A Failing State in a State of Denial

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!

Manto #271

My dear Manto Bhai,

At the risk of being logically obliterated, I will try to bat against Shoaib. :)
They say:
1. Never spit in the wind
2. Never take the mask of the old Lone Ranger,
3. Don`t debate with a lawyer.

Having said that:

1- Nation states have their own logic. In a way yes - usually the bond is linguistic - France, England, Germany, Poland, Russia, Spain, Portugal, Japan, China, Iran, and so on. religious - Israel, Pakistan, .
2- They don`t need basis What about a mission statement, at least? :) .
3- They are always born out of conflict. What about Slovakia? At least, that`s how adults separate.
4- Secularism and Democracy are not ``ideologies`` or ``basis`` but an evolutionary process in lives of nations. The US started out as both despite many religious zealots and authoritarians
5- India is a Hindu Chauvinist cultural state - no doubt constitutionally secular and democratic because of the higher level of political evolution amongst Hindus and because of that great man Dr Ambedkar who made sure Gandhian Fascism was kept out of the constitution. You may be right, but the results are quite different. The presence of millions of Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, and others is a pretty good indicator. Election and defeat of various parties are proof that its democracy works. When I look at Modi and his type, yes the Hindu chauvinism is quite obvious, but thankfully, it is effectively countered by true believers of secularism and democracy. If the saffron brigade get their wish, then you will have been proven right. Until then, I am more optimistic about India`s future.
6- Pakistan was and always will be a reaction to 5. Owing to backwardness of Muslims in general... it also continues to try and reconcile Islam with modernity. I think that you are somewhat right here. It may have been an unfortunate and a premature reaction to Hindu Mahasabha domination. But since 1947, Pakistan has done little to foster a feeling of true nationalism. In fact since 1971, this feeling has been terribly eroded, perhaps with the exception of Punjabis, who after all, are enjoying the status of premier class of citizenship. Manto, really, many of us non-Punjabis are very disappointed with Pakistan and its evolution. I am just more vocal than the others. As I have said many times, Pakistan needs to:

1. Establish secularism in all aspects of nationhood - constitution, institutions, citizenship, etc
2. Develop a firm sense of democratic ideals, beliefs, practices, and government
3. Observe the rule of law
4. Remove the inequities imposed by the domination of one province
5. Split up the four provinces into 12 or 13 smaller more manageable ones
6. Adopt and institutionalize modern, compassionate, and logical sense of morality - stop capital punishment, cruel retributions, humane treatment of animals and humans.