With or Without Musharraf – A Mohajir’s Perspective

if someone says they arent for unity neither for division it means the will let whatever is happening to keep happening. In two opposeites only one is right. One who does not suppor twhat right is by default supporting whats wrong.

There is not such thing is being neutral. As a matter of fact mohajir leaders have never been neutral in the political history of pakistan.

How can racists claim to be neutral? Punjabis this punjabis that, how long are mohajir leaders going to use these bedtime stories???


``it is the Pakistani Punjabis who are playing the role of the Serbs this time.`` <<<<<<<<<<<< what do you mean by punjabis?? are you accusing every punjabi? it is the govts which take decissions brother. Welcome to reality, pakistan is a dictatorship where every one dictates his will to his subordinates. Dont mislead the people by pointing towards the benefitors rather than looking at the stupid laws and failed systems of government which cause such injustice.

a friend of mine one said ``the mohajir ideology is very simple. The unconditionally hate punjabis and will always find reasons to justify this hate``.... in some weird way i feel his assesment is somewhat justified

Salim Mian

I am really impressed by the way you keep drum rolling with your dignified interactions.

Wonderful!!!

``Thank you for sharing your sincere comments and ideas with us.`` <<< you are most welcome brother.


``I can understand your devotion to Islam, but believe me, I see Islam as the basis of personal morality for certain individuals (including myself). :)`` <<< here is the difference in approach. Reality is different than the philosophical thinkings like ``i see it this way, you see it the other, we are both right``. When talking about real things the mature discussion leads to one of the two parties admitting that they are wrong and accepting the RIGHT thing. Islam cannot be what u think and what i think both. Islam is islam. If u think involving islam in politics, government, education, judiciary etc is degradory towards it, then that is your opinion. It doesnt mean you are right. Im not even going to say that you are wrong because that generally triggers egoistic defense. I say this brother: Islam is a complete way of life which gets its ideas, belief system, laws etc from the word of God (Quran), authentic sayings of the last prophet (peace be upon him) and ijtehad (the finding of a specific law in cases it doesnt exist in quran and hadith). No muslim who has the basic knowlege of islam can truly disagree with this. U can say that u think apples are spicy in taste, but that opinion cannot be correct as it is as established fact that apples are generally sweet, sometiems a little sour or tastless. similarly rational thiking and islamic references like quran and hadith (which i hope u dont reject) define clearly what islam is and what its basic laws and systems are.


``especially when the legal regulations and guidelines have not and cannot change.`` <<< what is the flaw in having a perfect law which doesnt NEED to be chagned in general conditions. When you say they have not changed can cannot change, you are wrong my friend. If you look at islamic history you will clearly see many so called ``stone etched`` laws of islamc being moulded or abandoned due to certain conditions. I gave you an example: In the time of Omer bin khattab (2nd khalif) there was a drought, and food was scarce.... there came a point when people were stealing food from wherever they could to stay alive. The punnishment for stealing was abolished on the grounds that the state will do whatever is in ites power to better the situation and get food for the people, during that time no one can be charged with stealing if they steal food. The state compensated the people whose food was stolen and rectified the situation within no time and re-implemented the law when they had done their reponsibility.


``I am now a firm believer in secularism in the public domain and Islam as a personal choice for me without oppressing others with my own happiness.`` <<< is it not hypocracy when a muslim, in his private life believes in an infinite God and that this God has sent down a complete system (islam) while in the public domain he supports the concept of removing God from government. I go even further to call it blasphemy on the grounds that anyone who thinks that people can sit together and decide (without God) what laws to make and think these laws will be better than what God has revealed, they are in effect saying one of these things:
1) there is no god
2) human groups can have more intellect than God

The first one means kufr and a believer of this should stop calling himself muslims and boldly accept that he is an athiest.

The believers of the second should understand that God by definition has infinite intellect and infine powers. God exists without time and knows that future and past and present at the same time. Worldly restrictions do not apply to him because he is God. Isnt it then just wishfull thinking to think that humand can make laws better than God`s laws?

I am discussing with you based on pure logic and facts. Would like this discussion to continue :)

Salim Mian,

your article and the various interacts remind me of the clarion call given by MAJ about the Muslim and their ``survival`` in Hindu India albeit yours is Mohajirs and survival in Pakistan.

In the past you have expressed that MAJ and partition were wrong. Could it be that you are wrong now?

giani

#610 by Salim

Sorry dear! Sometimes I feel so frustrated so as to loose my temper. I have seen three generations of Pakies pass by but even today I find this so called citadel of Islam in doldrums. This shows that a nation the identity of which is based purely on politico-ideological bases can never find a stable and peaceful country, watan or des, just as a home to live in peacefully. This reminds me of the stand of Moulana Mahmoodulhassan, Abulkalam , etc., visa vis, the demand of the Muslims of India on the bases of their nationality as Muslims. They were of the view that a nation`s identity is based on its country (wattan) and not vise versa as propounded in the so called Two-Nation Theory.. I liked Mr. Altaf as he debunked this ‘theory’, but his fuming against feudalism does not make any sense to me. Perhaps by feudalism he meant all Non-Bhayyan sons of the soil who are now the victims of this Matarrua-gardi led by MQM. So we are afraid sad days lie ahead for the people of Pakistan who have lost even their national identity as Muslims the day second amendment converting the constitution of Pakistan into a `Takfiri Fatwa` was passed when their claim even to call them Muslims was made questionable, subject to an insulting `Halaf-Nama` to become `Halfi Muslims`.

#674, His Excellency, {``This explains the Hindustoora jeers :) The underdeveloped tehzeeb of 2% of population didn`t find too many takers amongst the 98% population with richer cultures. ``}

Your Excellency,
If it had we would not have honor killings, karo kari, gang rapes, hudood ordinance, Tally Bans, and suicide bombings as the dominant Paki culture. :)

{``Yes and no. Bengalis (54%) outnumbered Punjabis (27-30%) in population. But Punjab was larger in area (22% vs 15%) ``}

So what, Baluchistan is by far the largest in area - much larger than even Punjab. :)

You are all over the map, Sir. I am sorry but you are bent upon twisting history, facts, and issues just to malign the victims and present the oppressors as the ones who have suffered. Here are some concerns I have with your rebuttal:

How could 2% of the Pakistani population impose their language on the remaining 98%?

How could Mohajirs in Pakistan and Urdu-speaking Muslims in India impose Urdu as the lingua franca of India and the language of Bollywood?

How could Mohajirs have been the rulers of Pakistan in the first decade after partition, when Liaquat Ali Khan, Ghulam Mohammad, Chaudhry Mohammed Ali, and Feroz Khan Noon, were all Punjabis and the others, Nazimuddin and Mohammad Ali Bogra were Bengalis - not one Mohajir among the early rulers of Pakistan. Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Bhutto, Zia, Bezamir I, Besharif I, Bezamir II, Besharif II were also not Mohajir. Musharraf is the first Mohajir ruler of Pakistan.

Your Excellency, you are taking a very jingoistic ``my side is always right`` attitude. Your excuses regarding the Geneva Convention, Mohajirs taking over Pakistan, Mujib not winning elections, Bhutto being given a mandate by West Pakistan, the political leanings of Wali Khan and the NAP, are all deliberate attempts by you to cloud the main issue - the unrelenting selfishness of Punjabis to dominate Pakistan and suppress all dissent and opposition.

number #673 {``Dear Salim Chauhan Sahib:

Assalamu alaikum o rahmathullahi o barakathahu:

I am assuming that you are a muslim. ... Let me congratulate you on the fine article and let
me tell you that I agree with every word of the article. I find something unique about you.
You have responded to almost every interactor. Great work.

... I am wondering if it is possible to forget about the past and do something to brighten the future, like re-unification. ``}


Dr. Asahdulla Sahib,
Thank you for your kind comments and for joining in this discussion about Mohajirs` past and future. Alhamdolillah, yes I am fortunate to be a Muslim - but not an Islamist. I advocate religion on a personal basis (or the absence of religion on a personal basis). I do not think that religion should be demeaned by making it the overseer of commerce, industry, politics, or even education.

I tried to respond to each post addressed to me and some mean-spirited detractors on Unplugged have accused me of ``hogging`` the forum. I think that if someone takes the time to read my article, offer some feedback, pose some questions, or even disagree with my perspectives, I have an obligation to respond as politely and sincerely as possible.

As for reunification, I have my own positive views, but for it to become a real solution for BOTH countries, an absence of jingoism and a presence of mature thinking with a sprinkling of common sense are prerequisites. I don`t think that either Indians or Pakistanis have yet attained that level of advanced thought. :)

number #673 {``Dear Salim Chauhan Sahib:

Assalamu alaikum o rahmathullahi o barakathahu:

I am assuming that you are a muslim. ... Let me congratulate you on the fine article and let
me tell you that I agree with every word of the article. I find something unique about you.
You have responded to almost every interactor. Great work.

... I am wondering if it is possible to forget about the past and do something to brighten the future, like re-unification. ``}


Dr. Asahdulla Sahib,
Thank you for your kind comments and for joining in this discussion about Mohajirs` past and future. Alhamdolillah, yes I am fortunate to be a Muslim - but not an Islamist. I advocate religion on a personal basis (or the absence of religion on a personal basis). I do not think that religion should be demeaned by making it the overseer of commerce, industry, politics, or even education.

I tried to respond to each post addressed to me and some mean-spirited detractors on Unplugged have accused me of ``hogging`` the forum. I think that if someone takes the time to read my article, offer some feedback, pose some questions, or even disagree with my perspectives, I have an obligation to respond as politely and sincerely as possible.

As for reunification, I have my own positive views, but for it to become a real solution for BOTH countries, an absence of jingoism and a presence of mature thinking with a sprinkling of common sense are prerequisites. I don`t think that either Indians or Pakistanis have yet attained that level of advanced thought. :)

#673 by number on April 19, 2007 11:55am PT

Dear Syed Asadulla Sahib:

You are making statements that contradict each other.

You see, no digging - no benefits!

Digging in the past is what this web-site is all about. What good are we going to get from it? What is done can not be undone, but there are lessons to be learnt and if you do not learn them, those lessons will have to be relearnt in the future anyway - at a higher price.

Why is it so difficult not to figure things out based on common sense? Because this is a gathering of ``intellectuals`` - chowk style! And those who have suspended such common sense (e.g., mian Yasser) are the aspiring leaders of your land!

[I am wondering if it is possible to forget about the past and do something to brighten the future, like re-unification.]

Other than Mr. Chauhan, you are the only other interactor who has even suggested this idea. (Perhaps the two of you are one and the same?) :)

There will never be any reunification because the underlying current of suspicion and exclusivity remains, it has strengthened over time and what was one land has become two different people who are headed in two different directions. One of those two is headed downhill - I need not tell you which:

...like a snowstorm heading for hell!

Respectfully submitted.

BJ Kumar

#667 Salim_Chauhan

{``this some subtle desire of yours to compare me with dead villains- I hope that you don`t detest e that much.``}

Dead villains is a Mohajir expression. I prefer the less subjective description i.e. ``Pitiable sociopaths``. They are sociopaths because their megalomania and insecurities render them incapable of social integration. With your racist tirades, you weren`t expecting me to compare you with Mandela, were you? :)

{``the bulk of this country was comprised of Bengalis and NOT Punjabis``}

Yes and no. Bengalis (54%) outnumbered Punjabis (27-30%) in population. But Punjab was larger in area (22% vs 15%) and constituted larger chunk of GDP. More importantly, Punjabis were 65% of West Pakistani population. If your Mohajir ancestors wanted to keep one language for both wings, they should`ve picked either Bengali (or Arabic or English). If they wanted two languages for the two wings, they should`ve picked Bengali and Punjabi. But the Mohajir elite picked a language spoken by only 2% of the population. They kept the reins of government in their own hands and shunted non-Urdu speaking people out of the echelons of power for more than a decade.

Mohajir apologists blame Jinnah for the language riots. Never mind that Jinnah died just 15 months after creating Pakistan. The Mohajir-dominated bureaucracy ruled Pakistan for another 11 years until Ayub`s military coup. They had ample time to address the language issue.

{``If we Mohajirs had our way, we would have ``forced`` some TEHZEEB into you instead of Urdu``}

This explains the Hindustoora jeers :) The underdeveloped tehzeeb of 2% of population didn`t find too many takers amongst the 98% population with richer cultures.

{``So now the Mohajirs took over Pakistan, its businesses, its institutions, and then looted, killed, murdered, raped, and tortured poor hapless Sikhs and Hindus - driving out the surviving ones into India?``}

Correction. Your Mohajir ancestors took over Pakistan, its business and its institutions after the Punjabi Mohajirs had suffered at the hands of Sikhs and Hindus.

{``We all know that the terrible suffering, slaughter, rape, and abduction were perpetrated on the Sikhs and Hindus of West Punjab by Muslim Punjabis. So, who now is rewriting history to suit one`s conclusions?
``}

We also know about the Muslim students paraded nude, raped and burnt by Sikhs in East Punjab... and dozens of trains to Pakistan carrying Muslim families arsoned by Hindus & Sikhs. Isn`t denying the suffering of these Punjabi Muslims an attempt to revise history???

{``since when did Rawalpindi or Islamabad become centralized centers of Pakistan for logistics reasons``}

Rawalpindi was the largest military garrison in British India and headquarters of Northern Command since 1886. It became GHQ of Pakistan Army in 1947 :) There was no point in setting up government in Multan (10 hours away from Pindi by road) and Karachi (2 days away). And besides, the development of Islamabad also helped develop the northern areas. Karachi was already a developed city, overpopulated and vulnerable to attack by sea. Islamabad is safely surrounded by mountains. Moreover, Islamabad was a planned city with clearly marked diplomatic enclaves, government blocks and residential areas. If keeping Pentagon/White House/Capitol Hill close to each other makes sense for the Americans, there is no reason why Pakistanis should not.

{``Very few Mohajirs were fighting anywhere - except serving as officers in the Punjabi-dominated Pak Army. the Ghazi ``Tiger`` Niazi head of the surrendering force was Punjabi.``}

What were these Mohajirs doing in the Punjabi Army in the first place? They weren`t conscripts, were they? :) If Punjabis were 65% of West Pakistani population, and West Pakistan provided bulk of the Army, what is so surprising about finding more Punjabi generals than Mohajirs or Pathans? Now who is spinning demographics to weave conspiracy theories here?

{``...escort them into friendly POW resorts in India``}

Pakistani soldiers were sent by the government and protected by Geneva Convention and military protocols. Sikh soldiers weren`t exactly bonding with their Pakistani counterparts. They were following the established norms which BTW Pakistan Army also followed six years earlier in the 1965 war. Armies follow these norms because they know that soldiers only carry out orders. Military Strategy and policy decisions are made by generals or presidents. Thanks for your intelligent comments :)

{``Bhutto only carried majorities in Punjab and Sindh and in fact NAP...was victorious in NWFP and Baluchistan``}

Correction: NAP only won in Baluchistan. In NWFP, it won only 3 out of 25 national assembly seats. Even in provincial elections, NAP did not carry NWFP since it only won 13 out of 40 seats. Bhutto at least won 1 national assembly seat in NWFP and could rightfully claim to represent West Pakistan with 81 out of 138 seats. What right did Awami League have to speak for Pakistan when they didn`t win a single seat in West Pakistan? Bhutto`s consensus building efforts during the framing of 1973 constitution speak volumes about his ability to take everybody along. Mujib on the other hand had adopted an uncompromising attitude and put up demands he knew West Pakistanis could never accept. That was the purpose of his demands.

{``NAP allied with Awami League``}

Salim mian, Mohajir News Network is not giving you fair and balanced khabrain :) NAP never allied with Awami League before or after the elections. Wali Khan just met Mujib on March 23rd, 1971 along with politicians from other parties to offer their token support in forming a govt. He said he was doing this only to avert a military operation. The offer was too late and half-hearted. Try reading history for a change, because writing it isn`t really working for you :)

{``The rest of your post is full of even more untruths and does not merit a rebuttal``}

I can rebut any arguments posed my way without insulting my interlocuters or accusing them of being anti-Punjabi, et al.

Dear Salim Chauhan Sahib:

Assalamu alaikum o rahmathullahi o barakathahu:

I am assuming that you are a muslim. Please forgive me if I am wrong. Everybody knows
who I am. I will interact only with those who have their real names on chowk. It is only fair.
Please forgive me for being late in interacting with you. I was waiting to read all the interacts
before interacting, but it will be too late. Let me congratulate you on the fine article and let
me tell you that I agree with every word of the article. I find something unique about you.
You have responded to almost every interactor. Great work.

How long are we going to dig in the past? What good are we going to get from it? What is
done can not be undone. I am wondering if it is possible to forget about the past and do
something to brighten the future, like re-unification.

Respectfully submitted.

Syed Asadulla, Ph.D

#665 by klpd on April 18, 2007 3:44pm PT
{`Re: # 664
hs - salim is a divider - no concept of united we stand - salim wants to turn pakistan into another yugoslavia - is that what the mohajirs stand for?``}

Dear klpd:

Good analogy, except that it is the Pakistani Punjabis who are playing the role of the Serbs this time. I am interested in neither dividing nor uniting - I just seek fairness, justice, compassion, and peace. I hope that most Mohajirs would share those goals. :)

imransuhail #668 {``Its easy to blame others and keep following the agendas of the ``outsiders`` to keep us divided, but if one truly understands what is causing all the problems then it is a matter of common sense to know the solution or that there is a solution. ``}

Imran Sahib,
Thank you for sharing your sincere comments and ideas with us. I can understand your devotion to Islam, but believe me, I see Islam as the basis of personal morality for certain individuals (including myself). :) I think that degrading Islam to the level of government, courts, education, divorce, marriage, inheritance, and public rules is both unfair and very restrictive - especially when the legal regulations and guidelines have not and cannot change. I am now a firm believer in secularism in the public domain and Islam as a personal choice for me without oppressing others with my own happiness. Thanks. :)

Re: # 669

Hmmmm... that`s pakiland`s national song?... well, then what the heck is YLH ranting and raving for so long for?... Islam is coded into pakiland`s formation - not that there was ever any doubt about it, but since the national song talks about ``islam ka sipahi`` and ``mohammad ka something``, then where is the confusion?

Jamia Hafsa girls are right... zeena and zeemax are right... it`s high time, pakiland was completely islamized...

Re: # 649 Manto

``...Mohajirs, Bengalis and Sindhis... were always way ahead of the Punjabis in their intellectual and political development...``

Gandhi would never have made such a bigoted statement. In the meantime, enjoy this fine fine song. Note the references to `Islam ka sipahi`!
CIAO!

You said: ``We can look to Singapore as a model for our evolution`` <<< why? does singapore contain a perfect society? has sangapore solved the poblems of the people or divided society them into 2 factions: extremely backward and extremely progressive???

Comming towards your extremist/moderate opinions, you make it sound like there are only 3 kinds of people in pakistan. The islamic extremists (whose freedoms of expression like their clothing and their freedoms of belief arent acceptable to you although you seem to support such democractic concepts), the secular-modernized people, and the mahajirs.

When a non-mqm karachi resident seen mahajirs, he sees the mahajir supporting these notions of racism, anti-islam concepts, etc. I am a (real) mahajir too. My family actually migrated from india unlike many mqm followers in karachi. Still i am enlightened enough to see that the problems we face may be dissimilar to those faced by other elsewhere in pakistan, or areound the world but i understand that these problems are linked as they stem from the same root. Its easy to blame others and keep following the agendas of the ``outsiders`` to keep us divided, but if one truly understands what is causing all the problems then it is a matter of common sense to know the solution or that there is a solution.

The root-of-evil that i point to is the capitalist ideology which is served to the world in different flavors. The europeans got it in the ``secular democracy`` floavor, muslims are getting it in ``moderate islam`` flavor. The ideals and basic concepts remain the same. The same ``freedom of ownership`` is projected behind things like freedom of religion, freeodm of speech and choice of ruler to people who are dumb enough to think that these things arent allowed in other ideologies.

I take the example of islam. The islamic state provided security, welfare, growth, freedom of speech, etc to its citizens regardless of their religious affiliations. Jews prospered in the caliphate when they were looked down upon and persecuted by the catholic europe. Islam gives the conept of a house of elected representatives of the people which advise the ruler and legislate based on evidences and facts rather than the personal likes and dislikes of its members.

So i ask the question, why do we hide behind neutrality and support the flagbearers of capitalism ontly to say that we arent religious extremists? Why cant we learn and teach others about the only stable and progressive system of govt that lasted for 1000 years?

Are we hypocrites when we say ``i testify that there is no God but Allah`` and still keep His revelation and his prophet`s examples out of our life`s affairs???