Do Pakistanis deserve a democratic system?

Re: # 87
[....the impact on pakistanis and their families was far far more....]

As you sow, so you reap... you asked homeland for muslims, you got homeland for muslims... why cry now?... entire punjab, bengal, whatever was NOT your homeland - your homeland was what was given to you...

No muslim majority country in modern history has ever protected the minorities... never has and never will... no matter what jinnah or anybody else said - it was simply NOT going to happen... not then, not now... everybody knew that - which is why the lands were partitioned and you got your muslim homeland, free of the minorities...

Just as predicted - you cleansed whatever little minorities you had got... and then you fought each other like baboons, killed 3 million of your own, lost eastern wing... and still fighting and killing each other under various excuses - shia, sunni, ahmedi...

60 years down the drain - you guys are NOT sure if you even deserve democracy... it`s like asking, do we deserve a good life?... some f***ing achievement that is huh???... and yet, you are crying silly over ``all of punjab`` and blowing smoke thru your a$$es that you would have protected the minority... yeah right - everybody here is born yesterday... :)

Re: # 87
[....you would probably still be living in west punjab and rooting for the pakistan cricket team...]

Sure - and his name would be Muhammad Abdul and tip of his d!!ck would be missing...

Pakis and their megalomania... they wanted all of punjab and bengal and kashmir... Just work with what you have, make sure you keep that much united....stop blabbering about ``cabinet mission plan`` and some such bullsh@t that Jinnah[pubh] wrote up on some toilet paper in his drug-induced haze...

And make YLH a legal muslim if you can...

#90 Ama Ballu

No need to assign ulterior motives to plain simple incompetence!

``Do Pakistanis deserve a democratic system?``

Do you deserve even the clothes you put on?? Do the poor deserve to be rich? What an imbecile topic from the same Army Band !! It looks like Chowk is getting funds from Paki Army Jernails to run their propaganda.

#85 by dost-mittar on January 13, 2007 2:35pm PT


until Putin came along to push back some of the unbridled freedoms for which the Russians were not ready.


just like commie rat nehru pushed back market freedoms for which Indian companies weren`t ready?

bulleya:

This has nothing to do with my feelings or who rejected the Cabinet Mission Plan. It is you who said that he could do anything he wanted (in the newly created state of Pakistan). Obviously, this did not include the ability to protect his minorities.

dost-mittar #85:``He could do anything he wanted`` and yet did not prevent the ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs``

......i think he did everything he could to prevent this.......i think you are quite sensitive to this because your family (and you) were personally affected......due to this you may not be looking at all the facts........

1. jinnah accepted the cabinet mission plan........at a point, where no one could have stopped him from claiming pakistan, had he wanted to.........this would have resulted in no ethnic cleansing..........it was nehru who rejected it.......

2. there were only three areas, in india were the partition really occured: punjab, bengal and kashmir........on a whole, in india, pakistanis and muslims were the most affected party, as these formed the heart of their new nation.........in kashmir, even till today........none of the hindu majority areas even went through a partition........they remained intact........

let`s see what jinnah did.......

.......he wanted all of punjab and bengal (?) in pakistan........where he was ready to protect the minorities.........he even went to the extent of offering sikhs their own autonomy.......both his proposals were rejected by the hindu and sikh leadership........ironically decades later, sikhs would fight a bloody battle with india for this same independence.......do keep in mind that it was the hindu leadership that wanted punjab and bengal divided, not to mention rejecting the cabinet mission plan........

........what else could he have done?

........every single proposal he threw out to the hindu (read congress) leadership was rejected..........they were unwilling to gaurantee any kind of protection to muslims in united india, and wanted the provinces divided if partition occured..........

as i keep saying the majority has to make the minority feel secure.........one cannot create an insecure minority and then not offer them independence either.........do keep in mind that the partition affected pakistan (punjab and bengal) far far more than it affected india, where outside punjab and bengal, india remained untouched.......the impact on pakistanis and their families was far far more..........

had nehru accepted the cabinet mission plan or had india accepted all of punjab (and kashmir) into pakistan, you would probably still be living in west punjab and rooting for the pakistan cricket team...........though there is a good chance i would have migrated to banglore by now........

dost-mittar #85: ``btw, are you still supporting your man in Ottawa?]``

.......good to hear from you again.......i am assuming you are refering to wajid khan.......the guy turned out to be a, ``pakistani,`` after all........a lota........i consider it somewhat of an honor that the first pakistani to be elected (and that too by relative landslides) into the federal assemblies in north america, didn`t wait long to become a lota.......

i guess certain things are in our blood..........

.....i haven`t kept up with him after participating in his campaign......we chat once a year on the phone, and know of each other.......i am not sure what happened.....i know his campaign manager very well, so i will check with her.......

.......he is generally considered a good guy, and i like him........i think he was supporting volpe (?) in the liberal leadership race, and when his man lost, he could have become an outsider in the party.......at the same time, the conservative party was wooing him and even appointed him the pm`s advisor on middle east........even though he was in the opposition.......

........so he may have seen the writing on the wall and made a political decision to jump ship.........perhaps a good political decision, though not a principled one......will have to check the internal situation to get the real facts.......

in any case, i have yet to decide my political affiliations in canada....i supported him and worked on his campaign, because i think he is a good guy and with a background similar to mine........it would not have made much difference to me had he been a conservative, liberal, ndp or bloc candidate..........

I am one of those who do not believe in democracy for the sake of democracy. It is just a form of governance and the purpose of governance is to create a fair, just and equitable society. If democracy does the job, I am for it ..but if another form of governance achieves these objectives better, I would opt for it.

The Chinese leadership understood this fact when they crushed the Tianenmen Square protests; the Chinese were not ready for a free-for-all democracy; I kind of suspect that the Chinese reaction to a similar protest would be less harsh today. The Soviet leadership in the form of Gorbachev and Yeltzin did not realise this fact in 1989 and produced an anarchy which broke up the Union and set Russia back by more than a decade, until Putin came along to push back some of the unbridled freedoms for which the Russians were not ready. In other words, introducing parliamentary democracy when neither the electorate are able to vote responsibly nor the elected leaders are able to act with a minimum degree of responsibility is not necessarily better than having a Lee Kuan Yiew or a Deng Xiapong until a nation can afford the hefty price of democracy. None of us would be criticising Pakistan today if Ayub had not made his foolish adventure in Kashmir (egged on by the greatest democratic leader, Bhtto, of Pakistan) and were allowed to build a economically strong and a religiously moderate Pakistan with the help of his Basic Democracy.

The author makes several mistakes about India, one of which is about the role of the Indian industrialists. Birlas and Tatas did nothing to support democracy in India - Tatas were the victims of Nehru`s socialism as their Air India was taken over by the government (and reduced from a first-rate to a third-rate airline) and they were stopped from expanding their steal production even though India sadly needed steal. Birlas, on the other hand, prospered by mastering the license-quota-permit regime and bribing politicians and bureaucrats alike. The ones who did try to oppose Nehru like Dalmia or Goenka were harshly dealt with.

bulleya#44:

``.......this is the situation jinnah landed in........he was the muslim league........he created pakistan, literally by his personality........while india would have been created anyways, regardless of the leadership (gandhi, nehru or anyone else)......there would be no pakistan without jinnah..........

...........i would encourage you to read the politics of pakistan, immediately after 47......it was a huge mess........backstabbing, resignation threats, backdoor maneuvering etc........jinnah had no choice but to centralize power......and he had the mandate politically and democratically to do anything he wanted.........he had huge public following........... ``

``He could do anything he wanted`` and yet did not prevent the ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs.
[btw, are you still supporting your man in Ottawa?]

Ok pakis...oopar se order aaya hai...start bombing your fellow paki citizens now...

chop chop...

US wants more action in FATA: Rice

Our Monitoring Desk
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said that Pakistan is an excellent ally in the war on terror but Washington wants to see more from Islamabad against terrorist elements in tribal areas there.
In an interview with BBC, Ric said “Oh, I think Pakistan has been an excellent ally, but it’s well known that the area - the federally administered tribal areas - has been largely ungoverned by Pakistan for its entire existence.
And so what the Pakistanis need to do, and I think are trying to do, is to make certain that that area cannot be a safe haven for Al-Qaeda or for the Taliban. And I do think they’ve made some progress, but obviously, we’d like to see more progress made.”
Responding to a question about the new US plan on Iraq, she said “It’s a difficult situation in Iraq, but the President’s plan, first of all, very much puts Iraqis at the centre of responsibility for dealing with what is their most urgent problem. Their most urgent problem is that the population has lost confidence that the Government of Iraq can and will defend them in an even-handed fashion, whether they are Sunni or Shia. And they have to correct that or the fabric of the society is going to continue to tear and that will make it difficult, then, to have the kind of political reconciliation that they’re working on at the centre.
So the President’s plan very much relies on Iraqis’ responsibility for the kind of country that they’re going to be, but we recognise that they don’t yet have the capability to clear these neighbourhoods of the extremists, then hold them and build. And so the augmentation of American forces would be to help the Iraqis do that. I think if the plan works, if the Iraqis live up to their commitments, it will work and we’ll have a very different circumstance in Iraq.”

Please don`t bring in religion in Indian businesses`.

``Hindu industrialists such as: Tata or Birla stood like rocks against Nehru-Indira socialism.``

For your information Rattan Tata is not Hindu but is a Parsee.

This is the failure of the Pakistani people to recognise India as a secular country, who merely stereotype it as a ``Hindu country``.

true we have had ``Hindutva`` and all that extreme government, but the muslim person in india, has equal opportunities as the hindu person.


Infact many of my friends are muslims from India, and when they go abroad (UK, USA, etc), people often think that they are Pakistanis because they are muslims.

Re: # 77

Romair:

It is impossible for me to disagree with you on the economic point that you have make, as I also believe that economics is the main driver in any country, developed or under developed. Therefore, I can call them as under developed economies, and in these economies it is easier to play with the emotions. Religion is the easiest emotional card to play and divide. It is never a uniter and always a divider.

The fact that however defective democracy is going strong in India is a proof positive of diversity as the democratic glue. You may not like this evidence in India. The truth is that this diversity could have created massive centrifugal forces and fragmented India. May be there was a critical mass in body politic in India that overcame. Going forward the size of market economy there, and a secular world-wide trend two regional economies and globalization will only increase the democratic critical mass in India. There is a devolution of power that is taking place in India, through coalition governments at the center, and their common minimum program (a different CMP), the pie gets cut.

Post-partition ``separation movements`` or centrifugal forces that you have mentioned were not strong enough to destroy the democracy in India. On the contrary democratic glue constantly try to find ways to bind them, some of these ways may be irrational to some, but they are always within the framework of Indian democracy. That is why I am confident that Indian democratic glue will find a solution to bind Indian Kashmir as well. I am totally aware that your view point on Kashmir is completely different than mine.

Even when Indira Gandhi declared emergency, or attacked Golden Temple at great personal cost for her actions. Yet, Indian democratic glue kept the country together, and upheld the high court verdict to declare her election invalid. She cooled herself off in jail (my memory may be wrong on jail part) or in wilderness, as she had to accept people`s verdict. The democratic institutions prevailed over the acts of an Individual, all because of this glue. It is a discomforting for many detractors of India to recongnize and accept.

Disingenuous at best is not improper description to what you wrote about India`s role in Bangladesh. Pakistan could not make its diversity the glue to bind it together. Diversity became a massive centrifugal force to slice off the largest part of Pakistan. India at worst played the role of a cutter and cementor to smooth edges in this broken concrete.

My point about imbalance in secular democracy in Pakistan, is backed by the fact even now bangladeshis that I have talked, and were born after or were too small to remember, blame Punjabi muslims for this break. Many told me that their families were neutral during the ``mukti-yuddh`` they call.

Your selection of 1947 is a clever convenience that unfortunately brings in a massive distortion, the partition into the play, and therefore, invalid. I would divide India`s role with its neighbors in atleast two parts. One as democratic infrastructure built up, and the other as post-reform economic infrastructure built up. The priorities in the former were different, Nehru and Indira Gandhi played the role of ensuring threat from its neighbors is checked. Nehru tried to contain China and lost. He died a defeated man as a result. Indira Gandhi tried to eliminate external threat and came out as Goddess Durga, but paid through her life her attempts to temper the diversity glue, through undemocratic means to contain internal threats.

In the second post-reform, economic infrastructure phase priorities are different. This phase is going on with the market built up phase. We will all witness the changes in Indian approach, and both Indian and Pakistani Kashmirs will benefit. If India has its way, Pakistan will have influence, but limited choices. You and I may not agree, but Indian market jaggernaut will steam roller many choices out, or else there will no progress. Fortunately, both Indian prime minister and Pakistani president seem to see eye-to-eye on it.

#79 by zeemax on January 13, 2007 9:23am PT

you`re clutching at imaginary straws again...you`re just bitter that your failed miserably in kargil and had abandoned the bodies of your soldiers while you cut and run...

#75 by chaltahai on January 13, 2007 7:30am PT


dude..it`s world famous in Pakiland...

....Nawaz looted, Benazir plundered...

.... however noone over-invoiced coffins of dead soldiers ...

VRV #: ........your views about jinnah dominating the politics of pakistan are correct.......the facts are too obvious to argue against.........however, it was not for personal reasons........it is the later part where i disagree with you.......

......once again, i think you are reaching these conclusions because you are comparing the social development of what became pakistan with that of what became india..........it is almost like comparing afghanistan with pakistan.......

......to give you an idea, the educated leadership of independent pakistan, consisted of muhajirs, as the level of education was so low in independent pakistan.......jinnah had no other choice but to centralize things in his own hands........there was no one else who could do much........and i think his followers understood that......

........regarding punjab.......punjab dominated pakistani politics, after 47.......not before 47......the populations of the provinces of west pakistan never really wanted independence, for a long time, because they were muslim majority provinces, hence the muslims there felt secure.........

the pakistan movement was infact a product of the efforts of muslims of up and bengal......its leadership was from present day india and bangladesh......with only a second tier from west pakisan, and even there a lot of the top leaders (specifically in punjab and nwfp) were anti-pakistan.......in addition, the reglious orthodoxy was against pakistan also......

......the fact that pakistan was created despite the non-cooperation of punjabi feudals and the religious orthodoxy should give you an idea of who had influence, prior to 47.....it was the bengali and urdu (gujrati etc.) speaking leadership of the muslims......

it is quite ironic that, after 47, the groups that ended up dominating pakistan were the feduals, the punjabi/pathans and the maulvis.........three groups, who weren`t interested in the forming the country in the first place..........

.....ironically the two groups who did want the country - up muslims and bengalis, eithere remained stuck in india or formed bangladesh!

.......the answer is simple.......jinnah, due to his personality and character was able to get everyone, kicking and screaming, pointed in one direction.......and once he died, it became survival of the fittest or most powerful, and the feudals and punjabis and maulvis (and army) filled the gap........

.........the fact that the man was able to get so many diverse people to follow him, and that he could have literally owned the country, but died with the income he earned as a lawyer and not as a politician says something about the person..........and the fact that pakistanis (and bangladeshis) of any background - religious, secular, feudal, urban, male, female etc. all, even today, accept his achievements is testament to his achievements.....

.......do keep in mind that the value of a leader is recognized by the people he/she is leading.......not the people he/she is opposing.........thus jinnah`s achievements will be decided by pakistanis (and bangladeshis), not by indians.......if pakisatnis think, jinnah was great, then it is really immaterial what indians think.......

.........there is one caveat in this and that is the situaiton of indian muslims.........