Re-Imagining Pakistan

Re: # 365

Dear ever-green genius,

Could you point out where the author of this article, Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy, has articulated a vision for a country other than Pakistan in any capacity other than a Pakistani citizen?

Your post is utterly ridiculous (though that is not something new).

Sadna,

I just read your post 328. I never expected such poor reading comprehension from you (I am guessing it is case of deliberate distortion). My issue with Hoodbhoy since the first post was that I feel that the two visions are not mutually exclusive.

However, you with your spin are out to score old points. My suggestion- continue the nautanki. BTW tell us (this is in reference to your declaration on unplugged- that all Pakistanis were out to put a bullet in your overinflated VIP head) - who is trying to kill you today? Secret Agent Sobia or is it jehadi Zeemax? Don`t tell me ... let me know if I have any hit men out there.

#364 by Mantolives

...Lets get one thing straight... this is an article by a Pakistani about Pakistan and you have no bearng on it. Whatever agreement or disagreement.... it is our business. Whether I think he is a physicist or not or whether I agree with his vision or not, is an internal ghar ka mamla.

After the land, now even cyberspace is being carved out into what is Indian and what is Paki?! This is utterly ridiculous!

Taikonut,

Sadna Gupta does not have a point so don`t waste your breath on her.

The history of Kashmir and Junagadh is well documented in ``Great Divide`` by H V Hodson. It shows just how shamelessly dishonest and deceptive the Indian leadership was at that time.

Hormansji Seervai, one of the greatest jurists of India, rubbished their (Indian) entire nationalist mythology in his well researched ``Partition of India : Legend and Reality`` and he was not the first one. People like Sadna and her cheerleaders are now involved in a never ending quest of changing and ``re-imagining`` history now that our understanding of it has been considerably altered with almost all information de-classified and available for public use.


I read Lord of the Flies in grade 11 - it was mandatory reading... but I didn`t get it untill I came across Indian fascists on these boards.



Bjkumar,

Oh blind follower of the racist casteist hindu fascist witchdoctor fraud, Lets get one thing straight... this is an article by a Pakistani about Pakistan and you have no bearng on it. Whatever agreement or disagreement.... it is our business. Whether I think he is a physicist or not or whether I agree with his vision or not, is an internal ghar ka mamla. Dr. Hoodbhoy, good or bad, is ours. So hands off loser.

Just because we won`t reimagine/change/alter the fact that Gandhi was a racist casteist hindu fascist bigot and this is a fact of history as you would like us too... does not mean we completely disagree with the author.

Dear author,

Perhaps the Pakistanis are not yet ready to re-imagine that country - they like it JUST THE WAY IT IS!

You may wish to consider emigration.

You have my sympathies.

Thank you.

``#318 by Mantolives on December 18, 2006 5:35am PT
Dear Devkant (and Majumdar),

Nothing on chowk has given me confidence that the citizens of ``secular`` and ``pluralistic`` democratic India are any more tolerant or accepting of a point of view contrary to theirs than the citizens of ``Islamic`` an ``theocratic`` militarised state of Pakistan .... infact my own feeling is that they are considerably less so.``

Yasser,

if you are looking at chowk for finding tolerant indians, you are wasting your time. everyone here including you and me are intolerant towards contrary views to a large extent. it is very difficult that you will find anyone tolerant in a public forum like chowk, be it indians or pakistanis.

you are only looking at 1 side of the products of indian democracy. there is another side of this too. indians are more critical of their democratic system than any outsider. the beauty of this system is that it accomodates all kinds of people. everyone is entitled to their views. the indian press and media is testimony to this fact.

most indians are tolerant of people of other faiths. but to be fair to everyone, they are as tolerant as any other person in this planet. if the media is free, it is also selfish. they will report stories of communal clashes, but never report communal harmony. and people make judgements on the basis of media reports.

i`ll give you a small example. the first time i went to tehran, i was a nervous wreck because of what i had seen and heard on cnn. but i had my best ever foreign trip there. the people were wonderful, the place was great and overall a great experience.

if you really want to see the product of indian democracy, you need to come here and see for yourself.

rgds,

devkant.

#360
``Islam and Quran was waved in front of masses by none other than Gandhi ``
Yeah that was in the early 1920s and when Gandhi put a stop to noncooperation due to violence, Muslim leaders got really angry with him. From 1937-1947 Jinnah got together with many Muslims who had entered politics during the Khilafat movement and brought Islam and Quran into it. I want to know how many more centuries do we have to wait for Muslim leaders to take responsibility for their own political stances and actions.

And dunno which world you live in. Just because the Congress refused the Cripps proposals in 194 doesnot mean Jinnah didnot reject them too. Jinnah`s speeches describing the reasons he rejected the Cripps proposals in 1942 are on record.

---

#358 by sadna on December 18, 2006 1:54pm PT
#357
Well, the argument presented to the masses was Islam and Quran.

---

Islam and Quran was waved in front of masses by none other than Gandhi and his Mullah cabal.

Jinnah a 3 piece wearing secularist never wanted Islam or Hinduism to be dragged into politics. He knew well that Gandhian beggar-look-alike religiousity carrying Geeta in one hand and Quran in the other, will not work.

And Jinnah was right. Gandhi in particular and Congress in general was hell bent on using religion in their dirty politics.

Alas you won`t know. Your head is stuck (upside down) in the made up text books printed by Hindian government.

---

#358 by sadna on December 18, 2006 1:54pm PT
In 1942, Cripps proposed that provinces have the option to seccede if they didnot like the constitution of united India which would be written under his scheme. At that time Jinnah refused the Cripps offer

---

You are confusing Stafford Cripps plan of 1946 with his talks in 1942. Both 1942 and 1946 plans were rejected by Congress.

It clearly shows that you are not a good student of Hindian history either.

---

#358 by sadna on December 18, 2006 1:54pm PT
And that is apart from the fact that just like the Waziristan tribals stopped in Baramulla to rape women and ended up losing Srinagar in 1947-48,

---

Yeap the tribals did commit attrocities in Kashmir.

However Pakistan losing Kashmir in 1948 was only possible because Gen. Gracy and Mountbatten stopped the war. November 1947 to March 1948 was the scariest moment for Indian army posted in SriNagar. Their supply routes were blocked off and Punch road was in direct firing line of Pakistan army. Gen. Gracy and Mountbatten were afraid that India will lose Kashmir, get angry, and violate international borders. They were right, as India did exactly that in 1965.

Nehru used to shake in his boots until the construction of Banihal tunnel was completed in 1952. He used begging in the UN for plebiscite, pleading Kashmiris via article 370 to keep Pakistan off base. Nehru changed his tune only after the all-weather tunnel opened up supply routes for the Indian army.

---

#358 by sadna on December 18, 2006 1:54pm PT
it can arguably be said that just so did kidnappings of Sikh women in West Punjab in March-April 1947

---

Yeap. Sadly Muslim Punjabis (sometimes aided by W. Punjab police) were responsible for ethnic cleansing in W. Punjab.

Now is the time, that Pakistanis apologize to the decedents of non-Muslim Punjabis.

Apology should follow with return of property in Lahore and other cities back to the rightful owners as of January-August 1947.

Uprooting of non-Muslims from W. Punjab, and ethnic cleansing of Muslim land lords in E. Punjab was the darkest hour in the long history of South Asia. Let`s all promise that we`ll not use the blood of innocent for petty squabbling on chowk.

Promise?

I am the same guy who was untill a few years ago, advocating emulating the Indian model of democracy (yes I was stupid and it was based on a premise that does not exist) .... for Pakistan. (YASSER).

Yasser,

Wanna have the current General Model where the Prez is self-appointed OR a KSA Model where non-Wahabi religions are proscribed and people like u i.e Qadianis are summarily executed...?

I expect Pakistanis to switch over to KSA Model of statecraft. It`d be Islamic and affirms the name of ur country as Pakistan.

#357
Well, the argument presented to the masses was Islam and Quran. How could they demand that 45% nonMuslims be subjected to that? In 1942, Cripps proposed that provinces have the option to seccede if they didnot like the constitution of united India which would be written under his scheme. At that time Jinnah refused the Cripps offer saying how could provincial boundaries which were solely an administrative or historical artefact determine the dimensions and character of Pakistan which was a national aspiration of all India`s Muslims? In 1942 Jinnah rejected the provinces and their provincial boundaries as the delimiters of Pakistan. In 1947 suddenly the provincial boundaries became sacrosanct to Jinnah and the Muslim League, yeah right. Plain old land grab is being passed off as secularism here.


And that is apart from the fact that just like the Waziristan tribals stopped in Baramulla to rape women and ended up losing Srinagar in 1947-48, it can arguably be said that just so did kidnappings of Sikh women in West Punjab in March-April 1947 put paid to the dreams of Muslim League having Pakistani boundaries close to N.Delhi. This, inspite of Muslim League leaders being warned in advance by the British that it was against the Muslim League`s own interest in Pakistan to foment communal violence against nonMuslims.

I find it is typical of Pakistanis to today blame Indians for both episodes of losing territory because of Muslim League`s own opportunist but inconsistent positions and because of some people not being able to keep it in their pants.

#356 I think taikonaut is saying in a convoluted way that this was not simply a religious argument in favor of pakistan but also an economic argument. Those favoring free market got out - in his peculiar reading of history. He may not be too far off mark tho - if you see free market as preservation of mughlai.

Yeah so what`s your point? Jinnah was against the `masses` being involved in the political parties; after Gandhi`s ascendance, Congress was not. You get to freely pick the political system of your choice in Pakistan without interference from any Indians or Hindus, and as for economic system, you got ro pick your free market economy as well, so whats your point, again?

#354
Whats with show-shaw-lism? Is this some clever word play I`m missing?
If you apply free market theory to developing economies you get a different kind of shit but shit nonetheless.
The argument with respect to india could be that congress was in favor of changing the status quo whereas the league wanted to preserve zamindari and feudalism.
Free market when a large section of the society is severely depressed is neither free nor fair. Independence was an opportunity to change things and indian politicians took a gamble. After all, the soviets were up and coming and were thought to be on par with the western economies. They had slayed the dragon of feudalism.

---

Re: # 353 by sadna on December 18, 2006 1:04pm PT
#351

Political system= method of selection
Economic system=economic policy of executive.

---

Political party = Congress = commie $hite
Political party = League = free market folks

---

Re: # 353 by sadna on December 18, 2006 1:04pm PT
Socialism= .... main basis of economic planning in first 40 years

---

yeap! Show-Shaw-lism was Nehruvian shenanigans.

---

#352 by soysauce on December 18, 2006 12:59pm PT
#351 what`s Hindi economy?
BTW socialism /= communism

---

Yeap. However if you apply show-shaw-lism or commie-stuff to developing world, both of them result in same $hite.

#351

Political system= method of selection of panchayats, municipalities,state legislatures and executives, central legislatures and executives, extents of political party memberships, extents of trade union activitiy and local trade, social and cultural associations memberships, free elections, regular change of parties in power by exercise of universal franchise, most lawmaking and financial oversight by elected legislatures.

Economic system=economic policy of executive.

Socialism= economic platform of some of India`s political parties and main basis of economic planning in first 40 years ( Nehru believed from the start in a mixed economy), but not an unchallengeable inflexible state dogma.

#351 what`s Hindi economy?
BTW socialism /= communism