To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (47643 ) 1/15/2005 5:10:27 AM From: IQBAL LATIF Respond to of 50167 Indian? As I'm about Kashmir poetry recital (sponsored by the Jammu-Kashmir SOAS society of which I am treasurer) my mind was drifting over to Hindustan. I remember Suman Palit discussed at length a South Asian Federation a while while back and I've always been intrigued by the concept. I promised to take up the issue but I never did instead writing the Arab East Trilogy, no doubt one of my best works, and turning my interest to Iraq's liberation. With war won and dusted, a foregone conclusion, and the American victorious in their efforts to revitalise Iraq and Afghanistan into new states I want to return to more esoteric topics such as state-building, national identity and civilization orientation. But the question to Suman should be aren't we Indian instead of merely South Asian? Of course this is what Indians, Hindus and particularly Muslims, insist upon and is what Indian identity is built upon. If the answer is yes then wouldn't Pakistan be a cipher, another Muslim endeavour that ended up in failure like the rest... Now before I handle such an intense question (intense that is for me) I want to explain my thought process. Like my father I quite sure of my impressive strides of originality, i.e. I know virtually noone who shares my mindset (or that of my father come to think of it) and which is why I'm controversial. I think fellow webloggers, when I was more active, explained the startling and seemingly haphazard ideas issuing from the cavern (a few come to mind like military rule is good for Pakistan and Muslims; Pashtuns should have tribal law; Israel and Palestine should be reintegrated). away by pointing out my (relatively) extreme youth*and consequent immaturity. As my handful of readers know very well I've been deeply influenced by writers and thinkers (most Jewish) ; primarily Samuel Huntington (extremely so in that I'm probably a Huntingtonian), Bernard Lewis (with whom I respectfully disagree with), Jared Diamond (who shaped my global view), Milton Friedman (though my readings of his works are somewhat sparser we are often in complete agreement) and Bernard Russell (though when i read Russell I had already my "ideology" in place and found myself agreeing rather than learning per se). From each of these thinkers I pick and choose to create my own thread of ideas for instance from Russell I share an extremely deep attachment for localism and federalism (I'm surelythe only 20yr to find congressional redistricting and provinicialism remotely interesting), whereas when I read Samuel Huntington's book Clash of Civilisation, at the age of thirteen, it so altered my outlook to the extent that I could never look at geopolitics in the same manner as I had done before. My traditional adolescent pride in Indo-Iranian "Aryan" cultures (i.e Zoroastrianism and Hinduism), fuelled no doubt by my early readings of Greek mythology at 8 & 9, complemented by a very anti-Muslim outlook (Arab conquerors were barbarians who destroyed sophisticated and fragile civilisations in the Middle East & South Asia) to a more rounded appreciation for Islamic civilisation. My thought process evolved philosophically so as to reconcile my hetrodox beliefs with pride in Pakistan, and consequently Islamic civilisation, thereby stimulating my thoughts on the "secular" Ummah. To be continued... *I started the weblog when I was 17 and most of my best writing, or most prolific, are between 17 and 18, at 19 I think the website started to trail off when I was 19 as I was writing to write rather than my thoughts. Zachary Latif 17:10 The Kashmir Poetry society. This is a continuation of my first post. Amazing event with superb organisation, kudos to Prez Nageela for pulling it off so well. JaKs is starting to put together some really great events and what can beat stunning Kashmiri chicks reciting poetry. I have to say that the girls were traditional Kashmir beauties, tall and slight with sharp features softened by piercing gray-blue eyes. Of course my anger got piqued when these stunning Lakshmis (actually they were Sunnis from Srinagir, thus the "true Kashmiris") went on exclaiming htey were from Kashmir. This obstinacy and vascillation is the primary cause for the dispute and frankly the Kashmiris wouldn't be so "oppressed" by either nation if htey were unequivocal in what they wanted. Kashmyriat, the fabled Kashmiri multi-ethnic culture spanning the communal divide, is nothing more than mythica fiction for the states of Jammu and Kashmir is an artificial polygloy patched up by warring Sikhs and sold off by the Brits to the Dogra dynasty. As to the uniqueness of the Valley's culture, there is no doubt Kashmir remains peerless in that the indigenous culture is neither Indian or Iranian. Indeed Kashmir forms the first stem as the Dardic Aryans and is the last suubstantive settlement by this noble race. However there is a claim to greatness in every South Asian ethno-nationality from the Pathans to the Tamils and the Bengalis. These cultures retain startling orignality and sophistication in that they have every right to be nations in their own right. However each region has cast their lot with either India or Pakistan and the Kashmiris must do the same to be earn the respect that their peoplehood entitles them to. As long as I live I will extort the right of every nation to self-determination but states exist to unite nations and forge a common destiny of them. No greater example can be found than that of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which welds the English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish nations under an August Monarch. Zachary Latif 22:10