A Muslim Pope?

re: tahmed`s post
(Similarly, Jinnah`s call for a separate Pakistan has its roots in an even broader and more universal tradition - that of freedom from rule from distant capitals by individuals not accountable to us. Clearly we have some ways to go before we have an accountable government, but the formation of Pakistan was a good start.)
Amazing logic from none other than tahmed.
If Pakis say that some muslims did not want to live with hindus, that may be acceptable, though with some regret.
But for Pete`s sake do not say that ``freedom from rule from distant capitals by individuals not accountable to us`` was the reason. Democracy in India ensured that every voice is heard, albeit some voices are shriller than others.
And, Pak is today exactly as u have described (that i quoted in paranthesis). Rulers from Islamabad have struck a discordant note with people of Sindh, Baluchistan, NWFP. When that happens with a military dictator at the helm, the recipe is one of disaster.
Sridhar

Re: # 158

``Gandhi, the spiritual leader who failed at his chosen vocation``

I thought M. K. Gandhi was a successful lawyer in South Africa! Why do you say
he was a failure within his chosen vocation?

re:#156 by Mantolives
I think salim is an IM. Even if he is a Paki, i would say he is that rare breed of intelligent Pakis who can think and debate logically. Wish u had that skill.
Sridhar

#122, #123, Harish_hyd,

Harry Bhai,
Thank you for your well-balanced compliment. I like your rational thoughts about recognizing Mr. Jinnah for his individual qualities. Too bad, he didn`t live long enough to correct his mistakes as a leader. Knowing Mr. Jinnah, he would have made a U-turn once he recognized the futility of partition. The man was brilliant most of the time and could have possibly made Pakistan a better place to live than it is today. :(

As for my reputation with the clouds and certain she-male interactors, I assure you that whether, cloudy or not, I prefer the fruit of the loom. I am so accustomed to getting attacked by Pakis, Indians, Mullahs, liberals, feminazis, Wahabbis, and some that have no names that I feel like a soccer ball during the World Cup. :)

bolta_aina #136 {``Thats what RAS is suggesting. Demolish the current dwelling and build a new house of Secular democratic Pakistan.``}

Talking Mirror,
Hi. I hope you are not that upset. Just remember, before starting an unprovoked personal attack, be ready for whatever comes back. :) Well, let`s start anew. My name is Salim. :)

If RAS and other Paki liberals, such as you and Manto, are suggesting the building of a new house of secular, democratic Pakistan, then I ask in a very perplexed manner:

What was wrong with the old house of secular, democratic, undivided India?

Sub kuch luTa ke hosh meN aaye to kya kia.

rsridhar #161 if you wish to join the discussion i am having with ahmedzai, you are most welcome. however, if you expect me to spend time responding to you, please refrain from personal attacks and simply focus on what i write in the post. have a nice day.

Rsridhar, #153 and #154,
Shri Rsridhar,
Thank you for your encouragement. I try to look at issues from all sides and based on what I understand. It`s just that understanding is the tough part.

Manto #159, {``but according to Mountbatten himself (read Freedom at Midnight), he did hold a gun of sorts to Jinnah`s head... what this gun may have been ... who knows?``}

Manto,
Thank you for answering me. You know you are right. I do remember reading about that ``gun.`` Lord Louis Mountbatten told Mr. Jinnah that the truncated Pakistan is all that he was going to get. If he did not accept, then there would be no Pakistan and Mr. Jinnah`s people would hold him accountable for this hesitation - supposedly all his efforts and life long struggle would have been in vain.

In my opinion, Lord Louis, the pomp and ceremony stuffed shirt from the west, pulled a fast one on the aging westernized rug-merchant of the orient. I think Mr. Jinnah just caved in to some old-fashioned British intimidation and like a thoroughly inferior desi, trained to worship anything British as infallible, agreed to whatever Lord Louis said, hook, line, and sinker. I think that`s the truth, as much as it may hurt. Otherwise, a seemingly intelligent and brilliant lawyer like Jinnah would never have succumbed to such nonsense.

Rsridhar #163, {``I think salim is an IM ...``}

Shri Rsridhar,
My friend, I assure you (Khuda ki Qasam) that I am a Paki, consider myself a Paki, and have never been an Indian - just in blood. :)
My views about India, Pakistan, and Islam are mostly mine with considerable influence from my dear dada who was born in Jaipur, India. He migrated to Pakistan in 1947. Just because I love Pakistan, I don`t think that I have to hate India and Indians. Just because I worship Allah doesn`t mean that I have to hate Hindus. If that gets me in trouble, I can learn to live with it. Yes, I always cheer for the Paki cricket team when they play against anyone, including India. But then, I cheer for India against anyone, except Pakistan. Go figure.

Re: # 165 salim
[....What was wrong with the old house of secular, democratic, undivided India?...]

Undivided India would have been ``hindu-dominated`` - evil hinuds would have never given equal rights to minority muslims.... or so jinnah thought.... Hence he wanted a separate ``muslim-dominated`` pakistan where good muslims will be generous towards minorities - will give them equal rights etc. etc......

Of course - things didn`t quite turn-out that way..... Jinnah thought that ``the end`` would justify ``the means`` - but ``the means`` was so poisonous that it overwhelmed and drastically changed the characteristics of the end result..... An entity created out of severe sectarian politics could never achieve the secular, democratic ideals....

We are not sure if Jinnah even thought thru the whole thing when he was out there peddling his communalist agenda...... probably not....

another article on pak on chowk which is filled with simplistic, half-assed assertions that have no basis in reality. indian constitution provides all the necessary guarantees to minorities. so to argue, as the author does, that inc was out to gyp muslims is completely incorrect. jinnah`s address on the occasion of lahore resolution makes completely clear the rationale for pak.

as for the imposition of urdu, the shows real far-sightedness on part of jinnah. urdu became the language of commerce in pak because trade and industry in pak after independence was driven by urdu speakers. evidence of this is the growth of karachi relative to the rest of pakistan. urdu thus enabled non-native urdu speakers to become a part of the economic mainstream. up-country immigrants flocking to karachi in millions is a testament to this. without urdu, immigrants would not survive in karachi for a single day. also the notion that language can be imposed from top down and against the will of the awam is hilarious as well especially when you consider the nature of pakistani awam.

also the admiration awam holds for jinnah has nothing to do with his liberalism. rather it is based on jinnah giving voice to the yearnings of s.asian muslims and his successful execution of the dream. also the fact that awam continues to hold jinnah in high esteem is good indication that awam does not have a problem with the direction in which pak has gone after independence. otherwise, pakistanis would view jinnah in the same manner is bengalis do.

jinnah`s address on the occasion of lahore resolution:

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:yhm1BAG1kAcJ:www.ipcs.org/INDO-PAK-3-Docu.pdf+The+problem+in+India+is+not+of+an+inter-communal+character,+but&hl=en

``...But one thing isquite clear. It has always been taken for granted mistakenly that the Mussulmans are a Minorityand of course we have got used to it for such long time that these setlled notions sometimes arevery difficult to remove. The Mussulmans are not a Minority. The Mussulmans are a nation by anydefinition.

...It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fad! to understand the real nature ofIslam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are. in fact,different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindu and Muslims can ever evolvea common nationality and this misconception of one Indian nation lies gone far beyond the limitsand is the cause of most of your troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise ournotions in time.

...We wish to live in peace and harmony with our neighbours as a free and independent people. We wish our people to develop to the fullest our spiritiual, cultural,economic, social and political life in a way that we think best and in consonance with our own ideals and according to the genius of our people...``

Mohar #170, {``An entity created out of severe sectarian politics could never achieve the secular, democratic ideals.... We are not sure if Jinnah even thought thru the whole thing when he was out there peddling his communalist agenda...... probably not..``}

Mohar,
Very well stated - you live by the sword, you die by the sword. :)
By tearing up India through communal riots (Direct Action!), Mr. Jinnah blessed Pakistan with the curse of divisive sectarianism. If Muslims should separate from Hindus, why not Shias from Sunnis and Ismailis from other Shias - why not Bengalis from Punjabis. Divisiveness knows no ends.

I seriously doubt that Mr. Jinnah really thought out the whole mess. It is reported that when he left Delhi for the last time in the airplane, he said ``And that`s the end of that`` with a common gesture of putting one hand`s palm against the other and then vice versa.

I have no problem understanding evil people or good people. I have a real problem understanding seemingly smart, intelligent people who act so stupidly against their own interests. I will never understand why Jinnah accepted Pakistan as offered by Lord Louis, just like I will never understand Sadman Houston allowing American might to destroy his country, his military, and end his rule. He allowed Americans to defeat him, not once, but twice. All he had to do was to leave Kuwait the first time, or leave his country the second time.

If Mr. Jinnah had a problem with Gandhiji`s religious leanings, all he had to do was to voice his own secular and modern views. Eventually, Mr. Jinnah would have been right and in a united India a man of his honesty, determination, discipline, and devotion would have been admired and followed by many. Too bad, he chose the path of division rather than his original stance of unity.

Re: # 171

Basically it says, if Hindus choose to remain in future muslim nation, they will have
to live as second class citizens or leave and go to Hindu nation or die or convert.
That is exactly what happened in Pakistan, has happened in Kashmir, is happening
in Bangladesh.
Will happen probably in Europe, Thailand, in Phillipines.

God, what a vile and vicious ideology! What kind of poison is this that turns people
into such monsters that nothing matters above religion.

And there is no limit to this divsiveness. Yesterday, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains were
expunged, a while ago Hindus and Sikhs were expelled, then Bengalis were separate,
then Ahmadiyas were excommunicated, Shias will come next, may be Aghakhanis`s
Ismailis, Barelavis, Deobandis, Wahabi. And women, they do not even count.
God, what a chaos.

Only magalomaniacs and those high on opium of religion can envisage such a system
and thrive in it. The result is for everyone to see.

re: #174

thats exactly why jinnah created pak. hindus are now free to abuse islam without fearing repercussion. muslims otoh are free to live their lives without giving a rats` ass about what hindus think of islam.

``...........Jinnah never wanted or envisioned the mass exodus of the minority Hindu and Sikh communities from present day Pakistan. He would also have wanted a long lasting relationship between Pakistan and India, one which was based on mutual respect, shared cultural traditions and not perpetual animosity................``

He never did anything to stop the exodus.......only the lip service in his initial speech about blash blah free to visit temples......a speech for political image and interests..........

Under all that hocus pocus image - he was a muslim, who used Islam/muslim as a weapon to divide India......he failed miserably in his dreams of utopia bcs....his intentions were bad....

so what if he drank, most Islamic terrorists drink in European pubs, and wear western clothes.....??????

Should he be give a Nobel prize for marrying a Parsee????? He disowned his daughter for marrying a Parsee!

A hypoocrite he was...... - a circumcized Nehru or Gandhi.....