A Muslim Pope?

For those interactors hyperventilating about economic union with India, here is a letter to the editor on how regular Indians feel about Pakistan.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006 01 03 story_3-1-2006_pg3_7

Watershed year

Sir: I am convinced that 2006 will be a watershed year in the relationships between India and Pakistan. I do not know however whether it would turn out to be good, bad or really ugly. India would like to help Pakistan in its efforts for economic and social development, provided Pakistan gives up its confrontational attitude towards it. Despite having a million skilled and qualified personnel in information and software industries ? likely to increase to about two million by 2010 ? India faces a shortage of manpower. Indian companies are therefore forced to outsource. Currently about 67 countries are benefiting from this. Why should Pakistan deprive itself of the opportunity? But Indian government is under pressure from public opinion to seriously consider limiting relations with Pakistan to minimum diplomatic requirements.

In the end the relationship between India and Pakistan will be defined largely by Pakistan’s attitude.
VIPUL THAKORE
London

---

And that is excatly what I have been promoting from this side of the border.

Respectfully submitted,

re: Salim`s post
(Punjabi bhangRa, which, along with Yoga, is the future of keeping the subcontinent in good shape..)
ROTFL!!
Sridhar

re:#628 by Salim_Chauhan
Salimbhai,
Even you must know that a political union is an impossibility. Can the 2 nations at least form an economic freemarket, thereby reaping a rich harvest of fast economic growth (Pak has more to benefit from the huge Indian market than India).
Following an economic union, slow political normalization (as Ras said in an earlier post) should be attempted. These may include:
1. Putting visas on a fast track
2. Visa-free entry for academics, journalists, students on cultural exchage visits etc
3. Opening up admissions to each other`s universities. For eg, Pakis should be able to compete in IITs, medical entrance exams in India, vice versa. This will have a salutary effect on normalization process
4. Allow newspapers, periodicals (at least the ones known for impartial coverage; i am not talking the vernacular papers here) free access across the border
You may add many more to the above list but even above is a big deal. The suspicion, hatred is so much that the task is not going to be easy.
Sridhar

re:#630 by upman7626
Welcome to Chowk.
good post.
Look forward to hearing more from you, especially on the subject of Syrian Christians, Arundhati Roy etc etc.
Nice to know there is someone still in India who likes Gandhi.
Saw a hindi movie (not your regular Bollywood flick; this one was dealing with a serious subject) called ``Mainey Gandhi ko nahin mara`` with some good acting by Anupam kher. The movie ends with a reproach to Indians for having forgotten the message of the Mahatma. A good movie to watch if one likes serious kind of stuff.
Sridhar

re: Manto`s post
(As for your optimism about us Pakistanis clamouring for reunification- it won`t have happen in 10 000 years...)
The big question is if Pak will last another 20 years.
Only time will tell.
Sridhar

For your reading pleasure

---

And especially for Ahmed Madani Sahib, the Mother Jones magazine is an established liberal magazine for several decades.

By reading this piece, we can at least see what masadi has be trying to articulate regarding US elite, etc.

It is obvious that President Dwight D. Eisenhower was the one who started promoting with Said Ramadan, who somehow befriended Maulana Moudodi of the JI.....

This article was really an eye opener for me. To read the complete text of this article, you will have to get a paper copy from your local bookstore.

---

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2006/01/holy_warrior.html

Cold War, Holy Warrior

In the fall of 1953, the Oval Office was the stage for a peculiar encounter between President Dwight D. Eisenhower and a young Middle-Eastern firebrand. In the muted black-and-white photograph recording the event, the grandfatherly, balding Ike, then 62, stands gray-suited, erect, his elbows bent and his fists clenched as if to add muscle to some forceful point. To his left is an olive-skinned Egyptian in a dark suit with a neatly trimmed beard and closely cropped hair, clutching a sheaf of papers behind his back, staring intently at the president. He is just 27 years old, but he already has more than a decade of experience deep inside the violent and passionate world of militant Islam, from Cairo to Amman to Karachi. Alongside him are members of a delegation of scholars, mullahs, and activists from India, Syria, Yemen, Jordan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, some dressed in suits, others wearing robes and shawls.

The president’s visitor that September day was Said Ramadan, a key official and ideologue of a secretive, underground fraternity of Islamic fundamentalists known as the Muslim Brotherhood. As he stood at the president’s side, Ramadan appeared respectable, a welcome guest if not a fellow statesman.

Officially, Ramadan was in the United States to attend a colloquium on Islamic culture at Princeton University, cosponsored by the Library of Congress. It was an august event, held with much pomp and circumstance in Princeton’s Nassau Hall. Delegates sat neatly arrayed in stiff-backed pews in the high-ceilinged Faculty Room and attended lavish luncheons, receptions, and garden parties in the shade of bright fall foliage.

According to the published proceedings, the conference was the fortuitous result of the fact that a number of celebrated personages from the Middle East were visiting the country. “During the summer of 1953 there happened to be an unusually large number of distinguished Muslim scholars in the United States,” the document notes. But the participants didn’t just “happen” to have crossed the Atlantic. The colloquium was organized by the U.S. government, which funded it, tapped participants it considered useful or promising, and bundled them off to New Jersey. Conference organizers had visited Cairo, Bahrain, Baghdad, Beirut, New Delhi, and other cities to scout for participants. Footing the bill—to the tune of $25,000, plus additional expenses for transporting attendees from the Middle East—was the International Information Administration (IIA), a branch of the State Department that had its roots in the U.S. intelligence community; supplementary funding was sought from U.S. airlines and from Aramco, the U.S. oil consortium in Saudi Arabia. Like many of the participants, Ramadan, a hard-edged ideologue and not a scholar, was visiting the conference as an all-expenses-paid guest.

A now-declassified IIA document labeled “Confidential—Security Information” sums up the purpose of the project: “On the surface, the conference looks like an exercise in pure learning. This in effect is the impression desired.” The true goal, the memo notes, was to “bring together persons exerting great influence in formulating Muslim opinion in fields such as education, science, law and philosophy and inevitably, therefore, on politics…. Among the various results expected from the colloquium are the impetus and direction that may be given to the Renaissance movement within Islam itself.” At the time, the United States was just beginning to feel its way around the Middle East, and American orientalists and academics were debating the extent to which political Islam might serve as a tool for American influence in the region.

For an organization established as a secret society, with a paramilitary arm that was responsible for assassinations and violence, to be characterized as a harbinger of a rebirth of Islam may seem odd. But such a view was entirely in character with U.S. policy at a time when virtually anyone who opposed communism was viewed as a potential ally. Whenever I interviewed CIA and State Department officials who served in the Middle East between World War II and the fall of the Soviet Union, they would repeat, almost like a catechism, that Islam was seen as a barrier both to Soviet expansion and to the spread of Marxist ideology among the masses. “We thought of Islam as a counterweight to communism,” says Talcott Seelye, an American diplomat who, while serving in Jordan in the early 1950s, paid a visit to Said Ramadan. “We saw it as a moderate force, and a positive one.” Indeed, adds Hermann Eilts, another veteran U.S. diplomat who was stationed in Saudi Arabia in the late ’40s, American officials in Cairo had “regular meetings” with Ramadan’s then-boss, Muslim Brotherhood leader Hassan al-Banna, “and found him perfectly empathetic.”

Over the four decades after Ramadan’s visit to the Oval Office, the Muslim Brotherhood would become the organizational sponsor for generation after generation of Islamist groups from Saudi Arabia to Syria, Geneva to Lahore—and Ramadan, its chief international organizer, would turn up, Zeliglike, as an operative in virtually every manifestation of radical political Islam. The hardcore Islamists of Pakistan (see “Among the Allies,” page 44), whose acolytes created the Taliban in Afghanistan and who have provided succor to Al Qaeda since the 1990s, modeled their organization on the Brotherhood. The regime of the ayatollahs in Iran grew out of a secret society called the Devotees of Islam, a Brotherhood affiliate whose leader in the 1950s was the mentor of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist organization, began as an official branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. The radical-right Egyptian Islamic Jihad and allied groups, whose members assassinated President Anwar Sadat of Egypt in 1981 and which merged with Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda in the 1990s, grew out of the Brotherhood in the 1970s. And some of the Afghan leaders who spearheaded the anti-Soviet jihad that was run by the CIA in the 1980s, and who helped bin Laden build the network of “Arab Afghans” that was Al Qaeda’s forerunner, were Brotherhood members.

It’s no exaggeration to say that Ramadan is the ideological grandfather of Osama bin Laden. But Ramadan, the Muslim Brotherhood, and their Islamist allies might never have been able to plant the seeds that sprouted into Al Qaeda had they not been treated as U.S. allies during the Cold War and had they not received both overt and covert support from Washington; Ramadan himself, documents suggest, was recruited as an asset by the CIA.

The United States and its partners in nations like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan didn’t create radical political Islam, whose theological forebears in the Middle East can be traced back to the eighth century. But consider, for a moment, an analogy with a movement closer to home. In America, Christian fundamentalism dates back at least to the 1840s, and right-wing evangelicals were an inchoate force throughout the 20th century. Yet until the emergence of the Moral Majority, the Christian Coalition, and such leaders as Jerry Falwell, Tim LaHaye, and Pat Robertson in the late 1970s, the religious right had no true political leaders and very little real-world impact. Similarly, the Islamic right did not arise as a true political movement until the emergence of Banna, Ramadan, and their co-thinkers. By tolerating, and in some cases aiding, the development of these early activists, the United States helped give radical Islamism the structure and leadership that turned it into a global political hurricane.

---

With all the love and respect for my beloved Pakistan,

I respectfully submit,

Since Anil ji has honored me by mentioning my name, I would just say that many many Indians wish nothing but the very best for both Salim bhai and Yasser.

Nationalism has always had my support. On the other hand, I have been brought up in a tradition that mercilessly hammers into one`s head the ideal of unity in diversity, until that ideal is no more a mere platitude. It becomes one`s creed.

Whether our common future unfolds as Salim bhai would like, or as my friend Yasser would like, if we are able to achieve a part of what you two aspire for, we would all be better off than we are today.

Anil, #633 {``atleast I get the impression that younger Pakistani intellectuals are living in the past more than the younger Indians. I may be wrong, but over a period of time it is bound to change and together they will find the solution for the future.
I have faith and hope, therefore, undoing partition is a bad idea.``}

Anil,
Happy New Year to you and your family. You and I share the same goals and aspirations for our people. How we get there is not as important as getting there, as long as it happens with peace and freedom. The future you described is indeed upon us. I can see how many young Indians are preoccupied with improving their lives. I am sure that Pakistani youth will follow suit. I just want to accelerate the process. Call me impatient. Why reinvent the wheel? If Pakistanis can learn to copy & paste on Chowk, they can certainly recognize how and why the gains are being made by Indians - tolerance, use of English, elevating religion to a personal concern, allowing people to form their own views, genuine democracy, rendering provincialism irrelevant, and rewarding those who excel.

Undoing partition would be a symbolic and powerful gesture in getting rid of the cursed legacy of the past. We could all admit the mistakes made in the name of religion and vow never to do it again. Anyway, as long as we get there. Thanks,

Salim Sahib:

I admire your views as much as I admire Yasser, and Kaalchakra`s views. To look for future`s starting point in the past is waste of creative enegery. The startting for the future can only be from the present. Many bad things have happend in South Asia due to India and Pakistan confrontation. However, many great things have happened in the world, despite this enimosity. There is a strong and enlightened yet very proud of being Indian or Pakistani has emerged. The life and time of your grandfather and my father were more dogmatic, religion played important part, education was limited to elite, global access was minimal, technology had hardly touched individuals (today villagers have cell phones, and TV etc.). The knowledge base to look for solutions, was solely based on the past history or looking upto the British. None of this is the case now. Why would you not let the younger generation find their own solutions, rather than waste energy and resource to undo the past. Media and communication empowers individuals in such a big way that institutionalized religions feel threatend. Could Mukhtaran Mai`s grandmother have imagined that if her grand daughter was gang-raped, then the news will be all over the world, and she will be invited in America to receive award?

Do you think anyone can stop, when in the next few years, the satellite TV starts beaming not only entertainment but also health and medical care information, and even Harvard classses to anyone who wants to listen and benefit. The media will be the real missionary which will have greater and faster impact than the human missionaries had. This time message will be different, no doubt religious bigots will use it too, but when some one sees the religious channel and misses out, while his next door neighbor see eductional and health channel and is more prosperous. The choice will be his to make.

The lives will be impacted, and when the global trade becomes more efficient, as goods can be shipped to London from Sialkot faster than say Karachi, and money through electronic fund transfer can be recieved even before the goods reached. The choices will multiply. For example, if world`s soccer ball market is accessible to the maker in Sialkot, the profits will flow into Sialkot`s economy rather than in the hands of the middlemen sitting in Dubai or London. These are inevitabilities and will happen. Just great things happened in the world while Indian - Pakistan were fuming and fighting over Indian Kashmir, as Paksitan already has its Kashmir. In such scenario, the institutionalized religions will play smaller and smaller role.

Right now what options are there for young and bright in Lahore and Karachi. I have seen and talked to the young and bright in Bangalore, Delhi and Mumbai. They do not want to settle down in the U.S., and are indeed have their own small and growing global business. Their religion is their talent and their determination to succeed. Will they do business with Pakistan, of course.

May be Chowk is not a representative, but looking at interactions here, atleast I get the impression that younger Pakistani intellectuals are living in the past more than the younger Indians. I may be wrong, but over a period of time it is bound to change and together they will find the solution for the future.

I have faith and hope, therefore, undoing partition is a bad idea.

Anil Kapuria

Ranjit #629, {``Who fought against the British to save the Mughals? The hindus did in 1857. If communal relations were that bad, all hindus would line up with the british. It never happened. In fact, the hindus fought the british in 1857. ...Pakistanis are still as desi as Indians if not more in food habits, language, cultural interests. Today Shahrukh Khan and Bollywood are as important to Pakistan as Islam itself. That is a real case of blood is thicker than water. :}

Ranjit,
Very good - spoken from the heart and expressed so eloquently. Yes, 1857 should refute any notion of TNT, Hindus vs Muslim - destined to fight. Nana Sahib, Tantia Tope, JhaNsi ki Rani, and before them Tipu Sultan, Sirajuddaulah, Hyder Ali are all testament to this common heritage, common goals, and common adversity. People should watch Amir Khan in his excellent role as Mangal Pandey to understand the real Indians.

Ranjit, my friend, what we need to do is to take back the facade of religion from the hate-mongers. Right-wing Hindutva fanatics and Jihadist Mullah terrorists have usurped center stage when it comes to Hinduism and Islam. Deny them this refuge, this excuse, this strength that they misuse to attract the worst in our midst and to spread hatred, violence, and death. They have no agenda other than pointing out who is bad, who should be ostracized, who should be killed, who should be burned, and who should rule over everyone. The only change these losers can claim is their expensive and uncanny ability to get street names, city names, and names of parks and zoos changed to those of their own heroes. Reason, logic, and love always wins in the end.

Upman7627, {``I have been reading several of your posts and feel that warm glow of a united Hindustan myself, although I have always been and remain a skeptic. ...My mother tongue is Malayalam- but I understand the fine nuances of Ghalib’s poetry, speak Bengali and a mongrel-ish Hindi/Urdu fluently, appreciate the understated-ness of serious Bengali cinema and the buffoonery of Bollywood, and can even jive to bhangra. I love the noisiness of Indian politics- the ideological as well as the power politicians, the rise and rise of the un-scrubbed (Laloo and such)- to the discomfort of the middle classes, and the institutions that continue to exist among all this clutter. And I have always known that partition was a tremendous mistake, just because I have known how India has treated me. Yes I have been disappointed by the BJP’s rise and the fascination it still holds for some middle class Hindus. And nothing has affected my notion of India so negatively as the post-Godhra riots- esp the Gujarati Hindu silence on it. But I am aware these are essentially aberrations and of the corrective forces at play in India, and will continue to hope.``}

Upman7626, Thanks,
First of all Upman Sahib, a Happy New Year to your and your family. I welcome this opportunity to share this dream of a united Hindustan with you and others - Ranjit, Anil, Bolta_Aina, jut to name a few. Even Ras is a closet reunification aspirant, albeit gradually and one step at a time. :)

I love the way you described the kaleidoscope of India through your own mixed salad of Malayalam, Ghalib, Bengali and Bollywood cinema and the best unifier of all - Punjabi bhangRa, which, along with Yoga, is the future of keeping the subcontinent in good shape. :)

One can`t help but root for Gandhiji, with his self-described discomfort in England, his roller coaster episode in South Africa, and the greatest thing that happened in his life - being thrown off the train by white supremacists down there. The great man rose, turning his every weakness into strength for ALL Indians, presenting his own spirituality as a personal aspect of life, and demanding that the British leave India when they were solidly in control. The little man must have been seen as a real joke to the sophisticated, advanced, westernized Indians and their British gods. If you are human, if you stand up for the underdog, if you like to bring down the self-ordained rulers of the world, Gandhiji represents all of us - he just had the guts to get it done. May Allah give him His everlasting divine company. Some Muslim poet wrote about Gandhiji:

Jagao na baapu ko neend aagai he
Jagao na baapu ko neend aagai he
Husain ibn Haider ki jurrat bhi isme
Isa ibn Maryam ki narmi bhi isme
Muhammad ke dil ke harrart bhi isme
Jagao na baapu ko neend aagai he

Dear Salim

I have been reading several of your posts and feel that warm glow of a united Hindustan myself, although I have always been and remain a skeptic. I am not the RSS type Akand Bharati, but when a Pakistani himself articulates such an idea, the previously mentioned luminescence cannot be helped ; ) In fact I am not a Hindu myself- I am a minority among a minority in India – a Syrian Christian from the state of Kerala (the arundhati roy kind, if u know her)…..but India has always been more than fair to me, and as I know personally, to every minority within her. Yes there has always been inefficiency, corruption –but that too has been fair and democratic- everyone got an equal share.

And India has connected me to unparalleled diversity, cultures so varied and rich, which I would not have known existed, had not the arbitrary nation state (that Manto so derides) called India existed. My mother tongue is Malayalam- but I understand the fine nuances of Ghalib’s poetry, speak Bengali and a mongrel-ish Hindi/Urdu fluently, appreciate the understated-ness of serious Bengali cinema and the buffoonery of Bollywood, and can even jive to bhangra. I love the noisiness of Indian politics- the ideological as well as the power politicians, the rise and rise of the un-scrubbed (Laloo and such)- to the discomfort of the middle classes, and the institutions that continue to exist among all this clutter. And I have always known that partition was a tremendous mistake, just because I have known how India has treated me. Yes I have been disappointed by the BJP’s rise and the fascination it still holds for some middle class Hindus. And nothing has affected my notion of India so negatively as the post-Godhra riots- esp the Gujarati Hindu silence on it. But I am aware these are essentially aberrations and of the corrective forces at play in India, and will continue to hope.

India after all is a civilization, the true melting pot, where cultures have blended and enriched each other, whatever our own specific identitities. And yes I am a very big admirer of Gandhi, even his supposed eccentrities, and know you have to be at a certain place to appreciate him. I became interested in Gandhi because the idea of India intrigued me. I now know that Gandhi is the true embodiment of India - its spirituality and non-violence, its essential inclusiveness and its constant struggle with itself, and indeed its ability to lead the world with ideas. If you have an agenda, Gandhi and his life is the easiest to rip apart, as some here have perfected. But lets not debate that now because Manto and Sarwari, with their transparently dishonest intentions, will come up with their shallow quotes and breathless semantics to denigrate him.

Best wishes for the new year!

Re:ahmedmadani#625

You wrote,``Indian Pakistanies are destined to fight whether you call them south asiians``

Sirjee, if this is the case, how come we never saw Indians and Pakistanis fighting before 1947? I mean the people living in the territory of Pakistan and the people living in the territory of India. How many times did Punjoos/Sindhis attack UP and UP attack Punjoos/Sindhis? Zero. Hindus and muslims lived with each other for 1000 years? How many crusades and jihads occured in India? Zero. Who fought against the British to save the Mughals? The hindus did in 1857. If communal relations were that bad, all hindus would line up with the british. It never happened. In fact, the hindus fought the british in 1857.

I have no problems if you want to adopt Arabic and move towards Central Asia/Middle-east. If it comes naturally to you, why not? If you want to do it just to get away from India, it will fail. For your information, Pakistan has been trying to do that for 60 years by placing an iron curtain against India and launching cradle to grave brainwashing of Pakistanis in home/school/work life. The result is still a big fat zero. Pakistanis are still as desi as Indians if not more in food habits, language, cultural interests. Today Shahrukh Khan and Bollywood are as important to Pakistan as Islam itself. That is a real case of blood is thicker than water.

Your Pakistani establishment has tried every trick in the book to make Pakistanis move away from India, to the extent that now people like manto use filthy language against Gandhi. However, all such desperate moves to tear away from India have failed!!

#623, Ras {``The NEW SOUTH ASIA will be one where any ordinary
Indian or Pakistani will drive or ride to the border and with identification visit
the other side for upto 30 days with minimal hassle (as between the U.S.
and Canada befor 9/11.``}

Siddiqui Sahib, naya saal bohot bohot mubarak.
Let`s stop trying to get somewhat pregnant. :) Let`s go all the way with reunification. None of this hesitance, pre-nupts, and mistrust. Who cares about a 30 day pass? I say - if a Sikh wants to spend the rest of his days in Nankana Sahib, what`s wrong with that. Maybe he will spread some of Guru Nanak`s wisdom in the neighborhood. You are on the right track. If you want to go step by step, like a cautious bride go ahead. First the bra ... then the ...

#625, ahmadmadani {``As a long term pakistan should adopt Arabic language then Indians will not understand us and we will not understand them. Trade is always at loss to us we get shafted. There should be Iran-Pak pipe line no india pipe line. Why feed snake when it is going to bite.
He has to deal with sindhi, balochi retards and contain them but he is trying best. Musharaff is today what was Quaid in 1947. He is result oriented and all should support the construction of dam and save sindh from suicide. Let us hope he is successful.
Pakistan Zindabad``}

Madani Sahib, Naya saal mubarak ho,
Why didn`t you speak up much earlier? Here I was discussing with Manto, HP, and that sugarcane daddy, Mr. Darius himself, the King of all Persians, Mr. Behram Rustamji Sohrabnijad, and getting nowhere. Thanks for clearing up every single issue. Mushy is Jinnah, Arabic is the answer, and KalaDam will turn Karachi into Amsterdam. Inshallah, Ma`shallah, and Pakistan Jindabad. God speed. Yes, tell them Kaffir Hindus to make their own bloody gas and not steal from gas of momin Persians. What`s the matter with them Indians, too many burgers and not enought idli dosas?

And, yes, if we all speak Arabic, them Indians won`t know what hit them. Imagine Arjun tuning into ARDY or GEO and hearing the ``Maa alla Qaala Filfalala`` stuff and not understanding. It will drive him crazy. Speaking Arabic and nothing but Arabic will drive our IQ down, lower our productivity, drive us out of our minds. But it`s worth it. At least the Indians will get a headache. Our policy never changes. Anything for the Indians.

HP #621 and #625 {``MQM is working on this issue and sooner or later they will work with Sindhi on this issue. Until Sindhis are satisfied, Biharis are not coming to Sindh and that is the end of it.
All Pakistan govts have tried to bring biharis back but, they could not get past Sindhis on this issue.
Now, if we you have something against Sindhi, then I will be glad to take your punches``}

HP,
Happy New Year to you and family. I have nothing against Sindhis - I have many Sindhi friends and consider myself a Sindhi because Karachi is in Sindh. On almost all issues I am for Sindhi, including the Kalabagh Dam. I commend MQM for broadening its horizon to include Sindhis, Baluchis, Pathans, and even Punjabi downtrodden.

I am glad that you believe that the stranded Pakis, the so-called ``Biharis,`` are doing so well in BD. Perhaps they have caught the inexplicable virus of love for Pakistan that has stricken so many young Pakis like Manto and others. Imagine, they want to leave a perfectly good existence in Mohammedpur for the uncertainty of life in Karachi.

I don`t understand how 300K stranded Pakis can alter the demographics of a province with tens of millions of people or a country that has a 150M population. Millions of Afghans, hundreds of thousands of Bengalis, even more Kashmiris, not to mention returning Pakis from post 9/11 US can be reabsorbed, but not 200K dark-skinned so-called ``Biharis.``

But I just don`t buy the undue influence you attribute to the poor Sindhis. The Punjoo-dominated Government of Pakistan has used this excuse for too long. Isn`t it funny that GoP had no concern for Sindhi displeasure when it came to hanging a popular Sindhi PM. It did not blink in exiling a popular almost goddess-like Sindhi PM and jailing her Sindhi husband for a long long time. The GoP had no hesitancy in proposing to build an unpopular dam against the wishes of Sindhis and Pathans and Baluchis?

But to bring 300K stranded Urdu-speaking Pakis, the GoP can`t move a muscle without a Sindhi OK. Please, if you expect me to believe this nonsesen, then I want to sell you a bridge that I own in NYC. :)