Citizenship and Identity in Pakistan

And the answer to your second question is :

Had Ahmadis known that one day the same Pro-Congress Mullah elements (who had been beaten by the League) would one day creep up in Pakistan and call for a theocracy and ask for the apostasisation of Ahmadis and twist the hand of someone like Bhutto... they would have probably advocated a sterner approach against anti-Pakistan Mullahs like Jamat-e-Islami and Majlis-e-Ahrar.

FYI The Khatam-e-Nabuwat (Anti-Ahmadi) movement in Pakistan was started in 1953 by Majlis-e-Ahrar... yes te same Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam which was in alliance with the Congress and that used to call Pakistan ``kafiristan``. After Pakistan was made, they took their vengeance against those who made it... and got Ahmadis declared kafir.

There is no doubt that my father`s community has suffered in Pakistan ... but even today if the choice is between being a Non-muslim in Pakistan (Where in 30 years only 79 of them could be considered to have been killed in religiously motivated violence) or being a Muslim in India (where thousands were burnt alive for being Muslims in one day) ... the Ahmaddiya community will always prefer Pakistan.

Re: # 336

Shishapa mian,

I am afraid untill and unless you try and open your mind and pick up a book (My suggestion : H M Seervai`s ``Partition of India : Legend and Reality`` ) there is no way anything will make sense to you.

But as you said Muslim League was willing to agree to United India provided there was autonomy along Cabinet Mission Plan lines... and Muslim League was by virtue of 1946 Elections as representative a party of the Muslims as Congress was of the Hindus and other communities. It was also the second largest party.

Therefore... your logic falls apart when you consider that Muslim League was willing to compromise its maximum demand ... it was the Congress which refused to recognise that unity could only be preserved by accomodating the concerns of that significant number that voted for the League.

And if you could not come to an arrangement with the League which consisted of many ex-Congressman... then there was no hope anyway... ( ofcourse Congress was perfectly happy to hob nob with the Mullahs of all variety because Mullahs were not in a position to challenge caste Hindu hegemony... modern Muslims were...)

Re: # 338

Pooh Pooh...


No need to abuse me just because I am shattering your myths.

Little knowledge is very dangerous. You prove that again and again. Please tell me why was Azad forced to resign from the presidency of the Congress in 1946? Was it because he was in favor of the cabinet mission plan which would have retained India`s unity? It is actually quite clear from the facts.

As for how secular your Congress leaders actually were... here is the reality of Congress exposed by your Congress president himself:

India Wins Freedom

The first was the case of Mr. Nariman, a Parsee and an acknowledged leader of the local Congress in Bombay, who was generally expected to lead the provincial government. Sardar Patel and his colleagues could not reconcile with such a leadership of non-Hindu Chief Minister where ``the majority of members in the Congress Assembly Party were Hindus.`` [p. 16]

``Mr. Nariman was naturally upset about the decision. He raised the question before the Congress Working Committee. Jawaharlal was then President and many hoped that in view of his complete freedom from communal bias; he would rectify the injustice to Nariman. Unfortunately this did not happen. ... He [Jawaharlal] sought to placate Patel and rejected Nariman`s appeal. ... Nariman was surprised at Jawaharlal`s attitude, especially as Jawaharlal treated him harshly and tried to shout him down in the meeting of the Working Committee.`` [p. 16-17]

``Nariman had lost the case even before the enquiry began. It was finally held that nothing was proven against Sardar Patel. None who knew the inner story was satisfied with this verdict. We all know that truth has been sacrificed in order to satisfy Sardar Patel`s communal demands. Poor Nariman was heart broken and his public life came to an end.`` [p. 17]

``A similar development took place in Bihar. Dr. Syed Mahmud was the top leader of the province when the elections were held. He was also a General Secretary of the All India Congress Committee and as such he had a position both inside and outside the province. When the Congress secured an absolute majority, it was taken for granted that Dr. Syed Mahmud would be elected the leader and become the first Chief Minister of Bihar under Provincial Autonomy. Instead, Sri Krishna Sinha and Anugraha Narayan Sinha who were members of the Central Assembly, were called back to Bihar and groomed for the Chief Ministership. Dr. Rajendra Prasad played the same role in Bihar as Sardar Patel did in Bombay.`` [p. 17]

``These two instances left a bad taste at the time. Looking back, I cannot help feeling that the Congress did not live up to its professed ideals. One has to admit with regret that the nationalism of the Congress had not then reached a stage where it could ignore communal considerations and select leaders on the basis of merit without regard to majority or minority.`` [p. 18]


Talk about rotten upbringings... have you seen your posts ?

I am afraid your understanding of what I have said is flawed and confused as what you think you are arguing about. I have never met a single Ahmadi to date who - despite the injustice starting 1974 - has regretted the Ahmaddiya Jamaat`s role in the making of Pakistan. They are all very proud of it.

Very good. We are proud of ahmadiyas too. I wonder how Indian Muslims treat ``ahmadiyas``. Any ideas??..

I`m actually proud of Jinnah (or the right word is ``thankful``. Of all the leaders` services to India nothing can compare to what he did..) :-)

Re: # 326

``Indians want to both praise Congress for rejecting the CMP and abuse Muslim League for making Pakistan ... you can`t have your cake and eat it too which is what Indians end up doing.``

Let me explain so that you understand this: Pakistan was a bad idea (as proved by `71), the Cabinet Mission Plan was worse. Got it?

#328
``...Indian Army would have a large number of Muslims (according to Sadna 55-60% but in reality around 35%) ... and that was unacceptable to lovey dovey leaders of Congress Party...``

Let me explain this as well: The `Congress Party` had no problems with a Muslim as being it party President (Maulana Azad), nor with 3 Indian Presidents who happened to be Muslims (Zakir Hussein, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, and the current Abdul Kalam), not to mention that its current head (and de facto India`s most powerful politician) is a Catholic widow, the serving Prime Minister is a Sikh, the serving Chief of Army Staff is a Sikh, the serving Defense Minister is a Christian.

But, given your rotten Pakistani upbringing, where you cannot see the world without religious filters (your protestations to being `secular` notwithstanding and appearing to be hollow in light of your crass remarks), your observations are not all that surprising. You, twit!

Go, stew in your Pakistani juices now.

I think a better question to ask would be

``If they had known during Independence days, would Ahmadiya
Jamat/Jamatis support either making of Pakistan
where they would be declared non-Muslims and it
would be crime for Ahmadiya jamatis to call themselves Muslims,
recite kalma etc. or support united India``

So how did INC partition India?
ML always, from the begining, wanted a sovereign state (and that state
could come into existence only after partitioning India) unless INC
complied with ML`s autonomy demand and when INC did not comply,
partition happened.
It was not INC that came up with the idea of a sovereign state
for Muslims by partitioning India in the first place!

Masanamuthu,

I am afraid your understanding of what I have said is flawed and confused as what you think you are arguing about. I have never met a single Ahmadi to date who - despite the injustice starting 1974 - has regretted the Ahmaddiya Jamaat`s role in the making of Pakistan. They are all very proud of it.

Honestly... I am actually sitting a few thousand yards from where Jamia Hafsa is right now.. and the reality of this is that it is the Mush`s way of telling America... deal with us or else ... otherwise Jamia Hafsa (90% of which is composed of poor boys and girls from NWFP - the same NWFP that repeatedly voted for Bacha Khan and Mufti Mahmood instead of Muslim League) is merely a paper tiger.

So go ahead - but despite all this I have already explained that CMP simply represented a better more agreeable option of parting of the ways which could have avoided much heartbreak and probably spared us the arms race. Read the clause about voluntary opting out of the Union through simple vote 10 years from 1946.

Dear Mohar11,

I know you have a comprehension problem but let us try one last time.

The issue is not what we would have gotten out it. Let us make no mistake about it.... process of enrichment that occured for Muslims who took over evacuee properties in 1947 and the fact Pakistan as a new state was forced to industrialise quickly all were to the benefit of Muslims (including Ahmadis who were legally Muslims till 1974). So no one is really complaining about losing out on any interest.

The issue here is merely of facts as I have explained. I am not in the favour of CMP in retrospect than you... but Muslim League was willing to give up a sovereign state in return for autonomy is a fact that you have to deal with.

Basically, congress gave you much more than you asked for.... So what`s your problem dude?... why are you still hankering after CMP?...

Because in that case Ahmadiyas would still have been Muslims. It would be Muslims Vs hindus and no one party would like to lose numbers.. :-)

The Cabinet Mission Plan as I showed earlier would have gotten India everything it has today...

Yeah right, and instead of Lal masjid mullahs kidnapping policemen and keeping them hostages in Islamabad, it would have been Juma Masjid mullahs in New Delhi (assuming New delhi and Punjab is till part of hindustan.. :-)

People should understand that CMP does not talk much about princely states integration (which forms aroun 45% of today`s India) and it is just about British India. Everyone including the Hindutvadis (they generally have brains in their knees instead of heads) should thank Nehru/Patel/Gandhi trio..

Manto mian,

I have never abused MAJ(pbuh) or ML for partitioning India or creating Pakistan. As u can see I have always referred to MAJ reverentially with the pbuh appended to his name. Mainly of course for his 11/8 speech which was away ahead of his time in the subcontinent.

Whoever partitioned India deserves to get a knighthood/Oscar/Nobel whatever. Although my hunch is that partition took place becuase no one was willing to make the kind of compromises that United India would have required. That being the case, I am sure Indians are better off without Pakistanis/Bdeshis and Pakistanis/Bdeshis are better off without us.

Regards

I mean - i know you are freak, but I just wanna see if there is a method to your madness... :)

YLH

With CMP, you would have got quasi-independent muslim-majority areas... but congress went even further than that and gave you a fully-independent and fully-sovereign state... that should serve your muslim-interest and muslim nationalism even better, completely free from hindu domination and interference - right?...

Basically, congress gave you much more than you asked for.... So what`s your problem dude?... why are you still hankering after CMP?...

Re: # 328
[...The Cabinet Mission Plan as I showed earlier would have gotten India everything it has today...]

And India has what it has today even without the Cabinet Mission Plan... so what`s the big deal about ``The plan``?... at best, it was redundant... at worst, it would have actually made the whole country unstable...

Like I told you - congress was the ultimate hinud party and they took care of hindu interests well... having a large, un-governable and islamist population was not in hindu interest... it`s never in any country` interest to have that large muslim population... this has proved to be almost prophetic looking at what`s happening today around the world, in general and in pakiland and B`desh in particular...

What doublethink and lack of balance indeed. We`ve already proved who was hateful and who was not.

The Cabinet Mission Plan as I showed earlier would have gotten India everything it has today... the only problem was that Indian Army would have a large number of Muslims (according to Sadna 55-60% but in reality around 35%) ... and that was unacceptable to lovey dovey leaders of Congress Party.

I think the idea of separation by ML and Mr. Jinnah was wrong to start
with but once their showed their true colours, it was wise for INC to reject
CMP and not give in to those hateful`s demands.