G
Guest
Guest
Aman kee ashaa farce equals Bughul main choorimun peh Ram Ram
I dont understand Asha or Aasha or Aashaa. Why throw a slogan at me which I cannot comprehend. I am sure 95% of Pakistanis dont comprehend this word. This is part of the major anomaly in a campaign that is supposed to inspire the concept of harmony. How can you reach 170 million people when you start with an incomprehensible slogan. Its a foreign language to most Pakistanisand seems like a diktat to me. Must we? Should we?
The Aman ke asha claptrap is indicative of the hubris from across the border. Even a peace slogan is steeped in Sanskrit. No attempt was made to find an equivalent in Urdu. Peace slogans in the USSR and America always were made up of the translation in both languages. This particular peace slogan wants to impose a Bharati version of peace on Pakistan. How about Naveed e aman or Aman ke arzoo. Why not aman/shanti ke aasha/arzoo or shanti kee asha or aman ke arzoo. While some may consider is semantic, it does describe the mentality of those who live in Delhi and think of only their own universe. The dreams and desires of the rest of the planet have to be subservient to those desires of hegemony.
RAW attack on Peshawar, Rawalpindi Wagah border using at least one Afghan who was captured alive. Pakistan has faced terror from Delhi for over three decades
Shireen Mazari has written a hard hitting editorial in the Nation about the Aman kee ashaa and the dialy Bharati attacks on Pakistan.
Why is Iqbal ignored by this so called peace movement?
Is this Aman kee ashaa another name for Reunification and Akhand Bharat
ONCE more a new propaganda offensive has been launched by segments of Indian civil society, including its media, in the shape of a hope for peace. That it is propaganda is evident from the fact that it has come at a time when the Indian military is sending threatening messages to Pakistan with its new war strategies. Bolstering this renewed hostility, the Indian Home Minister Chidambaram has launched a vitriolic tirade against Pakistan and its so-called terror structure. Ironically, this vitriol has come when the whole Kasab case is unravelling. Even worse, this peace offensive is designed once again to sidestep the real conflicts of Kashmir, water and arms build-ups by the Indians along the Pakistan border. By recalling the Sufi and other poets of the subcontinent, the effort is to divert people from these very real political issues without which there can actually be no real peace and stability in this region. It is interesting to note also that while all the major poets of the subcontinent have been recalled in the peace context, Iqbal, who is linked closely with the idea of a Muslim homeland that came to be Pakistan, has been ignored. Surely such an omission could hardly be accidental?
Assured failure: Why talk with India?
Pakistan seeks peace with India as an equal partner, not as a reward for good behaviour
India Pakistan meet fails as expected. Why talk?
Islamabad Delhi Peace talks on basis of equality.
Pakistan should stop showing enthusiaism for resumption of meaningless dialogue with Delhi
There are many types of peace. It is obvious that India has neither the capacity nor the wherewithal to impose peace of the sort that exists between the Native Americans and the US government. India is not Israel and Pakistan is not the Gaza strip. If Israel with all its might could not force an unequal peace on unequal partners (Syria, Palestinians and Lebanon) it is also very obvious that Delhi cannot impose peace on Pakistan the same way. Bharat could not break up Lanka and make it Kowtow to Bharat. It cannot force Pakistan. It has to woo Pakistanis if she wants peace on her Western borders.
Pakistan wants all issues back on the table, including UN resolutions passed in 1948 giving Kashmiris the right to a plebiscite, which had been set aside by former President Pervez Musharraf in an effort to secure a peace deal with India.
Musharraf went beyond his mandate. How can he set aside the UN? said Hasan. He went rather overboard in offering that to India. The Indians should have grabbed it, but they didnt. Daily Times
The statements emanating out of Delhi seem to suggest that Bharat (aka India) will begin talks about peace with Pakistan if this, that, or the other happens. This is the typical Bharati arrogance that keeps both countries embroiled in perpetual enmity. India, come what may cannot dictate its terms to Islamabad. If Bharat wants peace in the Subcontinent, it has to change its attitude towards all her neighborsNepal, Lanka, Bhutan, Sikkim, China, Bangladesh and Pakistan. While the other states may accept some bullying from Delhi, China and Pakistan will not. In the light of the Nuclear factor, Delhi cannot out stare Islamabad
Terrorist Shivajis Killed Afzal Khan while embracing Aurenzeb's representative
That some in Pakistan have joined this new propaganda offensive is not surprising given the genuine desire for peace within Pakistan. Unfortunately, these Pakistanis need to take their blinkers off and see the reality of the Indian position. There is no myth about Indias continuing hostility towards Pakistan at least amongst its leadership.
Unless the mindset of the ruling elite in India alters there can be no lasting peace because the present leadership is carrying on in the tradition of earlier Indian rulers who have sought to evade conflict resolution and focus on conflict management.
Perhaps it would serve a more useful purpose if the Indian civil society and media that seek peace were to first seek to alter their ruling elites mindset so that occupation of Kashmir can end and India can learn to abide by the Indus Waters Treaty. There is also Indias backtracking on the Siachin draft agreement of 1989. Perhaps the Indian peace activists can influence their state to stopping its aid and arms flows to militants in Pakistan.
The Indian agenda is clear through the programme of the hope for peace movement. It intends to focus on entertainment, although on that count it is India that creates hurdles for Pakistanis not the other way round; and business no doubt to pressure Pakistan into conceding on the land trade access to India without any movement on the part of the latter towards resolution of the political disputes. India is not willing to even move on Sir Creek where Pakistan has again unilaterally conceded ground. But then India is even unwilling to resume the bilateral dialogue. All these are not entrenched myths or zero-sum prejudices; rather they are a reflection of the Indian state today. Indians want to talk peace while their state positions its guns on Pakistan!
How much more farcical can it get?
Pakistani map in Peace sign
The Case against transit trade to India
The resilience of Pakistan and the nations continuing collective refusal to do what the west would like it to do
The pugnacious Pakistanis
THE PAKISTANI RESILIENCE IN THE FACE OF THREATS: Mountbatten, Nehru, Mohandas Gandhi, Indira, Kruschev, Johnson, Carter, Kissinger, Nixon, Gorbachev, Clinton, Armitage, Bush, Karzai, Vajpayee, Singh, Petraeus, Obama have all threatened Pakistan: The Pakistanis are used to itso what else is new?!! Pakistans Nuclear Missiles & Plutonium bombs repudiate the attacks
Peace is always in the mutual interest of parties tied up in conflict. One party does not do the other party any favors. It is the height of arrogance to convey the impression that peace talks are a reward for good behavior of one party. By portraying Pakistan as the guilty party, Delhi sabotages any prospect for peace. If the Americans and the Russians can smoke the peace pipe, so can the Indians and the Pakistanishowever it has to be done on the basis of dignity and mutual respect, not diktat and dictation.
There is much in common between India and Pakistan, but there is much that separates the countries. Mere cultural affinity and anathema to religion cannot wish the differences away. Bharat must recognize that Pakistanis do not see Delhi as the perfect model to emulate on anything. Therefore Delhi must stop wishing for a Pakistan in its own image. There are many routes to success, and Pakistanis admire the Chinese a lot more than they admire Indians.
It is not Delhis god given right to rule Kabul. Nor does Bharat extend from Kabul to the Raj Kalhani in the East. Bharati religions preach the eternal history of Bharat beyond its borders. If Bharat is a secular country then this transnational dreams of a greater Bharat must be brought back to reality. Every time Adhvani and Modi open their mouths, peace is sent back a decade.
Good relations with Pakistan begin with better treatment of Muslims in Bharatbeginning with the Kashmiris, but not just limited to them. The Gujaratis and the other downtrodden Muslims in Bharat must be treated as equal citizens, and things must move beyond tokenism (Azad, Fakhuddin & Kalam).
I dont understand Asha or Aasha or Aashaa. Why throw a slogan at me which I cannot comprehend. I am sure 95% of Pakistanis dont comprehend this word. This is part of the major anomaly in a campaign that is supposed to inspire the concept of harmony. How can you reach 170 million people when you start with an incomprehensible slogan. Its a foreign language to most Pakistanisand seems like a diktat to me. Must we? Should we?
The Aman ke asha claptrap is indicative of the hubris from across the border. Even a peace slogan is steeped in Sanskrit. No attempt was made to find an equivalent in Urdu. Peace slogans in the USSR and America always were made up of the translation in both languages. This particular peace slogan wants to impose a Bharati version of peace on Pakistan. How about Naveed e aman or Aman ke arzoo. Why not aman/shanti ke aasha/arzoo or shanti kee asha or aman ke arzoo. While some may consider is semantic, it does describe the mentality of those who live in Delhi and think of only their own universe. The dreams and desires of the rest of the planet have to be subservient to those desires of hegemony.
RAW attack on Peshawar, Rawalpindi Wagah border using at least one Afghan who was captured alive. Pakistan has faced terror from Delhi for over three decades
Shireen Mazari has written a hard hitting editorial in the Nation about the Aman kee ashaa and the dialy Bharati attacks on Pakistan.
Why is Iqbal ignored by this so called peace movement?
Is this Aman kee ashaa another name for Reunification and Akhand Bharat
ONCE more a new propaganda offensive has been launched by segments of Indian civil society, including its media, in the shape of a hope for peace. That it is propaganda is evident from the fact that it has come at a time when the Indian military is sending threatening messages to Pakistan with its new war strategies. Bolstering this renewed hostility, the Indian Home Minister Chidambaram has launched a vitriolic tirade against Pakistan and its so-called terror structure. Ironically, this vitriol has come when the whole Kasab case is unravelling. Even worse, this peace offensive is designed once again to sidestep the real conflicts of Kashmir, water and arms build-ups by the Indians along the Pakistan border. By recalling the Sufi and other poets of the subcontinent, the effort is to divert people from these very real political issues without which there can actually be no real peace and stability in this region. It is interesting to note also that while all the major poets of the subcontinent have been recalled in the peace context, Iqbal, who is linked closely with the idea of a Muslim homeland that came to be Pakistan, has been ignored. Surely such an omission could hardly be accidental?
Assured failure: Why talk with India?
Pakistan seeks peace with India as an equal partner, not as a reward for good behaviour
India Pakistan meet fails as expected. Why talk?
Islamabad Delhi Peace talks on basis of equality.
Pakistan should stop showing enthusiaism for resumption of meaningless dialogue with Delhi
There are many types of peace. It is obvious that India has neither the capacity nor the wherewithal to impose peace of the sort that exists between the Native Americans and the US government. India is not Israel and Pakistan is not the Gaza strip. If Israel with all its might could not force an unequal peace on unequal partners (Syria, Palestinians and Lebanon) it is also very obvious that Delhi cannot impose peace on Pakistan the same way. Bharat could not break up Lanka and make it Kowtow to Bharat. It cannot force Pakistan. It has to woo Pakistanis if she wants peace on her Western borders.
Pakistan wants all issues back on the table, including UN resolutions passed in 1948 giving Kashmiris the right to a plebiscite, which had been set aside by former President Pervez Musharraf in an effort to secure a peace deal with India.
Musharraf went beyond his mandate. How can he set aside the UN? said Hasan. He went rather overboard in offering that to India. The Indians should have grabbed it, but they didnt. Daily Times
The statements emanating out of Delhi seem to suggest that Bharat (aka India) will begin talks about peace with Pakistan if this, that, or the other happens. This is the typical Bharati arrogance that keeps both countries embroiled in perpetual enmity. India, come what may cannot dictate its terms to Islamabad. If Bharat wants peace in the Subcontinent, it has to change its attitude towards all her neighborsNepal, Lanka, Bhutan, Sikkim, China, Bangladesh and Pakistan. While the other states may accept some bullying from Delhi, China and Pakistan will not. In the light of the Nuclear factor, Delhi cannot out stare Islamabad
Terrorist Shivajis Killed Afzal Khan while embracing Aurenzeb's representative
That some in Pakistan have joined this new propaganda offensive is not surprising given the genuine desire for peace within Pakistan. Unfortunately, these Pakistanis need to take their blinkers off and see the reality of the Indian position. There is no myth about Indias continuing hostility towards Pakistan at least amongst its leadership.
Unless the mindset of the ruling elite in India alters there can be no lasting peace because the present leadership is carrying on in the tradition of earlier Indian rulers who have sought to evade conflict resolution and focus on conflict management.
Perhaps it would serve a more useful purpose if the Indian civil society and media that seek peace were to first seek to alter their ruling elites mindset so that occupation of Kashmir can end and India can learn to abide by the Indus Waters Treaty. There is also Indias backtracking on the Siachin draft agreement of 1989. Perhaps the Indian peace activists can influence their state to stopping its aid and arms flows to militants in Pakistan.
The Indian agenda is clear through the programme of the hope for peace movement. It intends to focus on entertainment, although on that count it is India that creates hurdles for Pakistanis not the other way round; and business no doubt to pressure Pakistan into conceding on the land trade access to India without any movement on the part of the latter towards resolution of the political disputes. India is not willing to even move on Sir Creek where Pakistan has again unilaterally conceded ground. But then India is even unwilling to resume the bilateral dialogue. All these are not entrenched myths or zero-sum prejudices; rather they are a reflection of the Indian state today. Indians want to talk peace while their state positions its guns on Pakistan!
How much more farcical can it get?
Pakistani map in Peace sign
The Case against transit trade to India
The resilience of Pakistan and the nations continuing collective refusal to do what the west would like it to do
The pugnacious Pakistanis
THE PAKISTANI RESILIENCE IN THE FACE OF THREATS: Mountbatten, Nehru, Mohandas Gandhi, Indira, Kruschev, Johnson, Carter, Kissinger, Nixon, Gorbachev, Clinton, Armitage, Bush, Karzai, Vajpayee, Singh, Petraeus, Obama have all threatened Pakistan: The Pakistanis are used to itso what else is new?!! Pakistans Nuclear Missiles & Plutonium bombs repudiate the attacks
Peace is always in the mutual interest of parties tied up in conflict. One party does not do the other party any favors. It is the height of arrogance to convey the impression that peace talks are a reward for good behavior of one party. By portraying Pakistan as the guilty party, Delhi sabotages any prospect for peace. If the Americans and the Russians can smoke the peace pipe, so can the Indians and the Pakistanishowever it has to be done on the basis of dignity and mutual respect, not diktat and dictation.
There is much in common between India and Pakistan, but there is much that separates the countries. Mere cultural affinity and anathema to religion cannot wish the differences away. Bharat must recognize that Pakistanis do not see Delhi as the perfect model to emulate on anything. Therefore Delhi must stop wishing for a Pakistan in its own image. There are many routes to success, and Pakistanis admire the Chinese a lot more than they admire Indians.
It is not Delhis god given right to rule Kabul. Nor does Bharat extend from Kabul to the Raj Kalhani in the East. Bharati religions preach the eternal history of Bharat beyond its borders. If Bharat is a secular country then this transnational dreams of a greater Bharat must be brought back to reality. Every time Adhvani and Modi open their mouths, peace is sent back a decade.
Good relations with Pakistan begin with better treatment of Muslims in Bharatbeginning with the Kashmiris, but not just limited to them. The Gujaratis and the other downtrodden Muslims in Bharat must be treated as equal citizens, and things must move beyond tokenism (Azad, Fakhuddin & Kalam).
