HOWARD or HOW AWKWARD ?

John Howard former Australian Prime Minister

John Howard former Australian Prime Minister

While the PCB is playing Butt politics and trying to clear up the mess they have created after the comical and farcical banning and imposing fines on their key 7  players  who were touring Australia a couple of months ago and, now the COO of the PCB – Wasim Bari – once a very trusted man of Ijaz  Butt is placed under the microscope on the suspicion of leaking or, selling the information to the media, a local TV channel, there are a couple of series going on in the UK and across the Atlantic and neither of them are hitting the headlines.  But once again it is Butt who is gyrating his Butt at the international level as well too.

Perhaps most of us are aware of Australia’s former Prime Minister John Howard’s nomination to the ICC for the post of “president designate” which is hitting road blocks at the moment because, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and South Africa have decided to block Howard’s nomination and to do that 4 member countries are needed. Already three are determined and only one country’s boards’ decision is needed.

India is not going to vote against because, it is BCCI’s Pawar, who will take over as president in June 2010, backed the process that threw up Howard as a candidate so neither Australia nor, England or even the West Indies (because of being a common wealth country) will oppose his nomination.  So, Butt is left alone and he cannot take this important decision without the Pakistan’s government approval, if he does then Butt would be on Surgeon Asif Ali Zardari’s table for a colonoscopy.

The main issue for Pakistan or the PCB is to view this process from a higher ground and look into the consequences that will affect its future position as a member board within the ICC.  As far as Pakistan’s foreign policy is concerned, be at the official diplomatic front or, at the sports level it has been very pathetic. They take irrational, emotional and erratic decisions where people’s sentiments are always running very high and emotional. Pakistan is quick to take a stance and supports the underdogs especially those who were considered as villains by others become heroes for Pakistan, e.g., Saddam Hussain and Osama Bin Ladin.

We all know that the former Australian Prime Minister is an ardent fan, a great supporter and lover of cricket and he called, Murali a Chucker not once but twice.  For that reason Sri Lanka is opposing his nomination and the South Africans are opposing on some other political reason but, what has Pakistan to do with it? Why do they need to alienate themselves from Australia? Especially in view of the fact that, a few years ago when there was a  massive earthquake in Pakistan, John Howard visited the earthquake effected areas and met the victims.

Pakistan’s relationship with the ICC is also not so rosy especially when BUTT opened his mouth and challenged to sue the ICC not once but twice, once when the venues were taken away from Pakistan for hosting the ICC WC 2011 and also when Chris Broad the ICC official complained about the serious lapse in security in Lahore when the Sri Lankan players were attacked by gunmen and Chris Broad narrowly escaped he blamed the PCB for not providing adequate security and, Butt did not apologize to anyone instead he threatened to sue Chris Broad and the ICC.

Whether Murali is a chucker or not is another issue, from Bhishen Singh Bedi to a few hundred million others he is. Still, India is supporting Howard’s nomination. During the Oval debacle between Inzamamul Haq and Darrel Hair, BCCI’s Niranjan Sharma was quick to reply to the media that whatever happens we are with the ICC.  There was a clear message to Pakistan that we are not on your side but, we are with the ICC.  However, things changed when Geoff Boycott and others ruled out the ball tampering as baseless and Hair lost his air like a hot-air balloon and the BCCI changed their stance.

Instead of me giving my opinion here on this thread, I would like our bloggers to give their views on whether John Howards should be nominated for that post in the ICC or not? If not, why? And, how his nomination would affect the other boards in the ICC management affairs?  Whether the PCB say YES or NO, it is a question that most of us would be waiting to see whether Ijaz Butt is a diplomat or not?  A good diplomat thinks twice before saying nothing.  Ijaz Butt says twice before thinking nothing. So, what do you expect here? Yeah or Ney?

Advertisements
  1. #1 by M. Y. Kasim on May 29, 2010 - 4:29 PM

    You are right. Why should Pakistan oppose Mr. Howard’s nomination? We have no problem with Australia, in fact Australia is one of few countries we have not alieniated so far. Plus, Mr. Howard is 100 times more intelligent and knows more about cricket than our Mr. Ejaz Butt, who was a Test Player once.

  2. #2 by JAVED A. KHAN on May 29, 2010 - 4:53 PM

    Mr. Kasim

    Thank you very much for airing your views on this subject, you have read between the lines that I don’t want Pakistan to oppose Mr. Howard’s nomination. Sri Lanka”s protest is very personal because of Murali. South Africa and Zimbabwe’s could be due to Apartheid movement and they have old issues with England and Australia and I am not sure what exactly is the reason that these two South African countries are opposing his nomination.

    Pakistan has alienated itself from the West so many times and for no real reason. Either it is in support of Arab world or religious based and sometimes they have criticized the west for no reason and yet they want to be in their Butt. And expect charity from KSA and other Arab countries and wants to be friend of the US and then they burn the effigies of their leaders. The derogatory and insulting Danish cartoons I think were very wrong and the Danish government should have admonished the cartoonist and apologized to the Muslim world, which they didn’t. On the other side, Muslims in general and Pakistanis in particular didn’t do better either. They should have made peaceful protests but, they were very irrational and emotional. And, some of the extremists were blabbing comments way out of context and the media picked up those individuals and showed it on the local TV channels a million times with comments that, “Muslims are intolerant, extremists, fundamentalists etc.” Which is not right because those handful of people do not represent the entire nation. Like the Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Gillani said on a TV interview in the US that, “in Pakistan the terrorists are hand picked.” 😀

  3. #3 by newguy on May 29, 2010 - 5:40 PM

    I don’t know much about John Howard, except that he supported President Bush on the war in Iraq, like President Bush he was also a conservative. I don’t understand why these 3 nations are opposing his nomination. As you can see, I don’t have much of an opinion in this matter.

  4. #4 by khansahab on May 29, 2010 - 6:37 PM

    PCB draws flak on lifting of ban on Shoaib Malik

    Pakistan Cricket Board today received flak from former cricketers and administrators for its sudden decision to lift the one-year ban on former captain Shoaib Malik.

    Justice (retd) Irfan Qadir not only lifted the ban on Malik but also reduced the fine from two to one million rupees.

    “I am disappointed at the way PCB has handled things.

    They imposed such strong penalties that are only enforced for serious offences and now after just two months they remove these penalties without giving a proper reason,” former Test spinner and ex-chief selector Iqbal Qasim said.

    He said what was most surprising was that the Board lifted the ban on Malik against whom was laid the most serious charges of creating disharmony and groupings in the team.

    They are saying he (Malik) has improved himself and they monitored him. The question is who monitored him and when.

  5. #5 by JAVED A. KHAN on May 30, 2010 - 1:33 AM

    khansahab

    This is what I asked in my comment when I read,“We (PCB) had watched Malik’s attitude and conduct over the last three months and proposed that ban should be lifted,” I said, WTF did he see in Malik’s attitude? Just that he got married to Sania Mirza aur BV Kay Tufail, celebrity bun gaya and got a sympathy vote from the whole of the Province and they were monitoring how he is behaving with Sania Mirza!

    It is really a shame that the do such nepotism and Jingoism so openly. The removed Malik’s ban and then reduced his fines and Younus Khan’s appeal date has been extended because, he did not want to compromise on principles. What a load of Butt Dung is this. These are the people who are creating hatred among other people by openly promoting favouritism. Only Iqbal Qasim has complained but, Wasim Akram Choora, Zaheer Abbass Ch2So4 and a few other well known chooras are supporting Malik’s case and welcoming him back to the team as if he has achieved something great.

  6. #6 by JAVED A. KHAN on May 30, 2010 - 1:37 AM

    OK newguy

    But, what about your views on the India/Zim match? There is one more tomorrow between India and Sri Lanka, what are your expectations after losing against Zimbabwe?

  7. #7 by JAVED A. KHAN on May 30, 2010 - 1:55 AM

    What happened in Lahore yesterday is a shameless barbaric act by the extremists and fundoz, they attacked the innocent Ahmedi community in their mosques with automatic weapons, grenades and suicide bombers and killed about 80 innocent people and 100 others were injured. What have they achieved? Don’t the Ahmedi people have a right to live and pray according to their faith? Does the real so-called Islam being practiced by these fundoz teaches them to carry out such attacks and kill innocent people? How will they react if someone goes and kill their kids, parents, brothers, friends in their mosque? I practice the Sunni faith of Islam and I have never heard or read anywhere that a Muslim should kill any human being let alone a person from any other faith. I really feel very sad when such senseless, barbaric acts are carried out and a human life is lost for no reason. And, I feel very ashamed when it happens at the hands of Muslims. What kinda religion are they practicing? Who are these people and why are they killing other people for no reason? I honestly and sincerely apologize and sympathize with the Ahmedi community and pray for their dead and the bereaved families and for the children whose father may have lost his life or for a father whose son may have lost his life at the hands of these savages.

    And, come to think of the security aspect, the question arises what has the Punjab government and the police has done to protect the people from terrorists? NOTHING.

    When the terrorists attacked the Sri Lankan team no one was caught and nothing much was done to prevent another attack, since then many suicidal attacks have been carried out and many innocent people have died. This is an excerpt from DAWN’s editorial one of the leading newspapers of Pakistan

    “What have the Punjab police done to improve their operation procedures to respond to an attack? Yesterday, angry scenes at the assault sites were reminiscent of previous attacks in Lahore — ordinary, helpless people unable to understand why they the victims were left at the mercy of militants. If television crews can reach the scene of an attack before police reinforcements, what does that say about the administration’s state of preparedness? ”

    This is so true that the media reaches the scene before police. WHY? Because, the police is unequipped, uninterested, low paid, corrupt and there is no one accountable to anyone. Shahbaz Sharif instead of bamboozling his police chief during the recent Taliban attack, urged the Talibans to spare Punjab from terrorist attacks because, Punjab has earlier supported them. What a leader he is. Leader hai ya Geedar hai?

  8. #8 by Omer on May 30, 2010 - 2:00 AM

    Even if the ban has been lifted, Malik needs to prove himself in domestic cricket for a couple of years at least. There is no way he is international standard, especially in test matches. only if he can average 50 in first-class domestic cricket for 2 years like Younis Khan has done, he should be allowed to play international standard cricket.

    I don’t know why Younis Khan is so much into the reasons of the unreasons, he should definitely join the team in England, or what hope does Pakistan have without a single proper batsman capable of hitting a big 100?

    Malik averages 8 in England, 3 in New Zealand. Kamran Akmal averages 10,15 in England and Misbah perhaps around 10. And, these three would make a group and start revolting against Afridi as captain.

  9. #9 by JAVED A. KHAN on May 30, 2010 - 2:07 AM

    Omer

    That is what you think that Shoaib Malik needs to prove his form through domestic cricket, but 60% of the Pakastan Puppoo-lation thinks he should actually lead the team. And, now since he has conquered Chittor he is a hero of 5 rivers.

  10. #10 by Mohammed Munir on May 30, 2010 - 10:03 AM

    Very interesting article and on top of it all, a well suited headline … “Howard or How Awkward”.

    ICC have a structure where the ‘President Designate’ automatically takeover from the ICC President in two years time and so after two years of Mr. Pawar’s tenor, Howard is destined to be the President of ICC.

    Now for Mr. Howard from being a Prime Minister of a country to President of ICC is some downward transition, and the reserve order would have been more appropriate.

    Although, I don’t have anything personal against Mr. Howard but I think a diplomat (that to a Prime Minister) of a country shouldn’t have stooped so low to call an opposition player ‘Chucker’, no matter how emotional about the game he or she may be. Ijaz Butt is a total joker and a black-mark on diplomacy and comparing Howard with Butt will be an outright insult to the Ex-Australian Prime Minister. Nevertheless, I would say that Howard has acted more or less like a ‘Butt’ when calling Murli a ‘Chucker’.

    It is well-known that Howard is an outspoken person who, during his tenor, has ruffled a few feathers and didn’t care much about anyone except for the Aussies. He may have not gone against Pakistan on any cricketing issues but then I don’t remember him supporting PCB in any which way.

    Just like all other important matters, Butt has not handled this issue well. However, I think, PCB should not take side with Howard and should oppose Howard’s nomination, because this shall help Pakistan to cement their ties with Sri Lanka who has been our supporter on most ICC issues. PCB has traditionally enjoyed good relations with Sri Lanka Cricket Board, more than Australia, whereas West Indies and Zimbabwe are also not against us.

    Therefore, to me, it is How Awkward. 😉

    Lastly, where is Bangladesh on this issue, or they also in the voting ?

    On Malik …

    I agree with Omer, Malik going to England will be a recipe for disaster not only because of his pathetic cricketing skills under UK conditions, but more importantly his negative vibes on other players. On the other hand, I think Misbah is not among the 35 probables and so question of his joining the team is not there. Please correct me if I am wrong.

  11. #11 by newguy on May 30, 2010 - 12:34 PM

    Young India team needs to learn quite a lot. Openers are not up to the mark. Medium pacers are not troubling anyone. Only the two spinners, Amit Mishra and Pragyan Ojha are able to pose decent threat. In batting they only have 3 proper batsmen in Raina, Rohit Sharma, and Virat Kohli. Ravi Jadeja and Yousuf Pathan are nothing players.

    Overall, half this India A team is of club quality. I wonder if selectors could not find any other players, instead of keep giving chances to players like Karthik, YKP, Jadeja, who after so many chances still haven’t done good. They had their golden opportunity to make it big, and haven’t done so. It is time to try some of the other youngsters too now.

    Let’s see if India can chase down 243 today.

  12. #12 by JAVED A. KHAN on May 30, 2010 - 3:12 PM

    newguy

    India won easily because of Rohit’s good form and they also restricted SL under 250 which was good. Two run outs for SL made the surrender because they too are without Jayawardene and Sangakara who could have stabilized the situation. India should have brought in Irfan Pathan to try him out in Zimbabwe but, there seems to be some politics.

    Munir

    No need to correct you because you are right Misbah is not even among the 350 probables 😉 And, for your info Sri Lanka board does not operate independently anymore the Indians have bought it for 10 years for US$40 million, aren’t you aware of it? And, yes Bangladesh has also referred the matter to their respective ministries for consideration i.e., whether they should say Yeah or Ney?

    Tamim scored a fast century in the second innings, but BD are not going to win either of the test matches, it is very difficult for them (and even for Pakistan without YY) to beat them in England.

  13. #13 by khansahab on May 30, 2010 - 3:26 PM

    Son of top political leader pressurised PCB to revoke Malik’s one-year ban

    The sudden change of mind on part of the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) which saw the one year ban imposed by it on former captain Shoaib Malik being revoked was actually due to the immense pressure on it being applied by a son of a top political leader, sources have revealed.

    According to PCB insiders, board chairman Ijaz Butt was under tremendous pressure to lift the ban on Malik and also to reduce the two million rupees fine imposed on him following the recommendations of an inquiry commission, which was formed to look into the reasons behind Pakistan’s deplorable performance during the Australian tour.

    “PCB chief Ijaz Butt, who is behind all this circus going on, was directed by the son, who has a close relation with Malik, of that top political leader to lift the ban. And Ijaz, who had no choice, complied with the orders,” The Daily Times quoted sources, as saying.

    Earlier, expressing his pleasure over the appellate tribunal’s decision to lift the ban on him, Malik said the verdict has vindicated his stand all charges against him were baseless.

    “I was shocked when they imposed the ban and it was not acceptable to me. But I am delighted this stigma of a ban has been removed from my name,” he said.

    Malik said he was looking forward to focus only on his game and would be delighted to serve the team in whatever capacity.

    With the discontinuation of the ban, Malik is likely to return to the Pakistan squad for important upcoming assignments. He has already been included in the list of 35 probables for the June 15-24 Asia Cup, and the exhaustive tour of England.

  14. #14 by M. Y. Kasim on May 30, 2010 - 4:11 PM

    I totally agree with you that the barbaric attack on Ahmediyyas in Lahore can not be condoned in any way.

    I too am a Hanafi, Sunni Muslim and THIS IS NOT ISLAM. It is the Anti-Islam agenda of the enemies of Islam which has been spreading and propagating for centuries that Islam is a religion of hatred and violence.

    And these extemists, by their savagery are supporting this claim. No where in Islam does it say or teaches to harm inncent people, let alone kill them. In fact, Islam is the first and only religion that introduced the concept of tolerance and fairness to all the humanity.

    And less said about the Police and security personnels of Pakistan, the better. When President of that country is the BIGGEST CRIMINAL and the entire system is currupt, what do you expect?

    It hurts to think about it and our heads are lowered with shame.

  15. #15 by khansahab on May 30, 2010 - 6:26 PM

    Kasim sahab

    As Najam Sheraz says in his song, a message to all humanity:

    Na tera khuda koi aur hai….

    (Your God is not different)

    Na mera khuda koi aur hai

    (My God is not different either)

    Yeh jo rastay hain joodah joodah

    (That our ways are different)

    Yeh muamla koi aur hai…

    (This is a different matter altogether)

  16. #16 by khansahab on May 30, 2010 - 6:30 PM

    This attractive female is reciting Sheraz’s Hamd:

  17. #17 by M. Y. Kasim on May 30, 2010 - 6:55 PM

    Khan Sahab and Javed A. Khan,

    Thank you so much for the above video as well as that of Turkish Football Coach.

    In these times of frustration, it is a relief of sort.

    Last night, I watched an American movie on video called “Unthinkable.” I would not divulge the theme or the story of this horrifying movie. I urge all guys on this blog to watch it and write their comments on this blog.

    May God Almighty bless you all.

  18. #18 by khansahab on May 30, 2010 - 7:06 PM

    Kasim sahab

    How coincidental that only this morning someone suggested to me that I should see Unthinkable?!

    It is unthinkable how such coincidences occur at times.

  19. #19 by khansahab on May 30, 2010 - 7:12 PM

    Kasim sahab

    If Pakistanis had any sense and self respect they would not have voted for a party that has such a strong affiliation with Asaf Zardari.

    They blame the leaders and the Army (and foreign countries) for their troubles but they don’t realise how stupid they are.

    I mean, Zardari is a known criminal, possibly the richest, most famous mass criminal the world has known. By that I mean, the allegations on him go beyond corruption, he is accused of everything from murder to conspiracy to theft to organised crime.

    People say Bush and Blair are war criminals but Zardari is richer than them.

  20. #20 by khansahab on May 30, 2010 - 7:20 PM

    PCB makes another U-turn as some channels are reporting that Rana Naved’s ban has been overturned.

    This has gone beyond frustrating, it has gone beyond comical, it has gone beyond depressing. This is now agony of the highest degree.

    If Imran Khan loves his country he should divest of his ego and become PCB Chairman. He is the best man for the job and he will certainly be more popular as PCB Chairman than he will be as a political leader.

    Imran Khan paindoo, if you are reading this I hope you get the message and take the right decian.

  21. #21 by Omer on May 30, 2010 - 8:06 PM

    Rana Naveed has been unbanned because he appeared on tv and spoke the truth, that, after the group taking the oath, he did underperform in one match under Younis Khan, but he had apologized to him after that and said he will not do it again. In other words the rest were continuously underperforming. Naveed was obviously hedging his bets, on Younis’s side if he remained the captain, and on the other hand, if there was a change and Malik or Kamran Akmal were made captain, then on their side (he had taken the oath as well and, afterwards, privately conveyed that to Younis as well).

    All these are big parchis, Rana Naveed, Shoaib Malik, and Kamran Akmal– and they have been thoroughly aided by Inzamam. I have been saying this since the last 3,4 years or more I have been watching these players that, at no point in cricket history in Pakistan nepotism has been more rife. It was Inzamam who started this culture that anyone who kept a beard became the “senior” and part of the team– Malik got the light beard and Rana ranked high in seniority by keeping the big one. Mushtaq came on tv and said that, the point of players is to play like “brothers”, in that,if a senior is standing (meaning Mushtaq or Inzamam), then the relatively junior (Rana) quickly brings a chair for them to sit. And, this culture that Inzamam created bonded the disparate people together, that is, now a Sialkoti could come together with a Multani and sit on the same table and this ‘unity’ brought the team to number 2 in rankings. A united team of 9 Punjabis and two pathans was created, in which one, Younis Khan, remain unbearded and the enemy of Inzamam even after his retirement.

    However, as with all things done by Inzamam, this fell apart, because now Rana was the senior, bearded genuine matchloser, so how could Inzamam play the unbearded matchwinner Razzaq in his place? Apart from that it could be imagined all the other stuff that Rana did for Inzamam, apart from bringing chairs, like giving massages, running around to get him the ball, and like? The system that Inzamam had created became sterile and defunct, and after that good one year, and more so after the don’s retirement, all these parchis of Inzamam degenerated into bandits, matchfixers, and so on. It had to happen as they were being kept afloat not based on performance, but acting like they are very “good” Muslims, and once so polished and furnished in acting as Inzamam and Mushtaq, what else could transpire next?

    The board is inept because the only way to correct the situation is to ban Malik, Rana Naveed, Misbah ul Haq, and Kamran Akmal for life. These are the players that have been creating groupings in the team (and worst of all, they are very, very average players). Now they should be asked to perform at domestic level cricket for at least two years before they are considered for international selection.

  22. #22 by Omer on May 30, 2010 - 9:14 PM

    Khansahab,

    LOL I just love the way you say, “Imran Khan Paindoo”. Why do you call him that though, as he was a great cricketer?

  23. #23 by khansahab on May 30, 2010 - 9:22 PM

    Omer

    Wasim and Waqar were also great cricketers and so was Zaheer Abbas, but they are paindoos too.

    I can Imran paindoo because I don’t like his arrogance, the way he runs his party and some aspects of his personality.

  24. #24 by Omer on May 30, 2010 - 9:34 PM

    Khansahab,

    Imran Khan is a pretty accomplished person, don’t you think he has a right to be somewhat arrogant?

    Its like when you see a really hot chick that is arrogant and then you see one that is not as hot/arrogant, don’t you just accept it or do you hold it against the hot chick?

  25. #25 by khansahab on May 30, 2010 - 10:15 PM

    Omer

    The Prophet of Islam was the most accomplished person and he was not arrogant, so who the fu*k is Imran Khan paindoo?

    He is like andhon mai kana raaja, people think he speaks wonderful English, that he is some kind of intellectual and that he has good vision.

    He has very little. When I was 14 I could speak better English than him and when I was 21 I could speak better Urdu than him. He speaks rubbish usually, is a biased paindoo and his “vision” for Pakistan does not benefit all Pakistanis.

    Did you not see his comment where he called a federal minister “African” in a derogatory way because of his dark complexion? That is insulting to all black people firstly and secondly it is a very immature and vile comment, which was completely uncalled for. He has the mind of a 10 year old it seems.

    Imran Khan is not a hot chick so I can’t compare him with one. You can’t compare apples with pears!! Plus, a woman being arrogant on the basis of her good looks is different from a paindoo being arrogant on the basis of his paindooness.

    We don’t want an immature leader who judges people by the colour of their skin. This guy definitely has issues with colour- all his life he ran after white women, it is widely believed he has an illegitimate child with a white woman, he married a white woman etc.

  26. #26 by khansahab on May 30, 2010 - 10:30 PM

    Omer

    Carrying on from my previous comment, personalities make leaders. You used to vehemently oppose Musharraf but personality wise I find him better than Imran Khan.

    Musharraf is like an open book- he has the guts to declare in front of all Pakistanis that he drinks, that he agrees to a large extent with American foreign policy.

    Musharraf does not get agitated easily, you can see his comments and thoughts are always very calm and calculated. He is a thinking leader.

    NEVER in his tenure as President did he ever make an immature, biased or inappropriate comment on TV.

    Imran Khan can’t run a family, a party, let alone a country.

    Just consider Imran’s personality. Do you really think he can run a democracy? He has a dictatorial personality and he will be a right-wing, staunch dictator in comparison to the benevolent dictator that Musharraf was.

  27. #27 by Omer on May 30, 2010 - 10:48 PM

    Khansahab,

    I never vehemently opposed Musharraf. I think having a system is better than not having a system. In fact I consider Musharraf the most able leader in Pakistan, except that he should have done things democratically. And, it is not as much about democracy itself, but the fact that there is a system in place. Personally, I can see why some people may say, democracy itself is tribal in character, but nevertheless it is the ‘democratic system’ or for that matter, any well-defined system, that I think is necessary for a state to function properly. Musharraf couldn’t just undermine the judiciary at his behest, that power is not in his domain. I think ego got the better of him, if he had thought more about how to govern, then he wouldn’t have undermined the system to that extent, and come back as a democratic leader.

  28. #28 by khansahab on May 30, 2010 - 11:17 PM

    Omer

    A person who is not from a feudal background or does not speak the language 60% of the population speaks, a person who advocates rights for religious minorities, a person who does not discriminate between people, a person who speaks his mind, is sincere…..how does this person “do things democratically” in a country like Pakistan?

  29. #29 by Omer on May 30, 2010 - 11:24 PM

    Khansahab,

    I don’t know the answer to your question– it is a fair question I guess.
    But it tends to work in India, don’t you think they face similar problems in terms of corruption (at one point even more so than Pakistan)?

    Nevertheless, what I meant was, Musharraf was quite popular at the time, but removing the CJ, kind of, sparked a revolution against him. If he were more thoughtful there, I guess he could have won democratically.

  30. #30 by Omer on May 30, 2010 - 11:35 PM

    Khansahab,

    Let me clarify what I mean. When I say, he should have done things ‘democratically’, I don’t mean that he should have done everything according to the ‘will of the people’. What I mean is, he shouldn’t have undermined the system. When he removes the CJ, that sets a legal precedent.

  31. #31 by JAVED A. KHAN on May 31, 2010 - 4:39 AM

    LOL at khansahab on his reply to Omer in response to Imran Khan’s Paindooness. I was reading the comments in chronological order and when I read, Omer’s comment saying Imran is a very accomplished person don’t you think he has the right to be a little arrogant? I thought of the same answer what khansahab wrote. The more accomplished you are the more humble you become and not arrogant and khansahab cited the correct example of our Prophet. And, what are Imran Khan’s accomplishment btw? A failed marriage with a Jewish Billionaire’s daughter who is now dating with Hugh Grant, giving a French Kiss to Kate Moss, a stigma of Sita White’s daughter’s father and not her husband because he never married her. A father whose 2 sons are neither desi nor British, what will they be when they grow up?

    He was a captain of the cricket team and he was more of a dictator than a leader, a one man party ruler, because there is no one in his Tahreek-e-Insaaf who can be called his deputy, if there is one, no one knows his name. He is a person who keeps changing his views like a chameleon changes its colour every now and then, he keeps negating his own comments because, he can’t remember what he said last time. He still don’t know whether he is a desi, a semi gora sahab or a brown uncle? At times he talks total nonsense like, he doesn’t believe in Einstein’s theory of relativity and says E=mc2 means nothing its just a Jewish propaganda to make Einstein famous. He calls Babar Ghauri a black boy and tells him that there are hundreds and thousand of kids like him in Africa. In other words he acts and behaves like a racist. So, he is not just arrogant but an Oxford educated Paindoo. Some people change when they grow old and become more matured and sensible, in his case I see no change, he was a captain of the cricket team and still he is, the only difference is he doesn’t play anymore. He doesn’t know how to play politics either.

  32. #32 by khansahab on May 31, 2010 - 6:46 AM

    Omer

    What the lawyers did in Punjab and how the public reacted in Punjab, what kind of precedent did that set? I mean, their reaction just seemed to diminish Musharraf’s illegal action.

    Ordinary people came out in masses in every city and town in Punjab and protested for the Justice to be restored and for Musharraf to leave office. Unprecedented civil disorder ensued. The lawyers beat up ordinary Punjabi citizens, police, journalists and politicians.

    Why have these ordinary Punjabi citizens never come out like this to protest against the crooks Zardari and Nawaz Sharif?

  33. #33 by Omer on May 31, 2010 - 7:12 AM

    Khansahab,

    Then the trade-off is that, one person can do whatever he wants– there are no boundaries in terms of what power he has?

    I think in some instances it would be reasonable to very few limitations, but as a president of the country, the consequences can be very dire for the country if the leader were to have so much power, as to challenge the parliament, the judiciary within their domain of constitutional power. You want a system that reduces risk and takes the country steadily (and the dictator increases risk), whereas you want a lawyer whose standard deviations are high, and he may (possibly) tear any argument to shreds. Likewise, one would idieally want a Shoaib Akhter in your team rather than an Umar Gul, but you disagree with that too.

    To digress, Shoaib Akhter has been recalled by Afridi. He should be used in 4 over bursts and then we have a hedge in Afridi, who is a reliable bowler. In essense, four attacking bowlers, of various degree, with a one very reliable bowler who is used as a hedge against the attacking ones.
    What the Australians did in Australia was, they saw Aamer and Asif through in their initial spells. Pakistan had only 4 bowlers. If they could attack Gul’s mediocrity, then Kaneria didn’t have a stable partner, nor a fifth bowler. In this way they tired each and every bowler, and in their third spells, were able to attack Aamer and Asif because they were practically drained.

    Therefore, Afridi is the vital cog in the team, which allows more risk to be taken in Akhter (a lot of wickettaking and match-tunrning ability), and Gul becomes pretty much redundant.

    I hope Waqar does the right thing and realizes that he needs only one stable bowler in Afridi (a fifth “stable” bowler is definitely needed), and he can attack with the rest, with Asif providing controlled attack and Akhter providing the four-over bursts that will be wicket-taking, run-leaking, and matchwinning. Should it go amiss for Akhter, then he can use Kaneria as a wicket-taking option, and completely attack (with attacking field placements). However, if it isn’t Kaneria’s day either, then he can use Afridi as a stable bowler from one end and use Asif and Aamer in a way that they don’t get tired.

    Finally Pakistan has something exciting in terms of bowling, just hope the decision-making is right.

  34. #34 by khansahab on May 31, 2010 - 8:23 AM

    My 15 man squad for the Asia Cup:

    Openers:

    Butt
    Shahzaib Hassan
    A Shahzad

    Middle order:

    Afridi
    U Akmal
    F Alam
    S Ghani
    Razzaq
    Keepers:

    K Akmal
    S Ahmed

    Bowlers:

    Gul
    Asif
    Aamer
    Ajmal
    Sohail Khan

    Out of this the playing XI should be:

    Butt (consolidate)
    Shahzaib (attack)
    K Akmal (attack)
    Afridi (attack)
    U Akmal (consolidate)
    F Alam (consolidate)
    Razzaq (attack)
    Aamer
    Gul
    Asif
    Ajmal

  35. #35 by Mohammed Munir on May 31, 2010 - 9:50 AM

    Javed Khan …

    LOL @ 350 probable … Yaar Ab Itna Bhee Bura Nahin Hai Baichara (MBA pass) Misbah. 😉

  36. #36 by Mohammed Munir on May 31, 2010 - 10:14 AM

    On Imran Khan …

    In my personal opinion, calling Imran Khan a ‘paindoo’, who is well educated from a respected Oxford University, UK and is also currently the Chancellor of Bradford University, UK, doesn’t prove much besides showing one’s own frustrations.

    And I see little difference in Imran Khan calling a federal minister as ‘African’, and someone calling Imran a ‘paindoo’.

    Whereas, speaking of arrogance, who can be more arrogant then an ex-Army Commando who ran the whole country as it’s Chief Executive, President as well as COS all at the same time.

    While, another example of pure arrogance can also be easily seen in the ‘dramay-baaz’ speeches of another deserter Janab Hazrat Maa’b Peeraan-e-Peer Dastgeer Altaf Hussain Sahab. BTW, Altaf Hussain’s own second wife had requested divorce from him on the grounds that he is “mentally unstable” and a psycho, so that speaks volumes on his abilities to be a family man, rather be a man. 😉

    And if anyone wants to call Imran a ‘paindoo’ in the name of ‘freedom of speech and opinion’ (which is fine by all means), then I think even Imran Khan can be ‘free’ enough to call a black person as ‘African’ … at least he is not lying, you see. 😆

  37. #37 by Mohammed Munir on May 31, 2010 - 10:17 AM

    A ‘Few’ of Imran Khan’s Accomplishments …

    – Oxford, UK Educated.

    – Chancellor of Bradford University, UK. (A Muslim/ Pakistani Chancellor of UK University).

    – Successful Player and Captain of National Team.

    – Captaining the World Cup winning Team.

    – Established Cancer Hospital and Research Center in his mother’s name.

    – Setting up of a University in his village (Mianwali).

    Now can we talk on the accomplishments of Sir Altaf Hussain please ? 😉

  38. #38 by khansahab on May 31, 2010 - 10:35 AM

    Munir sahab

    Bilawal Zardari is also studying at Oxford or Cambridge. Imran Khan did not attend Oxford on merit. I know lots of people in my profession who went to Oxford and Cambridge on merit and I can tell you Imran is nothing in front of them in terms of class and refinement. How can you see class in a feudal who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and went to England to play cricket and womanise? British universities have places for children of diplomats, political connections, very rich people etc. I studied with children of feudals at University and most of them were not bright.

    Being the Chancellor of a University is a rubber stamping role. Bradford is not classed a good university- the town of Bradford is notorious for criminals of Pakistani origin. I wonder if that is why Imran Khan is the Chancellor of their university.

    LOL Munir sahab, Babar Ghouri is not an African so why must he be called an African?

    But, the word “paindoo” is a Punjabi word Punjabis created for Punjabis. Now this word is open to personal interpretation because there is a huge uncertainty about its application. Hence I think it is OK if I consider Imran to be a paindoo because he fits the description for me. But, Babar Ghouri as as much “African” as Imran Khan is!

  39. #39 by khansahab on May 31, 2010 - 10:43 AM

    Munir sahab

    Altaf’s biggest accomplishment is that the ideology of his party can give me, a commoner and middle class person, the confidence to call someone like Imran Khan a paindoo.

  40. #40 by khansahab on May 31, 2010 - 11:04 AM

    Some information about Bradford:

    The ONS Regional Trends report, published in June 2009, showed that most of Bradford suffers from the highest levels of deprivation in the country.[28][29] Infant mortality stands at double the national average,[30] and life expectancy is considerably lower than in other parts of the district.[31] Bradford has one of the highest unemployment rates in England,[32] with the rate of inactivity amongst Minority Ethnic groups standing at almost 60%.[33][34]
    The crime rate in Bradford is significantly higher than the national average.[35] In July 2006, the think tank Reform calculated rates of crime for different offences, relating this to populations of major urban areas (defined as towns over 100,000 population). The study ranked Bradford as the second most dangerous urban area in England and Wales with 98.3 serious offences per 1,000 population, behind Nottingham.[36] Bradford was shown to have the highest level of gun crime in the country, and was amongst the top 5 for incidents of burglary, rape, assault and vehicle crime.[36][37]

  41. #41 by Mohammed Munir on May 31, 2010 - 11:36 AM

    Khansahab …

    You said, But, the word “paindoo” is a Punjabi word Punjabis created for Punjabis.

    I think, you know at least this much about Imran Khan that he is not a Punjabi and is a Niazi Pathan.

    I would say Imran is as much Punjabi as much that federal minister is an Arfican. 😉

  42. #42 by Mohammed Munir on May 31, 2010 - 11:38 AM

    Oops, I mean … AFRICAN 😀

  43. #43 by Mohammed Munir on May 31, 2010 - 11:48 AM

    Altaf’s biggest accomplishment is that the ideology of his party can give me, a commoner and middle class person, the confidence to call someone like Imran Khan a paindoo.

    Well I think for that confidence you should not be thankful to Altaf Hussin, but to your own parents for giving you, most importantly, the education.

  44. #44 by Mohammed Munir on May 31, 2010 - 11:51 AM

    Khansahab …

    Imran Khan did not attend Oxford on merit. I know lots of people in my profession who went to Oxford and Cambridge on merit and I can tell you Imran is nothing in front of them in terms of class and refinement.

    Well, Khansahab, at times you give so much undue importance to class and refinement (plus looks) that I seriously wonder if you also give any importance to the colour of one’s face ?

    How can you see class in a feudal who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and went to England to play cricket and womanise?

    Secondly, I don’t really understand what kind of class, if any, have you seen in that federal minister or even Altaf Hussain ?

    Now matter whatever Imran’s class may be, but it will always be a million times better then these two guys.

  45. #45 by khansahab on May 31, 2010 - 1:35 PM

    Munir sahab

    I think non Punjabis can be paindoo, too, firstly.

    Secondly Imran Khan cannot speak Pushto fluently. He speaks in a Punjabi accent and his family has lived in Punjab for generations which is why I do not consider him to be a Pathan.

    Shahid Afridi was asked why he does not consider Irfan Pathan to be a Pathan and he said that Irfan cannot speak Pushto, which is why he will not consider him a Pathan. So Imran Khan also should not be considered a Pathan, then.

    Misbah is also a Niazi Pathan but he is total Punjabi for all intents and purposes.

    I am also a Yusufzai Pathan so, how does that matter?

    You just need to listen to Imran Khan’s Urdu to see that what he speaks is not Urdu but a mixture of Urdu and Punjabi. I am not an Urdu expert by any means but I know the difference between Urdu/Punjabi pronunciation, use of grammar etc. This is another reason I don’t see Imran as much different from other leaders who cannot speak well such as most feudals and choudharies.

    Musharraf did not attend Oxbridge but how come he is able to speak better Urdu and English than Imran?

    I am sorry but I am unable to see class in a person who insults African people like that. You can criticise a person’s deeds, policies, activities etc but criticising a person’s looks is downright immoral and vile.

    You can criticise a person’s arrogant, uncouth behaviour, their upbringing or culture due to their behaviour but that cannot be equated with saying something like, “Oh look at him! He looks like an African……!”

    Men of principle, integrity and dignity have certain norms. Leaders and politicians criticise policies and deeds of others all the time but personal, racial attacks like these just show a person’s paindoo upbringing.

  46. #46 by khansahab on May 31, 2010 - 1:41 PM

    And by the way Munir sahab I am not an MQM supporter and I have no sympathy with Altaf Hussein.

    As far as looks are considered, alhamdulillah God has given me looks I am very thankful for. So, if Imran Khan or any other stupid paindoo thinks that being decent looking means one can insult someone else’s looks than that is very wrong.

    As a race I think Pakistanis are too judgemental on looks. A fair skinned, tall and handsome person is likely to be respected more than someone who looks like Babar Ghouri or Altaf Hussein. But, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder firstly and secondly I think looks should only be taken into account when one is considering marriage/sexual relations. I think that is when one should discriminate between looks, but apart from that NO.

    You have commented that I take looks into account too many times and I think you are referring to my liberal views on females as sexual beings. As indicated earlier I don’t think it is natural for a person to have sexual interest in someone who does not appear sexually attractive.

  47. #47 by khansahab on May 31, 2010 - 1:54 PM

    Munir sahab

    Since you are my elder and possibly more knowledgeable on this particular point, for the avoidance of doubt I would be grateful if you could tell me what your interpretation of the word, “Paindoo” is?

    My understanding is that this describes a Punjabi villager technically but then has been used a bit loosely by Punjabis to mean, all Punjabis in general.

    Now I know the word is at times used (and abused, perhaps) by Urdu Speakers and other races to describe an uncouth, arrogant, unpleasant person who is not refined or whose behaviour is not what we can say, perhaps, “developed”- this person being from Punjab.

    However equally I have used the word (and know it to be used) to describe any stupid, arrogant or backward person.

    Perhaps I would understand the situation a little better if you explain what you understand by this word.

  48. #48 by Mohammed Munir on May 31, 2010 - 3:18 PM

    Khansahab …

    Seemingly, my research, interest, knowledge and expertise on word ‘Paindoo’ are much less then your own.

    The thing is I left Pakistan when I was around 1 year old, and lived most of my life in UAE, so I don’t carry any sensivities based on cast and cultures of Pakistan. In my school/ college as well as working career, I have very close PAKISTANI friends from Pushtoons, Punjabis, Urdu-speakers, Shias, Sunnis, Ahmadis, etc. etc. (This doesn’t include non-Pakistanis, who are also in large numbers).

    Al-Humdulillah, I am blessed not to have any, ANY, prejudices against any Pakistanis and I treat them all at par.

    That being said, and comming back to your point on ‘Paindoo’, well yes, I have heard peoples calling others paindoo even when they are not Punjabis. Some of my collegues call paindoos to Arab Buddos as well as to some English peoples. This is how ‘rich’ this word can be. But as I said sometime back that an African American will allow his fellow person to call him the ‘n’ word but he will not like anyone else calling him that. So a Punjabi calling another Punjabi Paindoo is different then an Urdu-speaking person calling a Pathan Paindoo.

    You can think about this if someone of your own cast calls you a name and then some Punjabi calling you that same name ….. I don’t think it will have same feelings.

    Anyways, I think this is a neverending debate and we will carry it on. 😉

  49. #49 by Mohammed Munir on May 31, 2010 - 4:02 PM

    Khansahab …

    Some random points, in background our your above comments.

    – Speaking Pushto is not a certificate for being Pathans. In Afghanistan, a lot of Hindus/ Sikhs speaking fluent Pushto, doess that make them Pathans ?

    – Shahid Afridi is not an authority on declaring someone Pathan or otherwise.

    – There are many Pathans who does not speaking fluent Pushto or any Pushto for that matter.

    – Cast is different to speaking a language. Your kids or grandchildren will speak English exactly like the English and they will have UK nationality, will they be English ?

    – Pervaiz Musharraf’s English is NOT better then Imran Khan’s English. (For god sake)

    – Speaking good Urdu is not must for being a Pakistani, if it was so, then many Indians from Delhi/ Kanpur/ Bhihar/ Lucknow, etc. speak better Urdu then most Pakistanis.

    – Good looks/ height are not only required for sexual interests. Sometime back I read a survey that even in West looks/ height gives one advantage in careers/ jobs/ income/ etc.

    – I think you give importanct to looks, not only for femails but also for males, because I remember you mentioning somethings about how Ifhtikhar Chaudry looks or that Malik is black, etc.

    More laters.

  50. #50 by khansahab on May 31, 2010 - 4:32 PM

    Munir sahab

    I think we need to shed more light on what we mean by labels such as “Pathan”. Is it a cast, a religious identity, a regional identity, or what is it? Because, you can surely be a Hindu person but also be considered as a Pathan?

    I was not hinting that Afridi is an authority but I was giving an alternate perspective. Just like how one can say I am no authority or you are no authority in judging whether Musharraf’s or Imran’s English is better. I personally think Musharraf speaks better English; his choice of words is more appropriate and he has more fluency.

    Imran does not appear very comfortable speaking English or Urdu, I wonder if he is a fluent Punjabi speaker?

    Speaking good Urdu is not a must for being a Pakistani but it is an indicator of one’s education. For example, many Punjabi singers and poets speak Urdu better than someone like Imran Khan. If you look at Nawaz Sharif, his Urdu has improved substantially and now he uses “q” instead of “k” and says “Pakistan” instead of “Pakastan or Pakstan”. My argument was never who is more “Pakistani” than the other, it was about finesse, education and refinement.

    Yes, good looks are more favourable in terms of career and job. That is why there are many attractive female lawyers because lawyers have to make an impression and appearance counts towards making an impression. Now, even though that is a fact it should not happen and it is not a justification. There are many ugly people who are successful and famous. Also, in the corporate world, also in the legal, accountancy in fact every field there is tremendous competition to get more lucrative deals/contracts etc. So people give and request sexual favours. It is now even happening in Muslim countries. But that is something different to calling someone “African”.

    Ifthikar Choudhary looks like a criminal, here I am NOT making a racial comment but I am merely saying he looks unpleasant. Calling Malik “black” (if that is what I did) would definitely be in response to people calling Miandad “black” or something like that. EVEN if I did call people dark skinned or ugly, that is less blameworthy than a person making a direct racist remark against African people.

    Munir sahab, you know very well I would never attack someone’s skin colour unless in defence so I don’t know why you are bringing the point out about Malik?

    Again, you have mentioned about African Americans and the “N” word. But what I am trying to put across to you is that, the “N” word and the “Paki” word have been created by OTHER races. The motivation for these words was hatred, bias. But the “Paindoo” word is a Punjabi word, meant to encapsulate the Punjabi psyche, Punjabi culture and lifestyle. So if an Urdu Speaker is called “muttarwa” or “bhaiya” by a Punjabi, it is more condemnable than an Urdu Speaker calling a paindoo, “Paindoo”.

  51. #51 by Mohammed Munir on May 31, 2010 - 4:57 PM

    Khansahab …

    If, according to you, Imran Khan can not speak good English and Urdu, have you ever heard Imran speaking in Punjabi ? If you have a link or recording of him speaking Punjabi, please share it with me, as I never remember to have heard Imran speaking Punjabi.

    Secondly, it is not always about “finesse and refinement”, which makes a person more respected and important. At times even a simple person is honest, loyal, brave, and well respected. Here I will also give example of our Prophet Mohammed, whose name you have also mentioned in one of the example, so what do you think, was our Prophet a simple person or not ? And how much respect he commanded, we all know about it well. Infact Islam teaches simplecity more then ‘finesse and refinement’.

    Can a Pushto speaking Sikh be a Pathan ? I say NO.

    Anyways, according to your standards, does Altaf Hussain and Baber Ghauri have “finesse and refinement” or even education for that matter ? 😉

    So it doesn’t prove anything if they speak good Urdu.

  52. #52 by khansahab on May 31, 2010 - 6:11 PM

    Munir sahab

    I have not seen Imran speaking in Punjabi but I cannot believe that a Lahori who was associated with the Pakastan team for so long cannot speak the preferred language of the team? If Pathans who have lived in UAE can learn Punjabi (and some even spell “Yousuf” as “Yousaf”) how come Imran would be unable to speak Punjabi?

    Simplicity is something that is exactly what Imran is lacking because simplicity does not preach arrogance. For the record all MQM ministers wear simple clothes, drive normal cars and most of them live modestly. MQM headquarters is not based in acres of land with a palace and rare species of animals like PML N’s Raiwind, nor is it based in a palace-like posh locality of Clifton like Bilawal House. Nine-zero is based in Azizabad which is one of the poorest and most run-down areas of Karachi.

    Actually I totally disagree with your point that speaking a language well does not prove anything. It absolutely does. It indicates how well-read a person is. Normal Urdu Speakers do not speak good Urdu; their accents do not sound very sophisticated and they do not use good vocabulary. You have to be educated to know which is the best word to be used at what place, which is the correct pronunciation etc.

    Let me give an example. You will notice that an average Urdu Speaker will say something like, “XYZ yeh cheez deta hai, XYZ yeh cheez baant ta hai” but an educated Urdu Speaker, or a non-Urdu Speaker who has “learned Urdu” will say, “XYZ yeh cheez faraham karta hai”.

    Similarly, a normal Urdu Speaker will say, “Aagay jaa kar, aglay baras mai” etc whereas an educated person is more likely to say, “Mustaqbil main”.

    By the way, all MQM ministers are degree holders and this is the only party where everyone holds degrees most of which have been obtained on merit, for the avoidance of doubt.

  53. #53 by khansahab on May 31, 2010 - 6:21 PM

    Munir sahab

    I do not care whether the people in the following photos are Punjabi or Seraiki or whatever, but do you not think that if a person would view them the first thing that would come to his mind would be the word, “paindoo”?

    https://legslip.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/41.gif?w=300&h=180

    https://legslip.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/12.jpg?w=329&h=174

  54. #54 by khansahab on May 31, 2010 - 6:29 PM

    BREAKING NEWS

    A well trusted source has disclosed that Salman Butt will be appointed as vice captain this week.

    This means that if things go a little pear shaped in England, Butt will be captain of the Pakistan team and likely to lead the team into the World Cup 2011.

    Afridi wanted Younis to be his deputy. I think relations are OK between Butt and Afridi but let us see how they get along.

  55. #55 by JAVED A. KHAN on June 1, 2010 - 4:07 AM

    Sri Lanka’s Minister says: “Sri Lanka cricket board third most corrupt.” this is the heading on Geo News.

    I would like to know who is the second? BAKAOZ, I know who is the top most corrupt board. 😉

  56. #56 by JAVED A. KHAN on June 1, 2010 - 4:08 AM

    LOL @ Munir and khansahab‘s debate, I am enjoying it, rather “I am loving it.” Ma-ca-do-nald.

  57. #57 by Mohammed Munir on June 1, 2010 - 7:03 AM

    Javed Khan …

    As I said this seems to be a never-ending saga, so you will have a lot to enjoy. 😉

    But I wouldn’t like you to become a party in this debate and keep enjoying as an outsider.

    Keejiye Nazara Door Door Sey … 🙂

  58. #58 by Mohammed Munir on June 1, 2010 - 7:05 AM

    Khansahab …

    Greetings of the day !!

    So after all it was not so innocent question when you asked me about that ‘u’ and ‘a’ in Yousuf, and it surely had some hidden motives. 😉

    On Imran Khan speaking Punjabi or not, the fact is that you have NEVER heard him speaking in Punjabi, but still you are assuming things, and there is nothing at all that anyone can do about assumptions.

    I really never will understand how many Punjabis have done whatever wrongs with you, but all I can suggest is that you try to forgive and forget the painful past and please try to make your peace. Not for their sake, but at least for your own good. I think harboring and continue to carry so much of negative energy against any certain race will not be good for you. One day you may become a judge (Inshallah), and I wonder if you really will be able to do justice to some ‘Punjabi’ victims in a court of law ?

    On Babar Ghauri and Altaf Hussain, I think you missed my previous question, so I would like to repeat it here. Do you believe that Altaf Hussain and Baber Ghauri have any “finesse and refinement” (I would wait for your reply on this). 😉

    Finally on your favourite pictures (which you have published above), all I can say is that no matter whoever these peoples are and how good or bad they look, but I am damn sure that they are still better looking then that ‘African’ federal minister or even Altaf Bhai, and if you don’t believe me then please go ahead and put a few photos of these two guys for everyone to see and an open comparison. 😆

  59. #59 by khansahab on June 1, 2010 - 8:08 AM

    Munir sahab

    Sometimes I think you are from Punjab and this suspicion was reinforced when you wrote “Yousaf”.

    Everyone has wronged me whether they are Punjabi, Urdu Speakers or even white people. I don’t know why you consider me to have negative energy against Punjabis?

    I have spoken against MQM too, criticised Karachi players like Mohd Sami, Kaneria, Faisal Iqbal etc. I did a thread on Karachi’s crowd some time ago if you can remember.

    If you cannot accept that we criticise everyone regardless of race and religion don’t you think that’s biased on your part?

    If you know more about my life you will see that I have friends of all races and religions. I have been involved with Punjabi girls too and although they were hot and sexy, that was not my only motivation for having feelings for them- on a personal and human level I liked them and they liked me. I could have ended up marrying them. Their families were very paindoo but I would have kept that behind me. But things did not work out.

    I think what you don’t understand is why myself and Javed Khan feel we are so different from a typical Punjabi.

  60. #60 by khansahab on June 1, 2010 - 8:41 AM

    Munir sahab

    Yes I feel Altaf bhai and Babar are less paindoo than Amran bakaouz they do not make racial attacks when speaking and speak Urdu, not a mixture of Urdu and Punjabi.

  61. #61 by Mohammed Munir on June 1, 2010 - 8:47 AM

    Khansahab …

    What’s more important is that finally you agreed that Altaf Bhai and Babar are PAINDOOS. 😉

    ‘More or less’ was not my question, at this level.

    Thank you very much. 😀

  62. #62 by Mohammed Munir on June 1, 2010 - 8:51 AM

    Khansahab …

    What you think, I can’t help it, and as I said before there is nothing that anyone can do about “your assumptions”. They are inbuilt.

    If you think writing ‘Yousaf’ once renders me a Punjabi, then you are the biggest Punjabi around because you so often write ‘Malak’ and ‘Pakastan’. Moreover, you love the Punjabi/ ‘Paindoos’ so much that you have hidden your own face behind a mask of a Paindoo. So to me, this proves you are a Pakka Punjabi. 😉

    I preferred to keep Javed Khan out of this debate, but seems like you are trying to invite him deliberately, may be support you on this issue.

    Lastly, I am really sorry to hear that, “Everyone has wronged me whether they are Punjabi, Urdu Speakers or even white people”. This is not so fair for someone so young to have suffer so much in such early age. Really, I mean it. 😦

  63. #63 by khansahab on June 1, 2010 - 9:03 AM

    Munir sahab

    Yes Altaf and Babar are paindoo to some extent. Let me make your day happier by admitting that.

    LOL I have not suffered the way you are interpreting. But, beauty is something that does impress me and there have been at the very least 4 Punjabi girls, 3 white girls and 1 Urdu Speaking girl. All of them were gorgeous 🙂 So you can see I do not discriminate between races and religions.

    Why do you think I am inviting Javed Khan into the debate, just because I mentioned his name? It does not matter much bakaouz Javed Khan and myself think very similarly on most issues.

    Hang on Munir sahab the last time I had the avatar of a paindoo was months ago! At the moment my display pic is of Marlon Brando.

    Punjabis accounts for about 2/3rds of Pakastan’s population so it is natural much of the discussion centred around the cricket team and country focuses on them.

  64. #64 by khansahab on June 1, 2010 - 9:21 AM

    Munir sahab

    You tend to hint that there is some anti Punjab bias in my comments.

    I have just read an article about Ijaz Butt and his possible removal from office this week or next. Now, do you remember when Nasim Ashraf was Chairman that I predicted that the next Chairman would be from Punjab (Nasim was a Pushtoon)?

    Why do you think I was so sure this was going to happen? Does this not indicate that I have a decent know-how about how politics works in Pakistan and how the people think?

    When Zardari was appointed President I had also predicted that the PM would be from Punjab and then Gillani was appointed.

    This is not called “bias”, it is called having a good veeyan.

  65. #65 by khansahab on June 1, 2010 - 9:27 AM

    Youngsters should be in Asia cup: Afridi

    KARACHI: Pakistan Cricket Captain Shahid Afridi was of the view that young players should be included in the squad for the Asia Cup to be held in Sri Lanka from June 15, SAMAA reported Tuesday.

    While talking to the media Afridi said that to win Asia cup is his main target and he added, we should have atleast three to four new players along with the seniors so that we can strike the right balance in the one-day side.

    “It is right time to start grooming and giving exposure to some of our young lot because we also have to keep the 2011 World Cup in mind,” Afridi said.

    Replying to a question he said that he didn’t want to comment on the inclusion of Shoaib Malik in the team because it is solely a matter of Pakistan Cricket Board. Selection of player should be completely on merit, he further said.

  66. #66 by Mohammed Munir on June 1, 2010 - 9:27 AM

    Khansahab …

    Must be something wrong with my PC, becuase I still can see one of the smiling man from among the pictures you sent. My bad.

    Very similar is fine but Not exactly same. Because Javed Khan can not think exactly like a 24/25 year old boy, no matter how clever that boy may be. 😉

    Good luck with the girls, but what I know is that you are in some kind of self-imposed restriction to remain a virgin till you are married … right ?

    Now I know, why you said “Wronged”, it must be like a punishment and some real sufferings to have so many beautiful young girls around you and still not having a close relationship.

    So this is where all the frustration is comming from .. huh ❓

  67. #67 by khansahab on June 1, 2010 - 9:57 AM

    LOL

    Munir sahab you are over-stating my age. I am not 24 or 25 yet. I don’t know whether I am clever or not, people’s perspectives always change and a person views never remain static.

    There are things I thought and believed in 2 days ago which I don’t believe in now.

    I don’t want to discuss my sex life in a lot of detail 🙂

    But, I guess it is true to say I have not been very lucky with women. I don’t do one night stands and I do not believe in sexual relationships without emotional devotion. I think of a partner as a human being.

    And yes I can be over protective, emotional and controlling which is something women don’t like in men these days a lot.

  68. #68 by JAVED A. KHAN on June 1, 2010 - 10:05 AM

    Afridi said, youngsters should be in the Asia cup and he wants 3 to 4 youngsters along with seniors so that they strike right balance (in the dugout?) Hammad Azam was in the squad and did not play even once, not even in the warm up matches. Fawad Alam was tried once and then once again he was dumped in the dugout. “Kehnay may aur kernay may bara farq hota hai.” Easier said than done.

    The selectors when they are not in the committee talks differently and when they are in they act differently.

    As regards your debate, carry on yapping I won’t be a party to it 😀 But, at least I can respond to that initial comment of Munir which was directed towards me and i.e., I don’t agree that Imran Khan is handsome, his own sisters used to say he is awful with his chinky eyes. If you are famous then girls like to get closer to you so that they also become more famous and the media loves to present juicy stories to the masses. And, his English is not as good as Musharraf, if the later was a bad orator then he wouldn’t have been successful in his lectures which are attended by former presidents, prime ministers and big leaders and they pay a huge amount of money to listen to him. Both Imran and Mush have desi accent it is just like one is Pulao and the other is biryani, it depends on what you like it, but both are brown uncles for sure. 😀

    Munir, somewhere above when you responded to my comment on Imran’s accomplishment you hinted that those who do not accept his accomplishments are kinda jealous. Honestly speaking I am not jealous of anyone if they are successful, wealthy or famous. Because, I am what I am AKS. But, I cannot stop commenting on them IF they create a “C” out of them from no where. And, the fact is what Imran wanted to achieve in his life, he is struggling for the last 18 years and there is no chance that he would be able to succeed. I was a very ardent supporter of him and his cause, considering that he is different from the rest of the politicians and he has finesse when compared to other politicians and on surface he appeared to be an honest person but, the bitter truth is he is not that competent to reach to that level and he translates Peter Principle into reality: “Every person reaches to his level of incompetence.” Imran has reached to that level 18 years ago.

  69. #69 by khansahab on June 1, 2010 - 10:12 AM

    Javed A Khan

    I am agree with you. I also believed that Imran was a hero and Imran was this and that, but now I realise being “Andhon mai kana raaja” does not make someone really a Raaja, but it makes someone a Kaana.

    I used to hate MQM and never had had any sympathetic view for them, similarly I used to see no difference between myself and Punjabis. But now I can analyse issues and understand them more competently.

    I do not consider Imran to have a handsome face but he is tall, slim and people of his looks are generally considered handsome.

  70. #70 by JAVED A. KHAN on June 1, 2010 - 10:21 AM

    As regards supporting someone or choosing between this political leader or that one, I would like to say, the people of Pakistan needs to be more educated, aware and tolerant and then they should talk about choosing a leader. Because, then they would be choosing a right leader who is well educated, well balanced, tolerant, wise, honest and hardworking President or Prime Minister. If the people are not educated they will go and vote for such thieves, robbers, thugs and dacoits who are of the same level as them. So, what you reap is what you sow.

  71. #71 by JAVED A. KHAN on June 1, 2010 - 10:27 AM

    Munir wrote this for khansahab “what I know is that you are in some kind of self-imposed restriction to remain a virgin till you are married … right ?”

    Munir this is peer pressure, this is how the kids in these countries loose their virginity when they are 12-13 i.e., when their peers taunt and make fun of them, this is how they indulge in smoking, drugs and alcohol.

    What you wrote for khansahab I am sure being a desi father you would have NEVER said this for your own kids, especially for a daughter. So, appreciate the good qualities of a man instead of taunting at him. 😉

  72. #72 by khansahab on June 1, 2010 - 10:30 AM

    Munir sahab

    The debate started from racist terms and ended with my sex life.

    But I just want to reiterate that under no circumstances do I feel that Imran making a racist comment like that was acceptable.

    I am personally disappointed that instead of condemning this inhumane behaviour of Imran you are supporting him?

    This is not the type of leader Pakistan needs. Chapter closed on Imran.

    We talk about injustices around the world against Muslims and the status of untouchables in India etc, and here we are trying to sweep this under the carpet where one politician has made such a vile remark against another Pakistani?

  73. #73 by khansahab on June 1, 2010 - 10:33 AM

    Javed A Khan

    Thanks for this comment about my so called self imposed restriction.

    Munir sahab that restriction went out of the window a long time ago but still this is something you would not have discussed with your own kids….

    I have never succumbed to peer pressure, but there is a time and place for everything. Peer pressure is something people think will make you unpopular if you don’t fall prey to it but when you grow up you realise how stupid you were for being sucked into it.

    As I said I do not want to talk about sex in this way but I think your question was provocative to a degree.

  74. #74 by khansahab on June 1, 2010 - 10:36 AM

    Javed A Khan

    That description about a good leader for Pakistan, no one fits that description better than Pervez Musharraf.

    But, he is the only leader against whom ordinary citizens protested to remove by coming out of their homes and causing civil disobedience.

  75. #75 by khansahab on June 1, 2010 - 6:28 PM

    Shoaib Akhtar will be given a chance: Afridi

    LAHORE: Shahid Afridi said on Tuesday that Shoaib Akhtar will be given a chance to play in One Day and T20 international matches.

    Talking to media in Lahore Afridi said that Shoaib Malik has admitted his mistakes and is committed to discipline himself.

    Afridi said the team wants to forget what happened earlier and start a fresh season of cricket with optimism. He said he took the job of the captain as a challenge.

    Afridi also said that Umar Gul will not be playing in the Asia Cup but will take part in the training camp.

  76. #76 by JAVED A. KHAN on June 1, 2010 - 9:48 PM

    I want to share this video with you guys:




    It is hard to believe this is the same Pakistan today. This is a 50 year old video clip when Jacqueline Kennedy visited Pakistan and walked on the streets in Peshawar, Lahore and Karachi, went in convertible cars, sat on a camel’s back, waiving at the cheering crowd in the Khissa Kahani Bazar of Peshawar and visiting hospital, meeting kids and eventually flying back to the USA in Pakistan International Airlines, PIA. I want you all to see this video. I cannot believe Pakistan was like this before, even when I was a kid it was like this. I heard that since the mid-eighties the problems started and it is a changed country now. What a shame, why can’t we be the same again? Simple, hospitable and warm people.

  77. #77 by Omer on June 1, 2010 - 10:56 PM

    Javed Khan,

    Actually the people didn’t vote for Zardari. I’d say, there are some glitches in the system. In a parliamentary democracy, it is something along the lines that, the party that wins the majority of votes chooses its leader. And, PPP won the most votes, and it chose Zardari. However, how did Zardari become the leader of the party?

    This is where the flawed system comes in. Basically, Benazir became the leader because of her father Zulfiqr Bhutto, and her son (Billawal Bhutto) became the leader after she passed away. Because Billawal Bhutto was too young and in England, his father Zardari got the thrown. You can see, the flaw is in how the party system works in Pakistan, leadership goes through the bloodline.

    On the other hand it may be the case that some of the people that won the seats from the PPP in the parliament were very able and educated people. However, there is no democratic system to elect the leader of the party, and the leader comes through the bloodline.

    I’d say this is a very valid criticism of democracy in Pakistan.

  78. #78 by JAVED A. KHAN on June 2, 2010 - 3:36 AM

    Omer

    First of all why do you need in Pakistan a Roman Catholic democracy created by the Greco-Romans thousands of years ago? How and why did roman law influence the UK and US constitution? Was greco-roman the most important contribution in creating a Universal Constitution of law? How did the greco roman legacy impact the people in the rest of the world with different religions, cultures and values? These are and a few other questions I always ask to myself and to other people when they talk about democracy or lack of democracy in Pakistan.

    This is such a vague and obsolete term that people are sucked into this facade – by facade I mean the ideological slogans that were a facade for geopolitical power struggles since the glorious days of the Romans. By God, Muslims don’t need this fcuking greco-roman constitution they have their own Holy Quran and they can follow the rules, regulations, systems, constitution, legislation, law and its implementation based on the needs of the Muslim ideology, culture and values. Until and unless you shun this greco-roman constitution from your system, you will keep on seeing these glitches in the system.

    By saying this I don’t mean to sound like a Mullah and say implement the Shariah. There are differences of opinion among people in the translation and interpretation of Shariah, there are extreme views on both sides. What is needed is a moderate, well balanced and easy to implement law to be forged from the Quran and the Sunnah by the learned, lenient, competent, honest, sincere group of Islamic scholars who can mitigate extremism and implement a more moderate law. Islam is not a rigid religion it is very flexible. It preaches humility, compassion, love and respect for everyone. The interpretation by different school of thoughts inculcates different meanings and different ideologies within the religion, there needs to be a united front. For this to eradicate you need to educate people, make them more aware of realism and meaningful purpose of existence to live rather than exist to survive. The fewer people among Muslims who are educated needs to be more inclusive and all-encompassing rather than being exclusive or remaining away and being aloof by saying, ‘this is not my job.’

    I may have said something very deep which you may have “skimmed reading” as usual, but please pause for a moment and read it with some patience and endurance and you will get the meaning of my message.

  79. #79 by Omer on June 2, 2010 - 5:10 AM

    Javed Khan,

    But what is balanced, moderate, lenient, competent, and honest interpretation of the Sharia then?

    If you say, perhaps Pakistan, when considering a law, should send it to Canada for approval first, whether the law is “moderate, lenient, competent, and honestly interpreted”. And, then, they could also ask Canada for approval whether the person who is making the law is “moderate, lenient, competent, and honest”. If someone is arrogrant and not modest, then I am betting the Canadians would have a severe punishment in mind for him. And, the meaningful existence part can also be defined pretty well in Canada. Why don’t we just ask the Canadians to come and reform everything in Pakistan?

    Some people say, that Pakistan was created with a constitution and ideology in mind, and those should define its laws. For instance, when you go to Canada and live, why don’t you advocate the same things you are saying above there? You could say, it is because, there is a constitution and ideology there that the leaders when creating it aspired for, and therefore you abide by them– they are things that define the laws “here”. But why is there a discrepancy when it comes to Pakistan? Haven’t you heard Quaid-e-Azam’s speeches?

  80. #80 by Omer on June 2, 2010 - 5:33 AM

    Let me also add that, I don’t advocate democracy personally (nor in Pakistan nor anywhere). I am personally inclined towards a, more or less, meritocratic system. Democracy is the will of the majority, which may or may not amount to meritocracy (most likely not).

    In other words, the rulers are, in Aristotles words, “Philosopher kings” or, the way I put it, learned men. Yet these are open problems within a meritocratic system, on how to get such people there, in that what is “learned men” and who decides and on what basis, that so and so people are “learned men”. In some sense you are saying the same thing (in a different context), but what you are saying amounts to the same problem: Who are learned scholars of Islam and on what basis are they learned scholars of Islam, that is, who decides the criterion? Does the messenger come from the US or Canada?

    However, I accept that this is what the founding fathers here envisioned, and likewise, I understand and accept what founding fathers in Pakistan envisioned. So, when a Pakistani says, that “we want democracy” I can see why he feels that is his right.

  81. #81 by khansahab on June 2, 2010 - 8:57 AM

    Omer

    That Zardari became President is an indication that there is no democracy in Pakistan. Firstly to clarify your point about Parliamentary democracy, what normally happens is that a party has a leader and it is generally accepted that if this party wins then that leader will become the Prime Minister. However this is not set in stone and both that leader and the party members can resort to procedures if there is a specific person they feel is more suitable.

    Pakistan has a mixture of a Presidential and Parliamentary system because whoever has come into power has always altered the Constitution to make himself stronger. For example in the USA it is a Presidential system and the President has dictator-like powers at this disposal. In India the system is stronger because the Prime Minister has most of the power and the President only has a ceremonial role. I don’t think Pakistan was envisaged to be something like that as Quaid e Azam was the first Governor General and had most of the power. And I think the reason for this was that, I think the founding fathers of Pakistan knew that “democracy” is something that can twisted and manipulated to suit the needs of a specific group or mindset.

    Now, it was more or less confirmed after Benazir’s death, that Zardari would become the Chairman of the party and PPP would win the election on the basis of the sympathy vote. So, the result was not all too surprising for me. Bilawal was only the co Chairman, he was not the Chairman. And now Bilawal is already being trained by his father to rule and loot the country when he gets older. I think they want to make a Rajiv Gandhi out of him. The only problem is that the Gandhi family is more sophisticated, refined and honest than the Bhutto family.

    On the point about Sharia, I think in practice something like this will never be implemented because there is confusion about what the Quran actually says. People argue that part of Sharia is to cut a person’s hands off is he steals and to behead people etc. On the other hand Sharia governs issues like debt management, divorce, family issues, community issues, more softly. I think it is very odd to implement the soft version of Sharia but then to ignore the harsher version? It seems a little like, adopting partial Islam- so, drinking and womanising but also saying Namaz, or not saying Namaz but donating to Charity regularly etc. Even though all Muslims adopt the version of Islam to suit their needs and their comfort, I don’t think there should be any adoption like this on a national, government level.

    Plus, how do you convince the ignorant majority of what the softer version of Sharia preaches?

    And do your religious minorities have to practice Sharia? What law do they have to abide by and what applies to them?

    Due to these difficulties I don’t think Sharia will ever be implemented in Pakistan. There is uncertainty in religion and religion is too prone to personal interpretation; for these broad minded and educated scholars to come up with the soft Sharia would be next to impossible.

    The most important thing in Pakistan is to introduce land reforms, cut down on feudal power and positively discriminate in getting more middle class, common people into the system. That will purify the political system, ensure more is done on the basis of merit as opposed to corruption and intimidation. It will make the courts more just and impartial. Most of the problems will be solved when the system has normal people, when the delivery of justice is impartial, when there is accountability and checks and balances etc.

    Again, Munir sahab and like minded people may feel that this is my pro MQM and anti Punjab rhetoric, but MQM is the party that has had the above on its agenda from day 1.

  82. #82 by Omer on June 2, 2010 - 9:41 AM

    Khansahab,

    It is correct I believe, that the party has a leader before it goes into elections. But apparently they come from the bloodline in Pakistan– nothing is set in stone, quite often its just a matter of tradition. Having elections within the parties to select the leaders would probably be a more ‘perfect’ version of democracy.

    On the Sharia part I agree with you. Pakistan was never conceived as a theocracy to begin with. It was a state ‘for Muslims’, not an ‘Islamic state’ for ‘Muslims only’. Many people confuse these two ideas, but on clear deliberation the difference is obvious.

    As far as democracy is concerned, I think the American system is much better. When the parties vote on issues, my understanding is that they vote as a unity in the parliamentary system, whereas in the American system it is the individual representatives that vote. I feel that is a much better way to represent the constituents.

  83. #83 by khansahab on June 2, 2010 - 10:14 AM

    Omer

    I have studied Government and Politics at Advanced Level at college and my teacher knew politicians in USA and UK, she has written books and was par excellence in her field. So having the privilege of learning from the best I gained insight into the way the American and British systems work and also how other systems work.

    Now, the reason why there are problems with democracy is because, firstly your elected representative may only have been elected by 51% of the constituents. This elected representative will have made personal and financial sacrifices to further his political career and reach to that level. When he reaches Parliament he realises that the way to move forward is to follow the “party line” which basically means to vote on issues according to how the senior leadership of the party wants you to vote. If you show reluctance to vote in a particular way then you get disciplined and demoted. You can even be kicked out if you are a persistent dissident.

    So, here morals and integrity are compromised and you are encouraged to be a “yes man”.

    All systems have problems. In the American system the President is too powerful and the only real power the Congressmen have is to impeach the President and that also is only feasible when a substantial majority is reached and when certain terms and conditions are satisfied. No one could even propose to impeach George Bush even when it had become clear he had lied to the American people about the so called weapons of mass destruction.

    So democracy, whether that is in USA, UK, Pakistan or any other country, harbours shades of dictatorship, whatever you like to call it.

    You see the journalists in Pakistan saying that there has been change in the system since the departure of Musharraf and now there is democracy in Pakistan but there has absolutely been no difference in terms of Pakistan’s relations with USA, Israel and India. In fact Zardari and Gillani are wasting time and money of Pakistanis by repeatedly “condemning” these countries and not doing anything constructive. In terms of internal workings of the state, there has been an increase in corruption, lawlessness, disunity between ethnicities and provinces, loadshedding etc. But no one is willing to admit that the Musharraf regime was better.

  84. #84 by Mohammed Munir on June 2, 2010 - 10:16 AM

    Khansahab …

    You said, “Munir sahab that restriction went out of the window a long time ago but still this is something you would not have discussed with your own kids….

    Do you really want me to treat you as a kid ??

    Firstly, I remember you telling everyone that you are not a kid and age is just a number and we are all same here on this ‘virtual blog’ and all that.

    Secondly, frankly speaking I don’t know your exact age, I haven’t seen your real picture, and I even don’t know your correct name. Moreover, exactly the same way you have ‘suspicions’ on me being a Punjabi, I “can” also have serious suspicions on your age/ name/ cast/ etc. So under such circumstances, how can you expect me to treat you as my own kid ?

    Finally, I will not allow my own kids to argue with me for 3/ 4 days running, calling me something which I am not (Punjabi), tease and taunt me, which all you have done, off course not on personal grounds but in a normal discussion.

    So to conclude it all, still I don’t have any objection to treating you as my own kid and be polite and careful in using my words with you, provided you don’t doubt my integrity and you respect me the same way you respect your own father.

  85. #85 by Mohammed Munir on June 2, 2010 - 10:19 AM

    Javed Khan …

    I liked your “Brown Uncle” storey, and I also fully agree with you on your comments regarding Pulao & Biryan. Therefore, I will try to explain my point of view on these similar lines using the same examples. Actually, it is absolutely right for two separate peoples to like Pulao or Biryani whatever they enjoy to their own taste. But the problem starts when the person eating Pulao starting finding fault with the Biryani which the other person likes. This will irritate the person eating his own Biryani and he will definitely find fault with Pulao.

    Now go back a few comments (comment no. 20 to be exact) and see who initially started this whole debate/ discussion and who was blaming the Biryani, in spite eating his own Pulao. I put my first comment in favour of Imran Khan at no. 36 & 37, and even that was not directly addressed to anyone particular but a general clarification.

  86. #86 by Mohammed Munir on June 2, 2010 - 10:26 AM

    Javed Khan …

    The disadvantage on this blog is that there are hardly 4/5 active members (those who post almost daily), and out of these 4/5, two are ‘blog administrators’. So if you go into a discussion with one of the guys the other one feels ‘left-out’ and there is nothing much to discuss, so he have to jump the bandwagon and throw a few punches here and there. So it’s all fine, and I was anyways expecting you to jump directly into this discussion and starting taking sides with your own blog administrator. To me, it was only a matter of time.

    Now coming back to your comments about ‘self-imposed-restrictions’, yes you are absolutely right I will NEVER say this to my own kids, and I think neither will you.

    But, do you want me to treat Khansahab as my own kid ? And that too as my daughter ? Well if you say yes, then I am really sorry I said those words to Khansahab.

    The thing is that I have not brought this ‘self-imposed-restriction’ point from thin air and this is something what Khansahab have openly said on a public forum, and I just simply reiterating his own comments, not in taunting fashion but just quoting his own words.

    Secondly and most importantly, prior to my comments no. 66, Khansahab has boasted about having ‘at the very least’ 8 relationships with (4 Punjabi, 3 white and one Urdu-speaking) females in his comment no. 63. Now you tell me, will you allow your own kids specially you daughter to go on a public forum and proudly announce such a thing ?? Atleast I will NEVER.

    This blog is just a ‘virtual world’ and it will be over when we close our PCs. (does these comments sounds familiar?) So how can I even think to treat someone as my own kid in this virtual world ?

    May be you and Khansahab are on a different level of understanding and you guys do a lot of off-air communications to know each other better, which I don’t do. Therefore, may be you can treat him as your kid, but I can not.

    Lastly, it seems you were unnecessary getting all emotional on those comments, because in addition to his 8 females comments, Khansahab has now openly admitted on a public forum by saying that, “Munir sahab that restriction went out of the window a long time ago”. So what to you have to say now ?

  87. #87 by khansahab on June 2, 2010 - 10:37 AM

    Munir sahab

    I am sorry to offend if I did.

    I see your point and I see the dilemma whether you are to treat people like me and Omer as children, or as friends, or as normal bloggers whom you do not know much about.

    That suspicion of you being a Punjabi was a joke and it did unravel a new dimension into this whole topic of correct pronunciation and correct spellings etc, because you did not consider “Yousaf” to be an incorrect spelling despite knowing how it can be incorrectly pronounced by Punjabi people. I do believe you when you say you are not a Punjabi and even if you were it would make no difference.

    Munir sahab I did not know that you are taking things personally like this because I am not teasing or taunting you? I mean, when I posted the pictures of the paindoos do you consider that to be teasing and taunting? It seems you do not mind making fun of MQM leaders but you mind if I say that those people are total paindoo?

    When you start talking about a person’s sexual preferences and sexual life that seems to be a little inappropriate, especially if you are hinting that a person can be frustrated because of a boring sex life or something like that ( I don’t understand how a boring sex life means a person becomes more critical of Punjabis, but let me entertain the thought while I can). That comment is not exactly appropriate regardless of whatever context it is made in- father to son, sometimes even friend to friend. For example, Javed A Khan is very close to me (we manage the blog along with Awas, have known each other for about 4 years and have spoken almost everyday, seen pictures of family etc, know info about each other’s families etc) but even he will not make a remark like that.

    Munir sahab, perhaps I can explain things in such a way, that MQM ministers have shades of good and bad. They have introduced ideas in Pakistani politics that others are now adopting and considering as virtuous. But, the paindoos I have mentioned have done nothing good, they have done nothing remarkable. That is the truth and you know it and I know it. Now you may have some anti MQM bias, which can be justified because a lot of people do. But do you think you are being fair? I am being fair because I am saying these MQM people have done things which can make people dislike them, but are you being fair?

  88. #88 by khansahab on June 2, 2010 - 10:40 AM

    Munir sahab

    Why is my love and sex life so important to you?

    I have been involved with those girls (and more) but it does NOT necessarily mean I have slept with them or that I have not slept with them.

    Can this be the end of the discussion?

  89. #89 by khansahab on June 2, 2010 - 10:51 AM

    Munir sahab

    Yes there are not many active bloggers but you still see more bloggers here than on other blogs about cricket. And here people comment because they want to, they don’t comment because they expect us to comment on others’ blogs and they don’t comment to sell their business.

    On most other cricket blogs you can see how uneducated and immature people are and I would rather discuss issues with people who are able to understand them then have lots of commentators who speak rubbish.

    The blog is managed by professionals, not by people with a lot of spare time on their hands. Hence, promoting the blog and advertising it is difficult.

    You are very wrong to think that Javed A Khan and myself have some kind of “milli bhagat” that we will support each other. I have just differed with him on the point about Sharia. Let me list the areas where we differ on:

    – I have a softer stance on Sharia

    – He is more pro Imran Khan

    – I am softer on USA, Israel, India and their foreign policies

    These are just some of the issues and this comes to light when we are discussing.

    Now it is just a coincidence that for whatever reason he understands my point of view and I understand his. That is because deep down we share a lot of mutual respect and we know what the bottom line is regarding the other person. You should be happy that 2 people can have a relationship of trust and confidence like this when it is so easy for people to make fun of others, insult others, feel jealous, feel bad about others etc.

  90. #90 by khansahab on June 2, 2010 - 11:03 AM

    Munir sahab

    If I come to UAE I will meet you if you consider it OK, and if you come to England you should meet me. And then I can see how you look and you can see how I look etc.

  91. #91 by Mohammed Munir on June 2, 2010 - 11:21 AM

    Khansahab …

    You are most welcome to UAE and I will surely like to meet you when you come here. Similarly, I haven’t yet been to UK, but if I ever did, I will make it a point to get in touch with you.

    Regarding the discussions, I think we should agree to disagree here and close the chapter, till we meet again on some other issue. 😉

  92. #92 by khansahab on June 2, 2010 - 11:23 AM

    Afridi backs Shoaib, Malik to come good

    LAHORE: A day before their appearance in the physical fitness tests for selection of the Asia Cup and England tour squads, maverick fast bowler Shoaib Akhtar and all-rounder Shoaib Malik received moral support from Pakistan captain Shahid Afridi who backed them to come good here on Tuesday.

    Talking to reporters, Afridi said that as Shoaib Akhtar had performed well in domestic cricket, he could be utilised in the shorter version of the games — the one-dayers and the T20 contests.

    About Malik, Afridi expressed hope that the all-rounder would now only focus on cricket after getting relief from the PCB. “As Shoaib Akhtar is returning to the side after performing well in domestic cricket, he will adjust to international cricket easily and can be used for T20 and one-day matches,” he said.

    As for Malik, I had told him on his face what I later told the PCB inquiry committee. But it is now in the past and I believe Malik will focus on his game,” said Afridi candidly.

    Both Shoaib and Malik will appear before the PCB medical board and the selection committee to prove their match-fitness here on Wednesday.

    Afridi said the team would miss pacer Umar Gul, who is struggling to recover from a shoulder injury. “Gul will also attend the training camp with the national team in Lahore from June 5. He will be available in England after the Asia Cup,” the skipper added.

    Afridi reiterated that as captain his priority was to inject fighting spirit and unity in the team and if he succeeded in that mission he would consider himself a successful captain.

    He, however, lamented that the advantage of leading the team at home could not come his way due to the prevailing security situation in the country. “A home series provides any skipper and team a better chance of winning matches and to improve its ranking. But unfortunately it is not the case with me.”

  93. #93 by Omer on June 2, 2010 - 11:33 AM

    Khansahab,

    I have taken political philosophy at College and questioned, reasoned, and justified/degraded most forms of governance. I was fortunate to have a professor who was present when Isaiah Berlin delivered his famous lecture on ‘Two Concepts of Freedom”. The core book we used was about 100 pages–incidentally, also the book that Tony Blair read through once he was the prime minister. In terms of complexity that was the easiest book we read through the course. I feel previleged to have been through one of the relatively more brilliant thinkers in that field, and I see no reason why he shouldn’t feel the same way about me 😉

    In the British Parliamentary system, you are correct: the representatives aren’t even allowed to vote their minds– you could think of them as ‘yes’ men. However, you may be slightly misinformed when it comes to the American system. In the house (as well as the senate) the representatives vote for themselves, not the party. So, if you remember, when the bail-out of the financial firms were put to vote, the house initially voted it down. However, the same representatives might choose to unite with their affiliated parties for a partcular issue just on the basis of that affiliation. There is a sense of ‘a greater unity’ at times ( for instance, when the healthcare issue was put to vote initially) but they aren’t certainly obliged to vote with their parties. Yes, political negotiations unfortunately do take place, but you may find very independent and courageous representatives as well. An example is Ron Paul.

    However, all the representatives within a party don’t necessarily come from a particular school of thought. For instance, the Republican right has pretty disparate people (in their core ideology), but, because of different philosophical reasons, they might come to same core conclusions (and that I believe determines party affiliation– based on effects, not necessarily causes). However, if you see the representatives argue on voting issues (which I do pretty often), they explain their approaches pretty well, most have their individual way of thinking. So, it would be incorrect to assume that essentially there aren’t any principles and it is all give and take.

  94. #94 by Mohammed Munir on June 2, 2010 - 11:38 AM

    Shahid Afridi is shooting himself in the foot with giving so much importance to two “Shoaibs”.

    I hope they come good, which I am not very optimistic about. 😦

  95. #95 by khansahab on June 2, 2010 - 11:51 AM

    Omer

    I was not boasting and that is perhaps what your interpretation was regarding my reading of Government and Politics. I am very pleased anyhow that you have studied political philosophy to some extent and have learned the techniques of logic, and reason. It does reflect in your comments and as indicated earlier I do have a very high opinion of the multi disciplinary education that you have acquired.

    My focus was towards the British Parliamentary system in my comment and I made only one particular comment as regards the impeachment process in the USA and one sweeping statement regarding the lack of real democracy even in the most “democratic” societies. You have misread my entire comment to apply to the USA, it seems.

    I am aware of how voting takes place the USA. The reason why there is a disparity in the ideology you have mentioned in that in the USA there is effectively a two party system and whoever wants to make it into Congress has to adopt the label of a Democrat or Republican. My criticism of this process is that, a conservative Democrat may be ideologically very similar to a liberal Republican. These are just stupid labels and often do not mean much. The proportion of independents and people of other parties in Congress (such as people like Ralph Nader) is next to nothing, whereas in the UK you will find a sizable chunk of independents, and members of smaller parties who can often acquire the balance of power in their favour, something that will never apply to the USA.

    In America government and politics is dictated more by lobbies than the actual “party line”. So whereas I agree that voting in the House can be more individualistic than the voting you see in Parliament, in terms of efficacy I do not see a great difference. What miracles have we seen this House perform since 2000 when Bush came into power? There have been many senior Labour ministers who defied the party line (at least 3 or 4) and made the headlines, but then they were relegated to the backbenches. So, principles did matter in Parliament as well but that did not affect the action the government took.

  96. #96 by A Butt on June 2, 2010 - 12:34 PM

    Hallo my dears baloggers this is ajaz butt agen. i am agree with the commants of the peepul hear. actually the shoaib akhtar and Malak are back in the teem which is vary good bakaouz akhtar bowling vary fast. i tried to played him in the net but oh he iz too fast for me. malak is good batman and good fielder and papoolar in the teams and vary much liked by the akmal, butt and masbah which why i think its good deceian to bring back. now the afridi need to decide he veeyan bakaouz younas and yousaf are trying to regain there poyiyen in the teem? so wat is afridi gonna do? i think the kaptaan veeyan is vary important for teem displine and win racard. its nat great poyiyen for the pakastan teem bakoauz teem perfarmans is vary bad, my favrit players is butt, malak, akmal, masbah, ajmal, chota akmal, asaf. i thinks they are axlant player who shud b in avery teem of the pakastan. these playr is united and want to perfarm for the pakastan. so this iz my veeyan and i want ur balog to purmote my veeyan. aal my decian and poyiyens wil be on the basis of this veeyan. thanks and over and out, A Butt Pakastan crickat board chairman

  97. #97 by khansahab on June 2, 2010 - 12:50 PM

    Salman Butt to be new vice captain

    LAHORE: The think-tank of the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) has decided to appoint opener Salman Butt as vice-captain of the national team to assist Shahid Afridi in the upcoming assignments of Asia Cup and the challenging tour of England.

    Sources told Dawn that the names of middle-order batsman Misbah-ul-Haq and all-rounder Abdul Razzaq were also considered for the post but PCB Chairman Ijaz Butt and manager Yawar Saeed decided to appoint Salman.

    It is amazing to note that the think-tank considered Misbah despite the fact that he was not included in the list of 35 probables announced for the twin assignments last week.

  98. #98 by khansahab on June 2, 2010 - 12:53 PM

    On what grounds was the name of Misbah considered for vice captaincy?

    This beggars belief.

  99. #99 by Omer on June 2, 2010 - 12:53 PM

    Khansahab,

    There is a two-party system because there are two competing parties. It is not that representatives have to affiliate themselves with a party in so and so way, it is just that they choose to do it based on their own grounds. In terms of efficacy, the advantage you are claiming doesn’t seem definite to me: Even if there are three, four parties in the British system, the independence of person X still doesn’t increase. When an issue is put to vote, it is either affirmed or denied. Even if there are three or four parties in the British system, so long as representatives in the US are allowed to vote (which they obviously are), they have much more independence (it doesn’t matter whether there are two or three parties in the opposition, here any representative can affirm the vote or oppose it).

    You are correct– the label republican is just a label. So is democrat. Republican usually applies to lesser goverment, whereas democrat applies to a more involved goverment. But I try to avoid thinking of it in terms of republicans or democrats. Each party is a mesh of different ideas. You could think of it as a spectrum on which people are not just right or left, but there is a ‘degree’ of right and ‘left’. The spectrum could be thought of as two competing philosophes, and to stretch the spectrum extremely on the right would comprise of libertarianism, whereas extreme left could be thought of a Europian-style social democracy. And, then there are those that are totally outside the spectrum, like Bush– as they are ‘social conservatives’, just like the communitarians, if any in the US, would fall outside the spectrum. However, it was never meant to be the case, but it happens to be the case in the US (by no supreme logic) that the neo-conservatives happen to be republicans. It is both unfortunate and ironic, as the right is more inclined towards the historical ‘liberal tradition’ whereas the left-wing can be thought of as its modern, off-shoot variation (in which socialism emerges as an off-shoot of liberalism, and its philosophical justifications are on ‘liberal’ grounds rather than communitarian). However, the parties vaguely reflect this coherency at times. Politicians aren’t political philosophers and they don’t always think, whether philosophically or coherently, when it comes to ideology. However, there are many representatives that do.

  100. #100 by newguy on June 2, 2010 - 12:54 PM

    Javed Khan,

    You got my attention with comments on democracy and why the greco-roman style is not suited to the rest of the world, specifically the Muslim world.

    This is a comment that I have heard quite often, and this itself can be called a rhetoric without proper explanation. I think you just touched the tip of the ice berg on how this can be practically implemented. When I was reading the first paragraph I though, ah, there you go, he is talking about Sharia. That turned out to be so, but you wanted a milder version of it.

    First of all, I don’t know if there is such a thing that exists. You got to explain who will take the leadership and how that will be implemented. More importantly you need to explain how that will be applied to the minorities in the predominantly Muslim nations. Will you support a “Jazia” on non-muslims like it was popular during the rule of some Muslim rulers in Delhi in the pre-British India. How will non Muslims be governed, how will they conduct in public, are there different set of rules, or they should also follow Sharia rules.

    I think there is probably a stream of thought in the Muslim world that the so called Greco-Roman democracy that you talked about is actually a Judeo-Christian form of government. This is where probably the opposition against it is coming from. I may be mistaken, but I am trying to understand whether the proponents of this thought process see the Judeo-Christian influence in the modern democracy followed by West, Israel, India, and some of the other nations.

    Having said that, I know some of the Christian right wing definitely believe so, and I don’t think that makes it true just because they believe it. If that were true then countries like Canada, U.K, and USA will be Christian nations, and everyone will have to follow Christian laws. Now, you could debate whether Christian morals are creeping into the way how society is modeled, but this is a much larger topic, and requires a PhD thesis.

    To flip the coin around, if the so called Greco-Roman democracy that you called is fk’d up also goes on to apply Christian laws in countries like Canada, what will be your reaction? Will you be comfortable living under that rule? or will you shift to a Muslim nation? Do you think then the whole world should follow religion based government? If Muslim majority nations can do that then why not others? What will that make the world, a better place to live or worse?

    I am not trying to be provocative, but these are genuine questions, when you tossed out that thought it required some serious discussion and thought provoking questions. I see you are not getting it from Omer, so I called it up on myself to ask these.

    You cannot toss out such ideas without thinking about the larger implications that will bring forth. Otherwise you are also making the kind of rhetoric that we normally see from many TV pundits.

  101. #101 by khansahab on June 2, 2010 - 1:19 PM

    Someone in the PCB is beyond just stupid or biased, someone is mentally retarded to have considered Misbah as a possible VC candidate?

  102. #102 by Omer on June 2, 2010 - 1:33 PM

    Newguy,

    I didn’t get into that much detail because, as I mentioned, I don’t particularly believe in the idea of a liberal democracy. I think there isn’t much coherency in the idea– it is flawed logic to think that liberal in the liberal tradition sense could be held theoretically compatible with the will of the majority. It would be fair to say that they are reasonably opposing forces which check each other. In terms of efficacy it works, but only time will tell how long. I have been saying that, it has begun to fail already, that its strengths are turning into its weaknesses as I see it. The system is based on the idea of self-interest; its optimum function is based on the assumption that agents, organizations, and communities (that is politicians and parties alike) act based on self interest. If we were to let the assumption of self-interest go, the whole grounds for the system would collapse. However, so long as the parties are driven by self-interest, it is only in their interest to inflate their way into bubbles, and the dollar had been falling quite rapidly since 2001, but it has been only been exceeded by the collapse in euro more recently. Many people contend that much of this is a facade, and the inevitable conclusion is hyper-inflation/collapse of the dollar (which can be exported around the world). I believe that view is correct. I don’t think something can be created out of nothing.

  103. #103 by newguy on June 2, 2010 - 2:30 PM

    Omer,

    You just wrote a lot of words without connection to the issue brought forth by Javed Khan and my responses / questions. I think I’ll wait to JAK to comment, because I have a feeling he has a lot more to say about this.

  104. #104 by khansahab on June 2, 2010 - 3:01 PM

    Tomorrow the Asia Cup squad is going to be announced. Shoaib Akhtar is being considered for selection and so is Malik.

    Afridi wants youngsters to be selected whereas the selectors would prefer seniors- this has been a long standing tradition that the selectors want experience over youth whereas the captain wants to go with younger players who are more docile. The selectors have their own agenda because if the team underperforms the selectors have the excuse of saying that they chose an experienced team.

    I wonder if this explains why Malik and Misbah have been a regular feature of Pakistan cricket?

  105. #105 by Omer on June 2, 2010 - 3:40 PM

    Newguy,

    My response implied that I have no counter-defense in terms of democracy– I can’t justify it myself, when particularly I am more inclined to other ideas. Nevertheless, I think the important thing when it comes to Pakistan is to keep the vision of the founder in mind. We could debate at length what that was– and that is something always debated in Pakistan.

  106. #106 by newguy on June 2, 2010 - 4:50 PM

    Hi Omer,

    Democracy is not the best form of government, it’s just the better form considering the alternatives. We also need to define nomenclature here. Democracy by itself is the mob, or the majority rule with unlimited powers, while Republic as a form of democratic system protects the rights of the minority and limits the authority of the majority. The United States is a Republic with certain unalienable god-given individual rights for everyone, with strong separation of church and the state.

    So, I think Republic form of government that protects the individual right and rights of minority from the majority with clear separation of church and state is probably the better form of democratic governing modern societies.

    What other ideas do you think are better? I am curious to know.

  107. #107 by Omer on June 2, 2010 - 5:09 PM

    khansahab,

    The quality of tennis is pretty high if you want to watch:

    http://www.firstrow.net/watch/20250/1/watch-almagro-n.-(esp)-vs-nadal-r.-(esp).html

  108. #108 by khansahab on June 2, 2010 - 6:08 PM

    Omer

    Thanks, will have a look. Although I am not interested in tennis, my interest was at its peak when Sharapova did her almost-nude photoshoot.

  109. #109 by khansahab on June 2, 2010 - 6:38 PM

    Omer

    Dekh teray bhai nai koiley mai sey heera nikal liya:

    The Asian girl is a Muslim called Noureen Dewulf. Isn’t she hot?

  110. #110 by Omer on June 2, 2010 - 7:02 PM

    Khansahab,

    koiley main sey aur kuch nikala (pehle pic main).

    Second was all right 😉

    Lekin ab koilay main se heera toh nikal do 😉

  111. #111 by Omer on June 2, 2010 - 7:52 PM

    Newguy,

    I can’t get around the fact, that in what sense is the word republic used. From what I understood, it is just a representative form of democracy. In that sense, so is Pakistan. In other words, in contrast to Athenian democracy, there is no direct voting on legislation by the public, but the public elects representatives who vote on those issues. In that sense, the US is a democratic country to the core. The conception of individual liberty hasn’t been static but pretty dynamic throught US history. What is a constant is a particular ‘conception’ of democracy. It is democracy which enforces a particular ‘conception’ of individual freedom in that sense, not so much the other way around. You could say, there are checks and balances, as I referred to above, in some sense.

    I understand democracy as a concept, the will of the people, whereas there are various methods to implement democracy, which I’d call conceptions. Thinking along those lines, the US is a pure democracy.

    If you mean the US is a republic in the sense that the power lies with the congress, then obviously that isn’t true either. The president has almost absolute power over everything, except that he tends to use discretion more often. The congress can impeach him, but again we are in the realm of checks and balances rather than the republic (if I am not mistakenly understood it in a different sense). And, again, in this sense, if the far-right is then akin to calling for a republic, and the center-far left tilts towards democracy, then what ultimately decides the outcome? A popular vote!

  112. #112 by Omer on June 2, 2010 - 8:05 PM

    Newguy,

    If you implied a ‘republic’ in the ancient Roman sense, then where does liberal tradition come in there?

    Liberal tradition is a relatively modern concept, you can perhaps trace its roots in empericist philosopher David Hume and latterly built upon, in an economic context, by Adam Smith.

    In other words, there is no aristocracy now! The counter-balance to the left is the liberterian right– which could be thought of as relating totally free market economics, very less taxes, free will, and so on..

  113. #113 by JAVED A. KHAN on June 3, 2010 - 12:22 AM

    newguy

    I was busy all day so, I couldn’t get to read and reply to you but, after reading your comment I am giving it a preference over others and I will give you a OTT response without any second thought, leave aside a Ph. D. research.

    First of all, I never said that the Islamic Sharia law should be implemented in the whole world. I did not even suggest that it should be implemented in Pakistan, what I said was the whole world talks about thousands and thousands of years old Greco Roman Democracy as a perfect system. Europe, before the Renaissance period were practicing the more orthodox form of Greco Roman Democracy (GRD) but during the Renaissance small Italian republics developed into despotisms as the centers of power moved from the landed estates to the cities. Besides, Italy, England, France, and Spain also began to develop economically based class systems. Using the literature, science and medicine they started developing and during that era they made changes not only in art, literature, music but, also in the civil and political systems by altering and changing the GRD that suited them. I don’t want to go into that details about how King of England having influence on the Church and how the power was shifted etc.

    The point to touch this aspect was to show that scholars from all over Europe lead to the revival or rebirth of the western civilization which they refer it as Humanist Movement. It took centuries for them to revive and also implement a system that suited them. Wheres, the Islamic Sharia Law despite the fact that it is 1400 years old is being practiced in some Arab countries like KSA and others. There is Kingdom and no parliament in Saudi Arabia and no one (the UN or the super powers) object to their Kingship because, it suits the superpowers to handle a few Shaikhs than 500 plus parliament members or a parliamentary form of democracy. The Muslim Scholars always agreed to disagree and there have never been a consensus on one thing, forget about the Sharia they keep objecting to trivial matters which has no significance in life.

    So, I was suggesting that since Pakistan claims that it was created on the basis of religion then why the fcuk they need to adopt a constitution that they inherited from the British Raj? Section 302 for Murder, Section 420 for fraud, Section 144 for curfew. The same is in India (Tazeerat-e-Hind ki dafa 302 …….) The preamble of the Indian Constitution – inherited by them from the British Raj and there by making a few changes in it – defines India as a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic. I don’t want to discuss India or the US constitutional system here, because my point was only about Pakistan.

    So, based on what they say that they have been created on the basis of religion they should forge a constitution that should be exemplary in every aspect and it must set an example of excellence. Every leader in Pakistan who is in power makes amendments in the constitution to protect his own ass. A country which cannot forge a cricket board’s constitution in 63 years, how do you expect them to create a new constitution for the country? Who has the brains? It was only my suggestion to Omer’s question that there is a glitch in the system, I said, no the whole system doesn’t suit them. They should do something to create a new system.

    As regards your question about Jiziya, I will answer that in a separate comment, because this will become too long and monotonous and Omer seldom read long comments, in fact his span of attention is like a kid who cannot focus on one thing for more than 2 seconds. 😀

    Ps. Unless it is a photograph of some Auntie like Bellucci or someone 😉

  114. #114 by newguy on June 3, 2010 - 2:51 AM

    JAK,

    A very reasoned response, I know you are a well read person and so you could talk about various issues unlike some other folks who search Google for everything then cut & paste without even comprehending it. Of course I am not insinuating anyone else on this blog, but in general 🙂

    I still did not get completely where you were going, obviously this is very tough task as you know at the time of partition or immediately after partition for two newly created nations to create their constitution from scratch, so they sought to go after the British system. I know section 302, 420, 144 are in Indian penal code, didn’t realize Pakistan did same, but of course naturally not surprising.

    What should have happened is that there should have been clear thought leaders who had a plan for a nation long before independence, instead of worrying what to do with these new nations after it. No one had a clear vision. Compare that to the US revolution against the British, US had many founders who were clear visionaries on how they wanted to structure the new nation, and they wrote the constitution and declaration of independence long before the war for freedom even began.

    This wasn’t the case in India and more so in Pakistan which as a nation had even larger hurdles to clear.

  115. #115 by JAVED A. KHAN on June 3, 2010 - 8:17 AM

    newguy

    There is an expression which leads to a question: “How long is a piece of string?” A few centimeters, a few meters or a few kilometers ? SIXTY THREE years and it is still not enough time for India and Pakistan to make a constitution that suits them? I wasn’t going anywhere, my focus was on the subject of how the Muslims nations should have worked out and forged a reasonably moderate constitution acceptable to all the Islamic Republics, each making minor changes in consideration to the socio-cultural environments of that country. Like you said, it is a very tough task and cannot be discussed in detail on a blog. Besides, it is just a thought, people with extremely orthodox views will never agree with me may be they will create a fatwa against me. 😀

    Talking about Jiziyah which is commonly referred to as a “Poll Tax” taken from the non-Muslims, you said it was practiced by some Muslim Rulers in India a few hundred years ago. You are right but, that was a few hundred years ago, is it still in practice in any country? I don’t think so. In India, Sati was also legal and it was practiced in those days, but how many people practice it now?

    Similarly, according to Islamic law polygamy is allowed and a man can have up to 4 wives. How many people have you seen with multiple wives? They can hardly manage one at a time. Only in the Arab countries I have seen a very, very negligible percentage of people, I can say less than 0.2% have two wives and that trend is changing in those countries where the newer generation have keeps and girlfriends.

    The reason 4 wives were allowed in Islam is because in those days there were too many wars and men folks lost their lives and to take care of the widows and orphans or those females who couldn’t get a suitable match due to scarcity of young men, were allowed to marry more than one, max. 4 so that the widow not only get financial support but, also a legal protection for them and their children. It saved the women from having illicit relationships or possible prostitution. So, it was a need at that time, hence a provision is there. In reality more than 99% of the Muslims have only one wife at a time. People do remarry after divorce or the death of their spouses.

    The reason for imposing Jiziyah. It is misnomer that it was a poll tax (like a Bhatta) but, Jiziyah it was taken in those days from non-Muslims to protect them. You might ask, protect from whom? Islam was in its evolutionary stage and there were so many wars – which was normal among every nation existing on earth during those days i.e., to have wars to conquer, expand kingdoms and rule – The Muslim men folks used to go on a war, whereas non-Muslims were given the choice either to convert and join them or pay the protection money. Because, within the city walls of Mecca, Palestine etc., they were looked after by some Muslim soldiers who had to stay within the city to protect them and it was a kinda responsibility for them to protect them and they were known as “Dhimmi” or Zimmi which we now call in Urdu Zimmadari or responsibility. For protecting a large number of people and their families they needed some funds to maintain their armies, hence Jiziyah was imposed.

    You asked me a few questions on how the minorities will be dealt with and what law will they follow? Today, neither India nor Pakistan can protect their minorities within their own country. India’s secular system allows polygamy for the Muslims whereas for others it is not. Sounds very reasonable, rather wonderful that they can accommodate the laws of other religion who are in minority but, does India guarantees to protect them in case of communal riots? Gujrat massacre of Muslims in 2002 and a few other incidents speaks in volumes. In Pakistan the extremists keep killing the innocent people from the minorities and the government cannot protect them. However, nothing like this ever happened in the Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, etc. Because, the enforcement of law is very strict. However, on minor issues they too have a hypocritical policy of favouring the local or the national or, Arab vs. The Non-Arab. Yet, the non-Muslims are not harmed.

    However, the fact also remains that the Prophet also asked the non-Muslims to teach or educate at least one Muslim child and they were freed and exempted if the do so. They were not only protected but, were treated with respect and most of them later converted. In Islam the emphasis on education is such that the first word that was revealed to the Prophet from God in the form of Quran was, READ. “Read in the name of thy Lord who created …. created Man from a clot.” And, there are various Al Hadiths or sayings of the Prophet on acquiring knowledge like: “Seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave.” It means there is no age limit in acquiring knowledge. “Seek knowledge, though it be in China.” During those days going to China was like traveling to the moon.

    newguy, I am not a very well read or a very educated person, but whatever I know or whatever I have read and heard from my elders, I remember. I don’t hesitate in sharing and I express my views without hesitation. Sometimes I am misunderstood because, I am incompetent in expressing myself or the other person may not be knowing the background of the subject or the context in which I am trying to express myself. For that I apologize for my inadequacies and incompetence.

  116. #116 by Mohammed Munir on June 3, 2010 - 9:24 AM

    India Vs Zimbabwe … Playing first India are 111 for 5 wicket @ 33 overs mark.

    And this is what someone wrote on Cricinfo …

    Phil chips in with his usual lovely dollops of sarcasm: “Can India start their innings all over again? It’s so unfair playing against a mighty team.” 😆

  117. #117 by newguy on June 3, 2010 - 12:56 PM

    Javed Khan,

    You have explained very clearly again, with sound logical reasoning, and I agree with most of it, if not all of it. I know quite a bit about Muslim traditions since I have had many Muslim friends while I grew up in India, not just folks my age, I also used to talk to Muslims from older generation. My father was a very secular man and he brought us plenty of books, in our home only we had Hindu texts, but we also had a translated version of Holy Quran and stories from The Bible. Although as a child growing up I must admit I read the Bible stories more because they were stories, while I found it hard to read the Quran, no offense, just from a child’s point of view story form was more interesting. But, the point is, I know why some of these traditions existed.

    The reason I asked you these question is from your initial post it wasn’t clear what form of tradition you were talking about, now it is clear.

  118. #118 by JAVED A. KHAN on June 3, 2010 - 4:32 PM

    Munir

    India tou Mukh gayee Zimbabwe kay aagay! And, West Indies are playing this 5th ODI like a test match.

  119. #119 by JAVED A. KHAN on June 3, 2010 - 4:33 PM

    Omer & khansahab

    You may check out this link which I found out while searching info for Sea Bass

  120. #120 by JAVED A. KHAN on June 3, 2010 - 4:36 PM

    newguy

    since it is clear to you now lets talk about cricket. India lost the match the moment Raina and Rohit Sharma were run out and then India has no bowling attack to stop Zimbabwe.

    I don’t understand Pakistani selectors who have selected this team for Asia Cup. There is no Fawad Alam and no Younus Khan but somehow they have managed to get Shoaib Malik in the team who has no match practice of cricket except for bed polo with a tennis racket. Shoaib Akhtar too has no match practice and only his 12 overs were enough to pass the fitness test in flying colours! What a load of Cow Manure coming out from Ijaz’s Butt

  121. #121 by Omer on June 3, 2010 - 4:56 PM

    Javed Khan,

    Let me elaborate further on my criticism of what you are saying. I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but theory and practice are two different things. Practically speaking, providing “Islamic scholars” power in a state like pakistan would amount to putting Inzamam or Mushtaq in a place of power, where they govern the laws and the country. You can say it this way or that way, but this is what it would eventually lead to.

    Therefore, I think that we should primarily look at two people when we think of Pakistan: Jinnah and Iqbal.

    My understanding of Jinnah: he clearly said in his 1948 presidential address that Pakistan will not be a theocracy. In other words, the law would not itself be Islamic law. The confusion arises when on other occassions he said that the state would be based on the principles of Islamic Social Justice. On ther hand, what adds to the confusion is, as people say, that Pakistan was a state created for Muslims. This latter assertion is something, from the perspective of Jinnah, and the creation of Pakistan, I clarified to Khansahab earlier.

    Now when it comes to a state being based on principles of Islamic Social justice, it doesn’t imply that Mushtaq and Inzamam would be interpretating Shariah law in Pakistan. What he really means is that the constitution, and the laws of the state, would be a seperate entity; that they won’t be Islamic law itself, but they will be based “on the principles of Islamic Social Justice”. It is tantamount to saying that, though the Western world doesn’t explicitly enshrine religious law in state law, it inculcates Christian tradition quite a lot in spirit. Likewise, what Jinnah really means is that the constitution and the law would extract ideas from the principles of Islamic social justice, but not be them, and limited to them, per se. In other words, in a political sense, the state will not own any religion.

    On the other hand what Iqbal says is pretty similar to what you are saying. And, what he says is that, human experience is not static but pretty mobile and ever-changing. The reality changes, people change– the world is not in a state of static perfection, that human experience changes, and there are aspects of Islamic law that can be updated, where they are not strictly obvious, based on practical exigiency and the new reality. And, his claim is that the Muslim world came to halt because of earlier Islamic scholars (I think Persians), who saw Islam in the context of Greek, scholastic, rationalist tradition, driven by logical and static rules. In other words, what he says is that our knowledge of our surroundings change, and human experience changes, and rather than deny it, we need to update aspects of Islamic law (where possible) in light of those changes in the physical world.

  122. #122 by newguy on June 3, 2010 - 5:02 PM

    What is there to talk about this India B team? As I said earlier, there are only 5 players in this team who deserves a look into the proper national team. They are Suresh Raina, Virat Kohli, Rohit Sharma, Pragyan Ojha, and Amit Mishra. Rest are nothing players who have been given their final chances before showing the door. Although I get a feeling Ravindra Jadeja will somehow crawl into the Asia cup team. He scored two half centuries in 3 matches so far and he contained runs with his bowling. But to me, this is nothing, he is still a mediocre player, his strike rate is less than run a ball and he cannot hit sixes, a player like that coming at #7 is not very valuable. I would select Irfan Pathan over Jadeja any day, but then I am not the chairman of selectors, K Srikanth is, and he is given his home boys (Karthik and Vijay) an extended run despite them not performing. Same goes for YKP, who had done nothing in international matches whether ODI or T20.

    If this is India’s bench strength then they have serious problems coming up for WC 2011. Even an Australia “C” team will beat this Indian team any day, their “A” team beat India full strength team 4-1 this year.

  123. #123 by khansahab on June 3, 2010 - 8:40 PM

    Abaadi

    Janaab aap ki tareef mai Manchesterpoori nazam farmata hai:

    Shehenshaai key alam sey wabasta tera kalaam
    I am agree karta hua nacheez karey tujhey salaam
    Naaz kar! ghamand kar! yeh tera hai muqaam
    lafzon sey mehzooz, adaaegi ka baag tera shadaab
    Toh sunn Abaadi! Tera mizaaj abaad, ho har chaman abaad
    Teri shayeri sey mera sheher abaad, mera watan abaad

  124. #124 by khansahab on June 3, 2010 - 10:08 PM

    Corruption in Pak worth staggering Rs 223 billion in 2010: Transparency International

    Corruption has evolved as one of the major concerns for the Pakistan government , with a report of Transparency International Pakistan (TIP) revealing that a whopping 223 billion rupees were expended in various corrupt practices in 2010.

    The report titled the National Corruption Perception Survey 2010 showed an enormous rise in corruption from 195 billion rupees in 2009 to 223 billion rupees in 2010.

    According to the report, police and bureaucracy maintained their ranking as the two most corrupt public sector institutions in 2010 also.

    Land administration institutions were placed third in corrupt practices, The Daily Times reports.

    Corruption in the judiciary, education and local government sectors has also increased as compared to 2009, the report said.

    TIP Chairman Syed Adil Gilani said that about 70 percent of people believed that the present Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) led coalition government was more corrupt that the previous military regime of General Pervez Musharraf.

    “In terms of bribery, land administration was the most corrupt sector, where average bribe paid in each incident was 46, 414 rupees,” Gilani said.

    He stressed that rampant corruption has severely dented Pakistan’s international image, and that some drastic measures were needed to resurrect the problem.

    “Corruption is the root cause of all problems in the country and owing to the lack of governance in Pakistan, the credibility of the country has fell internationally. This can be observed from the fact that the Friends of Pakistan Trust Fund, being managed by the World Bank, has not issued any funds to the country in the last two years,” Gilani said.

    “The government of Pakistan needs to address corruption, as the judiciary did by announcing a judicial policy with a zero tolerance for corruption and the Pakistan Army did by removing its senior officers from civilian postings,” he added. (ANI)

  125. #125 by JAVED A. KHAN on June 4, 2010 - 1:08 AM

    Omer

    With all due respect to Jinnah as the founding father of Pakistan, I disagree with the views quoted as Jinnah’s words or even if they are Jinnah’s words, it does not translate the voice of a majority of the Muslims of pre-partition India. No one can deny that Pakistan was created for the Muslims as a separate state because of the differences between the Hindus and Muslims arose during the struggle for independence. You will not find in any of the history books but, you may find this in the journals and old newspapers collected by individuals, reportedly even from the archives these newspapers have been removed. SO OMER, IF YOU CAN, PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THE NEXT PARAGRAPH AND AVOID SKIM READING.

    During the conventions of Congress Party in between the session, the Muslim leaders asked the other members of the party to give a 2 hour break for Friday prayers. So, that the Muslim leaders can go to the mosques and attend the Friday prayers. Valla Bhai Patel and Nehru both objected to it by saying, this cannot be done because our Party’s manifest is very Secular and Religion comes after the interest of the party hence the session continued and they had to pray individually by taking a 5-10 minutes break. The next convention date was set in Allahabad in India and it was announced months ahead. After a weeks or months, they realized that it is a Saturday i.e., the date of the convention. So, these very people who objected to the Muslim leaders about taking a break for 2 hours for Friday prayers, announced that the Allahabad convention date is falling on a Saturday and on Saturday Gandhiji keeps his “BARAT” or the fast, therefore, it is not a suitable date and the date must be changed. And, they did change the date of the convention to accommodate Gandhiji’s fasting day on a Saturday.

    Besides, this there were several other things that triggered the sensitivity between the two religions and forced the Muslim leaders to think about creating a separate state – Pakistan. Because, the so-called Secularism slogan was only a farcical move whereas, Gandhiji was given preference over others as if he is some kinda god who needs some special treatment. The point to note here is, the Muslims in majority agreed to create Pakistan on the basis of religion and I have previously quoted an excerpt from Jinnah’s speech, in which he has clearly mentioned the reasons for creating Pakistan. That comment must be in the archives here and I will try to find it and post it again.

  126. #126 by JAVED A. KHAN on June 4, 2010 - 1:26 AM

    Omer: Here is the excerpt of Jinnah’s speech that was posted on this blog sometime back, it is a copy paste and not a single word changed or altered and, in case you did not read it before, please read it now and you are welcome to come up with an argument.

    “It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religious in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, literatures. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspect on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state.”

  127. #127 by Omer on June 4, 2010 - 1:53 AM

    Javed Khan,

    In this quote Jinnah is just saying about the cultural differences between Hindus and Muslims, but nothing about what Pakistan will be. Saying that there are profound cultural differences between Hindus and Muslims doesn’t say that Pakistan would be a theocracy. In my opinion they are two different things.

    And, his word matters more than the words of the majority of Muslims. There is no question of misquoting him. This conspiracy theory of misquotation is sponsored, I understand, by General Hamid Gul– the new founder of the nation of conspiracy theories. The word of majority of Muslims would equal to putting matters to a populist vote, a democratic solution even before democracy is proposed in a nation. It is like saying that, if there is a vote in India, and Hindus being a majority say, that India should be a state for Hindus only, then that is what it should be. But who would countenance that?

  128. #128 by Omer on June 4, 2010 - 3:59 AM

    Javed Khan,

    Let me clarify your repeated referral to my short attention span. It is not that I have a concentration span of 2-3 seconds, and I skim read what is written.

    I have to translate the language into the ‘meaning’ or concept each time I read something. Most of my time, while reading, the language itself is the most confusing part to me (and if this stuff can require effort, you can imagine what happens with a language that is Math or Stat). Anyway, I need to read it twice or thrice, which I certainly don’t do usually–unless something is is very cogently and convincingly written.

  129. #129 by JAVED A. KHAN on June 4, 2010 - 4:51 AM

    Omer

    If you cannot derive the crux of the matter from the first line of Jinnah’s speech, then I have nothing more to say.

  130. #130 by khansahab on June 4, 2010 - 8:57 AM

    The fact that Pakistani Parliament has been attempting for over a year to oust Butt from his position and has been unsuccessful, shows the extent of democracy in Pakistan.

    The real power lies with the President- there are whispers that he is monitoring the situation but with the World Cup 2011 only 9 months away when is it the right time to remove Butt and appoint someone capable?

    We know Butt is a close relative of Choudhary Ahmed Mukhtar, a senior PPP member. However what criteria did the President consider when looking at Butt as the Chief?

    Butt is a disaster; I was watching his press conference and he is total paindoo. He lacks manners, does not know how to speak, is quite arrogant and starts speaking in Punjabi in the middle of English and/or Urdu. Compared to him Mohsin Khan and Afridi were speaking much better.

  131. #131 by khansahab on June 4, 2010 - 10:57 AM

    Malik swears allegiance to Afridi

    KARACHI: Shoaib Malik managed to make the cut for Pakistan’s Asia Cup squad on Thursday only after convincing skipper Shahid Afridi that he would completely transform himself into a ‘team man’ and will always give his best for the team.

    Afridi told ‘The News’ in an interview after backing Malik’s inclusion in the 15-man touring party that he believes the former captain has learnt his lessons after getting slapped by a one-year ban and is now ready to play the role of a key senior for the sake of Pakistan cricket.

    He rejected the impression that Malik was picked for the Asia Cup because of pressure from various influential quarters.

    “I don’t take any pressure from anyone,” he stressed. “The thing is that Shoaib Malik is a talented cricketer and there is no doubt about it. The team needs him. But I’ve told him clearly that ‘I’m supporting you and I need your support for the sake of the team’,” added Afridi, who had a heart-to-heart with Malik before meeting with the national selectors and PCB chairman Ijaz Butt at the Board headquarters in Lahore on Thursday.

    “Malik has assured me of his complete support. He sounded really serious about making a successful international return and wants to help me in my efforts to put the team back on track.”

    Malik was banned by the PCB for one year in March after it found him guilty of indiscipline during the disastrous tour of Australia where Pakistan lost all their matches.

    He was also accused of hatching conspiracies against former captains Younis Khan and Mohammad Yousuf.

    However, a one-man appeal tribunal lifted the ban which allowed national selectors to pick him for the Asia Cup to be played in the central Sri Lankan city of Dambulla from June 15-24.

    It is believed that Afridi was against the idea of Malik returning for the Asia Cup but the skipper said that he has no personal grudge against any one.

    I have no personal grudges against anybody including Malik. The thing is that I just want players who can contribute towards the team cause. I want to raise our performance graph and that can only happen through a team effort.”

    Afridi, 30, rejected the impression that aging fast bowler Shoaib Akhtar was selected in the Sri Lanka-bound team even after failing a fitness test.

    “Who said he (Akhtar) failed the fitness test? We have received reports from experts that he is fully fit after which we have decided to recall him,” said Afridi.

    Afridi said that Akhtar can add more firepower to Pakistan’s bowling arsenal.

    “It’s true that Shoaib has been out of action for some time but I’m sure that he still has a lot of cricket left in him. We can field him in our big matches which means he will get enough time to recover and maintain his form and fitness. I’m happy that he is back.”

    Afridi played down the selectors’ decision to drop young allrounder Fawad Alam, who is thought to be one of the captain’s favourites.

    “Fawad Alam will come back. We have a lot of cricket after the Asia Cup. He just needs to prove himself which I’m sure he would do because he is a good cricketer.”

    Afridi said that he and fellow players will work hard during a brief preparatory camp that will begin in Lahore from Saturday (tomorrow).

    “We don’t have many days to get ready for the Asia Cup which means that a lot of hard work will be needed from the boys over the next week or so,” he said.

    According to the captain, the camp will be divided into two sessions with the players beginning the day at 7.30 in the morning for physical training. The second half will start at 6.30 in the evening with the players taking part in practice sessions under lights. Pakistan will fly for Sri Lanka on June 12 for the four-nation Asia Cup which also involves the hosts, India and Bangladesh.

  132. #132 by JAVED A. KHAN on June 4, 2010 - 11:15 AM

    khansahab

    I have also watched that press conference of the trio and it was appalling to see ALL of them i.e., Ijaz Butt, Mohsin Khan and Shahid Afridi. As regards Butt the least you talk about him is better.

    Mohsin Khan’s language, tone, style and even the body language were different when he was not a selector but, now it seems that he is mesmerized by Butt &Co. and speaks their language, he appears toothless and spineless.

    Shahid Afridi,
    may say whatever that he will not tolerate nonsense or any conspiracy from the team members and tell us that he has assurance from Shoaib Malik that he has transformed himself into a team man or whatever crap Malik has said, he is accepting him because, his ban and fines have been overturned by a “one man demolition squad” Imran Qadir who was the loner of that so-called tribunal and then the selectors have brought him in to the team once again. So, Afridi’s situation is like, “beggars can’t be choosers,” he is talking all BS that Akhtar is fully fit and Fawad Alam will come back and he is a good cricketer etc. I heard the rumours that Waqar is not happy with Akhtar’s performance in the nets and according to him Akhtar is not fully fit.

    Afridi from his heart knows that Shoaib Malik will not change, no matter what he will conspire and sting like a scorpion which is Malik’s nature, Akhtar will huff and puff after being thrashed in the second over. Usually his first is the best and the rest are the worst. Afridi cannot do much in persuading the selectors to give him a team of his choice because, he is not in that position to demand, in fact he is saving his own ass by accepting and scumming to their terms, hence he too is dancing to the tune of the PCB administration which acts more like a MAFIA than a cricket board.

  133. #133 by khansahab on June 4, 2010 - 1:41 PM

    Javed A Khan

    I agree about Mohsin who did not even answer some of the questions put across to him because Butt was answering them.

    Butt disappointed me the most especially with his immature and unprofessional behaviour and the input of Punjabi in the middle. He should realise that 35% of the population will not understand what he is saying because they do not understand Punjabi.

    PCB is a total mess; the Chairman is a clown so how do you expect the players to be?

  134. #134 by M. Y. Kasim on June 4, 2010 - 6:44 PM

    The 15-man team has only 2 un-deserving players. Imran Farhat because his Father-in-Law is one of the selectors and Shoaib Malik whose celebrity wife Sania Mirza approched the Prime Minister who intervened in the selection process and also the whole of Punjab was demanding that their “Prodigal Son” be in the team.

    The victims: Fawad Alam and Hammad Azam.

    It was obvious from the beginning that Fawad Alam will be dropped because of a whispering campaign to dump him on the pretext that he is not performing. How can one perform when he is sent when only 8-10 balls are remaining in the match? Do they expect him to score a century in those t8-10 balls?

    While Hammad Azam must have stepped on the tail of one of the M.F. managing staff.
    Kisi Kuttay Ki Dum Par Paoon Rakh Diya Hoga.

    2 out of 15 is a very low ratio as far as Pakistan is concerned. Look how much Zardari, Badmash Brothers and the rest of the establishnment are looting the country.

  135. #135 by Omer on June 4, 2010 - 8:56 PM

    Javed Khan,

    Here’s the quote of Jinnah I was referring to.

    “I cannot emphasize it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community, because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish. Indeed if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free people long long ago. No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for this. Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this. You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State. As you know, history shows that in England, conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the Nation.

    Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State. ”

    Here’s the link for the complete address to the Constituent assembly:

    http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/legislation/constituent_address_11aug1947.html

    And, here again:

    “Jinnah’s broadcast to the people of the United States (February 1948) is in a similar vein:

    I do not know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam. Today, they are as applicable in actual life as they were 1300 years ago. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught equality of men, justice and fairly play to everybody. We are the inheritors of these glorious traditions and are fully alive to our responsibilities and obligations as framers of the future constitution of Pakistan. In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State — to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non- Muslims — Hindus, Christians, and Parsis — but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan.

  136. #136 by JAVED A. KHAN on June 5, 2010 - 2:03 AM

    Omer

    These days, almost every one has become an expert on Partition and that includes you and me. It is very easy to copy paste a quote, like I did and then you did. But, the problem is in understanding what exactly was in Jinnah’s mind when he got the so-called “Truncated Pakistan?” Jinnah himself was not sure about what he is getting in the shape of Pakistan and how to run the new country and whether the people and the resources he got are capable of writing a constitution for the country and what type of government it will be? A democracy, Republic, A mixture of Islamic Republic with Greco-Roman Democracy or what? In fact, the quote you had copy pasted, i.e., the last paragraph of your comment begins with, “I do not know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam.”

    The emphasis on “democratic type” clarifies that it will not be a dictatorial type but, democracy with essential principles of Islam. So, where is that democracy with essential principles of Islam? That is exactly my question from the beginning and you have been talking about so many other things but, not answering my question. Because, it is very obvious that you don’t know and you don’t have that answer. In fact no one has. The country has gone into tatters. The other day I posted a video link about Jacqueline Kennedy’s visit to Pakistan about 50 years ago. I guess no one watched it. It is worth seeing.

    During those days (it was Ayub Khan’s decade) things were very simple and peaceful. It makes a lot of Pakistanis proud to know about their past and, it is hard to believe that people were like this in the past. In reality, present is the continuation of our past which we take it into our future, but for us what we were and what we have become is a very sad story. We have no ethics, no morals and no conscience today. The truth is a moral compass can point you in the right direction and can make you go there, our present culture preaches that you shouldn’t be ashamed of doing anything anymore and unfortunately the country is built on the principle that there is no such thing as guilt, do whatever you want we won’t have, so without a conscience there is nothing to stop you from killing someone and evidently, don’t even have to feel bad about it. Ref. to the recent massacre of Ahmedi’s in Lahore.

    One of my uncles is writing a book and he has been writing it since a long time and hopefully it should be completed and sometimes I talk to him on phone, he is here in Canada and he has an in-depth knowledge of the subject. He was personally acquainted with Christopher Beaumont, Secretary to Radcliffe Commission, for a decade or more before his death and he also interviewed Lord Listowell, Secretary of State for India in the Attlee cabinet, about Partition and he has nearly finished writing a book on the subject.

    Any history is only as good as the sources that are used to compile it. In this case, he was telling me that: “all the principal British sources, except Mountbatten, decided it was best not to ‘spill the beans.’ Even the author of the official history of British India agreed to ‘skirt around the issue.’ (Ismay Papers). Radcliffe himself admitted that he had destroyed all of his records. As a result, much of what has been published relies heavily on Mountbatten’s version of events.

    I can delve deeper into the subject and you will lose interest in reading, so I come back to the point that, what Jinnah said, he himself was not sure whether it would be possible to implement it or not. And, the creation of Pakistan is not just Jinnah’s work alone, there are many other leaders and there are millions of people who sacrificed their lives and they wanted Pakistan as a separate state for Muslims. On one hand you talk about democracy which according to Lincoln is, Govt. of the people, by the people, for the people and then you say, it is not important what people say think or what they wanted whatever Jinnah said is, “Amanna Sadaqna.”

  137. #137 by Varun Suri on June 30, 2010 - 5:02 PM

    It is exactly for the following reason Why Mr.Powar voted against Mr.Howard

    “”India is not going to vote against because, it is BCCI’s Pawar, who will take over as president in June 2010, backed the process that threw up Howard as a candidate so neither Australia nor, England or even the West Indies (because of being a common wealth country) will oppose his nomination. So, Butt is left alone and he cannot take this important decision without the Pakistan’s government approval, if he does then Butt would be on Surgeon Asif Ali Zardari’s table for a colonoscopy. “”

    Howard fails in ICC vice-president bid

    Peter English

    June 30, 2010

    The ICC has demanded another vice-presidency candidate after John Howard’s nomination was rejected by its executive board in Singapore. A move which began with members from six countries signalling their intention to block the appointment on Tuesday turned into an official rejection of Australia’s former prime minister today.

    The ICC confirmed the decision this afternoon following an executive meeting that was supposed to formalise Howard’s election. No vote was taken and Cricket Australia and New Zealand Cricket were asked to re-nominate a candidate by August 31.

    The ICC said in a statement: “Following lengthy consideration it was recognised that the nomination put forward by Cricket Australia and New Zealand Cricket did not have sufficient support within the ICC board.”

    Cricket Australia’s chairman Jack Clarke and his New Zealand Cricket counterpart Alan Isaac said in a joint statement they were “deeply disappointed” after supplying “the best possible candidate”. “We jointly nominated Mr Howard as he possesses significant leadership and administrative skills,” they said. “We believe cricket needs to continue to seek excellence and dispassionate independence in the game’s global governance.

    “We were delighted that the most senior world figure ever considered for this role agreed to accept the nomination. We remain convinced it is reasonable for his nomination to be supported by the ICC executive board and we are deeply disappointed by the position taken.”

    Initial rumblings from Zimbabwe and South Africa in April became an all-conquering alliance when India signed up along with their subcontinent neighbours this week. It leaves the ICC without a deputy to be paraded alongside India’s Sharad Pawar when he takes over the presidency from David Morgan this week.

    The position taken by the six board members on Tuesday night was believed to be an attempt to force Howard to withdraw his nomination before the meeting. Howard remained in the race but lost the one-man raffle at the Raffles convention centre, ending the 70-year-old’s cricket administration career before it was allowed to begin.

    Seven votes were required to seal the deal but Australia, New Zealand and England were the only supporters of Howard before the meeting among the game’s 10 major countries. The six members signed a letter on Tuesday effectively stopping the appointment, but Zimbabwe, the most strident back-room protestor of Howard’s nomination, was not one of them.

    During Howard’s 11-year term as prime minister he was critical of Robert Mugabe’s regime and was responsible for banning the team from touring the country in 2007. Howard visited Zimbabwe cricket officials last week in an unsuccessful effort to smooth relations with the board. Once India turned from Howard there was no chance of him gaining enough support, with Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh believed to have sided with their all-powerful neighbour.

    Howard was the joint nomination of Cricket Australia and New Zealand Cricket for the role as part of the rotational system employed by the ICC. Under the regulations, Howard would have assumed the presidency in 2012 after Pawar’s two-year term.

    While the two countries have remained committed to Howard, his selection was complicated by New Zealand’s wish to choose Sir John Anderson, its long-term respected administrator. An independent committee was charged with breaking the deadlock and once Howard emerged as the winner the boards were publicly united. However, the delay provided fuel for the opponents to question whether New Zealand had been out-muscled by Australia.

    Confirmation of Howard’s role – he was nominated in March – was expected in April, but Zimbabwe raised their concerns through South African officials outside an ICC meeting in Dubai. The issue dragged on and Clarke and his chief executive James Sutherland were still lobbying for support over the past couple of days.

    Peter English is the Australasia editor of Cricinfo

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: