http://www.nydailynews.com/


M WAQAR..... "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary.Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." --Albert Einstein !!! NEWS,ARTICLES,EDITORIALS,MUSIC... Ze chi pe mayeen yum da agha pukhtunistan de.....(Liberal,Progressive,Secular World.)''Secularism is not against religion; it is the message of humanity.'' تل ده وی پثتونستآن
http://www.nydailynews.com/
A child disappears. Police are called. Nothing happens.Poor parents in India say police don't bother to investigate when their children disappear. A third are never found.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Union home minister Sushilkumar Shinde on Monday made a statement in Parliament on the rape of a five-year-old girl in the nation capital and the police response to it, but ended up courting controversy by claiming that such incidents happened not only in Delhi, but all across the country. Making a statement in the Lok Sabha amid noisy protests over the minor's rape and other issues, Shinde apprised the MPs of the early breakthrough in the case, resulting in arrest of the two accused. While Manoj, the main accused, was arrested on Saturday from Bihar's Muzaffarpur district, another co-accused, Pradeep, was apprehended from Lakhisarai on Sunday night. Shinde said the SHO of the police station in Gandhinagar and the investigating officer (IO) have been placed under suspension, taking note of the lapses in investigation of the case. "The joint CP (vigilance) has been asked to conduct an inquiry. The joint CP (vigilance) shall also enquire into the allegation that the local police paid some money to the father of the victim to hush up the case," he informed the MPs. However, in a comment seen as rather insensitive, Shinde's written statement sought to underline that "such incidents (of rape) have been reported from other parts of the country also". The reference was apparently to the alleged rape of a four-year-old girl in Seoni, Madhya Pradesh. The purpose behind underlining that child rapes were not Delhi-centric was obviously to counter the opposition's attempts to use the Gandhinagar rape incident for political mileage ahead of assembly polls due later this year. Both Delhi and Madhya Pradesh go to polls in November. The fact that Shinde's statement was silent on action against the errant police officers may also do little to quell the protests in the national Capital. Shinde said medical examination of the first accused, arrested from Muzaffarpur district on April 19, has been conducted for DNA, he said. The accused is presently under judicial custody. The home minister, who was briefing MPs against the backdrop of major uproar and street protests against the five-year-old's gangrape, told the House that the girl was reported missing on April 15 and an FIR was registered at 10 pm. "The police started searching and conducting raids in the east Delhi area," he said. In the early hours of April 17, 2013, the mother of the girl heard the weeping of the child from the ground floor of the same house where they lived on the first floor, Shinde said. The ground floor was found locked from outside and the police, when informed, broke open the door and recovered the child, he said. The girl was rushed to Swami Dayanand Hospital, which is the nearest, and preliminary medico-legal case confirmed "sexual assault of brutal kind," Shinde said. The girl's condition was reported to be stable after an operation conducted on April 18. She was later shifted to AIIMS on April 19 for better treatment and presently her condition is reported to be stable, he said. On April 19, some protesters were holding demonstration at the Dayanand Hospital where the minister concerned of the Delhi government was visiting to enquire about the health of the child along with the local MP, Shinde said. Some protesters tried to break through the police cordon around the hospital in order to enter the premises, he said. An ACP was seen on camera slapping one of the lady protesters, the home minister said, adding the officer B S Ahlawat has been placed under suspension with immediate effect. "A departmental enquiry shall be conducted by an officer to be appointed by the government of NCT of Delhi," he added.
By Yasser Latif Hamdani
http://ahmadiyyatimes.blogspot.com/The real battle is not between Islamic and secular forces whoever or whatever they may be, depending on who you ask. The battle now is of ideas Maulana Fazlur Rehman has taken umbrage at the Election Commission’s code of conduct in so far as it bans the use of religion for election purposes. The good Maulana says that this is against the ideology of Pakistan. It is not clear if Maulana fully appreciates the irony of his statement given his own history and his party’s repeated denunciations of the Pakistan Movement as the work of the British. Let us recap. What we have in the form of Jamiat-e-Ulema-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) is the ideological successor to the Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind. It is not, as some assert, a successor to Shabbir Ahmed Usmani’s breakway Jamiat-e-Ulema-Islam (JUI) that had endorsed the Pakistan Movement in the closing stages of the Raj. Rehman’s father Maulana Mufti Mahmood was a stalwart of the Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind, who opposed the partition till the very end. In 1971, after the fall of Dacca, Mahmood famously said about Pakistan: “Thank God we were not part of the making of this sin.” As for the party, Mahmood’s Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind faction, left behind in Pakistan, merged with Usmani’s JUI in 1948, and then took it over in 1956. The JUI-F has on numerous occasions declared that the founding fathers, in particular Jinnah, were British agents. Rehman in his time as the opposition leader in the National Assembly from 2002 to 2007 made it a point to remove the father of the nation’s portrait from his office. There are two things that one can conclude from this. Either Islam is to be conflated with the ideology of Pakistan, in which case Rehman is against Islam as was his father. Or the ideology of Pakistan whatever it is has nothing to do with Islam. Either way the good Maulana has to explain what his stance on Pakistan is. This leads to the question why the orthodox divines of the Deoband supported the supposedly secular Indian nationalist Congress Party instead of the Muslim League, especially since now Rehman believes that the ideology of Pakistan is the same as Islam. To answer this question we have to expand our horizons and delve into the history of Muslim politics upon the advent of colonial rule. There were two main responses to British rule amongst Muslims. First was the rejectionist view taken by the seminary at Deoband. They rejected modern education and British rule altogether. The second response was what developed out of Aligarh: the Muslim modernist view. The Muslim modernists believed that the way forward for the Muslims of India was to embrace colonial rule, educate themselves and bring themselves at par with the Hindus, especially in vying for a piece of the economic pie, jobs and sovereignty. Therefore the Muslim League and the ideology of Muslim nationalism developed out of the modernist school of thought and not the religious one. Meanwhile, the secular Congress Party, which had in its ranks men like Mohammad Ali Jinnah at the time, took a decidedly cultural turn under Mahatma Gandhi, who emphasised the ancient identity of India, religious values and ethos of the common man, and who by his insistence on bringing religion into politics made religious identities non-negotiable. Not content with the havoc the Mahatma unleashed upon the Hindus, he went about co-opting Muslim mullahs through the Khilafat Movement as well against the advice of both Hindu leaders like C R Das and Muslim leaders like Jinnah. Gandhi encouraged Muslims from the Deoband and their newly formed Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind to come full-fledged into politics. The ulema were fiery anti-colonialists but were pliable when it came to issues of economics and politics. After all, the ulema, content to be shepherds of their flock, did not need jobs or were not going to compete with the Hindu bourgeoisie for economic opportunities. As one Congress stalwart noted in retrospect, Gandhi unleashed orthodoxy on the Muslims of India and it was this attitude “that rebuffed rationalist leaders like Jinnah” and alienated the Muslim League from the Congress. It did more than that. It convinced the nascent Muslim bourgeoisie that in order to survive they would have to organise politically as Sir Syed Ahmed Khan had advised them long ago. The Congress under Nehru exacerbated things in the UP in 1937 when it tried to play Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind and Majlis-e-Ahrar against the Muslim League. The Muslim bourgeoisie and the salariat came to view — quite accurately — the Muslim religious orthodoxy as hand in glove with the Hindu bourgeoisie, which it saw as a threat to the economic interests of the Muslim community as a whole. The rest as they say is history, but that is of course until the Maulana came up with his spurious argument that barring religion from electioneering is in contravention of the ideology of Pakistan. The reason why the good Maulana’s antecedents opposed the Muslim League, and especially Jinnah, was on several counts. First of all they believed that the League had too many Shias, too many Ismailis, too many Ahmedis in its fold to be an Islamic organisation. Second they felt, again quite rightly, that the classes that were leading the League were in it for economic and political gains and not religious ones. Third, the nationalist ulema believed that given a chance, the Muslims could re-establish Islamic rule over all of India. Finally, they believed that Pakistan if it came into being would ultimately be a ‘kafir’ (infidel) government of Muslims. Therefore, they endorsed what was ostensibly secular composite Indian nationalism and rejected the prima facie confessional nationalism of the League, despite the attendant contradiction. Consequently, it makes no sense when the Maulana declares that the coming elections will be a battle between secular forces and religious forces. After all, his father had endorsed what — if we accept Maulana’s recent exposition of the ideology of Pakistan in toto — was secular composite Indian nationalism. Meanwhile, he and his party are on record as denouncing the creation of Pakistan as a British plot to divide the Muslims and deprive them of the opportunity to establish Islamic rule over all of India. If the battle is between secular, i.e. mainstream politicians versus those who sell religion for a living, that battle has been won repeatedly. It was won in 1946, when the Muslim League routed the Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind, Majlis-e-Ahrar and other Islamist allies of the Congress. It was won when the Awami League and the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) defeated all the religious parties in united Pakistan in 1970. It was won again in 1977, 1988, 1990, 1993, 1997, 2002 and 2008. It will be won yet again when the non-religious and mainstream parties PPP, PML-N, PTI, MQM and ANP rout the religious parties yet again on May 11, 2013. The real battle is not between Islamic and secular forces whoever or whatever they may be, depending on who you ask. The battle now is of ideas. Do we want Pakistan to become a sectarian dystopia or do we want it to exist as a normal democratic state? It does not matter if you are religious or non-religious, the real question is whether we are prepared to do what is right for Pakistan. The writer is a lawyer based in Lahore and the author of the book Jinnah: Myth and Reality.
http://www.rferl.org/An Afghan presidential spokesman has said President Hamid Karzai will travel to Brussels on April 23 to meet U.S. Secretary of State of State John Kerry and senior Pakistani officials to discuss the faltering Afghan peace process. Aimal Faizi, Karzai's chief spokesman, said the meeting has been arranged to repair ties between Kabul and Islamabad. Tensions between the two neighbors have soared recently over border disputes and the failing reconciliation process. On April 22, Faizi said Pakistan had failed to deliver on its promises regarding the reconciliation process, adding that Afghans are losing patience with Islamabad. He said, "Our message to Pakistan is enough is enough -- this time we will tell Pakistan that our people's patience is running out and we can't wait for Pakistan to deliver on Afghan peace promises."