With or Without Musharraf – A Mohajir’s Perspective

Other interactors...

I have absolutely no desire to indulge this fellow in this discussion. However I still apologise on his behalf for his abuse that is sullying this otherwise ``civlised debate``.

I can only assure you that I will not respond in kind- as usual.

Dear Harish mian,

Instead of resorting to the kind of language you use at home, shhow me where I have used the impugned phrases against ``female interactors`` on this website.

Let me repeat it again for you.

1. You claimed I used certain phrases for Sadna Gupta and other female interactors.

2. I have asked you to please give me instances of the said usage. You`ve been UNABLE to produce such evidence.

3. Your failure to do so proves yet again that you are someone who will go to any length to slander me simply because you disagree with my point of view and don`t have any argument worth fighting.


Now just accept that you are lying and be on your way.

#535 by Yasser

These ``colorful phrases`` (metaphorical as they were) were made in response to your constant abuse (which you put here because you never ever had any arguments).

Aww sure Yasser...now that you`ve been caught with your pants down, you say these abuses were merely ``metaphorical``. Trying saying that to those (especially the females) who are at the receiving end...LOL!

I challenge you to produce a single instance where I used this phrase or term for Sadna Gupta or any other female interactor on this website.

What part of ``Sure Yasser, if the colorful phrases (an example of which I put up in my previous post) you use ever so often for not just me, but various interactors (including female Chowkies, Sadna is just an example) do not constitute abuse, I don`t know what would.`` is not clear to you?

Comprehension issues, dear Yasser? Now how many times have you been caught out for your obvious shortcomings with English, in which you say you were a topper? LOL!

#532 by Yasser

None of my posts have been abusive to anyone.

Sure Yasser, if the colorful phrases (an example of which I put up in my previous post) you use ever so often for not just me, but various interactors (including female Chowkies, Sadna is just an example) do not constitute abuse, I don`t know what would. I guess standards differ from person to person.

As for arguments, you are still wanted on every single board you ``tried`` to argue with me... so I am sorry.. but I am done wasting my time with you, untill you significantly grow up and take a few classes in manners and common courtesy.

Is that why you`ve been caught making boastful statements, only to pathetically fall short when challenged? LOL!

Re: # 534

Dear Harish mian,

You are not just without any self respect but utterly shameless. These ``colorful phrases`` (metaphorical as they were) were made in response to your constant abuse (which you put here because you never ever had any arguments). Unlike you I do not abuse women for their gender.

I challenge you to produce a single instance where I used this phrase or term for Sadna Gupta or any other female interactor on this website. You know ofcourse that you often refer to women who disagree with you as whores etc. No doubt this has been ingrained in you since formative years.

Salim mian,

``Again, just because Liaquat Ali Khan had land holdings in another province, it does not change his ethnicity. Also, you may not know this, but the person you call anti-India, anti-Hindu, and the architect of the Kashmir ``problem,`` was possibly assassinated for accepting Mr. Nehru`s offer of a cease-fire and resolution of the ``problem`` through the UN. ``

Well said. All this is true. There is also another angle to Liaqat Ali Khan assassination... but one which can be discussed at another time.

``I believe that it was Gen. Akbar Khan`s conspiracy - perhaps more knowledgeable Chowkies can shed some light on this item.``

This is the view that Sardar Shaukat Hayat and Alastair Lamb take.. However... according to Khizer Hayat Tiwana and Hussein Suhrawardy ... the orders came from Liaqat Ali Khan himself... who according to Suhrawardy was pulling a fast one on the ``Buddha``.


There is a lot of propaganda against Liaqat Ali Khan... but I have found no indication or proof of allegations against Liaqat Ali Khan ... infact... a great book on Liaqat Ali Khan is being written by a western historian... who sheds a lot of light on his role as Pakistan`s Prime Minister... Liaqat Ali Khan was neither disloyal nor corrupt in anyway. He remained committed to Jinnah`s Pakistan... but the mistake he made was giving religion a trojan horse through the Objectives Resolution... albeit his interpretation was modern and progressive... but he should`ve known that Liaqat Ali Khan would not be the Prime Minister of Pakistan forever.

Dear Harish mian,

None of my posts have been abusive to anyone. You on the other hand have gone on a barrage. The reason why it was civilised was because you had not been adequately provoked. Now that you have been... we see it going down the drain.

I am not going to respond to your other personal attacks anymore, because I admit ... I can`t match you insult for insult. As for arguments, you are still wanted on every single board you ``tried`` to argue with me... so I am sorry.. but I am done wasting my time with you, untill you significantly grow up and take a few classes in manners and common courtesy.

#530 by Yasser

It will no doubt turn into a mudslinging match given your presence here.

No need to be so overly defensive. You weren`t here and people were commenting that this was perhaps the most civilized board in a long time.

I know the English Language is not your strong point... but ``foot in the mouth`` is simply an expression not an insult.

Sure..just like ``remove your head from your rearend`` is a common expression in your household (or so we were told by you)? No wonder you resort to terms like ``masqerade against democracy``, which flies over the heads of ordinary mortals like us.

I was merely waiting for everyone to be done with the inanities before I responded to the main theme... which is something very close to both Salim Mian and my heart.

Aww...desperately looking for Salim`s endorsement? The theme maybe close to your hearts, but Salim is saying exactly the opposite of what you want to hear: and that is Pakistan`s disintegration..LOL!

#526 by Yasser

Why do you always insist on putting your foot in your mouth.... doesn`t the taste bother you?

Instead of answering the question I asked in #244, Yasser mian, you resort to what you`re best at: hurling insults. Yet I will ignore it and ask you once again for the benefit of other interactors: why you were MIA for so long, when you were nonchalantly romping around on UP?

PS: Yaar Salim, now that Yasser has graced this board, it wouldn`t be too long before it degenerates into an ugly slanging match. You were lucky for almost a week, but not anymore.

Re: # 529

It will no doubt turn into a mudslinging match given your presence here.

I know the English Language is not your strong point... but ``foot in the mouth`` is simply an expression not an insult. It describes adequately your condition.

As for why I was ``MIA``... I was not. I was merely waiting for everyone to be done with the inanities before I responded to the main theme... which is something very close to both Salim Mian and my heart.

Dear Salim mian,

As you know ... I agree with almost everything except your clouded vision on partition?

Could you inform me as to how despite the fact that neither Azad nor Kidwai could ever be elected the city district tutpoonjias were they the ``real Muslim leaders`` ....

Jinnah spent 35 years as an elected member representing Muslims in central legislature. The fact that the Muslim masses rejected the assorted variety of Maulanas, ulema and other such ``real`` Muslim leaders for the westernised and secular Kafir-e-Azam Mr. Mahomed Ali Jinnah?

Why is it that a man who was - till 1937- considered too pro-Hindu and too secular to ever lead the Muslims by Muslims .. suddenly became the Quaid-e-Azam... while the ``real`` Muslim leaders ... the bearded clerics... the Sardars from NWFP... the Knighted Sultans of Delhi... the Ulema of Deoband and above all some one of the stature of Maulana Azad sidelined?

The answer is that the Muslim masses instinctively responded to the one man who had not been thoroughly discredited in the course of events... Maulana Azad was played like violin by Gandhi in the 1920s... Come on Salim mian... shed a tear for those idiots who heeded Maulana Azad`s call that India was Darul-Harb and Muslims should move to Afghanistan... only to find out that the Afghans did not want to do jackshit with these fools...

The course of events- as they played out- made the Muslim masses in India realise that the Maulanas were either too foolish or too corrupt to lead the Muslims. They then chose a man whose incorruptibility even his worst opponents were ready to swear on. The Muslim masses responded to the suited booted Mahomed Ali Jinnah precisely because he did not sing the Quran and fool the masses like the Mullahs who had deceived the masses... he was not a Mahatma or an Allama or a Maulana... instead he was a man of action... a lawyer who was ready to win them their case.

But fundamentally what was the case? This is where your understanding of partition falls flat in the face of the facts...

History ought to be seen in its entirety and not just a few points of view... The partition as it occured was not Muslim League`s idea... but the Congress`. Bengal was to a free state according to the League plan (it was Nehru who did not allow that to come to pass forbidding Sarat Bose to negotiate with Suhrawardy) and there was supposed to be an over all union. To first ruin the Pakistan idea and then blaming it on the very people who warned against it simply because they came up with an idea is ridiculous.

The ridiculous argument that the plight of Muslims in India has to do with the creation of Pakistan is simply making an excuse for Hindu majority`s treatment of its Muslim minority if any.

In reality ... the leaders of the Congress had actually become convinced of the idea that India was better off without large tracts of contiguous Muslim majority areas. The Congress leadership had decided ... post its own rejection of the Cabinet Mission Plan... that

1. a safe army was better than a safe border
2. 12% Muslims were better than 29% Muslims....

In a way they were right... with the exception of Kashmir, Indians have managed to carry on nicely.... India is a Hindu Majority country with every state (with the exception of disputed territory) being a Hindu Majority sate.... this is not to say that India is not a constitutional secular state... majorities and minorities are not even a consideration in a secular state.

Furthermore... partition of India was done on the express condition that minorities in both countries would be safeguarded and there would be no exchange of populations. We can go into who did what (and believe me evidence suggests that of those killed more than 70% were Muslims heading from East Punjab to West Punjab and more than 80% of the killing also took place in Punjab - the result of Congress` insistence - using cynically the very Two Nation Theory ironically which it had condemned- on division of Punjab)... but it goes without saying that there was massive exodus both ways.

In addition to this... the complete cleansing of Muslims in East Punjab and Hindus/Sikhs in West Punjab is because of two reasons:

1. First and foremost... Congress` insistence on partition of Punjab. It was wrong because if the principle had to be applied to districts and not provinces .... then according to Congress every Muslim majority district in India of today should have become a small Pakistani enclave and vice versa.

2. Even after applying the principle to districts unconstitutionally, Congress` machinations keeping the Muslim Majority district of Gurdaspur in India (and you can`t call the Ahmadi card here because law is interpretted according to the period and not the subsequent changes thereto... and besides all Ahmadis voted in Pakistan`s favor along with Christians of Gurdaspur).

3. The deliberate dragging of feet by Dominion of India`s first Governor General, Lord Louis Dickie Mountbatten, on the Boundary force ... leaving people in Punjab caught up in a disastrous situation. This was done at the behest of the Indian Prime Minister to deliver a crushing blow to the newly formed Government of Pakistan.

These are the facts gentlemen... what you`ve posted unfortunately is emotional mumbo jumbo which does not stand the test of history...

And finally the whole issue with Bengal... if these gentlemen cared so much for Bangladesh... why didn`t they ask their ``broadminded`` leader Jawaharlal Nehru why he put his foot down disallowing an Independent Bangladesh in 1947 according to the Lahore Resolution?

And how then the undoing of Nehru`s efforts of 1947 in 1971 can be termed as a failure of the idea of Pakistan.... even though we might well have preserved Pakistan had it not been for the Punjabi shortsightedness....

All in all... Pakistan idea has still worked despite the problems.. but would have worked even better for both countries had the Indian leadership not been so obsessed with smashing Pakistan and had the UP Muslim bourgeoisie not been sidelined by the Punjabi feudal-military alliance in 1958.

#510 by ranjit

“Liaquat routed the UP muslims en masse to urban Sindh to create a demographic power base for himself in Paki politics.”

That is actually an urban legend. There were enough mahijir in Karachi immediately before and after the partition that Liaquat would have won the elections anyway. Though, we should question his commitment to elections. I doubt that he would have preferred that method. If he had, Pakistan would have gone thru its first elections in 1950.

I agree that Panipat, Gurgaon and karnal were in Punjab/Haryana but were they Punjabi speaking towns before the partition? ( I don’t know the current status) these towns were so close to UP and with substantial Muslim population before the partition that it is hard not to consider them UP towns. I think Thana Bhawan is closer to these towns than Ambala. But that whole thing is irrelevant to this issue.

It is true that Sindhi Hindu were forced to leave after tremendous pressure from Mohajirs in Karachi and Hyderabad. Hindu’s were the Sindhi middleclass and business persons. They left a vacuum; it took Sindhi middleclass 20 years to re-emerge to fight for their rights in Sindh.

Sindhis were the first ones in Pakistan to protest against the one unit and they forced the end of one Unit. The next natural step was to set up quotas in jobs and education for Sindhi.

1972 saw the re-establishment of Sindhi as the official language of Sindh. The Jang newspaper had this nonsense from that londabaaz Rais Amrohvi all over Jang: “Urdu ka janaza hai bari dhoom say nikaly” and that started a campaign of hatred against Sindhis. It was the reincarnation of mohajir communalism. In India, Hindus were the target of that hate campaign (though it was more in response to what Hindus were doing in UP) and now Sindhi became the target of the same bile. Since 1967, Sindhi have improved enough that they are now standing up for their rights. That is the reason that MQM after first championing the Mohajir rights sees the writing on the wall. MQM is trying to find inroads in Sindhi population by changing itself from Mohajir to Motahida. But as we can tell from Salim’s posts and article that it is still all about Mohajir communalism which is now trending fascism.

One last thing, There are mohajirs allover Sindh even in Larkana and Jacobabad but mostly they are now indistinguishable. People in Tando allahyar, Tando Jam Mirpurkhas and other towns like Sukker and Khairpur speak excellent sindhi. Some even better than I can. It will take one more generation to fix these nutcases in Karachi.

BJkumar 454,

One can safely say that had Gandhi not come around with his Ram Rajya and support for religious fundamentalists of all communities... there would have been no need to create Pakistan. Gandhi was- whether or not he had good intentions- the root cause of the problem. The sooner you appreciate this fact... the sooner Pakistanis here can move to dissect the contradictions that you claim Pakistan Movement and Jinnah (post 1937) had to make a Pakistan more in line with the kind of Pakistan that Jinnah spoke of on 11th August 1947... the apparent contradictions which have been touched upon by this article and which I will respond to soon enough.

And no matter what they say in the South of the US... the only saying true for South Asia is ... ``there is no fool like the fool who thinks he is guided by his `inner voice``` ... you know who that is ... don`t you?

Salim Mian

Thanks again for your decent way of interactions. I will always love to support your views in a positive way and even if we disagree upon something, we will disagree with dignity as we always do.

I just read MQM agenda, yes MQM is a good addition against feudalism, which is the main culprit in the backwardness of Pakistan.

Mullahs are very few in active politics, and if they are, they are being used by these feudal politicians who are never sincere in their efforts..........]]]

The main culprit in Pakistani Politics is feudalism. Just think about it.

My only question is, if, MQM is sincere in it`s efforts, then when will MQM have exactly the same kind of rally against the real culprits , feudal lords? that they did today against pseudo mullahs?

80% of Pakistani population is rural and they are hijacked by these corrupt and cruel feudal lords.

If, MQM really wishes to see Pakistan as progressive secular state, then eradicate these feudals.....

And you know what, these feudals are the ones who are using Mullahs for their own corrupt politics.

I will not trust MQM untill they will NOT do anything against feudals.

#509 nauman72

Ama yaar, I asked you a couple of simple, direct questions. It would have been sufficient to say - ``I don`t know``, or more accurately, ``I know the answer, but I don`t like it so I won`t tell you and instead I ask you to go chase birds in bushes!``

Darn, you had me going there for a while as something ``original``!

I should have known. :)

Salim,

You could probably have good intentions, but do you know the history behind why the term ``Mohajir/Muhajir`` is chosen?.. It has negative (or positive) connotations based on one`s perception..

Are you angry that ``Punjabis`` / ``Sindhis`` failed to be the real ``ansars``, the fools who accepted someone else as their leader like the Medinans accepted Mohammad. No wonder Mohammad / Umar ruled that ``ansars`` are not fit to be leaders.. Too bad Punjabis declined to be ``ansars``.. :-)