The biggest mistake was Pakistan’s attack on Kashmir after partition. The clueless maharaja was tilting towards an Independent Kashmir or signing up with Pakistan, all that was required was patience on the part of Pakistan. Several rajput “kings” seriously considered joining Pakistan. There are a lot of “ifs”. The whole thing was poorly thought out .

By: anup Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:23:46 +0000 prob. posting reply

By: rajeev Sun, 18 Jan 2009 00:36:57 +0000 Anup,
Oops! I got your 1st paragraph wrong. So ignore this from my previous post “I did not say “To criticize another’s religion is ‘UnHindu” nor did I mean it. BTW I cannot even understand what it means. It is clear that each religion is different. You have to be careful in interpreting because putting in negatives, such as “Unhindu” can mean something “bad”, rather than saying it is “different. Well it is a useless exercise to focus too much on the jugglery of the words.”

Again, I am not critizing, it is Dawkins. It is relevant since many people are atheists or agnostics–Nehru was agnostic.

By: rajeev Sat, 17 Jan 2009 21:39:49 +0000 Anup: I am not advertising or criticizing any religion here. I have genuine question, which everyone has and that should be encouraged. Please do not make a wrong sketch of my person. I did not say “To criticize another’s religion is ‘UnHindu” nor did I mean it. BTW I cannot even understand what it means. It is clear that each religion is different. You have to be careful in interpreting because putting in negatives, such as “Unhindu” can mean something “bad”, rather than saying it is “different. Well it is a useless exercise to focus too much on the jugglery of the words.

In my previous post, I have quoted Richard Dawkins in my attempt to point out that there are theists, atheists and agnostics. Did you read the book “God Delusion” or heard abot this guy? I personally do not fully believe what he says. My major point was to bring his rationale “Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where’s the harm? September 11th changed that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous”. That’s what we have been saying that terrorists are misinterpreting religion and spreading violence.” We are saying the same thing in our own words-“misinterpretation of religion” leading to killing of the innocents. Now if he has his own reasons to believe that “God almost does not exist”. I do not personally agree that he can prove that based on his rational approach, but then each one of us have our own ways of understanding a phenomenon or just believing without questioning.

Richard Dawkins agrees with you on “Many a Richard Dawkin’s (western scientists) discuss rationality & then you come across them on Sunday morning mass, kneeling devotedly in their local church…”. He also wonders about this problem. Anup you are assuming that all the scientists, like Dawkins, are atheists. That’s wrong to begin with. Needless to say Dawkins is not one of those people. Anyways, “hypocrites” who say they are THEISTS OT ATHEISTS can never be defended.

About his using the word “evil”, I looked at the etymology of the word. He has not fallen into the trap of the meaning of “evil”. Here is the quote from the Dictionary of Word Origins by John Ayto, “the original meaning of the English word “evil” has changed considerably over the last few hundred years. Not surprising. It seems theologians have had considerable influence upon shaping words to cause us to see according to their doctrines rather than what is plainly written.”

Anup, there is no denying that Jihad is considered a “holy war”, but depends on the interpretation of “war” again.

Have you seen the movie “The war within”? It is a pretty good movie-nothing at all like “Typical Victorian moral, good vs bad…”. Rather it is a good attempt at understanding the mind of a suicide bomber.

By: Anup Sat, 17 Jan 2009 17:21:59 +0000 Hussain
“also feel we will NOT feel complete till out hindu brothers also come back who were driven out of the valley..”

—Why? are you guys not satisfied enough for the rape, murder & atrocities committed on them yet? You think they are absolute idiots to trust you barbarians?how sick you’ll can get, BS! Kashmir was-Is- Will always be in & for India & Indians-Period.

By: punjabiyaar Sat, 17 Jan 2009 14:58:21 +0000 Hussain:

You pointed out a very important issue, So I thought I should comment on this. At the time of independence Kashmir was left alone on its own, as the Maharaja at that time did not want to merge with pakistan or India, we were fine at that point.

In 1948 Pakistan attacked Kashmir and captured almost all of it, obviously Kashmir had no army of any sort. Maharaja asked Indians for help, which could be provided only if Kashmir was a part of India. India was not america at that time which could interfere anywhere in the world. Maharaja had to sign Kashmir to be merged with India. Pakistan did not acknowledged that Kashmir, which was in possession of Pak at that time, can be merged with India. Pakistan did not accepted that treaty and India had to fight pakis out of Kashmir.

Now UN ,which is always slow on these issues, interfered and imposed a ceasefire. If UN had not imposed a ceasefire, all of the Kashmir will be free. Even today Indian Kashmiris have special rights due to section 370, being a kashmiri you must be aware of that.

Since then pak has attacked several times on kashmir to occupy it, if there were not indian army “on every inch” it would have been succeed too. Now they are sending terrorist on Kashmiri soil.

So you know, Kashmir has signed to merge her with india, If Maharaja decided to ask China for help it would be part of china by now. What could we do, after this we have to say that Kashmir is part of India and we have to defend it.

Its pakistan which is unfair on Kashmir.

By: Indian Sat, 17 Jan 2009 14:24:35 +0000 Sikander Hayat :

Why are you trying to promote your own blog through reuters ?

If you think it is worth let people do it.

By: Hussain Sat, 17 Jan 2009 13:30:16 +0000 Chuck–

You said Kashmir is part of India and Pakistanis say it is part of Pakistan. The question I have is if it was integral part of either country, why is there UN resolution asking for a peblicite? Not only that but also promised by Mr Nehru. The fact is Kashmir is for kashmiris and only kashmiris have to right to decide their fate. As the Indians have there homeland and pakistani theirs so do the bengalis so why do we see the double standard when it comes to Kashmiris?

I am a kashmiri living in Canada and infact I have visited my homeland year ago. I did not see any suffering infact most kashmiris on that side of the border are living overseas. All I saw was lot of developments but yes there were poor kashmiris and the earthquake only made the situation worse. But yes the politicians are corrupt as they are eleswhere in the subcontinent. But it is nothing like what we see on the other side of LOC which we all know and I dont want to go in details except surely dont need that high number army personals to control the valley.

Why should the Kashmiris suffer like this small child being pulled betwen two angry parents in the form of Ind/Pak. If there is war or cross border firing the only people who suffer are kashmiris on both side of the LOC.

I also feel we will NOT feel complete till out hindu brothers also come back who were driven out of the valley. But same time we dont need indian soldier every yard in srinagar or eleswhere in Kashmir.

The best solution is for both countries to take their army out of kashmir except for few that observers at the LOC. But Kashmiris would be allowed to travel either side of the LOC to trade, meet families. There should be kashmiris police force for the whole of kashmir trained by both countries and sincerly help the kashmiris to get on their feet.

But then if the two neighours cant sit together on incident like Mumbai. We do NOT have very high expectations from both countries surely we need International help to solve this crisis. This problem needs to be adressed and solved for the sake of everyone living in South Asia as this issue could triger a nuclear war.