Interesting, though this is part and parcel of Disney way of hiding show showing things.

This is the stupidist thing ever. Like "good Muslims" really don't know what gay is?!

A school friend of mine from Hunza says that this actually has more to do with China and the Karakoram Highway making "Gligit-Baltistan" more important. But I can see how this is one way of Pakistan trying force a Kashmir settlement.

Elite-Irony, I totally agree with you that Partition happened only because of crass party politics. It was a horrible tragedy that divided two provinces and had huge negative reprecussions for the whole Indian subcontinent. If Jaswant Singh's book helps shatter some of the foundational myths on both the Indian and Pakistani sides, only good can come of that.

Totally agree Joolz, all Islam-ed out here as well (it's worse when visiting Pakistan, where you cannot get away from it.... even the cricket team has to thank Allah before talking about their tactics and strategy--which actually helped them win for once)

Shameful behavior, especially given that in India, LGBT citizens have recently won a great victory and section 377 has been repealed. Still it wouldn't be the first time the diaspora is more conservative than the old country.

But we gay desis deserve the right to celebrate our independence too!

FYI, Pakistan has a national ID project. It's called NADRA, which I think stands for National Database and Registration Authority or something like that. I'm not really sure what the point of the whole thing is, but I would assume national security?

@sannuki,

I understand you have strong feelings about this but I think you are choosing to see only the negative aspect of Islam. I'm not an apologist for Taliban and AQ types, but they don't represent the vast majority of muslims out there. Most muslims are just like anybody else and like everybody else they believe that society at large should respect their religious figures. Most christians would not like Christ to be disrespected by being called a "pedophile" etc, same applies to muslims.

And "hate speech" is a real thing not just some PC concession as you seem to believe. Just like a lot of people find "holocaust denial" really offensive (as they should--and denial is different from legit questioning) many people find insluting cartoons or comments about the prophet offensive as well. Though I do understand how "hate speech" is too often used to shut down debate. For example, too often any and all criticism of the Israeli government is responded to by accusing the critic of being antisemitic.

@sannuki, I think you are clearly in the minority. most people would prefer that their religious figures and scriptures be respected by others, that's the only way we can all get along in a pluralistic society if we agree to respect (not necessarily agree with) each other's core beliefs. As I keep saying, you cannot judge 7th century Arabia from a 21st century US or Indian viewpoint. At that time, it was considered fine for adult men to marry young girls, so it wasn't "pedophilia" as we think of it today. Anyway, what do you hope to prove? Is discrediting the prophet or calling him "disgusting" meant to discredit Islam? Surely, you're smarter than that.

@Libero,

There's a difference between genuine criticism and spewing hatred against a people or a religion. And if "Islamaphobia" is meaningless, what about "anti-semitism?". Granted both these terms are often used to shut down debate, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist. I've come across too many desi blogs where the very mention of the words "muslim" or "pakistan" leads Indians to write the most bizarre things.

I'm not a hardline muslim and a totally secular person but I object to mischaracterizing or hating on a particular religion, whatever that religion happens to be. I think we need to accept that things need to be taken in their cultural context. Just because the prophet married a 9 year old doesn't make it acceptable for a man to do something like that in the modern age. Similarly, Gandhi's marriage at age 13 would not be accepted in today's India (to the best of my knowledge). Does this make Gandhi a bad person or a "pedophile"? I would argue, no. Similarly we cannot judge Muhammad by today's standards.

I have no problem with criticism. I agree with you that people should be free to analyse religions but that analysis has to be done with respect and the understanding that these are ideas that are very dearly held by a lot of people. I think insluting or disrespecting religious figures, whether Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Shiva, is totally unacceptable.

But what is to be gained by using terms such as "pedophilia" in reference to the prophet? Surely, one can make whatever points you want to make in a respectful manner? Every religion holds certain ideas or people sacred and don't accept those things being disrespected.

I understand totally that the concept of freedom of speech is different in western and islamic countries, but even western countries have laws against "hate speech".

As for your reference to Rushdie's "Satanic Verses". I have no problem with the book (it's actually one of my favorite novels) but even I feel that giving prostitutes the names of the prophet's wives was completely gratitutious.

@ Sannuki,

I find it extremely offensive that you would talk about the Prophet Muhammad's "pedophilia". One must remember that the culture of 7th century Arabia is not the culture of 21st century US (for example). In that day and age, child marriage was acceptable. Is it acceptable now? No, but that doesn't make the prophet a "pedophile". People who call him that only reveal their own Islamophobia.

Second, up until recent times (the 1930s or 40s), Hinduism allowed the practice of child marriage. You just need to watch Deepa Metha's movie "Water" to see the experience of a little girl who becomes a child bride and then very quickly a widow. I believe it was Gandhiji who banned this practice. So one can find practices that we would now consider reprehensible in all religions.

This is such terrible news. I was planning on going to visit my relatives in Lahore this summer, but now I'm seriously reconsidering it. I suppose it was expected that the militants would do something in reprisal for the operation in Swat, but it's horrible anyway. My thoughts are with the victims and their families.

She's absolutely right when she says "governments can't reduce themselves to how terrorists fight wars." No one denies that the LTTE has committed horrible atrocities, but the SL government shouldn't bring themselves down to that level by targeting civilians. Governments always have a larger responsibility than terrorist groups.

She's also right to make the point that the conflict didn't start with the Tigers and it won't end with the Tigers either.

I personally don't know a lot about the conflict in SL, but she didn't come across as particularly strident to me.

I think the generalization that women can't do "dark" stuff is flawed. Possibly Shamsie can't pull if off, but that doesn't mean that all women can't

Musharraf is completely nuts. "The Taliban is not an existential threat, but India is". But then he is a part of the Army and security establishment, so what is he really going to say? Also, he, like any other former leader, is not going to condemn himself and admit his mistakes.

I always try to write from a South Asian and not a Pakistani viewpoint, but it's hard as on blogs (as in real life) people hear that I'm from Lahore and start frothing at the mouth..... This is why I focus more on topics like art, culture, and music rather than politics. Sometimes I do feel like I have to jump in and put Pakistan in context for people who have really warped ideas about the country.

Ok, I'll concede you are right, but I still feel that the nuclear thing is not the main issue now. Anyway, I would rather focus on postive aspects of our common South Asian identity, rather than get into an India vs. Pakistan type of thing:)

"Men like adventure novels and women are interested in human relationships." That seems like too much of a generalization to me. I'm one man who loves novels that deal with human relationships, family sagas, comedies of manners. All this men are one way, women are the other seems pretty stupid to me.

Present-Indictive, I did not know the exact date that Pakistan's nuclear program started. As I've stated many times, I am not an expert on or particularly interested in military matters. I am an English literature graduate, so stuff like this is really not what I focus on. However, the quote you have given states that Pakistan's nuclear program started in response to the establishment and military's belief that India would probably go nuclear and if it did than Pakistan would have to do so as well. I may not personally agree with this, but does it not make sense that some people in the establishment would think like this?

Anyway, I think that the real issue is not nuclear weapons. After all, Pakistan and India are hardly the only countries in the world that have nukes.

Well, I'm not an expert on military affairs or geopolitics, but from what I understand the Pakistan army is really powerful and one of the biggest institutions in the country. What is the justification for having such a large army? It's the belief that India is the "enemy". If the Pakistani establishment admitted that India is not really the enemy, then they would be forced to have a critical debate on the army and would be forced to justify its power. Thus, peace is clearly not in the interests of the Army/ISI. Also, unfortunately, a lot of the self definition of the Pakistani state comes from being the "anti-India". This didn't necessarily have to be the case, but maybe the circumstances of partition and the rhetroric of the two-nation theory led to this happening. Pakistan is also made up of different ethnic groups, and maybe nothing other than Islam and being "anti-India" brings them together. I don't really know for sure, but this is a case that's posible to make.

Regarding the nuclear aresnal. With the Pak-India rhetoric and history, I can see why the army and security establishment felt it was necessary for Pak to have nukes if India had nukes. Again, I personally wish neither Pakistan or India felt the need to have nukes, but I also don't think focusing on which countries have nukes is really the issue.

This is a long response and I'm not an expert on these matters at all, but this is my effort to convince you and everyone on this thread that I'm a sensible, thinking South Asian and not some rabid Pakistani nationalist or "apologists" (names I'm often called on South Asian sites)

No, I don't think that's a possibility. Where did you get that idea from anything I wrote?

I am so happy that Congress won! It's a great victory for a secular India.

I agree with you that conflicts should be resolved peacefully. However, the conflict is many sided and involves India, Pakistan, and the Kashmiri people. You may be surprised to find that there are many blogs written by people in Kashmir who want independence from India. They don't necessarily want to be part of Pakistan, but they don't want to be part of India either.

The Ahmedi issue is irrelevant. In 1947, when Radcliffe drew that map, he had no way of knowing that ZA Bhutto would declare Ahmedis non-muslim (an action which I don't support by the way).

Anyway, the point is that this is an international conflict with a long history. India as well as Pakistan will have to negotiate. There are many young Indians now who feel that holding on to Kashmir against the will of the Kashmiris is only dragging India down. Just as Isreal and Palestine will have to agree on a two-state solution, Pakistan and India will have to agree on some solution to Kashmir.

I don't want to fight with you, though I do feel you are a rabid Pakistan-hater. I have nothing against India, but I will defend my country against unfair charges.

Ok, Pakistan doesn't want to "change borders" with India. The government has a legitimate position that Kashmir belongs to Pakistan. Whatever you or I think about this position, that is the region under dispute. It's not like Pakistan wants random parts of India (say Tamil Nadu). There is a specific conflict that as a Muslim-majority region, Kashmir should have gone to Pakistan. At the time the British left, India was also given the Muslim majority district of Gurdaspur because of land access to Kashmir. Basically if one accepts the two-nation theory (I'm not saying that I do) then Muslim-majority regions were supposed to go to Pakistan. Yes, there was the issue of Kashmir being a princely state and the Maharaja having the right to decide to accede to whichever country. Anyway, the issue has to be settled one way or the other if our countries are going to have peace. How it will be settled, I don't know, whether the LOC will be made the permanent border or Kashmir will be independent. The point is, there is one specific conflict which has two sides to it. But I don't expect rabid Pakistan-haters to understand that.

bowman, you are clearly rabidly anti-Pakistan and nothing I say is going to change your mind. But anyway, Pakistan and India have a long history of bad relations (to say the least). They've fought three wars in the last 60 years. I think it's a legitimate perspective from a security and military standpoint that if your "enemy" has nuclear weapons, you need to have them too. Do I wish that Pakistan didn't feel the need to have nukes? yeah, but unfortunately that's the way it is. Anyway, the US has nukes, Isreal has nukes, India has nukes, so I don't think we need to obsess about Pakistan having nukes as if this is some horrible, egregious thing.

"What Pakistan needs is to have itself invaded by the Americans". I can't believe you're seriously suggesting that and even comparing Pakistan to Iraq. We all saw how well the Iraq war went. US soliders are still there. Plus, that whole war was conducted on false premises.

As for Pakistan developing nuclear weapons during civilian rule. Why shouldn't they have developed nuclear weapons? India developed nuclear weapons and as long as India has them, Pakistan needs to have them too. That's just how geopolitics works.

Actually, no. I started right where you said at 3:02 (I just watched it again to make sure). He never says "we built schools with the money". He says that what was needed was investiment in the people rather than just the military, and US policy didn't recognize that. He then moves on to answering the question about Zardari.

Umber desi, I've just watched it again. He doesn't say that Musharraf's govt. used the money to build schools. He says "Actually, the attitude in the US over the last several years has been that all you need to defeat terrorism is muscle. So you support the military, but then half of Pakistan's school-age children don't go to school". He never actually says that the govt. used the money to build schools. But maybe you and I just interpret things differently.

No, I don't think he even answered the question, just said that solely funding the military rather than the people is not a good strategy. As an ambassador, I don't think he can answer the question directly.

Umber desi, He did say that the Taliban can pay their foot soldiers more money than the Pak. govt. can. He also said that many of the school-age children are not in school. I didn't hear him say, though, that the Pak. govt. invested US aid money into building schools. What I think he was saying was that the policy of supporting the military to fight the Taliban might not have been the best policy, and that US should rather aid the Pakistani people for health and education.

Mr. X, you're right. But, if the US was giving aid to Pakistan, they should have given that aid for the people and not the military (I think that's what Haqqani is saying).

I don't think he actually said that the Pak govt. used US money to build schools. I may have missed it, but I heard him say that the money should be used for the people and not the military. Additionally, he made the point that many Pakistani children of school-going age aren't in school. Maybe this caused the confusion that he said US money went to build schools?

Haqqani is definitely a good ambassador. Whatever we may think of him personally (and he is known to be a pretty sleazy man), he certainly does a great job of defending Pakistan's interests and making the country look as good as possible under the circumstances.

Wow, Pablo, someone's really anti-Pakistani. I have no problems with criticism of Pakistan's government (I have plenty of criticism of my own). I was objecting to describing our ambassador as "shaitan". I'm sure you understand that that's a very loaded term and not really conducive to discussion.

Secondly, as Ambassador Haqqani pointed out in his interview, the mujaheeden and the Taliban were created by the US to fight the Soviets. The US approved using of "jihad" and "Islam" against their enemies. Is it suprising then if Pakistan's intelligence agency co-opted these same forces for their own strategic reasons? Haqqani admitted this, and he also said that we (the US and Pakistan) have hopefully realized the problems that this kind of strategy creates.

Finally, one has to realize that fighting a war against the Taliban is a complex process and frought with problems. How would India react if US pressure forced it to declare war on a section of its own people, which then led to a major humanitarian crisis. According the NYT, the migration of the IDP's is the largest migration since Partition. We have to realize that there may have been sound reasons that the Pak Army and govt. were reluctant to fight the Taliban.

What did Haqqani say that was so wrong? He made a case that the US should have invested in Pakistan's people and not it's military. And he also said that Pakistani society has finally woken up and realized that we can't negotiate with the Taliban and we have to fight them. I don't think he said anything really wrong. Yes, he is the Pakistani Ambassador, so he has to spin things in such a way that Pakistan looks good, but all ambassadors do that.

Also, Mr. X, as a Pakistani-American, I don't appreciate your referring to Haqqani as "shaitan". I feel that doesn't promote a respectful atmosphere for all of us as South Asians to discuss the issues facing our region. Thanks.

Great Article. I was so glad to find it. I feel that A Passage to India and The Raj Quartet are essential reading to understand colonialism and the decline of the Raj. The Raj Quartet is especially interesting because of the Daphne Manners- Hari Kumar-Ronald Merrick triangle. Daphne isn't the typical memsahib, and thus can forge a connection with Hari; Hari (asides from the color of his skin) is an English Public schoolboy, and Ronald Merrick resents Hari's class superiority. The books really get at the heart of how colonialism destroys the colonizers just as much as the colonized.

Another great work of art in this same vein is Stoppard's Indian Ink which is set in the 1930s and deals with issues of imperialism and identity. It asks what it means to be British or Indian.

Of course the US and the international community should be concerned, but the idea that Pakistan is going to fall to the Taliban is media hype and unrealistic. Btw, Imran Khan is not really a credible source (he himself has ties with Islamists).

The Pakistan government and Army ceded Swat and FATA because 1) they didn't want to fight their own people (there is a lot of anti-americanism in Pakistan, some of it justifiably because of the drone attacks that kill civilians). 2) They didn't have much power in FATA anyway. But I think now, people are realizing that this is a battle that they are going to have to fight. The majority of the Pakistani people don't support the Taliban or fundementalist Islam in general (remember they have never elected Islamic parties into power).
Punjabis certainly don't want to live under sharia. Even in FATA, many people advocate sharia because the regular justice system is not responsive to their cases. There is a class aspect to this as well, which is underplayed in most Western analyses which prefer to simply see this as being about fundementalism.

With all due respect, RC, while there are certainly elements in the Pakistan Army who are sympathetic to the Taliban, I don't believe this is the case with the majority of the Army. Incidently, while the Taliban was the Pak. Army's "project", let's not forget who was responsible for training and funding the Mujaheeden against the Soviets. The US created and strengthened these people for their own purposes, and now Frankenstein's monster is coming back to hurt it. The situation is complicated and not all Pakistan's fault.

In any case, the US and the Pakistan Army are not going to let the country fall to the Taliban (another vague term that plays in the media, Western media outlets generally can't tell the difference between different Pushtun groups). The kind of vision that the Taliban have doesn't play well in Punjab, especailly among the urban classes.

The Taliban are not going to take over Pakistan. It's just media hysteria. And Stewert is totally right that the US interest in Pakistan extends only to its nuclear weapons.

While appeasing the Taliban in Swat was absolutely the wrong thing for Zardari's government to do, there is no way the Pak army is going to let them take over the country. The people of Punjab (esp. the urban middle classes) realize that the Taliban are a huge threat to the kinds of lives they want to lead. The US is also not going to let Pakistan fall to the extremists.

Thanks for this review. As someone who has studied a bit of Hindustani music, I'm really looking forward to reading this novel :)

That's the praise "It was in tune"? If you're competing in a music show, you have to be better than "in tune". I haven't watched "Idol" a lot this year so I don't know if being on pitch is a new thing, but as a musician, that's not something that should really be remarked on.

"When your work becomes repetitive, you should work through your issues with a shrink not on stage" Totally agree. Unfortunately, a lot of writers tend to go on and on writing about the same things. Take Jhumpa Lahiri, for instance. Even Rushdie seems to be written out. I guess when you become famous and critically acclaimed, it's hard to know when to stop.

I think this is a cute little video, it's funny to see Congress exploiting the "Slumdog" fame

This is such terrible news. When militants bomb mosques when people are inside, then we realize that they are truely beyond religion. As "muslims" they don't have any qualms about even killing other muslims?

Good for Habib Jalib! About time he got recognized :)

I read this book a few months back. It's really good and I'd highly recommend it to anyone interested in Indian Classical Music:)

I am horrified to hear about the attacks in Mumbai. My prayers are with the victims and their families.

However, we really need to stop blaming Islam and Pakistan. The terrorists who carry out these types of attacks do not represent any religion. We should look at the root causes of this type of behavior, whatever those causes end up being, rather than immediately leaping to blame one religion or the other.

I really enjoyed "The White Tiger" and was hoping for it to win the Booker. I haven't read "Sea of Poppies", but have read some of Ghosh's other works ("The Glass Palace" and "The Hungry Tide"). While I found both interesting, particularly "Glass Palace" for its epic qualities, it sometimes tended to become to soap-operatic. In my opinion, Ghosh is not an Indian writer of the first rank, certainly not to be compared to someone like Rushdie or Vikram Seth (I'm thinking of "A Suitable Boy" here), but again that's just my subjective opinion.

Returning to "The White Tiger", I thought the narrative voice was really well done, the character of Balram was interesting, and the framing device of letters to the Chinese Premier was clever. Some of the observations that Adiga made about the master/servant relationship and the class structure in general were really good. However, I wouldn't place this novel in the category of "great literature". That said, it was Adiga's first novel and it would be unfair to expect perfect craftsmanship. I offer him my congratulations on winning the prize and I look forward to reading his next work.

The White Tiger was an amazing book. I loved the narrative voice. Really glad that it was shortlisted. I agree with the Rusdhie not making the cut (haven't read it all the way through, but it's not his best work). I'm kind of disappointed that "Exploding Mangoes" wasn't shortlisted, but I guess you can't get all your picks:)