The General and Kargil

PS: It must be appreciated, however, that the point was that India doesn`t even have the presidential bar.. and therefore is dejure (if not defacto) a secular state... so the argument that India can only be secular if it holds on to Kashmir is a joke.

Krishna abcd,

Please tell me if Justice Cornelius or Justice Bhagwandas were/are Muslims or Non-Muslims? Similarly there is no bar for COAS, JCS, ACM and anyother military post... any citizen of Pakistan can become this.

The only constitutional bar is for the president - and that bar is wrong and should be done away with... Harimau mian actually is disoriented from the ass-whoopin` he has received recently.

Re: #257 by Mantolives

Is it actually true that there is a statute that says that only a Muslim can be ``the President, Justice of the Supreme Court, Chairman of JCS, etc.``?

I had no idea. Is this a fact?

I`d appreciate it if you could tell me for sure.

That should read that the office of Prime Minister with the exception of the years 1973-1985 has remained inclusive of all citizens of Pakistan.

Dear Harimau,

Reading your responses, I am beginning to feel that sudden exposure to facts has shocked and awed you into disorientation. It is a painful process I am sure.

``By law minister, are you referring to one Jogindra Nath Mandal who sought political asylum
in India?``

While the way Mr Mandal was isolated and forced to resign in 1950 is a sad chapter in our history and he did move to India, he did not seek political assylum. He was a disillusioned Pakistani and it is collective responsibility as the Pakistani nation... I don`t deny it... but history once written impartially of Pakistan`s ideologues and India`s myth-makers, Mr Mandal will be celebrated a hero of Pakistan and the Muslim cause...

``Excuse me, doesn`t your country have a law stating that only Followers of the True Faith are eligible to be President, Prime Minster, etc.? And didn`t the Faithful actually take out demonstrations against Justice Bhagwandas`s appointment? Of course, the man had to sign an oath to uphold the PCO to keep his job, didn`t he``

Again little knowledge is dangerous... Please produce this ``protests`` from the ``Faithful``. Some lawyer filed a petition in Sindh High Court, when Bhagwandas was confirmed as a High Court judge but it was laughed out of the court. Now while the office of the president has been exclusive to Muslim since 1956, and this should change and will change inshallah, the office of prime minister with the exception of years between 1973-1985 was indeed exclusive to Muslims... however since 1985 (ironically through General Zia`s amendment), constitutionally the office of the Prime Minister is open to any citizen of Pakistan... But do these things matter to minorities... Indian Muslims were burnt alive (and no I am not referring to the train issue.. I can produce picture after picture of people being burnt alive for their faith in secular and inclusive India ... and not just Muslims.. remember Graham Staines?)... on the ground the situation is equally bad for our minorities... perhaps even marginally better for Pakistani minorities...


Then you write: ``The real truth is that Jinnah gave a blank piece of paper to Jodhpur, Bikaner, Patiala, etc., and asked them to write their own terms for acceding to Pakistan. They returned the favor by giving him a blank piece of paper and signed up with India. So much for Jinnah`s efforts to entice princes with money! ``

This is as usual BS... Not only H V Hodson, but the pro-Indian Lapierre and Collins in their book document and even gloat over how these princes were forced, coerced, threatened, abused and bullied into acceding to India. I am talking of Jodhpur and Bikaner.


``Does the US have a statute saying that only a Christian can become the President, Justice of the Supreme Court, Chairman of JCS, etc.? Huh?``

Are you just a plain idiot and mistakenly arguing my point? The example was India... India thus can be secular state without having a Muslim majority state of Kashmir... right by not having any ``statute`` saying that only a ``Hindu`` can become president etc.... so why all the ex post facto justification for annexing Kashmir because only Kashmir can preserve India`s secular status?

But since you tried to mistakenly bring it back to Pakistan (which is not a secular state anyway though I would like it to be one).. other than the president, those posts are open to all citizens of Pakistan... as the example of Justice Cornelius and Bhagwandas etc show ...


``I am not arguing that. I am in fact arguing for wholesale massacre of @#$%&*$#@&*% Kashmiri Muslims to show them who is the boss. ``

Yes... and this is why I have always believed Indians to be fascists in the closet.


Now other questions...

How would I be casting fraudulent votes by voting in local elections and parliamentary elections ... do I not have a vote? Wonderful.

``I spend my life as I please beholden to none. Unlike you who has to kiss some mullah`s butt. In case you doubt that, why don`t you go to the mosque next Friday and talk about secularism?``

I know you`ve taken to kissing Hindu pandit`s butt during the Car Puja in your local temple in Bumblef$ck, Hickswill township... but I`ve never felt the spiritual need to go to some place of worship as you do... to reflect on your life as a loser.

``Friday evenings`` ...

If it doesn`t happen today, then will you accept that you are frikkin` loser with no sense of self respect. I am afraid that is too much to ask.

Ref Mantolives #253

[On Chennai - is this a pathetic attempt to prove that you are not an expatriate loser?]

I spend my life as I please beholden to none. Unlike you who has to kiss some mullah`s butt. In case you doubt that, why don`t you go to the mosque next Friday and talk about secularism?

[In any event, I am certain that I have voted in my brief life in more elections parliamentary and local than you have in your miserable pathetic expatriate life.]

Which merely means that you attempted to cast fraudulent votes often, nothing else.

[I speak to my father (an Ahmadi) and my mother (a shia) everyday and they seem to be leading very happy and content lives... and last I checked while there had been sectarian violence, Karachi`s streets are not flowing with blood at the ``very moment`` we right as you would like to put it.]

It only happens on Friday evenings at prayer time in Shia imambaras, right. Check the calendar, today IS Friday.

[That only happens in Gujurat, India... oh wait, there they burn Muslims alive.]

The train was returning from Ayodhya, not known to be a place for Muslim pilgrimage. Unless Indian Muslims are full Hindus in beards who chant Ram`s name!

Can`t you get ANYTHING right in your life?

Ref Mantolives #252

[I knew it all along. When called for your bluff, you`ve left the field with your tail between your legs and are now resorting to your characteristic statements of Hindu bravado.]

Yasser, dear boy, let us see how long you persist with half-truths.

[Was Pakistan in 1948, with significant Non-Muslim populations especially in East Pakistan and Sindh, and whose law minister was a Hindu, a one community state?]

By law minister, are you referring to one Jogindra Nath Mandal who sought political asylum in India?

[Is it even today, stripped off its Eastern Wing, a one community state- didn`t know that SC Justice Bhagwandas or Cornelius before him or other people are/were all secretly Wahabi.
Not only is the fact that Pakistan was a Muslim majority state then and Kashmir was a Muslim majority state important...]

Excuse me, doesn`t your country have a law stating that only Followers of the True Faith are eligible to be President, Prime Minster, etc.? And didn`t the Faithful actually take out demonstrations against Justice Bhagwandas`s appointment? Of course, the man had to sign an oath to uphold the PCO to keep his job, didn`t he?

And didn`t you guys trumpet the fact that the first Hindu soldier was admitted to Pak Army just about a month back?

An impartial observer might then question your claims about Pakistan being an inclusive society. Not even Urstruly comes to your defence on this.

[...but Jodhpur and several other Hindu states with Hindu Rajas had actually tried to accede to Pakistan but were forcibly stopped by those underhanded crooks Gandhi, Nehru and Patel.]

The real truth is that Jinnah gave a blank piece of paper to Jodhpur, Bikaner, Patiala, etc., and asked them to write their own terms for acceding to Pakistan. They returned the favor by giving him a blank piece of paper and signed up with India. So much for Jinnah`s efforts to entice princes with money!

[Now trying to argue that Kashmir was central to Indian secularism is a further indication of the bigoted Hindu mindset that you people have.]

I am not arguing that. I am in fact arguing for wholesale massacre of @#$%&*$#@&*% Kashmiri Muslims to show them who is the boss.

[Could you point out any state in the US which is non-christian majority ... are you then suggesting that the US is not a secular state because it does not have a non-christian majority federating unit. Logic like this is sure to blow up in your own face.]

And you are studying what, law?

Does the US have a statute saying that only a Christian can become the President, Justice of the Supreme Court, Chairman of JCS, etc.? Huh?

Re: # 253

One caller Aamir from Batal who complained that Erra people had sold cheques of Rs75,000 for Rs25,000 was given the right royal brush off. The general, according to an English transcript of the programme, said “If Aamir’s complaint proved to be genuine after a thorough probe, action will be taken against the culprits. And if the complaint proved to be wrong, I shall arrange for his (Aamir’s) arrest and imprisonment”. Even the BBC compere was a little appalled and muttered something about “that is not right, general sahib ..”.

http://www.dawn.com/2006/10/13/op.htm#1

PS: Sorry I missed two gems in your last post.

1. On Chennai - is this a pathetic attempt to prove that you are not an expatriate loser? In any event, I am certain that I have voted in my brief life in more elections parliamentary and local than you have in your miserable pathetic expatriate life.

2. I speak to my father (an Ahmadi) and my mother (a shia) everyday and they seem to be leading very happy and content lives... and last I checked while there had been sectarian violence, Karachi`s streets are not flowing with blood at the ``very moment`` we right as you would like to put it. That only happens in Gujurat, India... oh wait, there they burn Muslims alive.

Dear Harimau mian,

I knew it all along. When called for your bluff, you`ve left the field with your tail between your legs and are now resorting to your characteristic statements of Hindu bravado.

Was Pakistan in 1948, with significant Non-Muslim populations especially in East Pakistan and Sindh, and whose law minister was a Hindu, a one community state? Is it even today, stripped off its Eastern Wing, a one community state- didn`t know that SC Justice Bhagwandas or Cornelius before him or other people are/were all secretly Wahabi.
Not only is the fact that Pakistan was a Muslim majority state then and Kashmir was a Muslim majority state important... but Jodhpur and several other Hindu states with Hindu Rajas had actually tried to accede to Pakistan but were forcibly stopped by those underhanded crooks Gandhi, Nehru and Patel.

Now trying to argue that Kashmir was central to Indian secularism is a further indication of the bigoted Hindu mindset that you people have. Could you point out any state in the US which is non-christian majority ... are you then suggesting that the US is not a secular state because it does not have a non-christian majority federating unit. Logic like this is sure to blow up in your own face.

Ref Mantolives #250

[H V Hodson rubbishes the notion that there was any logic behind Hari Singh`s claim that Pakistan was a one community state and therefore Kashmir could not go to them.]

Yasser, dear boy, I am glad you came out with the wonderful joke that Pakistan is a multi-community state. It is sure to generate huge amusement amongst Chowk readers. I am sure Ahmadiyyas are pleased to know this and so are the Shias who are being murdered even as you write in Karachi.

Today is a holiday in Chennai. We are holding elections for about 100,000 local community offices. You might not know what an election is. Let me give you a clue: it is not what a Chinese man gets at night!

Dear Chowk staff,

While your effort to maintain sanity is appreciated, no action should be unilateral. There are offenders on all sides and they all should be banned.


Harimau mian,

You protest too much regarding a lot going in your life and that proves my point. I am sure you are a life less loser and nothing more. One does not need to visit your profile to ascertain that.

Also I can`t do anything with any information at the top of your head but can only rely on what H V Hodson has penned. All I know is that document of accession was signed. India held a plebiscite there to annul the document of accession. To say that the Diwan later tried to rescind the plebiscite begs the question as to whether any Diwan had that authority.

Meanwhile.. whatever the questionable state of mind of the Nawab, from Hodson`s book it is abundantly clear that the most ridiculous of the idiots was Hari Singh of Kashmir. Reading the chapter on Kashmir I draw the following conclusions.

1. H V Hodson believes that the whole matter could have been laid to rest had Hari Singh acceded to Pakistan. He did not because he was a Maharaja who did not want to accede to a Muslim majority country. H V Hodson rubbishes the notion that there was any logic behind Hari Singh`s claim that Pakistan was a one community state and therefore Kashmir could not go to them. It was clear that Hari Singh was a bigot and which is why he left behind a crisis for all times.

2. That the reason why a crisis was perpetuated was because Pandit Nehru was throwing tantrums because Kashmir was his ``ancestral state`` ... this comes out quite clearly from the chapter as well.

3. The document of accession- according JK PM Mehr Chand Mahajan`s biography- was signed after Indian forces landed in Srinagar. Thus the whole thing was illegal and brought about by violence and fraud.

4. The document of accession - fradulently obtained as it was- was dependent on the occurence of a plebiscite and this was reaffirmed by the very man who delivered you Kashmir.... Mountbatten.

Ranjit mian,

Your hypothesis is just that... a hypothesis.

For one thing... other than the quid pro quo to Sikhs getting an autonomous province within Pakistan, Pakistan had also lured Jodhpur, a Rajput Hindu majority state with a Hindu Raja, to accede to Pakistan. Jodhpur was harassed and bullied by India and the record of that can also be found in H V Hodson amongst other books. And this expelled business.. as proven earlier... is probably true of Punjab on both sides (Muslims from East Punjab were expelled as well - you don`t find many Punjabi Muslims east of the Wagah) ... but by and large in East Pakistan and in Karachi the Hindu communities remained in tact.

Your thesis that India did it out of some commitment to a secular state is ridiculous. India could be a secular state without playing dirty underhanded politics in Kashmir... This is just ridiculous that you state that India could only be a secular state by having a Muslim majority state. The reason why Kashmir issue was created was because Hari Singh was a bigot and Nehru was just plain greedy.... and because India went back on its promises to the people of Kashmir. In those days it seems India denounced even the UN Security Council as being ``evil`` and ``anti-India`` for saying that Pakistan had a strong prima facie case on Kashmir.

So cease and desist with ex post facto justifications for the immoral and illegal actions of your country.

Ref Mantolives #241

[Poor Harimau is probably an expatriate with nothing much going for him in his life... ]

Yasser, dear boy, if you check my profile you will find that I split my time between India and the US so I am not completely an expatriate. I have got plenty going for me in life, don`t worry on that account. Heck, I might even decide to visit Pakistan one of these days except that I shudder to think of Daniel Pearl.

On the other hand, your disease of Jinnah worship and Gandhi hating seems to have spread through prolonged contact... somewhat like leprosy. I chanced upon Ayesha Sarwari`s iLog the other day and there she was, ranting against Gandhi. Doesn`t she have something better to do, like feed the babies? Someone ought to tell the poor girl that her responsiblities don`t end with making babies.

Ref Mantolives #241

[6. The reason why Indian waited till September 13, 1948 was because till September 11, 1948, the man who put a big danda up their rearends was still alive.]

Yasser, dear boy, do you mean Jinnah? The man who couldn`t do sh!t about India throwing the Pak troops out of Kashmir? How was he going to get troops into Hyderabad?

Since you have short-term memory, I want to remind you that in 1971 you coudn`t send reinforcements to East Bengal though you has a sea route.

The big danda is up Pak`s arse and will be there until it breaks up through its own contradictions. By that I mean: folks like you are trying to keep it in the late 1940s (Jinnah`s ``I have a Dream`` speech) whereas Zia-ul Haq and Hamid Gul have successfully implemented their ``Have I got a Nightmare for You!`` scenario.

Ref Mantolives #241

Yasser, dear boy, what you don`t want to tell the public is that:

Jinnah managed to install Shah Nawaz Bhutto (yes, the father of the man you admire the most, Zulfikhar Ali Bhutto) as the Diwan of Junagadh. While the Nawab was in Europe, Jinnah and Company worked on Bhutto to get him to advise the Nawab that he should accede to Pakistan.

Pakistan and India had an understanding that in the case of a difficult state like Junagadh, either country should not immediately accept the accession but should inform the other country.

The Nawab signed the Instrument of Accession but Pakistan kept the information quiet and announced on August 14 that Junagadh had acceded to Pakistan.

Junagadh on top of this invaded Mogrol, a neighboring princely state that had already acceded to India.

The Nawab`s mental state was questionable: after all, he took 150 of his pet dogs with him on his plane to Pakistan but left a begum behind, proving -- for those proof is indeed needed -- that beagles are better than begums.

The Diwan requested that the Instrument of Accession be rescinded.

This is off the top of my head.... unlike the stuff you have posted from your posterior.

#241 thanks manto..but i dont understand how it clarifies #240?
do you have anything to add here, since that is the topic of this board?