‘Our Liberals’ and Minority Psyche

#737 by majumdar

MAJ (pbuh)`s disciple YLH recently posted to me this ``Pakistanis are democrats to the core``

Only goes to show that some delusions haven`t gone away even 60 years after Partition, almost 50 years of which were spent under martial law.

Fundamental and irreconcilable differences in philosophy between the two-nation and one-nation outlooks regarding foreign policy can be seen here:

Presidential Address delivered by Mr. M.A. Jinnah, at the plenary session of the Bengal Provincial Muslim League Conference, Serajganj, February 15, 1942.
..
Pakistan
Now let me proceed to the next point - Pakistan. We have heard many arguments but what do we find in the latest pronouncement of Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru who always thinks in terms of internationalism? What does he say? He does not repeat the wretched arguments that his colleagues and most of the other Hindu leaders have been repeating ad nauseum. He does not think in terms of India. For him, India does not exist. Let me read to you an extract of his speech as reported in the press on the 2nd of this month.

He wondered how the Muslim League talk of partitioning India and forming a separate Muslim bloc, when some Islamic countries, which were separate Muslim blocs, had lost their freedom. Those who talked of such partition had closed their eyes and ears to the happenings of the world and had refused to take lessons from the war. He also wondered how a Muslim bloc in India could stand by itself, when in the present day world big nations could not stand alone.

All that I can say to Mr. Nehru is to let us look after ourselves and to let us see whether we can stand by ourselves. May I know from him how the whole of India can stand alone when in the present-day world big nations have not been able to stand alone?``

Even today Pakistan goes out of its way to mock at any of India`s choices to stand on its own two feet.

#737 Zoom dada

[Pakistanis are democrats to the core]

Yup, every one of them is a democrat to the core – every one of them was born with a silver US constitution sticking from their posteriors!

On second thoughts, make that green!

Oh, the majesty of that green, green path!

Boal meri taqdeer mein kya hai – mere hum-safar ab to bataa
Jeewan ke do pahloo hain - hariyaalee aur raasta!

And how green they come!

The Mullah who wants to put the women in their “proper place” – high above on that pedestal – just as long as they do not try to come down!

The Supreme Court judges who have sworn allegiance to the khakis without a pang of conscience – those ultimate of lawyers!

The scribes who write falsehood knowing fully well what they write!

The ISI agent who makes sure that literacy tests are accurately applied to ensure that only the worthy politicians get elected!

The expatriates who sit on their behinds and happily proclaim how much better than the rest of the world they are – especially compared to India!

The general who sits atop all – who could ever be more democratic!

Like father – like sons!

Make way, world – here come the “democratic to the core” progeny of the vamp himself!

Harish bhai

(``Democracy is not just a new thing we are learning,`` said Jinnah. ``It is in our blood. )

MAJ (pbuh)`s disciple YLH recently posted to me this ``Pakistanis are democrats to the core``

Regards

For the entire interview, go here:

http://iref.homestead.com/Messiah.html

The Messiah and The Promised Land

Excerpts:

``If Fatima`s reaction was a glow of family pride, her brother`s was a fever of ecstasy. Jinnah`s deep-sunk eyes were pinpoints of excitement. His whole manner indicated that an almost overwhelming exaltation was racing through his veins. I had murmured some words of congratulation on his achievement in creating the world`s largest Islamic nation.

``Oh, it`s not just the largest Islamic nation. Pakistan is the fifth-largest nation in the world!``

The note of personal triumph was so unmistakable that I wondered how much thought he gave to the human cost: more Muslim lives had been sacrificed to create the new Muslim homeland than America, for example, had lost during the entire second World War. I hoped he had a constructive plan for the seventy million citizens of Pakistan. What kind of constitution did he intend to draw up?``

``Of course it will be a democratic constitution; Islam is a democratic religion.``

I ventured to suggest that the term ``democracy`` was often loosely used these days. Could he define what he had in mind?

``Democracy is not just a new thing we are learning,`` said Jinnah. ``It is in our blood. We have always had our system of zakat -- our obligation to the poor.``

This confusion of democracy with charity troubled me. I begged him to be more specific.

``Our Islamic ideas have been based on democracy and social justice since the thirteenth century.``

This mention of the thirteenth century troubled me still more. Pakistan has other relics of the Middle Ages besides ``social justice`` -- the remnants of a feudal land system, for one. What would the new constitution do about that? .. ``The land belongs to the God,`` says the Koran. This would need clarification in the constitution. Presumably Jinnah, the lawyer, would be just the person to correlate the ``true Islamic principles`` one heard so much about in Pakistan with the new nation`s laws. But all he would tell me was that the constitution would be democratic because ``the soil is perfectly fertile for democracy.``

``America needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs America,`` was Jinnah`s reply. ``Pakistan is the pivot of the world, as we are placed`` -- he revolved his long forefinger in bony circles -- ``the frontier on which the future position of the world revolves.`` He leaned toward me, dropping his voice to a confidential note. ``Russia,`` confided Mr. Jinnah, ``is not so very far away.``

``This hope of tapping the U. S. Treasury was voiced so persistently that one wondered whether the purpose was to bolster the world against Bolshevism or to bolster Pakistan`s own uncertain position as a new political entity. Actually, I think, it was more nearly related to the even more significant bankruptcy of ideas in the new Muslim state -- a nation drawing its spurious warmth from the embers of an antique religious fanaticism, fanned into a new blaze``.

``Less than three months after Pakistan became a nation, Jinnah`s Olympian assurance had strangely withered. His altered condition was not made public. ``The Quaid-i-Azam has a bad cold`` was the answer given to inquiries.``

``Later, reflecting on what I had seen, I decided that this desperation was due to causes far deeper than anxiety over Pakistan`s territorial and economic difficulties. I think that the tortured appearance of Mr. Jinnah was an indication that, in these final months of his life, he was adding up his own balance sheet. Analytical, brilliant, and no bigot, he knew what he had done. Like Doctor Faustus, he had made a bargain from which he could never be free. During the heat of the struggle he had been willing to call on all the devilish forces of superstition, and now that his new nation had been achieved the bigots were in the position of authority.``

Dear Sadna,

And we are back to square one. Having a disproportionately large army to land ratio is the central issue that has poisoned Pakistan-India relations.... something that would have been avoided under the CMP.

In any event, the point was to show that a complete separation had other factors and that Pakistan and India still could have done well to make a Joint Defence Council at the very least...

-YLH

#731
BR Ambedkar as usual puts it best and unfortunately the million-odd East Bengalis who were killed in 1971 did not hear him:

``
..If India remains politically one whole and the two-nation mentality created by Pakistan continues to be fostered, the Hindus will find themselves between the devil and the deep sea, so far as the defence of India is concerned. Having an Army, they will not be free to use it because the League objects. Using it, it will not be possible to depend upon it because its loyalty is doubtful.

This is a position which is as pathetic as it is precarious. If the Army continues to be dominated by the Muslims of the Punjab and the N. W. F. P., the Hindus will have to pay it but will not be able to use it and even if they were free to use it against a Muslim invader, they will find it hazardous to depend upon it..

..The revenue of the Central Government amounts to Rs.121 crores. Of this, about Rs. 52 crores are annually spent on the Army. In what area is this amount spent ? Who pays the bulk of this amount of Rs. 52 crores ? The bulk of this amount of Rs. 52 crores which is spent on the Army is spent over the Muslim Army drawn from the Pakistan area. Now the bulk of this amount of Rs. 52 crores is contributed by the Hindu Provinces and is spent on an Army which for the most part consists of non-Hindus ! ! How many Hindus are aware of this tragedy ? How many know at whose cost this tragedy is being enacted ?

Today the Hindus are not responsible for it because they cannot prevent it. The question is whether they will allow this tragedy to continue. If they mean to stop it, the surest way of putting an end to it is to allow the scheme of Pakistan to take effect. To oppose it, is to buy a sure weapon of their own destruction. A safe Army is better than a safe border.``

The incomplete sentence in my post should read:

A customs union was not the form CMP was to take but the idea was the same. Just because EU took the form of a Customs Union and proceeded from that angle does not mean only that route of political union is acceptable, nor does it negate the analogy I have drawn. The CMP was a brilliant solution as it delivered sovereign economic and political units.

To suggest that EU and CMP have nothing is common because one took the customs union route and the other foreign policy and defence route is like saying United States and United Kingdom have nothing in common because US is a constitutional republic while United Kingdom is by law a Kingdom.

Sadna,

With all due respect, you would sound much more sincere and more academic, you actually tried to realise that your interpretation of a particular political theory or idea is not necessarily the only acceptable theory - that there may be other more acceptable political theorems...

1- The way you bypass arguments by going into incidental differences just goes to show that you don`t have any substantial point to argue on... what is common in the European Union and the proposed Indian Union is the idea of open borders and sovereign states within a confederation. I certainly did not suggest that the proposed Indian Union between Pakistan and Hindustan Units under the CMP was a complete copy of the EU... Infact I spoke of the Indian Union having more teeth than the EU... and that much is clear. But then the purpose your argument is mainly an attempt to obfuscate. Talk about honesty. A customs union was not the form that EU.

2- You write: ``Moreover EU member countries have not been required to surrender to the EU, control of their armies and defence and foreign policies. ``

Which is why I wrote: Whatever the toothlessness of the proposed confederation, it had more teeth than the present European Union.

Unlike the EU, the proposed Indian Union (which you`ve decried as ``toothless``) was to have

1- An executive

2- Union defence - hence United Indian Army under equal control of Hindustan and Pakistan with neither party being able to prevail given that even under the communal issue vote (which you`ve often said foreign policy might be) both assemblies had to pass a certain bill (refer to Muslim League`s terms of agreement)

3- United Foreign Policy


This is what I meant when I said that the proposed Indian Union has more teeth than the European Union.

#727
You would waste less of other peoples` time (and appear more honest) if you actually took the trouble to check what you post before you post it. There is nothing in common between the proposed Indian Union and the European Union.


``The Union nowadays has a common single market consisting of a customs union, a single currency managed by the European Central Bank (so far adopted by 12 of the 25 member states), a Common Agricultural Policy, a common trade policy, and a Common Fisheries Policy.[2] A Common Foreign and Security Policy was also established as the second of the three pillars of the European Union. The Schengen Agreement abolished passport control, and customs checks were also abolished at many of the EU`s internal borders, creating a single space of mobility for EU citizens to live, travel, work and invest. ``

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union

EU is a common market mainly with member countries having common customs, currency and trade policies, something expressly forbidden by the Muslim League for the Indian Union. Moreover EU member countries have not been required to surrender to the EU, control of their armies and defence and foreign policies.

majumdar,

I agree with your comment...

The basic reason for Pakistan`s tragic provincial situation is that the powers that be have systematically violated the clauses of Lahore Resolution which was the basis of Pakistan.

Manto mian/Sadnaji,

The sad part about your debate is that although Pakistan was formed on the basis of issues such as provincial rights, Muslim sovereignty, minority rights etc. the same principles have been systemically violated in Pakistan (and to a lesser extent in India).

Regards

PS: I am quite glad that Italy has beaten France.Two reasons, First, the Italians are rather cute, secondly France has many Muslims and blacks. Had France won, echoboom would have flooded the chowk with links highlighting the greatness of Muslims and YLH would have flooded the chowk decrying how MKG had rubbished a race which produced such worthy conquerors of the world.

Dear Sadna,

Very early on ...you and I reached a consensus on the fact that after 1937 Jinnah acted as the representative of Muslims and that from 1940 onwards, he wanted an arrangement on the basis of Pakistan, which was a demand that he had resisted for a good 3 years ... recall my quotation of the history of ``A Punjabi`s`` famous ``Confederacy of India`` which was originally named Pakistan but Mian Kifayet Ali (A Punjabi) changed it to the confederacy of India on Jinnah`s insistence. It was the AIML`s recognition of the popularity of the idea of Pakistan in Muslim majority regions (while ironically Muslim League was strognest in the UP

However... the issues at hand are the following:

I submit

1- That Jinnah had, to quote A G Noorani of The Hindu, a latent sense of India above Pakistan and Hindustan ... which is embodied in the ``toothless`` confederation that you`ve so vehemently decried.

2- That the principle of Pakistan was not based on a rigid and complete hostile partition but as you pointed out the issue of ``Muslim sovereignty``.. Khushwant Singh wrote in one of his essays that he continued to support the ML demand for autonomous Muslim regions in North west and North east not thinking that it would mean partition.

3- With all due respect to B R Ambedkar, who was by the finest intellectual produced by South Asian polity, the world has moved towards European Union type arrangements and Jinnah`s toothless Union is the precursor to a possibly viable SAARC of the future. Thus the toothless Indian Union would have meant peace and security for two otherwise independent states following their destiny according to their own lights whatever they might have been.

4- Please realise that by taking this line of argument - that the Union was completely toothless- you`ve forfeited your earlier argument that Pakistanis` shadow would have loomed large on the activities of Hindustani Constituent Assembly ...

5- Whatever the toothlessness of the proposed confederation, it had more teeth than the present European Union.

Corr: This arrangement cannot be called unity,

#720
I posted that set of terms of the Muslim League on my ilog more than a year ago. Why didn`t you post what the Congress response to that was? Jinnah basically wanted a settlement which did not prevent ``Pakistan`` from secceding from the Indian Union and ``Hindustan`` at any point of time that it wished - completely separate constitutions and virtual sovereignty, a toothless Union with no power of its own, because (1) no power to finance itself (2) parity at the centre in the legislature and executive. Parity at the toothless union level also meant that if the Muslim (`Pakistan`) part of the army, executive, legislature or Group decided to get up and go, it could.

This arrangement can not be not called unity, nor was it of any use for ``Hindustan`` to be tied into this meaningless federation with ``Pakistan`` which did not even allow ``Hindustan`` to use its army as it wished nor have the foreign or defence policy it wished despite being twice or thrice the size of ``Pakistan``. BR Ambedkar put it very clearly - he said Hindus must agree to Pakistan because it was much better for ``Hindustan`` to have a safe army than to have safe borders.


I have been through this discussion many times with you and have answered all your ``points`` several times, including on this thread repeatedly and will not be doing so again.