Re-Imagining Pakistan

---

Re: # 343 by sadna on December 18, 2006 11:39am PT
#341
You clearly can`t distinguish between economic system and political system.

---

hahah! you are so so simpleton my dear!

Congress was a commie-show-shaw-list party. what do you think Nehru and Indira clan did to Hindi economy?

Other show-shaw-lists Bhutto, Gamal Nasir, Gaddha-fi, (and the list goes on) all tried to bring commie system.

How can you separate a party from its show-shaw-list platform?

Bottom line:

Congress was a commie organization
Opponents of Congress like League were free-market folks.

Commies made everyone poor in the picture of that beggar -look-alike Gandhi.
League made rich, the richer in the picture of Jinnah the sophisticated suave leader.

Look at the first 30 years after the creation of Hindustan where Bihar was the epitome of prosperity.

Look at the first 30 years of Pakistan, where brand new cars, huge mansions defined the way of life.

p.s. off course Commie bhutto destroyed Pakistan`s free market but that`s another thread for another day.

Re: # 349

Einstein`s third testicle? ha ha... Dude, you are hillarious... may be you should use your funny side a bit more, your life wouldn`t so glum and oppressed as it is now - full of anger, hatred, wild conspiracy theories and malice towards one and all.... :)

Re: # 338 by mohar11

and you must be Einstein`s ill begotten and lost third testicle that Freud stole from Hitler`s pocket when the latter lay dead in GWB`s coffin....wow

Surely Pakistan doesn`t need to spend so much on defense if most Indians are geniuses like you. Please tell us how do we train more Hindians to be just like you?

:-)~~

#346 hamidmji, assuming that the arrival of the brits and everything flowing from it was a blessing, you should not be complaining about anything at all. After all, every present event can be theoretically traced back to the raj - this is a silly argument to justify status quo under all circumstances. You should not even be in favor of Hoodbhoy`s arguments.

#346
Open your eyes blind man and get over the fact that I am not the one complaining about Partition here, I am replying to those who are.

Re: # 339

frau sadna

...... okay, then simply get over it .......... what is it with you that you keep on harping about partition .........

think about it - if the british hadn`t arrived on the scene when the mogul empire was falling apart, there would have been no india and no pakistan - there would have been a hundred small kingdoms, fiefdoms and principalities run by randy rajas, marauding maharajas and nincompoop nawabs and you would have been the seventh child bride of the one-eyed muslim raja of bhajipur and idleenagar ............

#341 taikonaut, i don`t particularly care for this your-man-bad-my-man-good type argument. If there`s a threat to secularism the answer is more secularism not less. Why did Jinnah become a religious bigot himself if he was fighting religious bigotry?

Re: # 333

I know Jinnah died in 1948. Would Jinnah done any better than any of the Pakistani rulers ?

#341
Congress was not a mass-based party when Jinnah was the top leader. It became a mass-based party after Gandhi made it so.

You clearly can`t distinguish between economic system and political system. I was not talking of being against rich people in the economic system, I was talking of being against rich people not masses having the deciding voice in the political system.


``Muslim being the largest group of Mega farmers, and clear majority in 6 out of 12 (approximate) provinces needed flexible free market constitution. This was to protect themselves against the shenanigans of show-shaw-list Congress. Funny how the pseudo-democrats use dictatorship against 50% of their states.``

Muslim majority states which were five in number got their own independent state Pakistan to protect Mega farmers so what are you whining about here?

``Before the creation of Hindustan in 1947, you the majority Hindus demanded Punjab`s division on religious basis.``

You the majority Muslims demanded on the basis of religion a separate state because you said 25% Muslims refuse to acknowledge the Hindu majority. The separate state you majority Muslims demanded on the basis of religion contained 45% nonMuslims which you demanded to rule over as Muslim majority. How does that make any sense?

How you planned to treat the nonMuslims in Punjab became obvious by end March 1947 when despite all British warnings to Muslim League leaders that communal violence would lead to a split of Punjab province, 30,000 nonMuslims were already in refugee camps after the communal violence perpetuated against them.

Re: # 294 by zeena

``...anyone of you narrowminded Indians here...``

I`m sorry, but I think anil should not be bundled with bjkumar, etc. You may disagree with him, but you can`t deny his credits.

:-)~~

---

Re: # 335 by sadna on December 18, 2006 10:39am PT
#333
He was an elitist who disliked getting the `masses` into the political system,

---

Masses? Oh Baboo Raam Jinnah was the top leader of Congress until the fateful day when Gandhi launched Mullah inspired Tehrik Lafafa (hot-aire-filled-bag movement). Jinnah`s secular, free-market view made him leave pinko-Congress. Don`t you even know your party?

Dunno where you live or how much you earn. I am assuming you are part of (or supporter of) the up and coming rich class of Indians.

If you hate infosys richie-rich, or the premjis of India, then we have nothing in common. You may live in your show-shaw list heaven for the rest of your life.

---

Re: # 335 by sadna on December 18, 2006 10:39am PT
his vision for the future constitutional set up of India was restricted to maximising the influence of Muslims over others

---

Muslim being the largest group of Mega farmers, and clear majority in 6 out of 12 (approximate) provinces needed flexible free market constitution. This was to protect themselves against the shenanigans of show-shaw-list Congress. Funny how the pseudo-democrats use dictatorship against 50% of their states.

---

Re: # 335 by sadna on December 18, 2006 10:39am PT
He had no desire to seek Hindu votes ever

---

So called secularists are now playing religious card. Sad indeed.
Jinnah stood for free-market secular approach towards life. How could he ever go to people and say ``You hindus`` come over to me.

Hindu card was played by Congress from day 1.
Religion based politics was played by Congress from day 1.
Tehrik Lifafah movement was started by Congress.
Every bearded Mullah was part of Congress.

Even then you insist Jinnah should have used cards of Hindu Muslim $hite. Shame on you!

---

Re: # 335 by sadna on December 18, 2006 10:39am PT
He also demanded an absolute veto for Muslims over the rest of the Indian communities

---

Partially true.
After the creation of Hindustan in 1947, you the majority Hindus have divided Punjab based on religion.

Before the creation of Hindustan in 1947, you the majority Hindus demanded Punjab`s division on religious basis.

Now you turn around and blame Jinnah. You have no shame!

Re: # 337

Are you sure you will leave Indians if they get out of Kashmir?
I think there is a more chance your foreskin will grow back than this
happening.

#337
``and really, there is nothing you can say that will change our oipinion about jinnah ``

And really, since you are apparently illiterate, let me point out that I wasn`t even trying. Kindly address your futile remarks to taikonaut #333 because he was recommending that I should want to marry off my hypothetical daughter to Jinnah.

Re: # 336
[...the West does not want diversity to fluorish in Pakistan...]

Yep - it`s all a western conspiracy... first of all - you don`t even want their system and yet you blame them for not allowing you to have the system... :) pakis and their paranoia knows no bounds...

you don`t have diversity because you believe in cr@ap like: ``la ilallah, hila hila`` or some sh!t like that... you guys are big0ts to the core - you can`t get along with anybody - not even with each other... stop blaming others for your depravity.... :)

Re: # 335

faru sadna,

.......... cry me a river, then build a bridge and get over it .............. even though you are having a hard time swallowing the bitter pills, manto is already happily married and pakistan is fait accompli ......... and really, there is nothing you can say that will change our oipinion about jinnah - we are thankful to the man for getting us away from dhoti clad vegetarians led by a half-naked faqir with serious identity problems ............ now, if you will get out of kashmir, we will leave you alone ...........

Re: # 255 by masadi

``Firstly the West does not want diversity to fluorish in Pakistan, their entire system and history, of the old and new colonization is based on playing one against the other, as they are doing in Iraq right now. Second, they do not want to impose or establish the Western system and the benefits that might accrue from aspects of it in Pakistan or anywhere else in the third world, they use that as illusion and slogan, dangling carrots while using their proxies to ferment ghettos for optimal rape. Unless we understand this, and Hoodbuoy understands this, all articles and analysis are worthless in understanding or improving our situation.``

Exactly! But our prophet tahmed and ilk believe otherwise. Even if the West was sincere in establishing their system in a country like Pakistan, we would not want it for the catastrophic results it has produced there.

Still, I do think prophet tahmed32 is sincere in his wishes for Pakistan, however naive and hallucinated he may be.

:-)~~