Nehru’s Legacy: Time to pay tribute

Manto mian,

After you disapponted me on the MKG-Ann Doherty affair, finally we are discussing some serious brahmacharya related matter.

(Gay Pakistanis)

Now why should this make news. NWFP and Sind have been famous for such activities since time immemorial, no?

Regards

#716 by Mantolives

As the son of an Ahmadi I know very well that these incidents are NOT taking place as often as you want to portray them as.... and definitely not at the scale that they take place in India. So no point spinning it any which way.

Funny how you go into overdrive when I pointed out that you were being dishonest when you tried to paint that example I put up as a one off incident. The website I mentioned here contains numerous such incidents, at the rate of almost an incident every month. As for spinning, please visit the website and check the sources from which they report these incidents: Dawn, Jang, Nawa-i-Waqt, they`re all Paki sources, aren`t they? Or do you live in a different (read fictional) Pakistan, where Ahmadis are treated with utmost respect?

Before you start making comments atleast make an effort to research the issue yourself.

So I presume you have personally visited India to find out about the thousands of riots that take place, no? It is such asinine statements that make you the resident idiot of Chowk.

Besides I don`t understand why Indians are so bothered about my father`s community, which continues to be a - despite the discrimination against them- a very prosperous and highly educated Pakistani community and which atleast far as I can tell doesn`t want Indian sympathies and consider their problems an internal matter of Pakistanis ... and certainly has nothing to do with the Indians....

You answered your question all by yourself.

Get a life. Don`t unload your problems ...

The very fact that you had to convert from being an Ahmadi to a Sunni and then Ismaili points to how even the well-heeled Ahmadis have no escape from persecution. Now please don`t issue a rebuttal as to your conversion being for purely religious/spiritual reasons.

``Well said, that`s why all the islamic nutcases (like the jamiat-e-islami, maududi and I doubt even the Maulana abul kalam azad types) were with the Congress pre-partition. And there were even attempts on Jinnah`s life by kaksars(?) (militant islamists) in 1940s after the Pakistan resolution. maybe Mantolives can expand on that. You should see why awarding ``Bharat ratna`` to Jinnah makes sense. :-)``

Actually the Ulema- justifiably- were nervous about being relegated from their leadership position in a nation state, where Indian Muslims aka the future Pakistanis would be burdened for the first time with the task of running a nation state... which would include going into fields that the ulema considered quite unIslamic like Commerce, Banking etc... This is also why the Communist Party of India supported the Pakistan demand because it saw the idea pregnant with the creation of a national bourgeoisie which would - they mistakenly assumed - be the first step of their two step revolution.... Jinnah on the other hand was approaching the matter as a lawyer negotiating a settlement for his client... and had no interest in whether Islam continues to have a grasp on the Muslim mind or not.

While... the 1980s revivalism under General Zia-ul-Haq strengthened the same religious parties who had opposed Pakistan, the truth is that all religious parties have been forced to reconcile their religious ideas with the existence of the Pakistani nation state... for example Mullahs are opposed to women in politics and yet they are forced to field women candidates and they are also forced to fight elections like any other politicians...
Similarly... the Islamic ideological content today is forced to compete with Saba beauty soap and other capitalist ``monsters`` they hate... Israr Ahmed`s time on ARY Asia is just before Talking Divas ... last week`s topic: Gay Pakistanis coming out.

So in a way.. despite the bad rep ... much of what was aspired to has been achieved... though, the long term trends would only be recognised by a historian looking back with the 20/20 hindsight.

Mantolives:

.. Now your take on history is your right... but I am simply mentioning the consociationalist solution that the Muslim community was looking for... which did not entail a complete partition of India....

ROFL.. you think the upper caste Hindu leadership of the Congress would buy into that Muslim consociationalism/secularism BS. These guys have fooled millions of low caste Hindus for thousands of years just by telling stories about punar-janma / low birth / high birth and all such crap.. And you think they would believe consociationalism/secularism stories that too coming from Muslims.. Poor dalit buddy Jogindernath Mandal believed it and see where he ended..

Dear Sadna,

I see that you don`t have any proper defense for Congress` monumental stupidity, which is why you are going in circles. Here is how I see it :

The Union centre- whatever its extent- would be formed with all units` consent. Furthermore... under the Cabinet Mission Plan, the Hindus and Sikhs and Muslims all had guaranteed representation in the federations .... The best situation for all sides concerned was to have a non-legislative but executive center... it would have given Congress a free hand to carry its policies as well. However... even if there was a legislative center with parity between the groups... that would mean at most 33%-35% Muslim seats (by no means all Muslim Leaguers - but that would mean Congress having to work hard at winning the confidence of the Muslim nationalities) ... since ``Pakistani`` Hindus and Sikhs would have guaranteed representation at the Indian Union centre.

And finally... if things weren`t working out- as most Congress apologists claim they wouldn`t have ... the Cabinet Mission Plan would have allowed a peaceful constitutional secession 10 years later to any of the two main federations within the Union... and since almost every historian blames the violence in 1947 on the haste with which Mountbatten departed... chances were that there would have been virtually no bloodbaths and no bitterness between Pakistan and India ... kind of like Czech and Slovak Republics... I am afraid... I am yet to read any proper argument that proves this wrong... all Indians keep harping about is actually the direct result of the Congress` and British`s haste.


Ranjit 715...

It could have all been a constitutional nicety instead of fraternal bloodbath. Do feel free to read my post to Sadna above.

In the Indian subcontinent, the partition of the subcontinent was actually an unislamic act, since it basically was the organized retreat of muslims for the first time in their history from lands that they had ruled. The only other time that had happened was in Spain but even there it was by force. In India, thanks to Jinnah, it was done in a legal manner. So thank God for him.


Well said, that`s why all the islamic nutcases (like the jamiat-e-islami, maududi and I doubt even the Maulana abul kalam azad types) were with the Congress pre-partition. And there were even attempts on Jinnah`s life by kaksars(?) (militant islamists) in 1940s after the Pakistan resolution. maybe Mantolives can expand on that.

You should see why awarding ``Bharat ratna`` to Jinnah makes sense. :-)

Harishbhai,

Welcome back. Better late than never. We are already 700 posts and now that you and Manto mian are on board, we will surely hit a milennium.

Ranjitbhai,

(This is also the reason why people like manto are still so unhappy with the outcome of partition. )

And although I agree with Manto mian on most matters, particularly MAJ (pbuh), MKG, JLN, TNT, DAD etc. I quite disagree with him on the little matter of partition of Punjab/Bengal, irrespective of the carnage it resulted in. Had things gone YLH`s way, there would have a steady halal of Hindus and Sikhs in these provinces continuing till date, rather than a jhatka of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs alike in 1947-48.

INC, MKG, JLN, SVP`s cupidity (as Manto mian views it) saved a little bit more of lebensraum (Manto mian would no doubt approvingly note my use of Aryan-brahmacharyan terminology) - actually 600,000 km2 (WB, NE, Punjab, Haryana, HP) excluding Indian part of J&K- for the Indian state than it would have done otherwise.

Regards

Re: # 710

Ranjit Mian,

The theory I put up was that of the Communist Party of India by G Adhikari and which best explains the Muslim case for Pakistan.

It is amazing that while you are theorising- as is your right- I simply quoted the official position taken by the Communist Party ... Infact the Two Nation Theory that I have spoken about is the only two nation theory that works and fits in with the historical events .. I quite understand the Indian version of the two nation theory, which is why it was you who insisted onc omplete partition.

Now your take on history is your right... but I am simply mentioning the consociationalist solution that the Muslim community was looking for... which did not entail a complete partition of India....

Re: # 708

Harish mian,

As the son of an Ahmadi I know very well that these incidents are NOT taking place as often as you want to portray them as.... and definitely not at the scale that they take place in India. So no point spinning it any which way. Before you start making comments atleast make an effort to research the issue yourself.

Besides I don`t understand why Indians are so bothered about my father`s community, which continues to be a - despite the discrimination against them- a very prosperous and highly educated Pakistani community and which atleast far as I can tell doesn`t want Indian sympathies and consider their problems an internal matter of Pakistanis ... and certainly has nothing to do with the Indians....

Get a life. Don`t unload your problems ... no Ahmadi would ever be a willing stick to beat Pakistanis with.

Re:714 follow up

This is also the reason why people like manto are still so unhappy with the outcome of partition. They know that it was essentially a huge, organized retreat of Islam from the subcontinent along with a lesser, much smaller retreat of hinduism from the fringes of the subcontinent. At a subconscious level, both sides knew that. Hindus were retreating away from Pakistan areas and muslims were retreating out of India. That explains why we saw so much violence accompanying that event. Why would people get into so much frenzy of killing and raping if it was just some constitutional nicety?

Re:uba#713

[..Do fundamental doctrinal differences establish themselves within 2 generations , after the conversion ? Did their interactions (social , economic if not marriage ) with their relatives (who did not convert) ended with the conversion ?...]

Excellent questions!! The answer is a yes. That is the striking feature of Islam. It takes just one or two generation for muslims to completely shut off their non-muslim past and make the mental switch in ideology. It is a very powerful, overwhelming ideology, the closest analogy being a formatting of a hard drive to install a brand new Operating System. If you read the history of Islam, which I have in great detail, you will note that Islam has always spread as follows - X Followers of Islam attack Y neighbors who are non-muslim, Y neighbors pressurized to convert (by force or otherwise), Y Followers of Islam attack Z neigbors who are non-muslim and so on.

The Prophet established the faith in Medina. The people of Medina converted the Meccans. The Meccans converted other Arabs. The Arabs converted the Zoroasterians/Persians. The Arabs converted the North African Berbers. The Persians converted the Turks. The Berbers converted the Spanish. The Arabs/Turks converted the Afghans. The Afghans/Arabs/Turks converted Paksitanis and so on.

It is this hunger for head count and conversion that is at the core of Islam, since it stems from the theory that it is the perfect religion for everyone till eternity. Hence it just needs to be spread to everyone and replace all other alternatives. Whenever Islam has encountered a weak alternative, it has consumed it totally. When it encountered a strong competitor like Christiaity or Hinduism, it finally stopped spreading, but even there it has never quite given up the war for supremacy. The war on terror is nothing more than an euphemism for a clash between Islamic warriors and the christian west, where Islamic warriors have come up with a technique that allows them to bypass the civilizational superiority of christians, which is to use terror tactics coupled with exploiting the liberal institutions of the chirstians such as media/human rights.

In the Indian subcontinent, the partition of the subcontinent was actually an unislamic act, since it basically was the organized retreat of muslims for the first time in their history from lands that they had ruled. The only other time that had happened was in Spain but even there it was by force. In India, thanks to Jinnah, it was done in a legal manner. So thank God for him.

#710

Even Jinnah with all his personal material success could not mentally adjust to live under hindu rule.My hypothesis is that it is the inherent doctrinal differences between Islam and Hinduism, particularly the emphasis in Islam on spreading the faith, that prevents us from accepting the other side

---

Jinnah`s grandpa was a hindu baniya , who converted(or was raped & forced to convert to islam around 1830-1840. 2 decades before the final axe fell on the mughal raj in 1857)

Mohd Iqbal has a kashmiri hindu brahmin ancestors !

Note that both were converted hindus , later accepted as leaders by the muslim community , which by & large itself a community of converted hindus.

Do fundamental doctrinal differences establish themselves within 2 generations , after the conversion ? Did their interactions (social , economic if not marriage ) with their relatives (who did not convert) ended with the conversion ? Was he rejected & treated as outcaste ?
Note that the hindu traditions did not vanish overnight . You will notice in most photos of his unmarried sister sister Fatima in saree (looked at as hindu dress) till her death in 1960s

Re:devkant#709

[..p.s.
1) aiming for 1000 posts. ...]

Here is a suggestion - Loudly abuse Jinnah and equally loudly praise Gandhi. You will get your 1000 posts. :-)

#709 by devkant

2) harish bhai....you actually abstained for 40 days???!!!!????

Yaar Dev, I do that every year :-) Been doing it for 14 years now.

Re:manto#693

[..Khushwant Singh once wrote that he supported the Muslim League`s demand for Pakistan and believed in its TNT without ever thinking that it would mean partition of India.....]

Manto, the benign interpretation of TNT that you are formulating has no basis in history or reality. Either we can live together with a common destiny or we cannot live together. There is no wishy-washy third way.

My take on history is that we cannot live together. Whenever hindus have lived under muslims, they have been miserable and whenever muslims have lived under hindus they have been miserable. In such scenarios, people have either adjusted grudgingly due to inability to challenge the situation or resorted to outright rebellion. Taking a look at historical data, hindus in general were unhappy during 800 years of muslim rule with many rebellions by rajputs, jats, sikhs, marathas. On the other side, muslims were unhappy with Sikha-shahi in Lahore, they are certainly unhappy in Kashmir today and minority muslims in India probably secretly fantasize for a new Mahmud Ghaznavi to appear on their behalf. This is irrespective of being economically well off. Even Jinnah with all his personal material success could not mentally adjust to live under hindu rule.My hypothesis is that it is the inherent doctrinal differences between Islam and Hinduism, particularly the emphasis in Islam on spreading the faith, that prevents us from accepting the other side.

It may hurt our refined senses of political correctness to say the above but it is the harsh reality. India can be the pinnacle of secularism but muslims will always feel left out. Even you who is a secular person and whose father is a ahmedi, would feel very alien amongst hindus if you ever decided to reside in India. I am sure you would rather live under a muslim dictator in muslim majority Pakistan rather than a hindu secular democratic leader in India. Similarly a brahmin like myself feels completely comfortable in hindu India irrespective of the form of government and can never imagine living in muslim Pakistan, even if it is 200% secular and even though it is the land of my ancestors. That is why I feel that a complete, peaceful transfer of population a la Turkey and Greece, was the best solution in 1947.

Unfortunately our leaders, except for a few notable exceptions, have never been willing to accept this ultimate reality and act on its basis. The only exception were Jinnah and probably Patel, who did recognize this cleavage very correctly but did not take it all the way. Our leaders have been trying to create formulae for co-existence for generations before and after partition, without any success. Even as we speak, India`s foreign minister is in Pakistan trying for yet umpteenth time to build ``confidence``. If after 1000 years of contact, we are still trying to build ``confidence``, it just shows that oil and water does not mix. It does not mean we got to be enemies or fight, just that we need to live in separate spaces.

``#689 by ranjit on January 11, 2007 6:54am PT
Re:devkant, manto

Any comparison of the communal violence in India vs Pakistan has to be conducted statistically and normalized for the population of minorities in each country i.e incidents per capita of minority population. For instance if Pakistan has 100 incidents and India has 500, that may show that Pakistan is better. But if you normalize the data for minority population - 100/5 million vs 500/150 million, you get a very different answer on a per capita basis. ``

ranjit bhai...its easy for you and me or any other sane person to understand this simple logic. but when someone is blinded with hate and ego, no logic will ever work.

just imagine....monto is arguing that since mobs do not burn minorities in pakistan, it is a better country for minorities. unbelievable logic. he still does not understand that burning or shooting minorities, the end result is the same.

and then when he can`t read simple english (posts by vagabond), he cooks up stories to prove his point of greatness.

rgds,

devkant.

p.s.
1) aiming for 1000 posts.

2) harish bhai....you actually abstained for 40 days???!!!!????