Indian Muslims

#306 by zeemax on November 11, 2006 11:30pm PT

haha indeed...

you get caught being a complete idiot by claiming the fund name is amarnath and it`s somehow Indian ....and then you claim victory....

hmm...that`s par for the coruse...goatbrain HP declared the CIA whacking Pakis on Paki soil is a victory for Pakiland....

#327 by nauman72 on November 12, 2006 7:36am PT


Pakistan is now showing considerable flexibility for resolving the Kashmir dispute but India has the same rigid stance that Kashmir is an integral part of India.


It`s not flexbility if you agree to give up your demand for a UN resolution you had no chance of getting enforced...

That`s like the fox saying he`s being flexbile by not snatching the grapes and demanding the tree show flexibility by dropping a few grapes to him...

Re: # 328
War in Afghanistan may be in some way relevant to terrorism but how can you say the Iraq had anything to do with terrorism? First it was justified by saying that Iraq has stockpiles of WMDs but no WMDs have been found there. In one of his recent speeches Bush responded to a question of a reporter by saying, “Terrorists could’ve used Iraqi oil as an economic weapon against US”. This, at least, is a better line because it is less hypocritical. War in Iraq is all about OIL. Even in the case of Afghanistan the war could’ve been avoided, had US pressurized Taliban to hand over Bin Laden. But Bush is not a peace-maker, he is a politician, and that too a corrupt and a hypocritical one. He only wanted to get elected to the office for a second term and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were his opportunities to manipulate public opinion in his favor by creating scare and inventing artificial threats to US security. Against terrorism the best way is to improve the working of intelligence agencies, brining wars on other sovereign nations serves no purpose. India is facing terrorism or freedom struggle not for ‘various reasons’ but only for one reason, and that is ‘Kashmiris want their right of self-determination’.

Re: # 319

In my view (and I second Nauman72`s post below) .... Pakistan`s problems lay in the lack of the ability of Pakistani second tier leadership. Remember ... Muslim League was from 1906-1936 merely an annual conference/platform of sorts for Muslim notables...

So in reality Muslim League had only started functioning as a proper cohesive party after 1936 and that too because two ex-Congressmen, Jinnah and Khaliquzzaman organised it as a party... Congress by comparison had been going along as a political party for more than 60 or 70 years and had the natural advantage. Still it was entirely possible that Pakistan would have solved its issues... had the civil and military bureaucracy not intervened after 1954.... Ghulam Muhammad, Ch. Muhammad Ali, Iskandar Mirza and Ayub Khan... these non-party politicians who created a myth that Muslim League was wholely unimportant to the Pakistan movement ... since the AIML did not have any strong stalwarts to face up to the bullying of these ``gentlemen``... Pakistan`s political process was thwarted.

Your point about strong political center does not in my estimate have any application to the Pakistan idea... the urge to centralise authority - it must be recalled - was there in Pakistan from the start and every ruler- civilian or military- for some reason or the other pushed for it... instead had Pakistan stuck to the 1940 resolution and based its constitution on a great deal of provincial autonomy that was embodied not just in the Lahore Resolution but also in the famous 14 points ... both of which form very important documents on the road to Pakistan.... it would have evolved into a modern democratic federal republic.

The coming of the military (and the civil bureaucracy) further complicated things... for now politicians were not even given a chance to solve the issues that had emerged. Why were they strong in Pakistan ... well atleast in what is left of Pakistan, you ought to read up on the British ran the areas that are now Pakistan ... Punjab, NWFP and Balochistan in particular... there is a very good reason why the top Muslim Bourgeoisie leadership was extracted from UP, Bombay and Bengal...

-YLH

[#323 by nauman72 on November 12, 2006 7:00am PT
No one heard about Islamic terrorism before 9/11. ]

Really! So why was OBL a wanted man before 9/11? US may not have openly acknowledged Pak-sponsored Islamic terrorism problem India faced for various reasons. But BEFORE 9/11 US very much faced Islamic terrorism. That is why Iraq war was engineered by US. That is why ongoing Afghanistan war. That is why Pakistan unabashadely plays bounty hunter to capture and hand over suspected Pakistani terrorists to US without much ceremony.

Reply to #314 by Ranjit:
I totally agree that we should solve the problems of today like “Siachen, Kashmir, terrorism, trade, economic ties etc” The era of nation-states is over for good. Today we live in an age of Regionalism. European Union and OPEC are its successful examples. SAARC has an immense potential. If we can also include Afghanistan, Iran and Central Asian Republics in SAARC, the region of South Asia can prosper like no other. But in SAARC there is no room for the resolution of political disputes. Indians always talk about confidence building measures. But unless there is progress about resolution of Kashmir dispute, we can’t go much further in CBMs. History teaches us that without addressing the Kashmir dispute and merely improving the trade and transport links can’t take us any where. Whenever there will be trouble in Kashmir, all the trade, economic and transport links will be broken and we’ll get back to the starting point. Pakistan is now showing considerable flexibility for resolving the Kashmir dispute but India has the same rigid stance that Kashmir is an integral part of India.

Dear Sadna,

In continuation of my previous posts: When you do come back, now that we have stated our positions and in my opinion there is no way you will accept that the lens you choose to view facts through maybe a damaged one... lets just take up one specific issue...

Durga Das, in his book, dedicated an entire chapter to the 1937 Jinnah-Congress break. It is Chapter 25 of the first part ... could you point out where in that chapter Durga mentioned tenantry/tenancy reform issue as the main cause of break or even one of the causes. Please do recall he is one of three authors you claim to quote.

This is ofcourse just an incidental issue to the main debate but I think it speaks volumes about how you argue.

Reply to #319 by Ranjit:
Why is there a need for a strong political center? I believe in a loose confederation of smaller units. People should live as they want, according to their customs and culture, except that there are some immutable grund norms like secularism and tolerance that they must follow. Strong political center is not needed for the well being of the citizens. It is only needed for the ‘aggrandizement’ of the nation-state. The difference between nationalism and fascism is not of substance but only of degrees. Whenever the focus shifts from well being of the citizens to aggrandizement of the state, nation-state transforms into a fascist-state.

As to Indians they are merely taking advantage of an opportunity provided to them by Bush Administration.

Right.. So you expect them to play nice.. Sorry we live in a real world.. :-)

No one heard about Islamic terrorism before 9/11. In fact before the demise of Soviet Union in 1991 these same Mujahideens were thought as freedom fighters. But IMO US administration believes in ‘competition for survival’ so they created this hoax of terrorism after the collapse of Soviet Union. First it was communism that was regarded as a threat to the US now its terrorism. How many US citizens have died because of Islamic terrorists? Only 4901. And the war on terror has claimed 6,50,000 victims in Iraq alone. As to Indians they are merely taking advantage of an opportunity provided to them by Bush Administration. Address the root causes of terrorism, that is, political disputes, economic disparity and illiteracy, instead of this myopic approach of ‘War on Terror’.

Haha ... typical macacas caught the bait and arjun2 macaca plus sidekicks went googling for a whole day ... for amaranth/amarnath ...rotfl ....

Hey buddy, if you knew a rat`s behind about hedge funds, you would have come back immediately with your retorts .... hahaha ... but what would code coolies know????


ROFL.. this is funny..

``no the one...`` should be ``not the ones...``

As things stand the current generation of pakistanis (no the ones from and before generations) are hate filled ideologues of Maudidi. They are are slowly infiltrating every sphere of life in the west and the world and they need to be stopped. People like Manotlives are fighting a battle which not really there. The real battles are in the streets in their neighbourhood where thesse ideologues rule with the boxes and woe be the person not putting money there.

From todays Sunday Times

“We are dealing with people filled with hatred,” said Admani. “It’s hatred for the white man and the West in particular, because they have read the works of Qutb and Maududi (Islamist ideologues followed by Al-Qaeda) who set Muslims apart from everyone else.”

go here for more details http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2449930,00.html

Slowly but surely the insidious nature of these ideologues will be beaten. And people like Mntolives will be sidelined in the future - for they are rendering themselves useless and incapable of recognising real fights and arguments.

The place where I work in the Pacific North West has now got pretty stringent regulations and rules. The world is changing and changing so fast.

Re:mantolives#313

[...it was always about the ruling elite in both partition of India and partition of Pakistan that refused to accept the popular sentiment of a people (Muslims in 1946, Bengalis in 1970) who rejected the dogma of a centralised ``one-nation`` state... that Nehru and Bhutto were championing. .....]

Manto, popular sentiment of people is not the be all and end all of everything since it can change over time. The role of a leader is to look at a historical continuum and determine if a course of action makes sense or not. Then he needs to sell it to the people. Until the 1946 elections, people in Pakistan were not too keen on partition, as evidenced by their support of the Unionists. If partition had not occured, who knows they might have changed their minds back to their pre-1946 position.

Nehru had correctly analyzed that the biggest historical weakness of India was the lack of a strong political center. We Indians (including the people of Pakistan) have a tendency to quarrel and fight over small things. That is why the country was repeatededly invaded and successfully subjected to imperial rule. The modus operandi of the East India company and the british are known to all of us. Keeping a loose confederacy would have meant political disintegration and a possible repeat of that history. Most Indians are thankful to Nehru for that decision, since a large, politically united India has been an enormous blessing. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. India`s political stability has ensured that our collective energy is focused on development.

Muslim League`s main concern was that the Muslim burgeoise would not be able to develop in a single nation state. That was a debatable argument then and it is a debatable argument now. The Congress argument was that in a diverse country like India, everyone can develop since no one group dominates anything. The creation of Pakistan led to the proper development of the Muslim burgeoise as expected, but it also led to the typical quarrelling and bickering that we Indians are famous for leading to 3 wars. The fact that Pakistan has been mostly a dictatorship and a client state of the US also proves Nehru`s fears that fragmentation would lead to external domination. A united nation-state with strong safegaurds of muslim interests could have led to the same development of muslim burgeoise without all the undesirable side effects.

PS: It would also be good if when you don`t have an argument left, instead of resorting to ``why is this Paki complaining about Congress in 1937`` to go on a familiar tangent, please note that if you have the right to opine on history (and lets be very clear very little of what you say is actually supported by miles and miles of quotes you produce) so do I... no need to start abusing me for simply expressing my point of view.

Re: # 315

First of all this was the only fundamental point of divergence between the two parties. It is well known that Muslim League`s manifesto was almost identical to Congress ... and this is what atleast two of those three authors accept.

Durga Das and Wolpert don`t consider this as the main point of contention... now this may come as a surprise, but when two parties sit together they try and reach a compromise. Your latest ``Congress would be shortchanging its voters`` is simply an excuse and you know it.

To quote 312 again:

#312 by Mantolives on November 12, 2006 0:34am PT
Re: # 310

The issue of ``tenantry reform`` is an afterthought and did not really play any part in the real calculations. I have proved to you that the Congress was ready to deal with the Muslim League leaders despite the difference on the issue of private property... provided the leadership bowed down to Congress supremacy. First you redefined fascist to absolve Congress of its blame for the Hindu fundamentalist fascism it unleashed... and now Megalomania... Megalomania is when the majority party chooses to deal with sections of a minority that are most willing to collaborate with it to the detriment of the minority...

FYI Jinnah did not demand that Congress declare itself a Caste Hindu party only untill much later... and his view was seconded by Ambedkar and E V Ramaswamy Naicker and hundred of millions of non-caste Hindus and non-Hindus of India... In 1937 what Jinnah demanded was that Muslim League (instead of any of the other smaller Muslim parties) should be taken into confidence by the Congress... Congress was agreeable but only with someone less taxing and threatening than Jinnah.

Even at the later stage Jinnah`s claim was not that Congress turn out its non-hindu members but that in actual reality only the caste Hindus vote for the Congress.... and that Muslims, scheduled caste Hindus and other nationalities/ethnicities of India supported their own parties...

This is confirmed by this agreement that Jinnah and Gandhi signed:

The Congress does not challenge but accepts that the Muslim League now is the authoritative representative of an overwhelming majority of the Muslims of India. As such and in accordance with democratic principles they alone have today an unquestionable right to represent the Muslims of India. But the Congress does not agree that any restriction or limitation should be put upon the Congress to choose such representatives as they think proper from amongst the members of the Congress. ``

Where in this document does ML ask Congress to turn out its non-caste-Hindu members. But if only caste Hindus vote for a party that party is representative of only those people regardless of whether the party consists of Hindus, christians or Muslims.


So don`t confuse the people and fool them just to prove tha Congress was right in its Hindu fascist fundamentalism that it unleashed despite claiming to be an all India party.