|
India Thinkers Net Archives Index
|
Subscribe
|
|
| << November16, 2007 - [India Thinkers Net] Anti-Christian violence , |
November20, 2007 - [India Thinkers Net]Nandigram,US primer ,Pak action etc >> |
|
[1] From: Abhiyya 2006 <abhiyya@yahoo.com Date: Sat Nov 17, 2007 Subject: Jamat-i-Islami behind Imran Khan Arrest? Qazi Ahmed fighting against Musharraf, his students wing Jamiat-e-Taliba assisting arrest of Imran by Musharraf!! Imran arrested in Lahore Nirupama Subramanian — Photo: AFP TAKING THE LEAD: Cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan with university students in Lahore on Wednesday. LAHORE: Assisted by students affiliated to the youth wing of the Jamat-i-Islami, police in this city captured Imran Khan, former cricketer and leader of the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf, following a chaotic drama on the Punjab University campus where he emerged from hiding on Wednesday for the first time after escaping house arrest last week. A police official told AFP that Mr. Khan was in police custody, and had been given a detention order. The official said the cricketer would be placed under house arrest. The government slapped the draconian Anti-Terrorism Act on Mr. Khan, PTI reports. Penalties under the Act include death sentence or life imprisonment, media said. Mr. Khan was taken into custody by police at the gates of the campus after he was first locked up by students of the right wing Islami Jamiat-e-Taliba, which has a powerful presence in Punjab University. Categorised as a religious organisation, it is the only campus union permitted in Pakistan since Zia ul Haq’s clampdown on student politics in the late 1970s, and used by him to finish off other unions. As the Imran Khan episode unfolded, IJT students declared they did not want politicians on campus, and would lead their own protests against the Emergency. They also said Mr. Khan had not taken permission from them to mobilise students on the campus. The JI, whose leader Qazi Ahmed and Mr. Khan are close political allies, condemned its student wing, saying the organisation had committed a “mistake” and had stood on “ego and narrow interests” and said it would consider action against the IJT. The events of the day vitiated the atmosphere in the opposition camp, barely a day after opposition political parties seemed to be uniting against President Musharraf following Benazir Bhutto’s declared willingness to work together with them. Ms. Bhutto, who for the first time demanded on Tuesday that Gen Musharraf stand down as President and Army chief, spoke to Mr. Khan and the JI chief besides PML (N) leader Nawaz Sharif, and Awami National Party leader Asfandyar Wali Khan. Dramatic arrest But the dramatic arrest of Mr. Khan fuelled suspicions about the JI’s loyalties, and put the spotlight once again on its historical alignment with military rulers. Mr. Khan, who went underground after escaping house arrest following the November 3 imposition of emergency, announced on Tuesday that he would lead a rally at Punjab University on Wednesday morning. Hundreds of policemen in riot gear waited at the gates of the university, while inside IJT students gathered for their own protest against Gen. Musharraf and said they would not allow Mr. Khan in at any cost. As rumours flew that the former cricketer was already present at the university, the IJT students took out their own rally through the leafy campus. A roar went up in the crowd as Mr. Khan, in a crisp white salwar kameez, appeared suddenly. Some supporters in the crowd managed to lift him on their shoulders. But it was all too brief. Students of the IJT — there were reports that plainclothesmen were among them — closed in on Mr. Khan, who tried to fight his way out of the crowd. But he was quickly headed off and hustled into a department building, and the doors locked down. “We have kept him here for his own safety, because there were many plainclothesmen from the police and intelligence services out to arrest him on this campus. We will soon allow him to leave,” said one student. He said there was no place for politicians on campus. But JI spokesman Amir-ul-Azeem, also a politician, expressed helplessness at the students’ actions. After about 30 minutes of chaotic scenes between pro- and anti-Imran students, a white van backed up to the building. A student who climbed on it shouting “Imran Khan Zindabad” was pushed off quickly. Mr. Khan then came out in a tight ring of escorts who thrust him into the van. “It happened so quickly that we could not control them. The students have committed a big mistake today. They will realise it later. Qazi Hussain Ahmed and Imran Khan, they are as one. But the students have strengthened Musharraf. They have done it for their ego,” said Mr. Azeem. http://www.hindu.com/2007/11/15/stories/2007111555511600.htm also see: Imran caught on the wrong foot BORN-again Muslims are not good enough for Islamists. The sorry drama enacted on the Punjab University campus in Lahore on Nov 14 should solve the mystery for those emerging from the sidelines to claim the command of a team of motivated students in whose selection and training they have played no part. Imran Khan came to the campus in the face of ???stay-away??™ warnings from Islami Jamiat-i-Talaba. He was pushed and shoved and insulted and thrown to the keepers not long after. Did the Jamaat-i-Islami leadership know what was about to happen or was it a personal initiative of their student wing to assail the idol? While the first possibility is highly unlikely in the case of ???the most organised political force in the country??™, in either case it is as dangerous an occurrence for the Jamaat as it is for Imran Khan and his Justice Party. For the Jamaat is nothing without its ???likeminded??™ allies. Before the brutal toss on the campus that landed Imran Khan in jail on Nov 14, he had done plenty in the last 15 years to be labelled as an enigma. For the pro-democracy purists, his biggest folly was his decision to join General Pervez Musharraf. Those, who boast of knowing the only way to the seat of power in Islamabad, say his real mistake was that he left the general too soon. For the apolitical the mere fact that he acted against their counsel to form a political party some ten years ago was an unpardonable act. Those who believed that the honest and the straight-talking should come forward to rescue Pakistan from the clutches of the corrupt, the incompetent and the insincere were happy to see him take the political plunge. Many among them were soon disillusioned by Imran??™s sheer ability to lose those who gave his party a progressive look and indeed the appearance of a party rather than a one-man reform squad. Hamid Khan, who is in the vanguard of the fight for an independent judiciary today, was not so long ago an active member of Imran Khan??™s Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf as was Dr Pervez Hasan, an internationally known lawyer of standing. There were many other ???new faces??™ by his side, such as journalist and analyst Nasim Zahra for a brief period making rounds of newspaper offices in Lahore as an Imran lieutenant before, like Hamid Khan and Dr Pervez Hasan, she also turned away from a struggle from the Tehreek??™s platform. The progressive dialogue Imran Khan had engaged himself in came to a halt as he made post haste to the Right. To the surprise of his early supporters who strained to see in him an alternative to the tried and sullied political leadership of the country, even as he sported this new image of his, the cricketing icon would still be known as a liberal face in Pakistani politics, not only anti-America, but liberal, with a special attraction for youth and the domestic and international media. That was an anomaly as big as an ???alien who neither studied at the Punjab University nor taught there??™ leading the student activists who owe their allegiance to the Jamaat-i-Islami. Sadly, it was written in Imran??™s fate. A couple of days before he was scheduled to make his appearance at the Punjab University, hoping to court arrest amidst thousands of cheering students, the Islami Jamiat-i-Talaba had warned him against the adventure. They had actually done the cricketing hero a great a favour by allowing him the benefit of a forewarning. Only three months ago the organised Islamists cadres had watched in silence as their ally and benefactor, Nawaz Sharif, suffered the ultimate ignominy a politician could ever face: returning home to a cold reception. Now it was the turn of another natural ally to experience the exemplary Jamaat discipline. Even after all the reverses that the all-rounder has undergone in the last decade and a half it hurts to see a rare hero being humiliated like Imran was on the Punjab University campus on Wednesday. Despite his political leanings, Imran of late was on course to restoring to himself the old aura, that of a guerrilla commander who relied heavily on springing surprises to make an impact. His ambushes during his playing days are part of Pakistani folklore. He excelled in catching his opponents napping by sending out a soldier ??“ the Abdul Qadirs and the Salim Yousufs -- up the order for rapid-fire action, saving his key men ??“ the Miandads et al -- for a later onslaught. He would opt to bowl when every expert in the game would be advising him to bat. The gamble often paid and it was a crucial element of his captaincy. He does not have the same kind of men at his command now and maybe not the same luck with the coin but he did show the spark of the past in managing to keep the policemen at bay for almost two weeks. The way he was trapped in the end is perhaps a sign for him that he is far better off returning to his old uncompromising ways. Who knows he might end up rallying groups of students to his cause. The secret, as always, lies in selecting and nurturing them on their own. www. dawn. com With Regards Abi ----------- [2] From: syed rahman <surahman2000@yahoo.com Date: Sat Nov 17, 2007 Subject: Pakistani spices curry favour with Indians Pakistani spices curry favour with Indians http://khabrein.info/index.php? option=com_content&task=view&id=8852&Itemid=88 By Sahil Makkar New Delhi, Nov 17: From chikan to the kitchen, the allure of Pakistan never fails to capture. As is evident from the long queues outside Pakistani stalls at the Trade Fair here with Indians stocking up on spices just as they buy the famed embroidered fabric for their wardrobes. The aroma of Pakistani quorma and Sindhi biryani is wafting all the way across the border to the India International Trade Fair (IITF), which started Thursday and goes on till Nov 27. The tagline, 'The Original Pakistani Meal Express For India', aims to attract and it does. Food lovers, including college students, are jostling with one another to buy Pakistani spices at the stalls in the SAARC pavilion at Pragati Maidan. Of the 63 Pakistani counters, the two selling the Pakistani condiments are perhaps the most popular. --------------- [3] From: Sukla Sen <suklasen@yahoo.com Date: Sat Nov 17, 2007 Subject: Indo-US Nuclear Deal: Congress Operationalises the Deal with CPIM-CPI suklasen Indo-US Nuclear Deal: Congress Operationalises the Deal with CPIM-CPI The Left have given a go-ahead for negotiation with the IAEA for deciding the "India-specific" terms of inspection/safeguar ds. (The deal between the Congress and the CPIM-CPI has been operationalised. ) But before clinching, this has has to be placed before the UPA-Left Joint Committee for approval. That's the agreement today. The discussion in the parliament on the 'deal' to be taken up in the parliament has thus been rendered virtually superfluous. One of the Left parties, Revolutionary Socialist Party, has however openly dissented as had already been hinted. The BJP is also expected to raise the pitch. Even the CPIM-CPI may again change their stand depending on the delivery by the Congress its part of the bargain (understandably on Nandigram and maybe even other issues.) India would, as it stands today, ask for incorporation of fuel supply guarantee in the safeguards agreement. This is expected to be a major sticking point. And the global anti-nuke peace movement is actively engaged in making things as difficult as possible - both in the IAEA and then in the NSG, if the case reaches that stage. Sukla I/III. http://in.news.yahoo.com/071116/43/6ncfd.html India to discuss n-deal with IAEA after partial Left nod By IANS Friday November 16, 08:28 PM New Delhi, Nov 16 (IANS) Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's government Friday said it will go ahead with talks on the Indo-US nuclear deal with the IAEA after its Left allies that earlier opposed any negotiations gave a conditional nod for it to go ahead. External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee did not look very pleased as he made the announcement after a 90-minute meeting between partners of the ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA) and the four Left parties supporting the government. Communist sources told IANS that while the government would be allowed to save face by holding talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), India should not sign any safeguards agreement -- that would allow nuclear trade while opening up select Indian nuclear facilities for global inspection. Members of the Communist parties who took part in the talks with UPA leaders said privately they would prefer to wait until 2009 - by when George W. Bush would not be the US president -- for any nuclear deal to go ahead. Reading a prepared statement, Mukherjee said the UPA and Left leaders 'discussed the implications of the (US) Hyde Act on the 123 agreement (that accompany the civil nuclear deal) on foreign policy and security matters. 'After further discussion, it was decided that the impact of the provisions of the Hyde Act and the 123 agreement on the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguards agreement should also be examined,' he said after emerging from his South Block office. The minister, who had led the government side in hard bargaining with its leftist allies, added that working out the text of the India specific safeguards agreement would require talks with the IAEA Secretariat in Vienna, without being specific is that would be discussed. He said the outcome of the talks with the IAEA would be placed before the 15-member UPA-Left panel for its consideration. This in effect means that the Left would still hold the veto power on any safeguards agreement - a position which Communist sources say would more or less kill the civil nuclear deal. The UPA-Left gathering started 30 minutes late because an earlier meeting of the CPI-M, Communist Party of India (CPI), Forward Bloc and Revolutionary Socialist Party (RSP) that began at 3 p. m. at the CPI-M headquarters went on for 90 long minutes because of differences among them. The RSP and Forward Bloc were bitter that the CPI and the bigger CPI-M were willing to reverse what they had preached for weeks and allow the government to go to the IAEA headquarters. CPI-M general secretary Prakash Karat and CPI general secretary A. B. Bardhan argued that Manmohan Singh had sought a honourable exit out of the mess caused by the nuclear deal row. The prime minister, Karat explained to his colleagues, had stated to him and Bardhan that the government would have to go ahead with the talks with the IAEA to save face and that the Left should let them do that. But the government, Karat went on, had promised the Communists that the government would not make the nuclear deal operational unless the Left gave its final go ahead. He added that the government should not sign any pact with the IAEA. The CPI-M and the other parties have argued that the Indo-US deal, which is expected to end India's nuclear isolation, would make New Delhi a junior partner to the US in the larger strategic issues. Forward Bloc and RSP leaders were not convinced by Karat's explanations. Asked how they will explain their U-turn to their supporters, the leader of one of the parties retorted: 'Ask the AKG Bhavan!' The CPI-M headquarters is located at the AKG Bhavan here. Later, at the UPA-Left meeting, one Left leader told the government representatives: 'Upon your promise to get back to us, we are giving you another chance (on the nuclear deal).' The next meeting of the UPA-Left nuclear committee will meet after the Gujarat assembly elections next month. The Indian talks with the IAEA will also be over by the end of December. II/III. http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php? id=14560301 Left gives green signal for talks with IAEA By a Sify Correspondent Tuesday, 13 November , 2007, 22:53 New Delhi: In a significant departure from their earlier position, the Left parties have assured the government that they would not object to New Delhi approaching the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for negotiations, provided nothing was finalised till a consensus was reached on the India-US nuclear deal. Following this assurance, talks between the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) and the Left parties was rescheduled for November 16, 2007. The Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPM) general Secretary Prakash Karat and Communist Party of India (CPI) general secretary A B Bardhan had assured Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to this effect during their luncheon meeting on Saturday and Bardhan later confirmed it in an interview to a news channel. The UPA-Left meeting, originally scheduled for April 16, 2007 had been earlier postponed indefinitely on the plea that Parliament's winter Session was starting that day. "It is a positive development," External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said, while announcing that the UPA-Left Panel would meet as per original schedule. He refused to elaborate further. But sources said the Left parties had agreed to let the Government start negotiations with the IAEA for India-specific safeguards agreement subject to the condition that it would not sign any agreement with the international atomic watchdog. The Left wants the Government to back to the Committee on any steps it proposed to take with the IAEA, before actually going ahead with it. Though this marks a tactical shift in the Left's position — it had earlier opposed even negotiations — it does not amount to any basic change in the Left's stand on the India-US nuclear deal. CPI leader Bardhan made this clear on Tuesday when he told reporters that the Left “remained opposed to operationalisation of the nuclear deal.” Reacting to the day's developments, the BJP claimed the "climb down" by the Left on the Indo-US nuclear accord was the result of a “trade-off” between Government and CPM over Nandigram. "Our stand that the Left opposition to the nuclear deal was not based on principle but on convenience has ultimately come true in the wake of the CPM's compromise with the Government," said senior BJP leader and former External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha. "The Prime Minister is silent on Nandigram, which the Governor had described as a war-zone. Had it been a non-UPA or non-Left ruling State, the Government would have descended heavily on the State," he added. An India-specific agreement with IAEA is one of the preconditions for operationalising the nuclear deal. After firming up the safeguards agreement, New Delhi has to approach the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) for changes in the rules to allow nuclear trade between India and the international community. These steps are required to be taken urgently as the nuclear deal has to be approved again by the Congress in the US, which will go into election mode from January 2008 and any delay in this regard can put the deal in jeopardy. III. http://www.hindu.com/2007/11/14/stories/2007111462761000.htm RSP to oppose talks with IAEA Special Correspondent ‘No change in stance of Left parties’ ‘Reports of change in Left stance speculative’ Says Forward Bloc is also against holding talks THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: T. J. Chandrachoodan, RSP nominee on the United Progressive Alliance (UPA)-Left joint panel on the Indo-U. S. nuclear agreement, has made it clear that his party would not be privy to any decision that facilitates dialogue between India and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on the nuclear deal. Prof. Chandrachoodan told a news conference here on Tuesday that his party saw no reason why the Left parties should change their opposition to negotiations with the IAEA. The decision at all the five meetings of the joint panel was not to proceed with the negotiations unless and until there was a consensus decision to the contrary, he said. The RSP leader said he did not expect the CPI(M) and the CPI to change their stand at the meeting of the joint committee scheduled to be held on Friday and termed reports suggesting a change of heart on the part of the two Communist parties ‘speculative.’ Asked whether he would withdraw from the joint panel if the proposal for commencement of dialogue with the IAEA gained wide acceptance, Prof. Chandrachoodan said he did not anticipate any such eventuality. He disclosed that the Forward Bloc too was opposed to any change in the Left stand on the nuclear agreement. Forward Block general secretary Debabrata Biswas had called him over phone in the morning and expressed his concern about reports suggesting a possible change in the Left stand on the issue and had fully concurred with the RSP position. Asked whether he had spoken to the CPI(M) or CPI leaders on the subject, Prof. Chandrachoodan replied in the negative. He pointed out that once the negotiations are allowed, there would be no turning back. No country would be able to begin negotiations on such a crucial issue as a major international nuclear agreement and suspend it half way for clarifications from back home. “Once you set the ball rolling, you cannot turn back,” he added. Asked whether the RSP was voicing its apprehensions about a possible change in the stance of the two Communist parties on the issue, Prof. Chandrachoodan said his statement was not in response to what others were reported to be doing. He was only articulating his party’s stand on the issue and making it clear that if any discussions running contrary to the present understanding were on, the RSP had nothing to do with it. The RSP leader said the sudden decision to hold the meeting of the joint panel and the reports appearing in the media had to be viewed against the backdrop of the last minute decision of the Indian side not to sign an agreement for nuclear cooperation with Russia during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Moscow. The decision could only be seen as being the result of pressure being exerted on India by the U. S., he said. Peace is doable. -------------- [4] From: WebXpurt <webxpurt@yahoo.com Date: Sat Nov 17, 2007 Subject: VANDE MATRAM CONTROVERSY The Vande Mataram Controversy! - By Swati Parashar, Saag. org As religious based conflicts are becoming part of the global political and social ethos, I cannot help offer some musings on the ongoing controversy over the singing of ‘vande mataram’ at a children’s day function in Srinagar in Kashmir. In what is being perceived as an assault to Muslim identity and religious beliefs, some factions of the Kashmiri Muslim leadership have condemned the singing of the national song at an official function. Media reports claim that Mufti Bashiruddin Ahmad argued that ‘vande mataram’ was not the national song and it was against the basic tenet of unity of God in Islam. Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, the moderate Hurriyat leader also said the act was condemnable as children were made to do something against their faith. Syed Ali Shah Gilani, the hardliner in the Hurriyat group said that Kashmiris would not tolerate such acts. And when there is an opportunity to ‘defend’ her faith, Dukhtaran-e-Millat chief, Asiya Andrabi, would not be left far behind. She also expressed her condemnation with the argument that, “the main theme of ‘vande mataram’ is worshipping one’s motherland … Islam only believes in one Allah.” This is not the first time that this song has been mired in controversy. Originally published in Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay’s political novel, ‘Anand Math’, which talked about the ‘Sanyasi Rebellion’, the song was a cultural tool to forge unity among the people to organise against the British. Both Hindu ‘sanyasis’ and Muslim ‘fakirs’ rebelled against the British East India Company. This song continued to have a powerful appeal in the nationalist discourse till independence was achieved. The song made news in 1998 when All India Muslim Personal Law Board issued a fatwa asking Muslim parents to get their children out of the schools if UP government forced this song in schools. Even in 2006 its mandatory rendition by the government on the centenary year of the song created uproar in the country. Let me begin with the simplest and most obvious of arguments. Critique is being made of the state here, wherein, it is perceived that the state is deliberately assaulting the religious beliefs and values of a particular minority community. The same people who speak for minority rights and against majority tyranny have never extended their sympathies to minorities in other countries especially non Muslims. The objection they raise against the singing of a particular song is from the standpoint of their identity as Muslims. Questioning their standpoint, must I confess that minorities are not treated in a better manner in Islamic theocracies? We need not even travel as far as the Middle East to establish this. A cursory glance at the situation of minorities in the neighbourhood does not exactly present a positive picture! But, surely two wrongs don’t make a right. I am only trying to argue that will these people also speak up for the minorities elsewhere, whose right to life, liberty, cultural practices and religion have all been threatened? If they care less, might not it expose their duplicity? Where do we draw the line? Mohammed Rafi, the greatest singer who graced this country with the serenity of his voice rendered songs in praise of a number of Hindu Gods and Goddesses. Would they next advocate that his songs be banned because as a Muslim he had no right to sing songs of the ‘infidels’ and the ‘idolaters’? Rafi, a devoutly religious Muslim, would have had an identity crisis today! Would they ban ‘un-Islamic’ songs written by Muslim lyricists, like Sahir Ludhianvi, Shaqeel Badayuni or composed by maestros like Naushad? I can almost hear people say, this is carrying the argument too far! Not really, if you look closely. If ‘vande mataram’ is strictly Hindu shouldn’t kathak be Muslim, tabla be Muslim and hence non Muslims should not have anything to do with these forms of arts? I am surprised that the Muslim leaders who condemned the singing of ‘vande mataram’, did not bother to argue along expected lines that singing songs itself is un Islamic! If the argument is that patriotism, nationalism or allegiance to a nation state cannot be questioned when a group of people choose to not sing a song that hurts their sentiments; surely, it can be counter argued that merely singing a song cannot undermine their national identity as Muslims or question their allegiance to the Islamic faith. By the same logic put forth by our Kashmiri Muslim leaders, Mohammed Rafi would be a sinner who preached idolatory and polytheism in songs like Sukh ke sab sathi, Dukh mein na koi…Mere Ram, or Man tarpat Hari darshan ko aaj. His blasphemy was outrageous and there ought to have been a fatwa against him for offending the religious sentiments of the community! In the current controversy, certain individuals have also assumed for themselves the right to determine that the sentiments of the ‘community’ are hurt. I think we should pause here and ask whether they truly speak as if they represent a ‘community’. I would like to think otherwise. However, if the issue is about ‘choice’ in a truly liberal and secular democracy, I am all for it. Surprisingly, none of these Islamic leaders argued that they were children, who were not in a position to make a choice about whether they wanted to sing the song at all. That would have made secular individuals like me (and I take the liberty of considering myself one!) perhaps sympathise with their cause. What they simply do in their statements is to undermine the very idea of ‘choice’. Because you are Muslim, you cannot sing a song that is un-Islamic, is like saying that because you are Muslim you are denied the right to choose even a song to sing! I am quite convinced here that most Muslims themselves would be alarmed at the lack of agency and choice that is being attributed to their extremely just and benign faith. I cannot help think of the poor children who actually sang the song and the impact that this controversy will have on their young minds! The process of ‘othering’ has already begun for them, thanks to the adults! They have sinned by singing the song, for, Asiya Andrabi argues, they will have to recite the ‘Qalma’ to get back into the Islamic fold! There can be no limit to the ways in which any community’s sentiments are threatened because communities are more fragile identities than individuals. I am beginning to get a sense that in the name of protecting the feelings of communities of all sorts, we are promoting a culture of intolerance that will further divide the people and entrench conflicts in the society. I shudder to think of reactionary Hindu fundamentalists who demand bans on ‘qawwalis’, on visiting ‘dargahs’, or on Shahruk Khan’s movies, because he is Muslim. The last thing that these people do is protect the interests of any community, only making them more vulnerable. We are constructing boundaries that do not exist; we are enforcing exclusion that is alien to Indian ethos. A mere peep into sub-continental history would suggest how we have always welcomed cultures and ideas and have made them our own. Conflicts have always been there, but they have never impeded different cultures from intermingling and influencing each other. Identities have never been so easily threatened nor sentiments so easily hurt! It seems, controversies do not emerge anymore, they are created and imposed. How about this one from me – should we stop singing sare jahan se achha Hindostan humara because these words were penned by Allma Iqbal the conceptual founder of Pakistan? Let me end here by a quote from the philosopher and rationalist Bertrand Russell; the whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts! url: http://www.saag.org/papers25/paper2464.html Swati Parashar is a PhD Candidate at the Department of Politics and International Relations, Lancaster University, United Kingdom. She can be contacted at swatiparashar@hotmail.com ------------- |
|
| << November16, 2007 - [India Thinkers Net] Anti-Christian violence , |
November20, 2007 - [India Thinkers Net]Nandigram,US primer ,Pak action etc >> |
|
India Thinkers Net Archives Index
|
Subscribe
|
|
|
Archives powered by Zinester's Mailing List Service
Details on India Thinkers Net |
Browse for more newsletters at Zinester's Ezine Directory
Managed by Zinester's Mailing List Management |