A Failing State in a State of Denial

#318 Yasser

I hope Pakistan recovers from its current travails. I really do.

However, your perception is highly distorted. Most outsiders think of Pakistan as the place where Daniel Perl got slaughtered like a goat, where the ISI is deeply involved in controlling everything and hob-nobbing with jihadis and the smuggler goons, where the fundos control the streets, where the judiciary has taken an oath to kow-tow to the military, and where the average joe is just so tired of all the snake-oil salesmen over the six decades that he/she is simply too fed up to lift a finger to change the status quo. It is the country which has the audacity to send in moronic hijackers and bombers to bomb elected bodies but lacks the courage to accept its own dead soldiers as its own – who, perhaps noble at heart, loose their lives fighting for a false cause!

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong on any of the above.

Shame on you for covering up the glaring monstrosities!

And no matter how much you wish - you can not pin any of that failure on the Mahatma! The logical place to put the blame is the charlatan who got you started along that wrong road to begin with!

The road of brute power! Absolute power corrupts absolutely - and brute power brutalizes a whole country!

Whatever grade you wish to give Pakistan through media manipulation.. every Indian who visits Pakistan knows full well that Pakistan, on the ground, is much better than India in every possible way. It is this realisation that must really bite you. So go ahead keep fooling people... one myth is being deconstructed... the other one will not last either.

As for your ``statements`` ... they are hardly worth answering... I am afraid I can`t go on answering every piece of crap you think is gem and worth uttering.

Dear Yasser, need I remind you that this article is about Pakistan and its poor performance!

And that country’s failing grade in all areas – an “F” to be exact!

Not to mention the lousy treatment its citizens get accorded all over the world – including inside its own geographical boundaries.

I also noticed how completely you avoided answering any of the statements in #315.

Don’t tell me that the two of you (you and your beautiful begum) have decided to disappoint Congressman Towns!

Don’t be stingy now!

Come through with your money where your mouth is!

Don’t pull a Mushy on everybody, please! Or an H₂!

Looks like it burnt your ass... the work done on the article was by an Indian who goes by the name of Rama`s Arrow and has been compiling entries on Indian Independence.

As for Gandhi... the world is beginning to see the facts and it burns you up. It is understandable... and you can always use burnol mian.

Yasser dear, I am well aware of the hard work being put in by Pakistani chowkies on Wikipedia.

First they create stuff there - then they use that as ``reference``.

Same with Eddie Towns (Did you send in your campaign contribution yet? Your beautiful wife (how the heck did you ever fool her into marrying you?) has been bragging about rolling in money on Shandana`s board - between the two of you, you should come up with perhaps $4k. Ye to Pakistani shaan ki baat hai!! Paisa nikaalo!)

But Jinnah still stinks - because of what he did.

And the khaki still rules your land. The mullahs still rant and rave. The educated ones - even those who know better in their heart - they still cower. Pakistanis the world over are still treated lousier than canines and are trying to pass themselves off as Indians on every opportunity they can get away with.

You still continue to ``seek`` the religion which will let you live in peace and dignity - which will let the Jerries do the same.

The grade is still ``F``! Because the mindset is a non-learning mindset - a closed mindset.

``F`` is that failing grade.

Cry and whine all you want.... bj...

But the world is learning the truth about the dishonest lawyer that Gandhi was- the racist, casteist, misogynist bigot .. who believed in caste system and Gandhiji- the Mahatma who believed in Indo-germanic superiority ...

And btw... Wikipedia chose to feature Jinnah on their main page 2 days ago... so the dust is settling and the truth is becoming clearer...

Dear Yasser, you KNOW who is crying and whining at this site - your countrymen! Now go and look at your interactor page and go through your wish list - the things that you yearn for - yup, the Indians already got them!

And the Pakistanis would have had the same - except for the moron Jinnah!

Who was too ``smart`` a lawyer to rise above his narrow prejudiced mindset!

So now you got green!

In its khaki manifestation, of course!

Cry and whine baby... but Pakistan, despite its problems, is much better than caste ridden god obsessed Hindu fascist society of India... that is the direct result of Gandhi and Gandhiism.

Jinnah was the original troublemaker - and directly responsible for Pakistan`s current state of failure and the cesspool that it finds itself in.

People like Yasser should feel free to enjoy their environment - they fully deserve it!

The future of Pakistan can only recover from the self inflicted wounds of Jinnah`s curse if the people of that failing country pull that demagogue and hang him from the nearest tree!

Like Hamidm`s dad said elsewhere...

``Are bewakoofon, aaj tum sub jo kuchh bhee ho, usee kee wajah se ho!``

Nope... wrong again dude.

Pakistan was against .. ``I am a Hindu first and therefore a true Indian`` mentality epitomised by you and Gandhiji and the latter day Hindutvists.

#307 Yasser

[…one can only praise the lord that he created a distinction between you and me....]

Yup, that is what Pakistan was and has always been all about!

A celebration of differences!

First, it was ``us Muslims`` versus ``you Hindus``!

Then it was ``us Muslims`` versus ``you Bengalis``!

Then it was ``us Muslims`` versus ``you Ahmedis``!

Who knows, perhaps coming down the line….

``us Muslims`` versus ``you Balochis``!

``us Muslims`` versus ``you Sindhis``!

``us Muslims`` versus ``you Shias``!

What a celebration! And what a party! Too bad the ``party-goers`` keep leaving - and those who remain - they keep throwing up - too much drinking of that green booze perhaps!

Be careful of the hang-over!

Majumdar...

I am sure India can be that clean... however I am quoting an Indian... I`ve never been to India, so I don`t know what to say about it.

BJkumar,

From your writing one can deduce that you either mentally insane or suffer from some sort of narcissistic disorder. Your ``claims`` were all answered. But - as others have said here- you are beyond help.

While I don`t know about Hindu- Muslim distinction (I don`t ascribe to ``I am a Hindu first and therefore a true Indian`` policy of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi) ...one can only praise the lord that he created a distinction between you and me....

Manto mian,

(To most reasonable people who visit Pakistan... it is radically different from the false perception created by billions of dollars pumped into think tanks and media by Indian lobbies .... )

Aapke muh mein ghee shakkar. I hope one day Indians are rich enough to afford spending billions of dollars into think tanks.

(India can never be this efficient or clean. )

Strangely enough at times it can, the Delhi Metro for example. For some inexplicable reason it is spotlessly clean, Dilliwalas do not eat on it, spit on it, deface it or damage it and to top it all refrain from teasing ladies- behaviour which is otherwise completely alien to Indians.

Regards

#304 Yasser

What`s the matter, Yasser baby, the dose of reality finally proves too much for you?!!

In my #303, I simply put some very obvious facts related to the failing Pakistan state and asked you to dispute them - you could not do it to a single one - and then you crack and ask the questioner to ``shove it``!

Poor baby!

It is quite funny that you claim those hard facts were somehow created by an Indian propaganda machine by spending a billion dolllars!

It is so funny that I will give you even a smiley!

Here you go, baby! :)

And here is another: :)

Yasser, of the million (copy & paste) words!!! Bumps into the granite wall of hard reality and starts bawling!

By the way, since you brought up the name of this Patel guy from mid-day (who has actually moved to another publication last year!) let me say this.

I have no doubt that when individuals visit other countries on goodwill missions - they are by and large treated well and come back with good reports on what they have seen. Go ask Pervez the Hood-brother, for example - or our delicious friend Juicy Siddiqui!

There is a reason such missions are called GOODWILL missions!

If such reports came out less than rosy, the trip would be a waste - so both sides try to accommodate each other and make it a success.

Also, if the person taking such trip were to give a lousy trip report, guess who looks most foolish?

Yup, it`s the one who took the trip to begin with!!!

The bottomline is hard reality is hard reality!

And also, the truth is that I like Pakistanis people enough that I would like them to succeed. So I have no intention of mincing words and telling them the truth that individuals like you don`t like to face.

It does not matter to me what chowk people think of trivial interactors like me, but people should remember that your only true friends are the ones who have the courage to tell you in no uncertain terms when you have screwed up and are not dealing with your problem!

So, I tell them,

Dear Pakistani people - you have screwed up for sixty years and you are still not dealing with your original problem of making a distinction between a Muslim and others!

bjkumar,

You can take your perception and shove it. The world believes a lot of things... and temporary perceptions are hardly reality. I give you this .. that you and your Hindu fascist country have a good thing going for now whereby you have blinded the people with dust...

To most reasonable people who visit Pakistan... it is radically different from the false perception created by billions of dollars pumped into think tanks and media by Indian lobbies ....

Here is what Aakar Patel - the Chief Editor of ``Midday`` had to say when he visited Pakistan:


``In the murky skies over Islamabad on Day 4, however, this clarity was missing. Who was the ‘we’ that beat ‘them’?
For me, Pakistan was a foreign country.
Visitors to Pakistan will be shocked at how they have kept their cities and their airports. They are truly world class. India can never be this efficient or clean.

Lahore is paradise. It has huge gardens splashed through the middle of its roads. An enormous canal glides through the middle of a thoroughfare.
Indians will also be amazed with how much at ease the Lahauri is with his culture and how little this culture has to do with religion.

To me that culture is alien because it is Punjabi, not because it is Muslim.
To me, the groups of Sardars walking again in the streets of Lahore’s old city with the kirpans by their side and the shopkeepers at their elbow, seemed to belong there. They were Lahauris.

But for all of Pakistan’s foreign-ness, it had everything that we pride India for. It was pluralist, it was joyous, it was tolerant. In the colourful Indian crowds, clapping, shouting, shopping, Pakistans also discovered something perhaps foreign to themselves and perhaps something of themselves.

...

#302 Yasser

Dear Manto,

Your useless attempts to change the topic are always pathetic. The topic is the disaster called Pakistan and how pathetic it looks at this time.

My perception of present day Pakistan (called by various derogatory terms by others) is same as what the rest of the world appears to hold.

It is the land where the army rules.

The land of the Mullahs.

The land that gave birth to the Taleban and still nurtures them.

The land which created IC-814 hijacking.

The land of the I.S.I.

The land that sent funding to Mohammad Atta so he could conduct his wicked and evil designs - the outrage that the world experienced on 9/11.

The land whose ``intellectuals`` are too timid to admit any of that!

The land that was created by a charlatan of a lawyer called Mohammed Ali Jinnah.

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong on any of those accounts.

Call me a doubter, but I have had no desire to visit Pakistan ever since I read newspaper accounts of Daniel Pearl. You can call it the land of the ``golden chain`` if you wish, but from the viewpoint of the rest of the world - if is a FAILED, FAILED, and FAILED state!!!

Thanks.

(PS: Don`t forget to keep a copy of your recent various pronouncements and attach them to your Indian visa application, if you ever intend to apply for one. I have half a mind to post them on a website of my own - strictly to inform the world, of course.)

Dear BJKumar,

Looks like you`ve even run out of lame jokes and pathetic attempts at humour that now you repeating yourself like a broken record. I think my previous post adequately puts to rest your claims- but don`t worry I don`t expect a follower of Gandhi to understand logic. I accept that your current state of insanity is caused by a sudden revelation that the must must cherished myths you believe in are nothing but lies. Now if you were to ever visit Pakistan god forbid, you would further realise that despite the Indian Propaganda, the country, despite its handicaps and issues, continues to do much better than poverty stricken ghetto called Bharat (India).

-YLH

#298, #299, #300 Yasser

Manto will never run out of words as long as there is a copy and paste feature.

One person - one vote!

One human being - one vote!

One Muslim - one vote!

Oops, the last one was like sticking hot green pepper into Mr. Jinnah`s you know what! He blew up - all his ``nationalistic`` put-on got exposed. If you were a Muslim - how could you be equal to Hindus!

Unthinkable!

There was one time....

Just one time that his country needed taht idiot ``son of the soil`` to rise above his bigoted religious mind!

The moron failed! He just could not get it up - his courage, that is!

And over a hundred million morons in the pathetic piece of prurience that is currently Pakistan still pay the price!

What a coward!

Just one time to prove himself - and the fool crapped! He crapped, he made his mess and then left the scene!

And now the center of terrorism is present - right where the idiot put up his tent!

The idiot is probably turning in his grave right now - enjoying the spectacle of his ``baby``!

I wonder if he could feel the taste of those martial urinations that Ms. Naz tasted first hand!

The rapes - the beatings!

I think that 99.99% of Muslims` problems and 100% of the world`s problems would never have happened if Jinnah had not been born and had not practiced his ``Muslims are exclusive`` mindset! Certainly, there would not have been a 9/11 - because there would not have been a Taleban - because there would not have been a Pakistan!

And now, the Pakistani males and females carp all over the world - trying to get to a level that would have been their birthright!

They enjoy a ``referendum`` - because the other choices are even worse!

What a humiliation! What utter humiliation!

Did these folks deserve this!?

Go to any part of the world and tell them you are Pakistani and watch the light of caution dawn in those eyes! Even mad street dogs get treated better!

Mian Manto - crying to get into the good books of mian Mushy - who LOVES dogs!

Nobody in Pakistan is immune from Jinnah`s everlasting love!

Let me repeat his sentiments:

``Here, poochy, poochy, poochy!``

While many in India are as bigoted as Mr BJKumar... there are many others who have the ability and the courage to face up to the facts.... Chief amongst them was Dr B R Ambedkar... the single person responsible for making India`s constitution secular, democratic and inclusive (even if the country itself continues to a Hindu Fascist state) ... The following his view on Jinnah ... taken from ``Pakistan or Partition of India``... he quotes directly from Jinnah... and Jinnah`s quotes show that exclusivist is the last word applicable to him... If BJ had any shame or honesty (being a gandhian it is unlikely) he would shut up after this.


``A study of his past pronouncement may well begin with the year 1906 when the leaders of the Muslim community waited upon Lord Minto and demanded separate electorates for the Muslim community. It is to be noted that Mr. Jinnah was not a member of the deputation. Whether he was not invited to join the deputation or whether he was invited to join and declined is not known. But the fact remains that he did not lend his support to the Muslim claim to separate representation when it was put forth in 1906.

In 1918 Mr. Jinnah resigned his membership of the Imperial Legislative Council as a protest against the Rowlatt Bill. 98[f.54] In tendering his resignation Mr. Jinnah said :

`` I feel that under the prevailing conditions, I can be of no use to my people in the Council, nor consistently with one`s self-respect is cooperation possible with a Government that shows such utter disregard for the opinion of the representatives of the people at the Council Chamber and the feelings and the sentiments of the people outside. `` In 1919 Mr. Jinnah gave evidence before the Joint Select Committee appointed by Parliament on the Government of India Reform Bill, then on the anvil. The following views were expressed by him in answer to questions put by members of the Committee on the Hindu-Muslim question.

EXAMINED BY MAJOR ORMSBY-GORE.

Q. 3806.—You appear on behalf of the Moslem League— that is, on behalf of the only widely extended Mohammedan organisation in India ?—Yes.

Q. 3807.—I was very much struck by the fact that neither in your answers to the questions nor in your opening speech this morning did you make any reference to the special interest of the Mohammedans in India: is that because you did not wish to say anything ?—No, but because I take it the Southborough Committee have accepted that, and I left it to the members of the Committee to put any questions they wanted to. I took a very prominent part in the settlement of Lucknow. I was representing the Musalmans on that occasion.

Q. 3809.—On behalf of the All-India Moslem League, you ask this Committee to reject the proposal of the Government of India ?—I am authorised to say that—to ask you to reject the proposal of the Government of India with regard to Bengal [i.e., to give the Bengal Muslims more representation than was given them by the Lucknow Pact].

Q. 3810.—You said you spoke from the point of view of India. You speak really as an Indian Nationalist ?—1 do.

Q. 3811.—Holding that view, do you contemplate the early disappearance of separate communal representation of the Mohammedan community ?—I think so.

Q. 3812.—That is to say, at the earliest possible moment you wish to do away in political life with any distinction between Mohammedans and Hindus ?—Yes. Nothing will please me more than when that day comes.

Q. 3813—You do not think it is true to say that the Mohammedans of India have many special political interests not merely in India but outside India, which they are always particularly anxious to press as a distinct Mohammedan community? —There are two things. In India the Mohammedans have very few things really which you can call matters of special interest for them—I mean secular things.

Q. 3814.—I am only referring to them, of course ?—And therefore that is why I really hope and expect that the day is not very far distant when these separate electorates will disappear.

Q. 3815.—It is true, at the same time, that the Mohammedans in India take a special interest in the foreign policy of the Government of India ?—They do ; a very,—No, because what you propose to do is to frame very keen interest and the large majority of them hold very strong sentiments and very strong views.

Q. 3816.—Is that one of the reasons why you, speaking on behalf of the Mohammedan community, are so anxious to get the Government of India more responsible to an electorate ?—No.

QQ. 3819.—I do not want to get away from the Reform Bill on to foreign policy.—1 say it has nothing to do with foreign policy. Your point is whether in India the Muslims will adopt a certain attitude with regard to foreign policy in matters concerning Moslems all over the world.

Q. 3820.—My point is, are they seeking for some control over the Central Government in order to impress their views on foreign policy on the Government of India ?—No.

EXAMINED BY MR. BENNETT

Q. 3853.—...........Would it not be an advantage in the case of an occurrence of that kind [i.e., a communal riot] if the maintenance of law and order were left with the executive side of the Government ?—1 do not think so, if you ask me, but I do not want to go into unpleasant matters, as you say.

Q. 3854.—It is with no desire to bring up old troubles that I ask the question ; I would like to forget them ?—If you ask me, very often these riots are based on some misunderstanding, and it is because the police have taken one side or the other, and that has enraged one side or the other. I know very well that in the Indian States you hardly ever hear of any Hindu-Mohammedan riots, and I do not mind telling the Committee, without mentioning the name, that I happened to ask one of the ruling Princes, `` How do you account for this ? `` and he told me, `` As soon as there is some trouble we have invariably traced it to the police, through the police taking one side or the other, and the only remedy we have found is that as soon as we come to know we move that police officer from that place, and there is an end of it. ``

Q. 3855.—That is useful piece of information, but the fact remains that these riots have been inter-racial, Hindu on the one side and Mohammedan on the other. Would it be an advantage at a time like that the Minister, the representative of one community or the other, should be in charge of the maintenance of law and order ?—Certainly.

Q. 3856.—It would ?—If I thought otherwise I should be casting a reflection on myself. If I was the Minister, I would make bold to say that nothing would weigh with me except justice, and what is right. Q. 3857.—I can understand that you would do more than justice to the other side; but even then, there is what might be called the subjective side. It is not only that there is impartiality, but there is the view which may be entertained by the public, who may harbour some feeling of suspicion ?—With regard to one section or the other, you mean they would feel that an injustice was done to them, or that justice would not be done ?

Q. 3858.—Yes; that is quite apart from the objective part of it ?—My answer is this: That these difficulties are fast disappearing. Even recently, in the whole district of Thana, Bombay, every officer was an Indian officer from top to bottom, and I do not think there was a single Mohammedan—they were all Hindus—and I never heard any complaint Recently that has been so. I quite agree with you that ten years ago there was that feeling what you are now suggesting to me, but it is fast disappearing.

EXAMINED BY LORD ISLINGTON

Q. 3892.—. ...... You said just now about the communal representation, I think in answer to Major Ormsby-Gore, that you hope in a very few years you would be able to extinguish communal representation, which was at present proposed to be established and is established in order that Mahommedans may have their representation with Hindus. You said you desired to see that. How soon do you think that happy state of affairs is likely to be realized ?—1 can only give you certain facts : I cannot say anything more than that: I can give you this which will give you some idea: that in 1913, at the All-India Moslem League sessions at Agra, we put this matter to the lest whether separate electorates should be insisted upon or not by the Mussalmans, and we got a division, and that division is based upon Provinces ; only a certain number of votes represent each Province, and the division came to 40 in favour of doing away with the separate electorate, and 80 odd—1 do not remember the exact number—were for keeping the separate electorate. That was in 1913. Since then I have had many opportunities of discussing this matter with various Mussulman leaders ; and they are changing their angle of vision with regard to this matter. I cannot give you the period, but I think it cannot last very long. Perhaps the next inquiry may hear something about it.

Q. 3893.—You think at the next inquiry the Mahommedans will ask to be absorbed into the whole ?—Yes, I think the next inquiry will probably hear something about it.

Although Mr. Jinnah appeared as a witness on behalf of the Muslim League, he did not allow his membership of the League to come in the way of his loyalty to other political organizations in the country. Besides being a member of the Muslim League, Mr. Jinnah was a member of the Home Rule League and also of the Congress. As he said in his evidence before the Joint Parliamentary Committee, he was a member of all three bodies although he openly disagreed with the Congress, with the Muslim League and that there were some views which the Home Rule League held which he did not share. That he was an independent but a nationalist ,is shown by his relationship with the Khilafatist Musalmans. In 1920 the Musalmans organized the Khilafat Conference. It became so powerful an organization that the Muslim League went under and lived in a state of suspended animation till 1924. During these years no Muslim leader could speak to the Muslim masses from a Muslim platform unless he was a member of the Khilafat Conference. That was the only platform for Muslims to meet Muslims. Even then Mr. Jinnah refused to join the Khilafat Conference. This was no doubt due to the fact that then he was only a statutory Musalman with none of the religious fire of the orthodox which he now says is burning within him. But the real reason why he did not join the Khilafat was because he was opposed to the Indian Musalmans engaging themselves in extra-territorial affairs relating to Muslims outside India.

After the Congress accepted non-co-operation, civil disobedience and boycott of Councils, Mr. Jinnah left the Congress. He became its critic but never accused it of being a Hindu body. He protested when such a statement was attributed to him by his opponents. There is a letter by Mr. Jinnah to the Editor of the Times of India written about the time which puts in a strange contrast the present opinion of Mr. Jinnah about the Congress and his opinion in the past. The letter 99[f.55] reads as follows :—.

`` To the Editor of `` The Times of India ``

Sir,—1 wish again to correct the statement which is attributed to me and to which you have given currency more than once and now again repeated by your correspondent ` Banker `in the second column of your issue of the 1st October that I denounced the Congress as ` a Hindu Institution `. I publicly corrected this misleading report of my speech in your columns soon after it appeared ;.but it did not find a place in the columns of your paper and so may I now request you to publish this and oblige. ``

After the Khilafat storm had blown over and the Muslims had shown a desire to return to the internal politics of India, the Muslim League was resuscitated. The session of the League held in Bombay on 30th December 1924 under the presidentship of Mr. Raza Ali was a lively one. Both Mr. Jinnah and Mr. Mahomed Ali took part in it. 100[f.56]

In this session of the League, a resolution was moved which affirmed the desirability of representatives of the various Muslim associations of India representing different shades of political thought meeting in a conference at an early date at Delhi or at some other central place with a view to develop `` a united and sound practical activity `` to supply the needs of the Muslim community. Mr. Jinnah in explaining the resolution said 101[f.57] :—

`` The object was to organize the Muslim community, not with a view to quarrel with the Hindu community, but with a view to unite and cooperate with it for their motherland. He was sure once they had organized themselves they would join hands with the Hindu Maha Sabha and declare to the world that Hindus and Mahomedans are brothers. ``

The League also passed another resolution in the same session for appointing a committee of 33 prominent Musalmans to formulate the political demands of the Muslim community. The resolution was moved by Mr. Jinnah. In moving the resolution, Mr. Jinnah 102[f.58] :—

``Repudiated the charge that he was standing on the platform of the League as a communalist. He assured them that he was, as ever, a nationalist. Personally he had no hesitation. He wanted the best and the fittest men to represent them in the Legislatures of the land (Hear, Hear and Applause). But unfortunately his Muslim compatriots were not prepared to go as far as he. He could not be blind to the situation. The fact was that there was a large number of Muslims who wanted representation separately in Legislatures and in the country`s Services. They were talking of communal unity, but where was unity ? It had to be achieved by arriving at some suitable settlement. He knew he said amidst deafening cheers, that his fellow-religionists were ready and prepared to fight for Swaraj, but wanted some safeguards. Whatever his view, and they knew that as a practical politician he had to take stock of the situation, the real block to unity was not the communities themselves, but a few mischief makers on both sides. ``

And he did not thus hesitate to arraign mischief makers in the sternest possible language that could only emanate from an earnest nationalist. In his capacity as the President of the session of the League held in Lahore on 24th May 1924 he said 103 [f59] :—

`` If we wish to be free people, let us unite, but if we wish to continue slaves of Bureaucracy, let us fight among ourselves and gratify petty vanity over petty matters. Englishmen being our arbiters. ``

In the two All-Parties Conferences, one held in 1925 and the other in 1928, Mr. Jinnah was prepared to settle the Hindu-Muslim question on the basis of joint electorates. In 1927 he openly said 104[f.60] from the League platform :—

`` I am not wedded to separate electorates, although I must say that the overwhelming majority of the Musalmans firmly and honestly believe that it is the only method by which they can be sure. ``

In 1928, Mr. Jinnah joined the Congress in the boycott of the Simon Commission. He did so even though the Hindus and Muslims had failed to come to a settlement and he did so at the cost of splitting the League into two.

Even when the ship of the Round Table Conference was about to break on the communal rock, Mr. Jinnah resented being named as a communalist who was responsible for the result and said that he preferred an agreed solution of the communal problem to the arbitration of the British Government. Addressing the U. P. Muslim Conference held at Allahabad on 8th August 105[f.61] 1931 Mr. Jinnah said :—

`` The first thing that I wish to tell you is that it is now absolutely essential and vital that Muslims should stand united. For Heaven`s sake close all your ranks and files and slop this internecine war. I urged this most vehemently and I pleaded to the best of my ability before Dr. Ansari, Mr. T. A. K. Sherwani, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Dr. Syed Mahmud. I hope that before I leave the shores of India I shall hear the good news that whatever may be our differences ; whatever may be our convictions between ourselves, this is not the moment to quarrel between ourselves.

`` Another thing I want to tell you is this. There is a certain section of the press, there is a certain section of the Hindus, who constantly misrepresent me in various ways. I was only reading the speech of Mr. Gandhi this morning and Mr. Gandhi said that he loves Hindus and Muslims alike. I again say standing here on this platform that although I may not put forward that claim but I do put forward this honestly and sincerely that I want fair play between the two communities. ``

Continuing further Mr. Jinnah said: ``As to the most important question, which to my mind is the question of Hindu-Muslim settlement—all I can say to you is that I honestly believe that the Hindus should concede to the Muslims a majority in the Punjab and Bengal and if that is conceded, I think a settlement can be arrived at in a very short time.

``The next question that arises is one of separate vs. joint electorates. As most of you know, if a majority is conceded in the Punjab and Bengal, I would personally prefer a settlement on the basis of joint electorate. (Applause.) But I also know that there is a large body of Muslims—and I believe a majority of Muslims—who are holding on to separate electorate. My position is that I would rather have a settlement even on the footing of separate electorate, hoping and trusting that when we work our new constitution and when both Hindus and Muslims get rid of distrust, suspicion and fears and when they gel their freedom we would rise to the occasion and probably separate electorate will go sooner than most of us think.

`` Therefore I am for a settlement and peace among the Muslims first; I am for a settlement and peace between the Hindus and Mahommedans. This is not a lime for argument, not a time for propaganda work and not a time for embittering feelings between the two communities, because the enemy is at the door of both of us and I say without hesitation that if the Hindu-Muslim question is not settled, I have no doubt that the British will have to arbitrate and that he who arbitrates will keep to himself the substance of power and authority. Therefore, I hope they will not vilify me. After all, Mr. Gandhi himself says that he is willing to give the Muslims whatever they want, and my only sin is that I say to the Hindus give to the Muslims only 14 points, which is much less than the ` blank cheque ` which Mr. Gandhi is willing to give. I do not want a blank cheque, why not concede the 14 points ? When Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru says: `Give us a blank cheque ` when Mr. Patel says : ` Give us a blank cheque and we will sign it with a Swadeshi pen on a Swadeshi paper ` they are not communalists and I am a communalist ! I say to Hindus not to misrepresent everybody. I hope and trust that we shall be yet in a position to settle the question which will bring peace and happiness to the millions in our country.

`` One thing more I want to tell you and I have done. During the lime of the Round Table Conference,—it is now an open book and anybody who cares to read it can learn for himself—I observed the one and the only principle and it was that when I left the shores of Bombay I said to the people that I would hold the interests of India sacred, and believe me—if you care to read the proceedings of the Conference, I am not bragging because I have done my duly—that I have loyally and faithfully fulfilled my promise to the fullest extent and I venture to say that if the Congress or Mr. Gandhi can get anything more than I fought for, I would congratulate them.

`` Concluding Mr. Jinnah said that they must come to a settlement, they must become friends eventually and he, therefore, appealed to the Muslims to show moderation, wisdom and conciliation, if possible, in the deliberation that might take place and the resolution that might be passed at the Conference. ``

As an additional illustration of the transformation in Muslim ideology, I propose to record the opinions once held by Mr. Barkat Ali who is now a follower of Mr. Jinnah and a staunch supporter of Pakistan.

When the Muslim League split-into two over the question of cooperation with the Simon Commission, one section led by Sir Mahommad Shafi favouring co-operation and another section led by Mr. Jinnah supporting the Congress plan of boycott, Mr. Barkat Ali belonged to the Jinnah section of the League. The two wings of the League held their annual sessions in 1928 at two different places. The Shafi wing met in Lahore and the Jinnah wing met in Calcutta. Mr. Barkat Ali, who was the Secretary of the Punjab Muslim League, attended the Calcutta session of the Jinnah wing of the League and moved the resolution relating to the communal settlement. The basis of the settlement was joint electorates. In moving the resolution Mr. Barkat Ali said 106 [f62] :—

`` For the first time in the history of the League there was a change in its angle of vision. We are offering by this change a sincere hand of fellowship to those of our Hindu countrymen who have objected to the principle of separate electorates. ``

In 1928 there was formed a Nationalist Party under the leadership of Dr. Ansari. 107[f.63] The Nationalist Muslim Party was a step in advance of the Jinnah wing of the Muslim League and was prepared to accept the Nehru Report, as it was, without any amendments—not even those which Mr. Jinnah was insisting upon. Mr. Barkat Ali, who in 1927 was with the Jinnah wing of the League, left the same as not being nationalistic enough and joined the Nationalist Muslim Party of Dr. Ansari. How great a nationalist Mr. Barkat Ali then was can be seen by his trenchant and vehement attack on Sir Muhammad lqbal for his having put forth in his presidential address to the annual session of the All-India Muslim League held at Allahabad in 1930 a scheme 108[f.64] for the division of India which is now taken up by Mr. Jinnah and Mr. Barkat Ali and which goes by the name of Pakistan. In 1931 there was held in Lahore the Punjab Nationalist Muslim Conference and Mr. Barkat Ali was the Chairman of the Reception Committee. The views he then expressed on Pakistan are worth recalling 109[f.65] Reiterating and reaffirming the conviction and the political faith of his party, Malik Barkat Ali, Chairman of the Reception Committee of the Conference, said :

`` We believe, first and foremost in the full freedom and honour of India. India, the country of our birth and the place with which all our most valued and dearly cherished associations are knit, must claim its first place in our affection and in our desires. We refuse to be parties to that sinister type of propaganda which would try to appeal to ignorant sentiment by professing to be Muslim first and Indian afterwards. To us a slogan of this kind is not only bare, meaningless cant, but downright mischievous. We cannot conceive of Islam in its best and last interests as in any way inimical to or in conflict with the best and permanent interests of India. India and Islam in India are identical, and whatever is to the detriment of India must, from the nature of it, be detrimental to Islam whether economically, politically, socially or even morally. Those politicians, therefore, are a class of false prophets and at bottom the foes of Islam, who talk of any inherent conflict between Islam and the welfare of India. Further, howsoever much our sympathy with our Muslim brethren outside India, i.e., the Turks and the Egyptians or the Arabs,—and it is a sentiment which is at once noble and healthy,—we can never allow that sympathy to work to the detriment of the essential interests of India. Our sympathy, in fact, with those countries can only be valuable to them, if India as the source, nursery and fountain of that sympathy, is really great. And if ever the lime comes, God forbid, when any Muslim Power from across the Frontier chooses to enslave India and snatch away the liberties of its people, no amount of pan-lslamic feeling, whatever it may mean, can stand in the way of Muslim India fighting shoulder to shoulder with non-Muslim India in defence of its liberties.

`` Let there be, therefore, no misgivings of any kind in that respect in any non-Muslim quarters. I am conscious that a certain class of narrow-minded Hindu politicians is constantly harping on the bogey of an Islamic danger to India from beyond the N.-W. Frontier passes but I desire to repeat that such statements and such fears are fundamentally wrong and unfounded. Muslim India shall as much defend India`s liberties as non-Muslim India, even if the invader happens to be a follower of Islam.

`` Next, we not only believe in a free India but we also believe in a united India—not the India of the Muslim, not the India of the Hindu or of the Sikh, not the India of this community or of that community but the India of all. And as this is our abiding faith, we refuse to be parties to any division of the India of the future into a Hindu or a Muslim India. However much the conception of a Hindu and a Muslim India may appeal and send into frenzied ecstasies abnormally orthodox mentalities of their party, we offer our full throated opposition to it, not only because it is singularly unpractical and utterly obnoxious but because it not only sounds the death-knell of all that is noble and lasting in modern political activity in India, but is also contrary to and opposed to India`s chief historical tradition.

`` India was one in the days of Asoka and Chandragupta and India remained one even when the sceptre and rod of Imperial sway passed from Hindu into Moghul or Muslim hands. And India shall remain one when we shall have attained the object of our desires and reached those uplands of freedom, where all the light illuminating us shall not be reflected glory but shall be light proceeding direct as it were from our very faces.

`` The conception of a divided India, which Sir Muhammad lqbal put forward recently in the course of his presidential utterance from the platform of the League at a time when that body had virtually become extinct and ceased to represent free Islam—I am glad to be able to say that Sir Muhammad lqbal has since recanted it—must not therefore delude anybody into thinking that it is Islam`s conception of the India to be. Even if Dr. Sir Muhammad lqbal had not recanted it as something which could not be put forward by any sane person, I should have emphatically and unhesitatingly repudiated it as something foreign to the genius and the spirit of the rising generation of Islam, and I really deem it a proud duty to affirm today that not only must there be no division of India in to communal provinces but that both Islam and Hinduism must run coterminously with the boundaries of India and must not be cribbed, cabined and confined within any shorter bounds. To the same category as Dr. lqbal`s conception of a Muslim India and a Hindu India, belongs the sinister proposals of some Sikh communalists to partition and divide the Punjab.

`` With a creed so expansive, namely a free and united India with its people all enjoying in equal measure and without any kinds of distinctions and disabilities the protection of laws made by the chosen representatives of the people on the widest possible basis of a true democracy, namely, adult franchise, and through the medium of joint electorates—and an administration charged with the duty of an impartial execution of the laws, fully accountable for its actions, not to a distant or remote Parliament of foreigners but to the chosen representatives of the land,—you would not expect me to enter into the details and lay before you, all the colours of my picture. And I should have really liked to conclude my general observations on the aims and objects of the Nationalist Muslim Party here, were it not that the much discussed question of joint or separate electorates, has today assumed proportions where no public man can possibly ignore it.

`` Whatever may have been the value or utility of separate electorates at a time when an artificially manipulated high-propertied franchise had the effect of converting a majority of the people in the population of a province into a minority in the electoral roll, and when communal passions and feelings ran particularly high, universal distrust poisoning the whole atmosphere like a general and all-pervading miasma,—we feel that in the circumstances of today and in the India of the future, separate electorates should have no place whatever. ``

Such were the views Mr. Jinnah and Mr. Barkat Ali held on nationalism, on separate electorates and on Pakistan. How diametrically opposed are the views now held by them on these very problems ?

So far I have laboured to point out things, the utter failure of the attempts made to bring about Hindu-Muslim unity and the emergence of a new ideology in the minds of the Muslim leaders. There is also a third thing which I must discuss in the present context for reasons arising both from its relevance as well as from its bearing on the point under consideration, namely whether the Muslim ideology has behind it a justification which political philosophers can accept.

Many Hindus seem to hold that Pakistan has no justification. If we confine ourselves to the theory of Pakistan there can be no doubt that this is a greatly mistaken view. The philosophical justification for Pakistan rests upon the distinction between a community and a nation. In the first, place, it is recognized comparatively recently. Political philosophers for a long time were concerned, mainly, with the controversy summed up in the two questions, how far should the right of a mere majority to rule the minority be accepted as a rational basis for government and how far the legitimacy of a government be said to depend upon the consent of the governed. Even those who insisted, that the legitimacy of a government depended upon the consent of the governed, remained content with a victory for their proposition and did not cane to probe further into the matter. They did not feel the necessity for making any distinctions within the category of the `` governed ``. They evidently thought that it was a matter of no moment whether those who were included in the category of the governed formed a community or a nation. Force of circumstances has, however, compelled political philosophers to accept this distinction. In the second place, it is not a mere distinction without a difference. It is a distinction which is substantial and the difference is consequentially fundamental. That this distinction between a community and a nation is fundamental, is clear from the difference in the political rights which political philosophers are prepared to permit to a community and those they are prepared to allow to a nation against the Government established by law. To a community they are prepared to allow only the right of insurrection. But to a nation they are willing to concede the right of disruption. The distinction between the two is as obvious as it is fundamental.. A right of insurrection is restricted only to insisting on a change in the mode and manner of government. The right of disruption is greater than the right of insurrection arid extends to the secession of a group of the members of a State with a secession of the portion of the State`s territory in its occupation. One wonders what must be the basis of this difference. Writers on political philosophy, who have discussed this subject, have given their reasons for the justification of a Community`s right to insurrection 110[f.66] and of a nation`s right to demand disruption. 111[f.67] The difference comes to this : a community has a right to safeguards, a nation has a right to demand separation. The difference is at once clear and crucial. But they have not given any reasons why the right of one is limited to insurrection and why that of the other extends to disruption. They have not even raised such a question. Nor are the reasons apparent on the face of them. But it is both interesting and instructive to know why this difference is made. To my mind the reason for this difference pertains to questions of ultimate destiny. A state either consists of a series of communities or it consists of a series of nations. In a state, which is composed of a series of communities, one community may be arrayed against another community and the two may be opposed to each other. But in the matter of their ultimate destiny they feel they are one. But in a state, which is composed of a series of nations, when one nation rises against the other, the conflict is one as to differences of ultimate destiny. This is the distinction between communities and nations and it is this distinction which explains the difference in their political rights. There is nothing new or original in this explanation. It is merely another way of staring why the community has one kind of right and the nation another of quite a different kind. A community has a right of insurrection because it is satisfied with it. All that it wants is a change in the mode and form of government. Its quarrel is not over any difference of ultimate destiny. A nation has to be accorded the right of disruption because it will not be satisfied with mere change in the form of government. Its quarrel is over the question of ultimate destiny. If it will not be satisfied unless the unnatural bond that binds them is dissolved, then prudence and even ethics demands that the bond shall be dissolved and they shall be freed each to pursue its own destiny.

V

While it is necessary to admit that the efforts at Hindu-Muslim unity have failed and that the Muslim ideology has undergone a complete revolution, it is equally necessary to know the precise causes which have produced these effects. The Hindus say that the British policy of divide and rule is the real cause of this failure and of this ideological revolution. There is nothing surprising in this. The Hindus having cultivated the Irish mentality to have no other politics except that of being always against the Government, are ready to blame the Government for everything including bad weather. But time has come to discard the facile explanation so dear to the Hindus. For it fails to take into account two very important circumstances. In the first place, it overlooks the fact that the policy of divide and rule, allowing that the British do resort to it, cannot succeed unless there are elements which make division possible, and further if the policy succeeds for such a long time, it means that the elements which divide are more or less permanent and irreconcilable and are not transitory or superficial. Secondly, it forgets that Mr. Jinnah, who represents this ideological transformation, can never be suspected of being a tool in the hands of the British even by the worst of his enemies. He may be too self-opinionated, an egotist without the mask and has perhaps a degree of arrogance which is not compensated by any extraordinary intellect or equipment. It may be on that account he is unable to reconcile himself to a second place and work with others in that capacity for a public cause. He may not be over-flowing with ideas although he is not, as his critics make him out to be, an empty-headed dandy living upon the ideas of others. It may be that his fame is built up more upon art and less on substance. At the same time, it is doubtful if there is a politician in India to whom the adjective incorruptible can be more fittingly applied. Anyone who knows what his relations with the British Government have been, will admit that he has always been their critic, if indeed, he has not been their adversary. No one can buy him. For it must be said to his credit that he has never been a soldier of fortune. The customary Hindu explanation fails to account for the ideological transformation of Mr. Jinnah.``

--

Could such a man be called ``exclusivist``? Only people ignorant or extremely biased may... but not reasonable people.

Also before I forget:

99% of Hindus` problems and 100% of the subcontinent`s problems wouldn`t have happened if Gandhi was not born and had not practised his ``I am a Hindu first and therefore a true Indian`` religious bigotry.

Dear BJKumar..

Your monkey business has gone long enough. Why don`t you substantiate any of your claims with some facts and sources? Or has gandhiism so deeply entrenched itself in you that you are only capable of lying. That is where your Exclusivist Hindu mindset and anti-Pakistani bias forces you to ignore the facts...

Jinnah was a man whose worst critics admitted that he was free of communal bias. For 30+ years you chaps hailed him as the best ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity.

Your reluctance to accept that Jinnah - who appointed a Hindu to represent Muslims in the interim government- was the last person to be exclusive is directly proportional to the guilt you feel for unjustifiably upping that exclusivist bigot Gandhi. Please feel free to read below Mr Friend`s rendering of Gandhi`s own words. As for what Jinnah wanted... he was clear that every citizen of Pakistan regardless of religion caste or creed had to be an equal citizen.

Meanwhile - Gandhi declared: ``I am a Hindu first- therefore a true Indian``. So who is exclusive? A man who for thirty years tried for Hindu Muslim Unity... who constantly put India before any other allegiance... or Gandhi who sought to place Hinduism as the primary motif of Indian nationalism?

The reason I cut and paste your words was because while they were completely untrue... with minor alterations they became completely true.

#295, #296 Yasser

Manto running out of own words and copying and pasting mine! Wow!

I think that 99% of Muslims` problems and 100% of Pakistan`s problems would never have happened if Jinnah had not been born and had not practiced his ``Muslims are exclusive`` mindset!

He wanted more than one vote per Muslim - the idiot! So now, the Pakistani males and females get not even that!

They get to chose in a ``referendum``!

What a humiliation! Go to any part of the world and unless they confuse you with an Indian, you get treated worse than street dogs!

Mian Mushy LOVES dogs!

Nobody in Pakistan is immune from his love - the follow-on to Jinnah`s class act of love!

Such love! VERY ``touching``! It is almost like ``koochy, koochy, koochy!``

Except it is ``poochy, poochy, poochy!``

Jinnah da man! He sure knew how to ``shaft`` his own! Starting with his daughter, too!

PS: And unlike you each of my accusations is substantiated with facts. Therein lies the difference... little bj.

BJkumar,

While Jinnah was hailed as the best ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity by your daddyos...
Gandhi was the very first terrorist from the subcontinent – infact the grand daddy of terrorists.

THE terrorist – through and through! Giver of the “gift” that keeps on giving – to this day and has ruined countless lives in your country – and continues to do so to this day! Just look at how poverty stricken masses of India butcher each other in several states.

The man who single-handedly created mayhem and mourning all around him and continues to do so eighty years later all for his personal vanity and gratification!

Gandhi- the original architect of that Hindu exclusivity that forced great secular democrats like Jinnah to seek alternatives...

Gandhi- the racist casteist bigot who considered black people subhuman.

Gandhi- the women hater and wife beater .

Gandhi - the Casteist racist bigot who was denounced by every minority and every untouchable...

What a character! Someday, the Indian crowds will kick themselves over the head at what a charlatan they allowed to hijack their souls! If Gandhi’s mother could come back to life and had a way to time travel, she would have gone back in time and got an abortion!

Or would have committed khud-kushi!

To make the world a better place!

#293 Yasser

Jinnah was the very first terrorist from the subcontinent – a terrorist without absolutely any comparison!

THE terrorist – through and through!

Giver of the “gift” that keeps on giving – to this day and has ruined countless lives in your country – and continues to do so to this day!

The man who single-handedly created mayhem and mourning all around him and continues to do so sixty years later all for his personal vanity and gratification!

Jinnah- the original architect of that Muslim exclusivity which is practiced by a fringe to this day – and bedevils even Uncle Sam now!

What a character! Someday, the Pakistani crowds will kick themselves over the head at what a charlatan they allowed to hijack their souls! If Jinnah’s mother could come back to life and had a way to time travel, she would have gone back in time and got an abortion!

Or would have committed khud-kushi!

To make the world a better place!

BJkumar,

One thing is certain. You are consistent. Your poetry, ``bawdy bawdy verse``, grasp of facts and your prose are equally awful and ridiculous.


friend...

How would it look if a Muslim said ``I am a Muslim first and hence a true Indian``....

Oh wait... we know that Gandhi did like Maulana Muhammad Ali ... of the Ali Brothers. And guess what the Maulana said about Gandhi... he said that even the worst Muslim was better than Gandhi... Don`t spin Gandhi`s nonsense. The guy was excessively proud of being a Hindu first ...

At some point you have to own up to Gandhi`s flaw... where he introduced religion into politics and brought to forefront Muslim and Hindu identities...

Gandhi thought religious identities were kosher ... (ofcourse to him Hindu national identity was more kosher than others though he did support the Khilafat Movement)... having imposed Hindu and Muslim identity on the masses in 1920s... why could he not come to terms with a minority claiming the same in the 1940s is an open question.

Unwillingness to accept these facts is the real reason why no one on the either side of the border has buried the past.

#289, #290 Yasser

Dear Yasser,
Peshe khidmat hai!

(Janitor)
``Jharoo waale
Jharoo laga
Yasser roye
Preet bharie
Bolee sun
Tu gaa...``

(Jinnah to Yasser)
``...Ro mut
Ro naa
Kabhie mat
Ro naa
Chahe toot jaye
Koi Khilona
Khilona, khilona
Dil ka khilona
Chahe toot jaye...``

(Yasser to Jinnah)
``Hue hum Jinnah-ke liye budnam
Wo mur ke laakh karein na yaad
Jeewan bhar
Jeewan bhar unko khoad ke
Hum khaye jayenge
Hum khaye jayenge...``

(Farzana to Yasser (consoling))
``Haal kaisa hai janab ka
Tum to fisal gaye o, o, o...
Hum bhee the loo gaye a, a, a...``

(The world at large to Pakistanis at large)
``Kha ye joota, Pakistani!
Kholo pant, Yasser jaanee
Sir pe laat kha tu, Mushy!
Bolo Jinnah, mehrbani!``

Manto the idiot #277
``I am a Hindu first and therefore a true Indian`` (Gandhi)

Stop making half-assed statements without context. Read following. Do seek help if you are slow with comprehension.



Meaning of Religion
Let me explain what I mean by religion. It is not the Hindu religion which I certainly prize above all other religions, but the religion which transcends Hinduism, which changes one`s very nature, which binds one indissolubly to the truth within and which ever purifies. It is the permanent element in human nature which counts no cost too great in order to find full expression and which leaves the soul utterly restless until it has found itself, known its Maker and appreciated the true correspondence between the Maker and itself. (YI, 12-5-1920, p. 2)

By religion, I do not mean formal religion, or customary religion, but that religion which underlies all religions, which brings us face to face with our Maker. (MKG, p. 7)

My Religion
My religion has no geographical limits. If I have a living faith in it, it will transcend my love for India herself. (YI, 11-8-1920, p. 4)

Mine is not a religion of the prison-house. It has room for the least among God`s creation. But it is proof against insolence, pride of race, religion or colour. (YI, 1-6-1921, p. 171)

There is undoubtedly a sense in which the statement is true when I say that I hold my religion dearer than my country and that, therefore, I am a Hindu first and nationalist after. I do not become on that score a less nationalist than the best of them. I simply thereby imply that the interests of my country are identical with whose of my religion.

``win at all costs``

Yes- like that deposition against Gandhi where he tries to bribe the American woman for covering up her husband`s murder at the hand of Gandhi`s followers?

Gandhi- I must say - was a clever chap. He was a racist bigot, a woman hater and an extremely violent man in his personal and public life... indeed he would give Al Capone a run for his money... and while Capone ran his racket in one or two districts... Gandhi ran his in many countries.

There is a lot to learn from him - especially if you are a professional crook- BJ Kumar has done that well.

BJKumar,

You are getting even more incoherent ... jumping from topic to topic. I am not trying to pin any failure on the Mahatma... except your failure to carry out a logical conversation and the inherent bigotry you have displayed.

I accept your concession that you have no argument and have to contend yourself to writing long and boring repetitive posts without any real logic. Memo to Brainless Joker : Repeating a lie many many many times does not make it true. The fact is and the truth is that you have nothing to substantiate your statements against Jinnah with anything...

As for Pakistan being a failed state... there was actually a fruitful discussion which proves conclusively that the said report doesn`t have a leg to stand on.

#286 Yasser

Dear Yasser,

Again, you clearly don’t get it. The topic of this article is Pakistan and its various failures. It has been nearly six decades since freedom came to the subcontinent and here you are trying to pin the failure down on the Mahatma who has NOTHING to do with the topic - or you keep somehow trying to bring in the contentious topic of abortion (which by the way, this interactor is opposed to).

There is little doubt that Pakistan looks like a failed state at this time - read the article again, or if you are lazy, just look around you, or talk to a single non-Pakistani of the world outside Pakistan. The country, from all appearances, has failed due to the mindset of its various rulers - both the khakis and the civilians. But the mindset is the same that they have faithfully copied from that insensitive, ``win at all costs`` criminal of a lawyer called Jinnah - only the techniques have been a little different as Jinnah`s original technique of using force over reason got practiced more and more and got refined over time - now it is almost Pakistan`s native art!

And so what do we end up with? Present day Pakistan! And if you TRULY cared about your children and their future - you will try to get out of this ghetto mentality of trying to blame others - you appear to be new at this game - Farzana has been at it for over a decade - you may learn a thing or two from her mistakes!

There is nobody to blame - but that master criminal - Mohammed Ali Jinnah! His ``gift`` to the subcontinent - terrorism - the ``gift`` that keeps on giving itself!

``Rehm kee bheekh duniya na degi
Tujhko duniya pe kub rehm aaya?
Doosron ke diyon ko bujhata raha
Julm dhata raha, muskurata raha
Jaal har ras-te mein bichhata raha
Phans gaya khud toe be-chaine hota hai kyn
Aaj rotaa hai kyun...``

(PS:

I admit that the sexual take on Jinnah`s reasons for opposing his daughter`s marriage was just my guess - I have no expertise on psycho-sexual issues - which are more accurately the domain of Dr. Sohail, Dr. Lokraj, and the like - all of who can be designated ``chickens`` and awarded a hearty ``cluck-cluck`` for not responding to my earlier comment.

Someday, when you do apply for a visa to India - make sure you attach a copy of your several pronouncements on the Mahatma with your visa application! Even if you don`t, I am sure somebody else will be happy to conduct the necessary research and do it for you.

You can turn around and tell me to do the same regarding Pakistan and Jinnah, of course. Guess which event is more likely and who holds the higher profile.)

Salim Chauhan,

I completely agree that Muslims of India voted for the Muslim League and its Pakistan Plan as embodied in the Lahore Resolution of 1940 and which was a democratic, secular and imaginative solution to oppressive Caste Hindu Majoritarianism and which was contained within the greater Indian federation and not the partition imposed on them by Gandhi and the rest of the Hindu Fascists.

The solution for Pakistan is hark back to the Lahore Resolution, which after all is accepted by all subnationalities and ethnicities of Pakistan and bring the constitution in line with the modern democratic and federal spirit of the Great document.

Dear BJkumar,

I submit that women of black America pre-1865 were still better off than women in 21st century India- a great majority of whom are terminated in the womb. The facts are clear.. tens of millions of female fetuses were aborted by Indian doctors over the recent years... atleast black slave women had some options... but then again all this is the teaching Gandhi.


Have you noticed how you make claims without ever substantiating them? This is your problem - the reason why no one takes you seriously on these boards.

The world`s original terrorist/fascist/RSS-Ideologue was Gandhi - who while posing to be non-violent- encouraged his followers to resort to all sorts of violence. Infact - there is a deposition- now time barred and irrelevant- that exists in the State of California which proves that Gandhi was bribing the widow of a deceased American to shut up about her husband`s murder. Not only was Gandhi a bloody terrorist ... he would go to any means to falsify the facts and distort reality. I think your conduct, as a self styled follower of the bigot, itself is evidence enough to substantiate my claims against Gandhian Fascism.

Meanwhile you speak of ``mindset``... While ``exclusive`` Jinnah was appointing Hindus on Muslim seats and Christians as editors of Dawn and other newspapers representing the Muslim League, Gandhi, Nehru and other so called ``inclusivists`` were discriminating against Muslims and Parsis.

Here is what one feeble minded Congressite Muslim confessed to..:


The first was the case of Mr. Nariman, a Parsee and an acknowledged leader of the local Congress in Bombay, who was generally expected to lead the provincial government. Sardar Patel and his colleagues could not reconcile with such a leadership of non-Hindu Chief Minister where ``the majority of members in the Congress Assembly Party were Hindus.`` [p. 16]

``Mr. Nariman was naturally upset about the decision. He raised the question before the Congress Working Committee. Jawaharlal was then President and many hoped that in view of his complete freedom from communal bias; he would rectify the injustice to Nariman. Unfortunately this did not happen. ... He [Jawaharlal] sought to placate Patel and rejected Nariman`s appeal. ... Nariman was surprised at Jawaharlal`s attitude, especially as Jawaharlal treated him harshly and tried to shout him down in the meeting of the Working Committee.`` [p. 16-17]

``Nariman had lost the case even before the enquiry began. It was finally held that nothing was proven against Sardar Patel. None who knew the inner story was satisfied with this verdict. We all know that truth has been sacrificed in order to satisfy Sardar Patel`s communal demands. Poor Nariman was heart broken and his public life came to an end.`` [p. 17]

``A similar development took place in Bihar. Dr. Syed Mahmud was the top leader of the province when the elections were held. He was also a General Secretary of the All India Congress Committee and as such he had a position both inside and outside the province. When the Congress secured an absolute majority, it was taken for granted that Dr. Syed Mahmud would be elected the leader and become the first Chief Minister of Bihar under Provincial Autonomy. Instead, Sri Krishna Sinha and Anugraha Narayan Sinha who were members of the Central Assembly, were called back to Bihar and groomed for the Chief Ministership. Dr. Rajendra Prasad played the same role in Bihar as Sardar Patel did in Bombay.`` [p. 17]

``These two instances left a bad taste at the time. Looking back, I cannot help feeling that the Congress did not live up to its professed ideals. One has to admit with regret that the nationalism of the Congress had not then reached a stage where it could ignore communal considerations and select leaders on the basis of merit without regard to majority or minority.`` [p. 18]


(India Wins Freedom by Maulana Azad)

#283 Yasser

I said “slave women in pre-war America” as in mothers, sisters and daughters of slaves – as treated by their white “masters”! I doubt any of YOUR family were around here back then! (But I can not vouch for the same, though!)

---

#281 Yasser

Dear Yasser,

You clearly don’t get it.

Jinnah was the ORIGINAL Islamic terrorist – a “gift” from the region to the world. He proved to the world that it is possible to take through violence what can never be obtained through reason! His successors learnt that lesson well – Jinnah may have gone but his mindset is a permanent feature of your landscape. It has been copied and improved upon by all his successors – until now they are SO good at it that they can accomplish the feat bloodlessly – all it requires is the agility to jump over and scale the walls of TV stations – and all it takes to retain is to jump when directed by bigger and more powerful countries!

Jinnah’s gift – the gift that “keeps on giving”!

You hide in Pakistan – where the US kicks the Mushy – who kicks his subordinates – who kick the average citizens – who kick their women – that bottom-most point of the totem-pole! And you shout “dil,dil, Pakistan!”

As if that changes the reality!

As if that changes the well-known fact of the highly negative perception of all Pakistanis that everybody but Pakistanis have?!!! Have you seen the latest US poll on that topic? Would you like me to post the results for your benefit?

You should feel free to take “pride” in your motherland – because such make-believe “pride” is all that is left for you!

But perhaps you should not expect every other Pakistani to feel that way. Certainly not those of my Pakistani friends who are too ashamed to admit their citizenship when traveling and only take out their passport when there is absolutely no other recourse.

Or those who – when asked by Americans at large – try to pass themselves off as Indians or Bangladeshis!

You think all of that was created in vacuum – or the Mahatma did that? How deluded can one be? You got a strong terrorist network in your country - nurtured and sustained by your establishment and supported by a significant part of your population (hopefully, not the majority).

It is the mindset, stupid! And the criminal Jinnah is the culprit!! The moron thought he could control it and harvest it - but the moron was wrong and is gone anyway - and the baby has turned out to be a monster - and it is eating humanity all over but most of all it is eating and feasting upon its own kin!!

And stay the course if you wish, so that someday, your children will take the same “pride” that you appear to take!

Please accept my (earlier than due date) “Happy Father’s Day!”

Manto #282, I am glad that we agree on the lack of an electoral process for partition. The Muslims of India (including Pakistan) never voted for partition. They voted for ML to represent them in a united India and Mr. Jinnah stretched that ``inch`` into a ``fortnight.`` :) LOL.

As for American democracy, I am neither refuting my initial point nor establishing a new one. I am merely agreeing with you that American democracy evolved over the years, but was almost always way ahead of its peers during each period. The one major exception would be slavery, where it lagged behind most of Europe in outlawing that cruel practice. My point is that in order to practice democracy and secularism, you have to have some roots in those ideals. What Pakistan has consistently demonstrated is that whether educated or not, civilian or military, urban or rural, Mohajir or Punjabi, Bengali or Sindhi, Pathan or Baluchi, the people of Pakistan don`t really take democracy very seriously. Secularism is on yet another unattainable summit. Thanks.

PPS: ``women in Pre-civil war America``

Assuming that it is true (my own family experience suggests otherwise) ... I`d say that women in pre-civil war America surely had it better than women in India ... who are done away with at the foetal stage for the crime of being a woman.

I suppose that is the difference... we accept that we didn`t reach the standards set for women`s equality ... but Indians followed Gandhi`s example in misogyny and male chauvinism very well.

PS: My motherland is the Indus Valley. This ``British`` India was never my motherland ... and there was never such a creature. Thus there was no vivisection.. except of perhaps a millenial Hindu ambition of establishing Ram Rajya and Gandhian Fascism over the subcontinent... That certainly was vivisected!

Salim mian,

You`ve already refuted your own claim about the beginnings of US ... By limiting franchise to landowning white males the US was hardly a democracy ... even in 1776 or 1789... furthermore... like I pointed out... even in 1860s ... the US Supreme Court was unwilling to accept that black people were human - see the Dred Scott Case for example.

When you say that simply because all Indian Muslims voted for ML - it didn`t mean partition that is actually my point and thanks for accepting it. The solution ML wanted did not envisage partition. That much is now clear and honest Indians (not the BJKumar and Gandhi types) like H M Seervai etc have already proved this. Pakistan was supposed to be part of the Indian federation ... that would have solved the problem you refer to. Even those who live through the era reaffirm this view. Khushwant Singh writes in his ``Lahore Independence and Partition`` that he wholeheartedly supported the Muslim demand because he understood it to mean within the all India context- and Khushwant Singh we know was a close friend of Mahomed Ali Jinnah.




BJKumar mian,

Repeating the same old abuse is not going to change the facts. It was Gandhi who brought religion into politics and it was Gandhi who brought religiousity to the forefront... yes the same religiousity that continues to cause havoc in India in form of communal violence. History is witness to this... and all you can do is abuse me.

And besides Pakistan - even in this ``failed`` form- is source of envy for visiting Indians who marvel at how much better our roads, how much healthier our people are and how greener our cities are.... not to mention fewer beggars and less poverty. This is a universal view... you may consult some of the articles by more open minded of your compatriots. Just imagine if we had actually followed Mr Jinnah`s advice - how much better we would be than you... So my suggestion- continue to live in your fool`s paradise... after all it is you- not me - who is living in a far off land away from the ``shining India``.

-YLH

Manto Bhai #275 and #276,

You are right about democracy having evolved in the US from the 16th century with the arrival of the English in VA and MA. The colonies did progress from Puritan (MA), Catholic (MD), Quaker (PA), and penile (GA) settlements. But, by the time of the American Revoution in 1776, there were sound principles of democracy (although voting was restricted to only free white males with property) and secularism. If you want to draw parallels to Pakistan, then you must acknowledge that even Pakistan has a legacy predating 1947 - nowhere does that legacy include democracy, unless you consider panchayat and jirga as a form of democracy. Just ask Mukhtaran Mai if she shares this definition.

Comparing Pakistan to Israel is a valid situation. Unfortunately, the comparison ends with the basis of their establishment - nations founded for a religious group consisting of many ethnicities. Unlike Pakistan, Israel welcomed Jews from around the world, including Romani where it even paid ransom to obtain Jewish refugees. On the contrary, Pakistan spends its vision and resources in keeping its own citizens ``stranded.``

Why do you say that Pakistan was formed by an electoral process? Voting for the ML does not necessarily constitute a willingness by Indian Muslims to separate from the motherland.

Lastly, if you are calling India a fascist Hindu state, then why did ML leave a substantial number of its constituents in that hostile environment? Was it a case of racism or ``I got mine, the hell with you!`` selfish syndrome?

If Hindus are upset over the destruction of their (and our) motherland, then I concede considerable validity to this sentiment. After all, you cannot split India on the basis of religion and then expect them to live happily everafter with approximately 40 million (now 160 million) of the very people who helped divide their country. They lost one fourth of their Bharat Mata and didn`t get the consolation of shedding the TNT. :) I am just seeing it from the right-wing Hindu perspective. Thanks.

#277, #278 Yasser

I should have said that you are both immature AND dishonest!

Jinnah’s misdeeds live on and they continue to wreak havoc on a hapless Pakistani population! All the revising and rewriting of history is not changing a single fact of your present reality as summarized in this article.

It is more than coincidence that for sixty whole years the country has been unable to shake off its dictators, it has been unable to shake off the hold of its Mullahs, and it is unable to treat its women any better than the slave women of pre-civil war America!

Keep trying to blame whoever you wish to – including the long-dead Mahatma. Like this article showed so clearly, there is just no getting away from the end results of that “exclusive” mindset that the villain Jinnah so clearly espoused! And if the future crop is like you - the trend is not going to change anytime soon.

Perhaps never!

Hypocrites, the whole lot! Every Pakistani ruler - starting with Jinnah! And every leader wanna-be – even immaterial wanna-be`s - like yourself!

Keep lapping up your well-earned just desserts!

Enjoy it to your fill before it passes on to your little ones as it surely must – the track record is impeccable!

Because your rewards – the khakis, the beards, the rapes, the sherwanis, and the internecine blood-baths – are glued to your population by the strongest of glues!

It is the glue of that highly “exclusive” mindset!

You are truly, truly stuck!

``unite people in bloodbath``

Fascist brigade- Gandhi, Nehru and the Congress Party were solely responsible for partition of India and the accompanying bloodbath. The great Indian jurist, H M Seervai, and Indian historian S K Majumdar- not to mention 95% of all genuine historians from India and the west- him have documented in detail how partition was actually brought about.

Reading history will open the eyes of many... but not the followers of one Gandhiji.

bjkumar,

How long will you go on denying history? Was it not the Hindu leaders like Gandhi, Gokhale Nehru etc who hailed Jinnah as the best Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity? Was it not the Indian National Congress that planted him in the Muslim League?

When you speak of exclusive mindsets which is more exclusive: ``I am an Indian first second and last`` (Jinnah) or ``I am a Hindu first and therefore a true Indian`` (Gandhi)?

The exclusive mindset is the misdeed of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi who mixed religion with politics and proudly so (``I am experimenting with introducing religion into politics) ....

As for me being ``fake`` instead of ``immature``- you have the right to your own opinion. To me however you were an immature hatemonger and a follower of a bigoted Hindu fascist (Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi) yesterday and you continue to be one today.


As for bigoted racists... Gandhi will always lead the roost- ... ``How dare my son become a Muslim and break the purity of the Dharma. And if Jinnah`s liberalism was fake... Nehru`s liberalism was even more so... after all, according to Indira Gandhi, Nehru opposed her wedding to Mr Feroze (who adopted last name Gandhi to be more acceptable) simply because Mr Feroz(e) was not a Hindu. And unlike Jinnah who accepted his daughter`s marriage after opposing it, Nehru manipulated and broke up Indira`s marriage ... forcing her to live a miserable isolated existence which transformed her into a true fascist dictator who bulldosed the Golden Temple by bringing in tanks.

#274 Yasser

[...Best Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity. ...]

Sure, that`s the type of ambassador one needs - unite people in a bloodbath. I used to think you are immature - now I think you are just as fake as the rest of the Pakistani politicians - only, like certain other people here, you have a zero constituency - Thank God!

Jinnah`s misdeeds live on and they continue to wreak havoc on a hapless Pakistan! There is no getting away from the end results of that ``exclusive`` mindset! And if the future lot is like you - the trend is not going to change anytime soon.

However, Jinnah had no business messing up his daughter`s sex life because of whatever selfish motives he had! All his ``liberalism`` was a fake!

It is a bit like racists in this country used to say of minorities - ``...some of them are my best friends, but one would not want to marry one!``

Hypocrites, the whole lot of them! Every Pakistani ruler - starting with Jinnah!

And every wanna-be leader - like yourself!

Keep lapping up your just rewards - so well-earned!

PS:

``what about Slovakia? Thats how adults separate``

Pakistan as a nationstate was formed through an electoral process and was endorsed by the same Act of Parliament which gave the subcontinent independence.

The Hindus however were too caught up in their ancient religious notions of ``Bharat Mata`` and the emotional rhetoric ``oh you bad Muslims you tore asunder our mommy`` (which they are to this day) to accept that there had been a division through a political process... The souring of relations in South Asia was the exclusive domain of the embittered party- the imagined grievance of the Hindu Majority represented by the Congress Party- which thought that all British India ought to be subjected to Delhi`s direct control.


``religious- Israel, Pakistan``

And Israel is a prospering secular democracy... proving my point that mode of governance should not be confused with a country`s basis.

BJkumar,

You may continue to believe anything you wish. Thank God he saved me from being from the same country as people like you.

Please note that the pork whisky argument you`ve gotten from somewhere else- ... my argument that Jinnah was secular - which is an established fact and was proved again and again when your National press took to the issue obsessively for over 2 months last year in June and July- is based on his track record as the only politician to be called the Best Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity. No one denies this but you may distort facts to suit yourself as you please. As for Dina`s marriage... yes he did oppose it ... this was after all the time, Congress kay Kutay - the Mullahs from Deoband- were passing down fatwas against him - no doubt on Gandhi`s insistence- for being Kafir and being unfit to lead Muslims because he married a Parsi woman. Had he openly endorsed his daughter`s marriage ... Gandhi and Nehru and other machiavellian politicians would have gotten another excuse to bash him.

But what I wonder was Gandhi`s excuse when he hit the roof after his son converted to Islam and then made excuses for it... and why was Nehru the great secularist opposed to his daughter`s wedding to a Parsi? Please don`t try and produce any long winded clarification- Indira Gandhi has herself admitted that her father was opposed to her wedding to Mr Feroze Gandhi in her interview with Orianna Fallaci (Please read Orianna Fallaci`s ``Interview With History``)



Dear Salim Chauhan,

I was under the impression that you would take a deeper view of history...

1- The history of the US did not start in 1789. I suggest you read about Plymouth Commonwealth etc from the 1650s- you will discover that the US is actually based on Puritan ethic. Also please note that even in the 1850s the United States Supreme Court was passing down verdicts like black people are not covered under the definition of the ``citizen`` .... furthermore I am sure you know that the federation of the US was under threat of separation till much later and people did make doomsday predictions even 90 years after the creation of of the federation of the United States.

2- India`s secular constitution will ensure its viability. They have Ambedkar to thank... yes the same Ambedkar who sided with the League against the Congress in the 1930s and 1940s... However... Modi or no Modi... India`s status as a Hindu Cultural State is hardly up for negotiation. It is a Hindu cultural state... based on Hindu cultural symbols and Hindu cultural trends.... will it become an outright fascist state- at times it shows that trend but the constitution has kept it under check. However.. my point was that India`s basis as a nation is NOT secularism and democracy... those are the principles on which its government is run and that is because the Hindu majority has evolved enough to see that this is the right path. But push comes to shove a Caste Hindu establishment rules the roost there... India sees itself as the successor to Gupta Empire not the Mughal Empire... mind you.

#268 Yasser

The topic is Pakistan and its failure. I maintain that the country was doomed to fail because of the inherent dishonesty of the man who created it - pretending to be secular when in reality he was the worst bigot of them all - only a dishonest one!

It is well established that he opposed his daughter marrying her non-Muslim suitor. Ostensibly, it was on religious grounds.

(1) But Jinnah was supposedly ``secular`` - right? He was not a religious bigot, right? (You have said that yourself countless times.)

He ate pork and drank wine, right?!

So why should the religion of her suitor be an issue?

But it was!

(2) Now therefore, either he was a religious bigot, or he was a possessive man who thought he owned his daughter the way old slave-owners of the South treated the women of their slaves. So, why would he try to hook her up with anybody else? She was right where he wished her to remain - for the rest of her life! Serving HIS needs - whatever those were! Seems eerily like a case of reverse Electra complex to me.

Those are my opinions. And the more one considers, the more likely they appear.

Maybe the inhouse shrink Dr. Sohail has some insight into this man`s contradiction!

Too bad the dead man never graced his couch! If only those couches could talk!

Purdeh ke peechhe kya kya hota thaa?!!

Cheers!