As if we understand the differences betweeen catholics and protestants of northern ireland, or white americans and white puerto ricans! I would not hesistate in requesting my Sikh brothers to wear "Fought damn afrgans for 200 years" labels at this time. Stupid, but necessary.. 

But in the long run, politically correct talk ignores one of the fundamental and basic driving forces behind conflict: religion. There are good and decent Muslims no doubt, and to keep reiterating that indeed must be galling to many Muslims. These Muslims would say that “the Koran and Islam do not preach hatred and violence. It says that the way to influence 'non-believers' is through personal character of peace and tolerance.” They proclaim that the term 'jihad' is grossly misunderstood. The true meaning of jihad is to 'fight against ignorance,' they point out. To these people, the problem simply is that some mullahs and zealots have used jihad for their own political and personal gains. However, just as the proof of the pudding is in the eating, the nature of a religion is in its practice. One of my friends pointed out to the good Muslim who wrote about Islam and its tenet of love and acceptance, that in the Koran (The Koran, translated by A. J. Arberry, Simon & Schuster, New York) verse IX.5 says: “Then when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way.”

It is text like this that has to be properly translated. 

Muslims have many varied teachings depending on who is doing the teaching. Also, the same preacher can and does change the message depending on who the audience is. Thus, while not disputing the many statements of love and peace in the Koran, one should not ignore the fact that both kinds of messages get promoted by Islam depending upon the situation. As my friend remarked, “The existence of a loaded gun is not negated by the mere existence of positive things alongside, because the use of the weapon is at the discretion of its owner. Given the long history of misuse of the Koran to plunder, conquer, enslave, kill millions of persons in India (as evidenced by chronicles of Islamic scholars who accompanied the invaders), why not remove these dangerous weapons in the first place? In other words, why not amend such verses so they may not be misused at the sole discretion of some mullah? God has become misused as a weapon of mass destruction!” My friend does not merely want to focus on Islam, for there are enough calls to violence and discrimination in many of the world's religious texts. Therefore amendments to the holy books of all religions by a panel of scholars from various religions could be the first step in changing the world for the 21st century. What makes such a project difficult though is that any such proposal is deemed blasphemous, rather than seen as honest attempts to strengthen the religions of the world. Any attempts to reinterpret or modernize the Koran are negated even by those Muslims who seem very liberal in their views. How could a document written for desert tribes of uneducated persons 1,300 years ago be left in its original interpretation in the 21st century, my friend queries.

The same argument applies even more to bible and Gita. It is wrong to allow socalled clerics/lawyers/scholars etc to dissect the language of a religious book and read anything in them relevant to today - religions are matters of be;ief. Outright viciousness stupiditifies the translation, accepting such a translation vilifies the cleric, and can not reflect on the religion itself.

Demand, Not Request!

It is clear to us that the U.S., rather than appealing to Pakistan and approaching them with 'requests', should demand certain steps from Pakistan with short deadlines and ultimatums, such as the closure of all jihad training camps, periodic international inspections that they are complying (along the lines of Iraqi inspections by the UN), expulsion of all Taliban officials from Pakistan; demanding the de-recognition of the Taliban by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (the only three countries to have recognized the Taliban); and full intelligence access and support to the U.S. about all Taliban activities. This list falls short of military attack launching rights from Pakistan soil. While that refusal is to be condemned as Pakistan's non-cooperation with the civilized world, the above list of four demands, if not met, would constitute more than mere non-cooperation, and should not even be at the discretion of Pakistan. Refusing to comply with these should be deemed an act of aiding, abetting, and conspiring with the Taliban. For readers who may not have followed the first few days of developments, on September 13, Pakistan turned down a U.S. request for deployment of U.S. special forces on its soil, according to the Washington Post.

A good start.

The issue of joint U.S. and Pakistani action to force the Taliban to give up bin Laden has been discussed regularly for more than a year. This was done during visits to Pakistan by CIA Director George Tenet, and General Tommy R. Franks, Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Central Command. That itself is indicative of the American embrace of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and all the dirty warfare it has launched from within its national frontiers. Pakistan was a major staging ground in the 1980s for covert U.S. operations and its support for Islamic rebels fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan. Although some U.S. spokesmen have claimed that “relations between the one-time allies have soured since the end of the Cold War,” including the short and rude visit of Clinton when he did not shake hands with Musharraf, many in the U.S. defense and state departments have deep and abiding faith with their Cold War ally, and still continue to exercise their clout in the present administration, and in shaping U.S. policy towards India and Pakistan. For what else could explain the U.S. now talking to the Pakistani “official” Lieutenant General Mahmood Ahmed, head of the Inter-Services Intelligence, which was deeply involved in the Taliban from the days when it was a fledgling military movement in 1994 and is accused by anti-Taliban forces of still providing arms and guidance?

Problem is that Pakistan has learned to play the game well of disguising its interests as those of US. I can't imagine Musharraf feeling much re the poor Taliabans who must now go before they mount a real threat to him!

Caught Between the Mullahs and the 'Merican Might

Helping the United States in a potential attack on bin Laden and the Taliban would be almost inevitable if Washington concludes bin Laden orchestrated the September carnage. Where will it leave our 'suave' and clean-shaven General Musharraf? Maulana Sami-ul-Haq, leader of one faction of the pro-Taliban Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam party that was a promoter from the earliest days, said that he would “appeal to the Pakistani government that it should warn the U.S. and not allow it to use our airspace or any other facilities for a possible strike on Afghanistan. If America uses our soil then it means that we have lost our dignity and sovereignty... if that happened 140 million Muslims (of Pakistan) would retaliate against Musharraf's government.” Hai Allah! Musharraf has shown himself reluctant to confront all but the most extremist fringe of Islamic groups. A meeting of Pakistani political leaders spanning the spectrum agreed in August that Musharraf should not allow U.N. monitors on Afghan soil to enforce the sanctions on the Taliban designed to force the handover of bin Laden. That is because details have emerged over the past years of ISI involvement, naming ISI officers who worked with the Taliban from 1994 to open a trade route into Central Asia that Pakistan badly wanted. Musharraf in July defended Pakistan's backing for the Taliban arguing that they control almost all of Afghanistan and because they are overwhelmingly ethnic Pashtuns, whom he sees as natural allies. Does one now understand the dilemma for Musharraf? Backing a U.S. attack on the Taliban would enrage a substantial part of Pakistanis. Inside his own army, which sets policy on Afghanistan, an estimated 20 percent of the men are Pashtun. If he does not help Washington though, the consequences could be worse. Pakistan's support for the Taliban has already left it isolated, weakening a deeply indebted economy that mostly survives on a flow of foreign assistance, and the money sent in by expatriate Pakistanis.

The general is learning to protect himself after riding the tiger bareback!

What Can India Do?

There are reports that India's Research and Analysis Wing (India's equivalent of the CIA) is extending intelligence gathered on the Pak-Afghan axis and the training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and also information about the terrorist groups that are active in the region. An aggressive and effective policy against terrorism should be formulated by the Vajpayee government, and one may hope that the Indian participation will be welcomed by the international community in this now-declared global war against terrorism, which India has been fighting in isolation for a long time. I said 'one may hope,' and it is in that light one should see the FBI seeking and getting a number of documents from India on September 14 with detailed information about terrorist training camps in Pakistan. The material was handed over to FBI officials at the U.S. embassy in Delhi after a high-level meeting with the director of the Intelligence Bureau, K. P. Singh, and chief of RAW Vikram Sood. The FBI was given several videotapes showing training methods the Taliban and others use to instill the 'jihadi' mentality among the youths, hailing from a variety of Muslim countries at camps located on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, within Pakistan as well as in the illegally occupied parts of Kashmir. The files given to the FBI include addresses of various dreaded terrorists and financiers of the militant movement.

This king of cooperation must also require that we, as Indo-Americans, do not fail in our resolute stand against the blood-money benefits Pakistan seeks to get for its cocalled cooperation. The socalled threat from Taliban to Pakistan is greatlt exaggerated and of the remaining, a good part comes from fear of Kashmir trained suicide bombers.

It is also in this light that we should see Prime Minister Vajpayee's statement to the Indian public. He harped on the basic ideals that India and the U.S. shared, democracies each. He also mentioned the pain and suffering that India and Indians have experienced over the last two decades in its own war against Islamic terrorists. India has been alerting others to the fact that terrorism is a scourge to all humanity, and that what happened in Mumbai (more than 700 killed in a single day of bombings carried out by the jihadists based in Pakistan and the Middle East) was bound to happen elsewhere, “that the poison that propels mercenaries and terrorists to kill and maim in Jammu and Kashmir will impel the same sort to blow up people elsewhere.” Finally, what Vajpayee said about the role of religion was pertinent: “As an integral part of this battle, it is necessary that we bear in mind that no religion preaches terrorism. The fringe elements of society, which seek to cloak terrorism in a religious garb, do grave injustice to both their faith and its followers.”

I am glad that India PM is finally revoering from allowing Paki-humiliation at Agra!

The Joker In The Pack?

The 'inscrutable' Chinese, as the not-so-benign stereotype of the denizens of the new 'super power in the making' goes, have resolved to strengthen ties with the Taliban regime by signing a memorandum of understanding for economic and technical cooperation. The agreement was reported Tuesday, the same day the terrorists hijacked the four planes. China's agreement with the Taliban is the most substantial part of a series of contacts that Beijing has had with Afghanistan over the last two years. Of all non-Muslim countries, Beijing now has the best relationship with Kabul, according to Western sources. Officials in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan said they worried that Beijing was trying to curry favor with Kabul at the same time it made a public show of opposing terrorism, which seemed to be supported by Afghanistan. Lest it be forgotten, China helped form the Shanghai Cooperative Organization that joins Russia and three central Asian nations in a loose grouping, with one of its main purposes being to combat cross-border terrorism. China is also surreptitiously talking to the Taliban to close Afghan-based camps that are used to train Muslim separatists from China's restive Xinjiang region. Those separatists on occasion re-enter China and launch attacks on China's security services or on civilian targets. Sweeteners that the Chinese are seeking to provide include renovating an American-built power station. Now, with the Manhattan massacre, a senior American diplomat is said to have cautioned China about trying to “play both sides against the middle and anger the West and other countries.” Will it heed this warning, or will it, according to the forecast of some Indian astrologers, join forces with the 'other side' in a new war of the worlds?

This whole china angle means nothing for a good south western part of china is muslim and has several active cells it seeks to destroy/