Rest in Peace Pakistan (1947-1974)

One can safely say Kaalchakra based on those that Sattar2 is as Muslim as anyone else :).

sattar2

Just to remind you, you had accused Muslims of being blinded by the great sin of self-righteousness. We can let your own posts speak for you and your faith.

Defenders of Gandhi`s racism and bigotry did not wish to engage...

It is this virulent and racist ideology of Gandhiism that must be rooted out from every religion to make the world a better place.

kaal miaN (#1205),

Worrying about what others have that you don’t, is one way to lead a disenchanted life. Such dissatisfaction, combined with faith, can be a potent mix. If this keeps up, you too may find yourself holed up in a big Red building someday.

… so I’ll digress, while saying what I said earlier. The answer is to be found in the rustling of autumn leaves. Either you get it or you don’t. In any case, good luck with your pursuit …

That is something you`ve been - according to your admission- trying to do for a very long time...

So are you ready to admit the facts about the Direct Action Day or what?

#1217 by Yasser

Sure..if only to make your life more miserable than it already is...LOL!

No mian... I am just hoping you will stick around to take it to 1500.

#1215 by Yasser

Why do you have to ask others Yasser? Are you so desperate that you have to seek someone to bail you out?

By the way ... does anyone know the Chowk record... do I have a shot... because I can probably stretch my argument with Harish mian for another 200 or so posts...

``Last weekend has seen dreadful riots in Calcutta. The estimates of casualties is 3000 dead and 17000 injured. The Bengal Congress are convinced that all the trouble was deliberately engineered by the Muslim League Ministry, but no satisfactory evidence to that effect has reached me yet. It is said that the decision to have a public holiday on 16th August was the cause of trouble, but I think this is very far-fetched. There was a public holiday in Sind and there was no trouble there. At any rate, whatever the causes of the outbreak, when it started, the Hindus and Sikhs were every bit as fierce as Muslims. The present estimate is that appreciably more Muslims were killed than the Hindus``


As for Statesman... if you had seen I had quoted the editorial of Blitz, the Congress Mouthpiece... which holds a diametrically opposite view:


Meanwhile the Congress Mouthpiece ``Blitz`` wrote this about the direct action day:

The worst enemies of the Muslim League cannot help envying the leadership of Mr Jinnah. Last week`s cataclysmic transformation of the League from the reactionary racket of the Muslim Nawabs, Noons, and Knights into a revolutionary mass organisation dedicated, by word if not be deed, to an anti-Imperialist struggle, compels us to express the sneaking national wish that a diplomat and strategist of Jinnah`s proven calibre were at the held of the Indian National Congress. There is no denying the fact that by his latest master-stroke of diplomacy Jinnah has outbid, outwitted and outmaneuvered the British and Congress alike and confounded the common national indictment that the Muslim League is a parasite of British Imperialism

Now why would a Congress Newspaper praise Jinnah if Direct Action Day was all that you are making it out to be...

The fact is that Calcutta was an exception... a well thought out plan by the Congress which sabotaged the League`s programme for temporary political gain....


More on Direct Action

It is funny how Indians here use the word `Direct Action` as if it means some kind of violence in of itself... Infact in the examples of `Direct Action` ... this website speaks of `Non-violent Direct Action` by Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr....

http://www.free-definition.com/Direct-action.html

Direct Action simply means civil disobedience... as Dr. King put it:

``Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.``


Now consider H V Hodson`s description of the League Programme:

``The working committee followed up by calling on Muslims through out India to observe 16th August as direct action day. On that Day meeting would be held all over the country to explain League`s resolution. These meetings and processions passed of- as was manifestly the Central league leaders` intention- without more than commonplace and limited disturbance with one vast and tragic exception... what happened was more than anyone could have foreseen.``

(Page 166 `The Great Divide`)


Explaining Direct Action Jinnah made it clear that the direct Action will not be in any form but in peaceful form...


``16th August is not for the purpose of resorting to Direct Action in any form or shape, Therefore I enjoin upon the Muslims to carry our the instructions and abide by them strictly and conduct themselves peacefuly and in a disciplined manner.``

Press Release Jinnah 14th August 1946

Yawn... how many times must you do this ?
Here is the my last post on the other board so far...


Re: # 132

Harish mian,

First of all you don`t have primary source evidence for any of these statements. All these statements are taken from a third rate website article... For example... The statement attributed to Sir Feroze Khan Noon ise entirely false. Similarly it is highly unlikely that Abdul Rab Nishtar said what is attributed to him... Liaqat Ali Khan`s comment is hardly offensive (unless Congress` entire policy was offensive)... and this Ghulam Mustafa Gelani seems like a small fish from Multan side perhaps... whose statement I have not found on record.


But assuming that all these statements were indeed made... did you miss this bit:

16th August is not for the purpose of resorting to Direct Action in any form or shape, Therefore I enjoin upon the Muslims to carry our the instructions and abide by them strictly and conduct themselves peacefuly and in a disciplined manner. by Jinnah...

Incidentally ... none of these leaders that you now quote were ever implicated in any violence... since Direct Action Day was peaceful in all parts of India... Suhrawardy who is held responsible by many Indians does not seem to have made any of those statements.


Essentially you have no argument...

Here is the official record:

``Last weekend has seen dreadful riots in Calcutta. The estimates of casualties is 3000 dead and 17000 injured. The Bengal Congress are convinced that all the trouble was deliberately engineered by the Muslim League Ministry, but no satisfactory evidence to that effect has reached me yet. It is said that the decision to have a public holiday on 16th August was the cause of trouble, but I think this is very far-fetched. There was a public holiday in Sind and there was no trouble there. At any rate, whatever the causes of the outbreak, when it started, the Hindus and Sikhs were every bit as fierce as Muslims. The present estimate is that appreciably more Muslims were killed than the Hindus``


Now coming to your stupid comment about sleeping on the floor... so assuming that Jinnah was apprehensive of going to prison... and given that Gandhi and Nehru were in and out of prisons many time... how exactly are you tryng to make it relevant the issue at hand?

Seems like you`ve been signing your name in bold letters...

#1211 by Yasser

Looks like you`re the one who`s scared to death here. Why don`t you put up your sources here and I`ll do the same with mine and let the folks reading them decide?

Or have you already put your tails between your legs? Hain?

Dear Harish mian,

I did prove it with primary sources. But no proof is enough for you.

Just one of the many boards where you ran with your tail between your legs:

http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00007141&channel=university%20ave&start=0&end=9&chapter=1&page=1

#1209 by Yasser

To this date, you haven`t been able to prove that it wasn`t Jinnah`s call to Direct Action that led to the violence. All you have in response is a lame ``Sardar Patel gloated over more Muslims dying, which means the Congress is responsible`` line which sounds rather childish. As for Shishapa and Masanamuthu`s argument, they`re right here, and all I see you doing is letting loose on us Achyut Patwardhan, whom till the other day you didn`t know existed. And now, you`re trying to trick us into believing that he`s some kind of gospel truth. What can one do, but conclude that the groin must be hurting real bad?

#1206 by Yasser

Not every Hindu leader had lost their mind like the arrogant Congress leaders...

Selective reading again? Did the Sapru dude hold the same opinion about Jinnah after 1946 when the TB-ridden crook masterminded the Direct Action Day violence?

#various by masanamuthu and shishapa

Yaar Shishapa and Masanamuthu, why did you guys have to kick Yasser in the groin so hard? Have some pity for the resident jackass of Chowk! He is very allergic to facts, don`t shove it in his face. As it is, he gets absolutely no respect not just from the true-blooded Sunni Muslim Pakis (folks like Atif, Zeemax, Echo etc.) but also Ahmadis like Sattar, so he has to seek it on Chowk, even if it means having to peddle a few lies.

Re: # 1207

Dear Harish mian,

I see that my mere presence upsets you so much as to resort to abuses... since Masanamuthu and Shishapa could not come up with valid arguments ... I think the only kick in the groin is the one that has rendered you useless.

Also I see that having soiled yourself on a number of occasions on the issue of direct action day... and running like the wind when shown your place, you are back to old ways. How about rejoining the discussion on various boards where you are missing in action.

Another bit I just discovered which I think makes interesting reading...

Not every Hindu leader had lost their mind like the arrogant Congress leaders...

Writing to Jinnah, Tej Bahadur Sapru wrote on 6th February, 1941:

``for if the country is dear to him (Gandhi), I believe, it is no less dear to you (Jinnah). You may at present be identified with the Muslim League. I have no kind of prejudice against the League or anyone connected to it , and so far as you are concerned, I still prefer to look upon you as I used to in days gone by when other people also looked up to you, for guidance and advocacy of the cause of India, irrespective of caste, colour or creed.``

It is this man who made Pakistan.... why then must the people who champion India and the Congress Party ... should not ask themselves how and why this man - who was universally admired and appreciated by all major leaders of India for being unbiased and staunchly nationalist- made Pakistan.. and maybe just maybe it had something to do with the Congress Party itelf?

sattar2

Bhai, that`s faith in something unknown and unknowable whom we cannot see, let alone label or describe.

What is faith in religions, if not self-righteousness? Why memorize Arabic and recite Sanskrit?

See, faith is what I do not have. I would love to know how you got it so we may all benefit from it.

So how come Jinnah and ML never promised the iron-clad constitutional
guarantees from dominating numerical majorty Muslims to
numerical minority like Hindus and sikhs and christians in to be
Pakistan that he was asking from Hindus in India?

Re: # 1203

Did you read the bits I pointed to ?

As for your question... such iron clad guarantees should be mandatory for the Pakistani state... since they are referred to even in the Lahore Resolution.

In the debate over the Objectives Resolution... All the Congress MPs and Scheduled Caste members repeatedly said that had Jinnah been alive, such a resolution would never have been passed.

As long as Jinnah was alive... no anti-minority legislation etc emerged in Pakistan... Jinnah`s efforts for the minorities were quite extensive. You may want to visit http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00008098&channel=university%20ave&threshold=0&layout=0&order=0&start=730&end=739&page=1#460

By ensuring that a Hindu was in charge of the Law ministry ... Jinnah pretty much made sure as much as he could that Pakistan would not be a theocratic state ....

However... the story of ML is very different. Other than Jinnah.. none of the top ML leaders had a strong support base in West Pakistan.... and those who did were the turncoats either from Congress or the Unionist Party... Thus people like Liaqat Ali Khan and others thought it prudent to make some concessions to the religious parties... while maintaining the over all modern and democratic nature of Pakistan... this was the constitutional mistake that has come to haunt the idea of Pakistan.

-YLH

kaal (#1071),

The answer, my friend, is in the blowing of easterly winds, in rustling of pale autumn leaves, in scream of a newborn, in a mother’s lullaby, in a lover’s moan, in the sounds of waves crashing on the shore, in the giggle of an innocent little girl, in beating of a human heart …

… take a listen if you ever stop clowning around :-)

And lets not forget that 1974 was very ironic for many other reasons... this was also the year that South Asia was plunged into the Nuclear Arms Race... another twist on Independence of 1947.

Masanamuthu,

I am willing to accept your first paragraph as your point of view which is not substantiated by any historical fact or reason but simply is an opinion you desperately want to hold and which I respectfully disagree with.. and I have given my reasons in detail. Also your statement that it is ``obvious`` is just hot air. It is NOT obvious to many historians from India itself... all of whom are Non-muslims ... and who hold a view identical to mine.

Now coming to your other issue... you know that I have raised that issue on several occasions. However... please note that till about Zia`s time... Pakistan`s religious minorities were more or less managed to go along... we had a Christian Chief Justice for the longest and Non-muslims - even after Mandal`s departure... continued to hold several prominent positions etc. Ofcourse 1949.. 1950... 1953 etc are all deep wounds... but 1974 was when all norms of constitutional decency were breached ... and the very principle was negated.

After reading this article... a ex-Christian Brigadier in the Pakistan Army who held a very key position called me up and complained that I had not mentioned the remarkable contributions of his community to the Pakistan Movement... all of these need addressing...
but the point remains that it was in 1974 alone when state took on the responsibility of deciding the fate of a minority against its wishes... Furthermore.. I find the 1974 twist on 1947 very Orwellian in that sense.


-YLH

Re: # 1199

``an ex-``

Again, It is like going in circles. What I said is perfectly logical as I have shown earlier. No need to repeat it again and again. Congress/Nehru is right in rejecting CMP which is completely against non-Muslim interests and only serves the interests of the Princes and Muslims which is obvious to anyone who spends time to read the CMP.


I have already expressed myself on Jogindranath Mandal issue and if you were honest you would accept that I have always considered treatment meted out to him one of the greatest tragedies.I think... the first attack on the principle was when the Objectives Resolution was passed with Muslims voting on one side and non-muslims on the other. Objectives Resolution thus negated the very principle of Majority not trampling the minority on which Jinnah based his struggle. However Objectives Resolution was more of a preamble and it did not become a proper constitutional issue till 1985 when it was made the substantive part of the constitution through Article 2 A under Zia. 1974 predates that.


Your respect for Mandal aside, Do you think Jinnah`s dream continued till 1974 as indicated by the title of your article (even after the injustice meted out to Mandal and Namasudras and other religious minorities)?. If so can we assume that you care only about your family/community`s interests and think the sacrifice of Mandal in joining with Jinnah even if against his own community is worthless. I think if you are sincere in your ``sense of grievance`` over Mandal, you`d have titled the article ``Rest in Peace (1947 - 50 )``.

I see, and claiming that all Hindus are tyrants hence Muslims
need protection is not bigotry?

Re: # 1196

That is just your ignorance of what was being said. Nobody said all Hindus were bad... but that Hindu majority would dominate the Muslim minority ... and that is exactly what the Congress governments from 1937-1939 did.... I hope you will revisit that bit. Try reading the Pirpur Report etc on the issue.

But why go that far... here is the Congress President Azad admitting/regretting in his own book- remember this is what he admitted... the real grievances ran much deeper than that:

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]



How about this ``As a rule Musalman is a bully`` ... or ``I am a Hindu first and therefore a true Indian``.

Truth be told.. Pakistan Movement was led and fought by people who had spent a lifetime in India`s service... who wrote ``Hindustan Hamara`` ? Who was hailed as India`s staunchest nationalist? It was people like these who after a lifetime of negotiating came to the right conclusion.


If you want to look for bigots amongst Muslims... you may want to read something about your favorite Maulana Azad and other Gandhians:

http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00008098&channel=university%20ave&threshold=0&layout=0&order=0&start=370&end=379&page=1#825


Have the courage to read the complete thing.

Masanamuthu,

First to your latest post:

I have already expressed myself on Jogindranath Mandal issue and if you were honest you would accept that I have always considered treatment meted out to him one of the greatest tragedies.I think... the first attack on the principle was when the Objectives Resolution was passed with Muslims voting on one side and non-muslims on the other. Objectives Resolution thus negated the very principle of Majority not trampling the minority on which Jinnah based his struggle. However Objectives Resolution was more of a preamble and it did not become a proper constitutional issue till 1985 when it was made the substantive part of the constitution through Article 2 A under Zia. 1974 predates that.


Now coming to the real issue: Who are you fooling my friend. You came up with that post as if you had an epiphany... the final argument : Princes had 93 seats under the CMP.


Let me repost your post once again:


359 by masanamuthu on May 26, 2007 7:47am PT
I learned this about Cabinet Mission Plan.


- A constituent Assembly consisting of 389 members - 292 from provinces, 4 from the territories governed by chief Commissioners and 93 from Indian Princely States - would draft the Constitution of India.

So from where do you think the 93 representatives from princely states are going to come from. Not through elections (even by the flawed communal electorate system.) but by the personal whims of the princes. So you`d probably have have Hyderabad Nizam appoint a dozen reps, and the prince of patiala appoint a couple. And the 90 million people living in the princely states would have to just live with their princes` whims, because the `British crown`` supposedly respects the ``solemn agreements`` made with the princes.

It`s amazing to think that Congress even accepted the plan first. That`s when our hero Jinnah came to the rescue.


Now given that Congress accepted the same 93 (most of whom voted against the Muslim League at every point) in the Indian Constituent Assembly subsequently... and the 93 number was unchanged and had nothing to do with the Cabinet Mission Plan... it is quite clear what you are saying above.

Just admit you made a mistake and we will end the discussion here. Please note that had Muslim League agreed to Indian Unity on Congress` terms... the positions would have remained the same... so essentially your argument is neither here nor there and is just plain and simple lie...

Do you want to go down like Mahatma Ghazi ?

Btw... Mahatma Ghazi Amar Ho Gaye

Also you made many claims that I`m a liar, dishonest etc.. etc..

Why don`t you come out with answers to my questions on Jogindranath mandal if you are really honest?. Why did you choose 1974 as the end of Jinnah`s dream instead of the date when they passed Objectives resolution / when they chased out Mandal?. So in your opinion, Jinnah`s dream survived even after the minorities were made second class citizens and Mandal was chased out in 1940s/50s and you seem to think 1974 was the end because ONLY then your family members were made to suffer.

In my opinion it was 1974 which was to Jinnah`s 1947 what 1984 was to Orwell`s 1948 for 1974 marked the same end of idealism and beginning of perversion in its name that was depicted so brilliantly by Orwell both in 1984 and the Animal Farm. For all the oaths taken in order to preserve the ideology of Pakistan, it was this tragic events of this year, coming so soon after Pakistan`s first unanimous constitution, that dealt a deathblow to the true ideology of Pakistan. Make no mistake about it- The real Pakistan no longer exists. It died at the very young age of 27.


Is that because you think Mandal/Scheduled caste namasudras are worthless and they can be discarded but only your family members/relatives/community are valuable. Who is the casteist bigot (the name you gave to Gandhi) here??.

Re: # 1182

``Ahmadis worked for Pakistan because it was a just cause.``

Ahmadis worked for Pakistan because they were bigots and opportunistics
and now tables have turned on them. That is all, they are reaping what
they sowed.

Re: # 1191

Shishapa,

Calling an entire community ``bigoted`` because they fought for their rights ... is just admitting that the only bigot here is you...

So much for your claims about being tolerant etc etc.

Mantolives:

This is what you claimed in this board:. You have used strong words like ``fool`` / ``making a righ royal fool`` etc..etc..


You can go on saying what you want but you made a fool out of yourself when you claimed that CMP had a different numeric position for the princes than the interim government that Congress got instead. You may respond to my comments there... or here.. whichever pleases you more.

Can you please point where I said Princes had a different numeric position between CMP and any other plan?.

The best you came up with was my statement
So from where do you think the 93 representatives from princely states are going to come from. Not through elections (even by the flawed communal electorate system.) but by the personal whims of the princes

and I provided the comment I made in comparing CMP and IOIA
Princes had nothing in the IOIA that states they can send representatives selected on the whims and fancies of the princes to dictate policy like in the case of CMP . They are given an ultimatum on either to join India/Pakistan/ stay independent and more importantly the ``agreements with the Brits`` are worth the ``toilet paper``. :-)


Seriously the above statements seem logically consistent and if you see the logic of Congress in ``dividing the enemies, Princes and the Jinnah faction`` it would completely make sense for the Congress to reject CMP. That`s why I have seen no Indian argue for the CMP after letting him/her know the facts.

you can argue till eternity for the sour grapes that was CMP by inventing strawmen arguments but the truth of the matter is that anyone (Indian) who reads CMP would find it offensive and would thank Nehru/Congress et.al for rejecting it. :-)

Re: #1182

It is easy to be shayr here, on this website and other websites.
Nobody cares or bothers to look here and rantings and raving
on this and other websites has no effect in real life.
Let us see you (or anybody) hit the streets with these views and
how long you (or anybody) last!
May be go to Binori mosque and talk what you have been talking
here and see if you come alive!
Why do not you sit in an office or a corner in some prominent
city in a prominent place in Pakistan with your web petition and see how
long you and your office lasts!

It is easy to do bukbuk here, that is what we all do, reality is
so much different.
I will repeat, Ahmadis were Shayr against Hindus but are
Billis against Mullahs. Hindus would not have killed Ahmadis,
Mullahs will not hesitate, so you would not, you will only
rant and rave here.

Re: # 1189

Shishapa,

Since you don`t know me very well... I can assure you that I have taken on my fair share of extremists very well... and even during these days of siege I went to the Lal Mosque area twice... and today only a few hours ago.

So don`t go around accusing people on account of your little knowledge. I can assure you that Ahmadis are not cowards.. nor are Ahmadis living in London or the US under any compulsion to say anything against their will... but they know the historic stand that their jamaat took and they happen to agree with it.

ROFL.. From where did you get that. Read my question again.

Again where did I say Princes got less or more in the IOIA than the CMP.

That`s why I said you lack comprehension skills and stopped the circular discussion in that board.

All this does not take away my concern for the welfare of Ahmedia in Pakistan (even though your dad drives Maybach), I`d like to atleast see every Ahmedi wishing others in the proper Islamic way without the fear of getting jailed.

How about responding to Jogindranath Mandal??.

Read your post.

So from where do you think the 93 representatives from princely states are going to come from. Not through elections (even by the flawed communal electorate system.) but by the personal whims of the princes

Have some decency and accept that you were caught lying. I`ll check back in a few hours to see if you are ready to surrender or not.

Buddy,

This is what you came up with. :-) Again where did I say Princes got less or more in the IOIA than the CMP. It fits exactly with my position that CMP is good only for the Muslims and the Princes and not for the non-Muslims who were denied close to half the seats under CMP. This strawmen argument won`t work.

How about replying to my points on Jogindranath Mandal?. You shamelessly used him in your article here too and dishonestly left what happened to him.. Why did you chose 1974 as the end of Jinnah`s secular dream instead of 1950(?) when he was chased out of Pakistan.?

In Jinnah`s Pakistan, where a scheduled caste Hindu could be trusted to head the law ministry of the country, the question of an entire sect`s status as Muslim would never have been discussed in the parliament.

Masanamuthu,

Very clever in trying to hide your statement. This is what you actually said:

359 by masanamuthu on May 26, 2007 7:47am PT
I learned this about Cabinet Mission Plan.


- A constituent Assembly consisting of 389 members - 292 from provinces, 4 from the territories governed by chief Commissioners and 93 from Indian Princely States - would draft the Constitution of India.


So from where do you think the 93 representatives from princely states are going to come from. Not through elections (even by the flawed communal electorate system.) but by the personal whims of the princes. So you`d probably have have Hyderabad Nizam appoint a dozen reps, and the prince of patiala appoint a couple. And the 90 million people living in the princely states would have to just live with their princes` whims, because the `British crown`` supposedly respects the ``solemn agreements`` made with the princes.

It`s amazing to think that Congress even accepted the plan first. That`s when our hero Jinnah came to the rescue.


After having failed to prove that the CMP was unfairly to the advantage of the Muslims you tried to take a novel line about 93 Princes... You tried to give the impression that the real problem with the plan was that Congress was too democratic allow 93 seats to go to princes...

It was a lie. 93 Seats for the Princes happened to be under the GOIA 1935 and IOIA 1947... and 93 seats were there all through out the Indian Constituent Assembly`s functioning and was completely acceptable to the Congress.


My response is given as under:


#385 by Mantolives on May 29, 2007 8:57am PT
From the June 3rd Plan which Congress and Mountbatten produced:

``His Majesty`s Government wish to make it clear that the decisions announced above (about partition) relate only to British India and that their policy towards Indian States contained in the Cabinet Mission Memorandum of 12-5-1946, (Cmd. 6835) remains unchanged.``

That means that the entire story that Masanamuthu is spinning is wholely untrue...

As for Masanamuthu`s other claim... that independence of India Act 1947 did not give the 93 representatives to Princely state... that is absolutely FALSE. The 93 members who represented the princely states in the Indian Constituent Assembly which was first constituted December 9, 1946 continued to be part of the Indian Constitutent Assembly till 1950.

Hence... not only did the status not change but the representation remained the same (because only 4 princely states chose to go to pakistan and at most had one representative in the PCA if any).

So why is Masanamuthu fooling himself... god only knows.

[Reply to interact #385]

#1178 by shishapa

Very true!

Chennai,

(The Day he died must be a day of national mourning.........)

His punya teethi incidentally is 9/11.

Regards

Re: # 1179

Dear Majumdar.......9/11 it is.....Our jehadi neibours sure know how to honor the Father of their notion,

... er nation...........

Re: # 1181

``father of their notion``

Gandhi was the true father of the Jehadi notion.

Achyuth Patwardhan, one of the Socialist stalwarts in the Congress, has given a remarkably candid and self critical analysis of the Congress Party vis-a-vis Khilafat: `It is, however, useful to recognise our share of this error of misdirection. To begin with, I am convinced that looking back upon the course of development of the freedom movement, THE `HIMALAYAN ERROR` of Gandhiji`s leadership was the support he extended on behalf of the Congress and the Indian people to the Khilafat Movement at the end of the World War I. This has proved to be a disastrous error which has brought in its wake a series of harmful consequences. On merits, it was a thoroughly reactionary step. The Khilafat was totally unworthy of support of the Progressive Muslims. Kemel Pasha established this solid fact by abolition of the Khilafat. The abolition of the Khilafat was widely welcomed by enlightened Muslim opinion the world over and Kemel was an undoubted hero of all young Muslims straining against Imperialist domination. But apart from the fact that Khilafat was an unworthy reactionary cause, Mahatma Gandhi had to align himself with a sectarian revivalist Muslim Leadership of clerics and maulvis. He was thus unwittingly responsible for jettisoning sane, secular, modernist leadership among the Muslims of India and foisting upon the Indian Muslims a theocratic orthodoxy of the Maulvis. Maulana Mohammed Ali`s speeches read today appear strangely incoherent and out of tune with the spirit of secular political freedom. The Congress Movement which released the forces of religious liberalism and reform among the Hindus, and evoked a rational scientific outlook, placed the Muslims of India under the spell of orthodoxy and religious superstition by their support to the Khilafat leadership. Rationalist leaders like Jinnah were rebuffed by this attitude of Congress and Gandhi. This is the background of the psychological rift between Congress and the Muslim League`.

It is quite clear that it was Gandhi who was the real father of Islamic fundamentalism in South Asia... and Jinnah the one person who warned him against it.


I would say then that 9/11 is a remarkable coninincidence... whereby the first 9/11 strengthened Gandhi`s erstwhile jehadi allies (who had till then called Pakistan Kafiristan) in Pakistan.... and the second 9/11 brought their work to fruition.

Re: # 1183
``father of their notion``

Pakistan and not Jehadism was the ``notion`` I was referring to.............Evidently selective reading has set in.........

Ahmadiyas have no choice but to say partition was good.
What else can they say, if they say otherwise, they will be killed.
Do they have guts to say and do things against Mullahs as they used to
say and do things against Hindus? I do not think so.

Re: # 1178

Why don`t they have any choice? They are globally well placed and have their strongest presence now in the West... in Canada and in the UK. But the fact is that Ahmadis worked for Pakistan because it was a just cause.

As for speaking against the Mullahs... perhaps you are indeed blind, but what exactly happened on this board? Ahmadis have been speaking against the Mullahs consistently.
For all your claims- has it not occured to you that I am constantly writing in national newspapers and websites against the Mullahs... sitting right here in Islamabad ? So far no one has managed to ``kill`` me for speaking against the Mullahs.

So have some shame... and tell that hydrophobic fool to not mouth off with ``very true`` to every untrue statement every idiot makes.

Mantolives repeatedly hangs on to this statement of mine that I made in the other board to somehow indicate that I lied and he caught me..

Princes had nothing in the IOIA that states they can send representatives selected on the whims and fancies of the princes to dictate policy like in the case of CMP . They are given an ultimatum on either to join India/Pakistan/ stay independent and more importantly the ``agreements with the Brits`` are worth the ``toilet paper``. :-)

What I`ve said above is right. Princes did not have the power to dictate policy in IOIA that they otherwise had in tandem with Muslim seats against the Congress like in the case of CMP. For the Congress, both the Muslims under Jinnah and the Princes are the enemies and they rightly divided the enemies and tackled them one by one.

I`ve not mentioned that the Princes got more or less seats under CMP or IOIA act. As a lawyer, he creates many strawmen and then takes them down thereby claiming vicotry. I can just laught at his efforts in trying to spend so much time in this issue rather than on the patetic situation that the Ahmedis find themselves in Pakistan now which is the point of this article.

Again my sincere wishes on your efforts and try to channel your energy in the right direction instead of worrying about the sour grapes of CMP. :-)

I should add that Congress leaders are not like the poor Jogindernath Mandal who believed in the secular BS of Jinnah and ended up a big loser. I wonder why you did not chose the year 1950(?) when he was chased out as the end of Jinnah`s dream and chose 1974 instead for your article. I can understand that if it is because of family reasons you chose that date, only when your relatives get hurt you feel the pain and not when someone else especially if it is just the poor ``Scheduled castes / namasudras`` .

However... CMP would have saved lives... and ultimately resulted in a Pakistan and India...


Yeah yeah, there is no question about the later part. Only that it would be a ``moth eaten Hindustan`` instead of the ``moth eaten Pakistan``.. Sorry, the Congress leaders are too smart for that.

:-)

You started the issue of CMP... now stick to the facts. Pakistanis are better off without any union with India... is a fact. However... CMP would have saved lives... and ultimately resulted in a Pakistan and India... but considerably hostile South Asia... with a lot more cooperation.


Is that a typo??.. or maybe the truth came out unwittingly, like how Jinnah`s actions (even though unintended) helped India ..

:-)

Looks like there is a Tsunami of support for Jinnah`s ``Bharat ratna``. I`m all for ``bharat maha ratna`` / a special lifetime achievement award to Jinnah for his tremendous service to India.

Let`s also pray for the welfare of Ahmedis in Pakistan so that Mantolives can attain some peace and stop blaming everything on Gandhi/Nehru/Congress..

:-)

Re: # 1172

Repeating it several times would not make this lie become any more the truth than your lie about the princes.

Masanamuthu,

Lets be clear about the facts... you stopped - as you did on the earlier board- because your lie about the Princes having more seats under CMP was caught.

The ``rest in peace Pakistan`` article is not intended for people like you. It is not a statement of regret. Even the dead Pakistan is better for people like me and my father`s community than India ... or even United India. So please leave that aside.

You started the issue of CMP... now stick to the facts. Pakistanis are better off without any union with India... is a fact. However... CMP would have saved lives... and ultimately resulted in a Pakistan and India... but considerably hostile South Asia... with a lot more cooperation.

``has forced Muslims into professions that they considered beneath them... like Banking, money lending ... commerce etc. ``

Wonder why these professions were beneath the Muslims! What professions were
worthy of Muslims then? Ruling? There were no muslims farmers, blacksmiths, labourers,
cobblers etc. then?

Re: # 1169
``Wonder why these professions were beneath the Muslims! What professions were
worthy of Muslims then? Ruling? There were no muslims farmers, blacksmiths, labourers,
cobblers etc. then?``

The other options were.........Butchers...........Peons........Incense holder blowing smoke, one step above begging.......Fighting for & over Allah.......all types of grunt jobs.......biriyani cooks.........film comedians and so on............

#1158 by Mantolives on July 9, 2007 6:33am PT


Thanks to the partition, India stays away from the global jihadi breeding ground label and ahmedis get to drive maybachs(cough cough)..

sounds like a win-win...

Ref Mantolives #1155

[Ofcourse... Muslims did not lose out... as Mohar naively puts it. Muslims of Pakistan were the greatest beneficiaries of partition... without partition we would have remained a backward agriculturalist/ martial community... it the rigors of creating a nation state that has forced Muslims into professions that they considered beneath them... like Banking, money lending ... commerce etc. ]

Yasser, dear boy, you left out suicide bombing in that list.

Of course there is no need to specifically mention throat-slitting which has been the specialty of Muslims ever since Islam was born.

As a sign of our gratitude to MAJ, his house in Mumbai must be made a memorial with a large plaque stating ``Saviour of India``...........His speech ``Pakistan`s in the bag`` must be replayed over & over...........

The Day he died must be a day of national mourning.........however we must not take this too far by closing all booze shops......... that would be insulting him.........

I think only Ratna is not enough, how about Bharat Maharatna?
A brand new category of award, only for him.

Mohar:

Yep, both parties are happy with what has happened, if not how it happened... paradoxically they ``blame`` the folks who actually made it happen, instead of actually praising them, as suggested by masan... :)


:-), I take it that you support the position of awarding ``Bharat Ratna`` to Jinnah for his service to India..

I`d not like to indulge in cyclical discussions that serve no point. So I`d stop with the CMP discussions. I have made my point pretty clear that Congress/Nehru did the right thing by rejecting the ``disgusting`` CMP that is completely unjust to the non-Muslims and and beneficial ONLY to the Muslims and the Princes and not a single Indian in this board opposed it. That`ll suffice for me.

The acceptance of Cabinet Mission Plan in 1946 would have ultimately led to three independent progressive, prosperous and peaceful republics in South Asia working together for the greater good of humanity... instead of three poverty stricken hell holes... in which India is not the least but the most poverty stricken whether you like to admit it or not


Ok.. But I thought you are the one who wrote ``Rest in Peace, Pakistan``. :-)

I along with many others can empathise with the situation of Ahmadis in Pakistan now. But we can`t do much.. We agree that CMP would have worked out better for Muslims and Ahmadis, but sorry it is too bad for the non-Muslims and the Congress leaders are pretty smart for taking that bait. Good luck and sincere wishes on your efforts to improve the situation of Ahmadis now..

Masanamuthu,

For the vast majority of indigenous Pakistani Muslims... including Ahmadis who continue to be one of the most educated and well to do upper middle class communities despite discrimination post 1974... Pakistan has created opportunities for them that would have never been given to them both under United India or CMP...

CMP was good only because a- it would have averted bloodshed b- given a framework for i- working out differences between two uncompromisable positions ii. framework for an amicable partition later.

So making up these stories when your lie was caught on the other board.. is merely dishonesty and nothing else.

Re: # 1158

CMP would have led to more booldshed, possible civil war and unmanageable fragmentation of the land... and it would have difficult for hindus to be ruler of the land...

And yes it beats me that if Injuns and Pakis are all happy with partition, why bash poor MAJ.


I don`t think people are bashing MAJ. A lot of people are realising how MAJ saved India (though unintentionally) from a catastrophe. and I think i`d gather a lot of support for my movement to award ``Bharat ratna`` to Jinnah. :-)

Yeah, yeah right.. I think there is agreement that CMP is a good plan for the Muslims and the Princes.. and especially Ahmediyas. :-) They would still be Muslims if CMP was in place. Does anyone know that Ahmediyas are declared non-Muslims and treated so in countries where Muslims are in a minority.

Manto mian,

Muthu seems to have replaced Harishbhai as your favourite anatgonist.

(1. its own centralised conception)

Pakistan appears to be even more centralised.

( 2. unnatural division of Punjab and Bengal 3.)

Back to the debate whether it is OK to partition a country but not a state.

( Dishonest and unfair actions of Mountbatten vis a vis Gurdaspur. )

If MAJ (pbuh) had flirted a little bit with Lord and Lady M, never know waht might have happened.

And yes it beats me that if Injuns and Pakis are all happy with partition, why bash poor MAJ.

Regards

Re: # 1156

(1. its own centralised conception)

Pakistan appears to be even more centralised.

My answer: While I`d like to see it de-centralised... that argument is not a counter to the point. As things stand ... muslims said that they were a nation and India should be recognised as a multi-national homeland.


( 2. unnatural division of Punjab and Bengal 3.)

``Back to the debate whether it is OK to partition a country but not a state. ``

The country was an artificial unity imposed by British rule. Provinces were linguistic unit with considerable homogeneity. Besides the election was won on the basis of re-constitution of constituent units...

Re: # 1156

Yep, both parties are happy with what has happened, if not how it happened... paradoxically they ``blame`` the folks who actually made it happen, instead of actually praising them, as suggested by masan... :)

One person who is not happy is YLH... looks like it`s more a personal issue for him, being an ahmedi and what not... he thinks the CMP arrangement may have been a better outcome from an ahmedi POV... in a pure muslim pakiland, ahmedis have clearly lost out... hence this article that pakiland is dead and all that...

But CMP had no chance being adopted since it clearly went against the interest of hindus, the largest of the groups... any plan that compromised on their interest being the rulers of the land would not have worked...

So we really for YLH and ahmedi predicament, but there ain`t anything we could about it...

Pakiland, RIP.
Hinduland, zindabad.

Re: # 1159

Mohar mian,

I can safely say -as I have said again and again- and this is the view of every Ahmadi I know atleast... that we thank God we got Pakistan and not the Cabinet Mission Plan.
As for your statement that it would have led to bloodshed... historians don`t share your point of view.

Pakistan would have ultimately been created.. but through a broader framework and less haste by the departing British rulers who wanted to deliver a death blow to Jinnah and Pakistan for souring their end.

The acceptance of Cabinet Mission Plan in 1946 would have ultimately led to three independent progressive, prosperous and peaceful republics in South Asia working together for the greater good of humanity... instead of three poverty stricken hell holes... in which India is not the least but the most poverty stricken whether you like to admit it or not.

Kaalchakra

People like Masanamuthu and Mohar are basically dishonest. They know full well that people like would not undo partition even if we were held at gun point.

The issue here is of the CMP which was a good plan. Now Masanamuthu continues to lie- as he did on my other board- that Princes had some extraordinary privileges under the CMP ... which is just not true. The Princes` position remained unchanged through out from GOIA 1935 to IOIA 1947... they had 93 seats - not through the CMP- but GOIA 1935.

Ofcourse... Muslims did not lose out... as Mohar naively puts it. Muslims of Pakistan were the greatest beneficiaries of partition... without partition we would have remained a backward agriculturalist/ martial community... it the rigors of creating a nation state that has forced Muslims into professions that they considered beneath them... like Banking, money lending ... commerce etc. Ofcourse their inexperience messed up the state in the process... but that is a separate issue.

The issue here is of the massive death toll ... caused by Congress` insistence on 1. its own centralised conception 2. unnatural division of Punjab and Bengal 3. Dishonest and unfair actions of Mountbatten vis a vis Gurdaspur.


This is for historical record only. Congress and its supporters should admit what is historically a fact.


Masanamuthu,

Pointing out something wrong does not mean that one does not agree with the basic principle...

My father`s community was the foremost beneficiary of the creation of Pakistan in the period 1947-1974.

mohar

Pakistanis are happy. Indians are happy. I don`t know what we are arguing about. :)

Look, all of us will keep believing what we believe. All I sometimes do is to try to look through different people`s eyes, and describe what I see objectively, to the best of my ability. That creates a possibility of understanding others, of exploring any common grounds if any are possible. I am not out there trying to create divisions. If I see any actually existing, I try to point those out, so people don`t run into walls they do not see. What people do with those descriptions is up to them. One is as free to accept as to reject them according to their own personal preferences.

Please don`t read too many of my own personal preferences in my descriptions. To the extent those descriptions are so colored and so biased, they would be unreal and worthless

To re-iterate, don`t know if there is any value in trying to describe things objectively or not, for others to make decisions on, but that is what my ideal is.

I have now FULLY described what I try to do, and there is no more ``magic`` or ``mystery`` left. LOL

Anyways, we have already stretched this rather small matter (of what I personally like or not) long enough. Thanks for your understanding. :)

---

Further, if it will clarify, because I do want it to be clear, as an Indian, my admiration for, and pride in, Nehru and Gandhi, and in their contributions, is not less than that of most other Indians. Like them, I too respect our leaders without necessarily agreeing with them all the time. If I deride them it is out of frustration not with these great leaders - who did the best they could - but with people TODAY who use the names of these great leaders to persist in their misperceptions and maintain their ignorance.

Oh man, this has been exhausting. Hope it will save us from a few misunderstandings in future. Thanks, Mohar. :)

Mohar, I do think Iqbal and/or Jinnah had a far better grasp of Hindu-Muslim issues than Gandhi and/or Nehru ever did. But different leaders have different strengths. By the same token, tomorrow someone could point out many problems/issues with Baba Sahib, which could be all true, without diminishing my overall regard for the man (unless his claims to real contributions to our lives turn out to be untrue)

It`s just a matter of being as realistic as possible and remembering that they were all human. :)

Re: # 1152
[....remembering that they were all human. ...]

Who said otherwise?... but then - one person who is NOT human is jinnah, or so it seems from your and Hamdani`s worship-heavy comments on the man... :)...

Jinnah may have a better grasp of the issues... but this CMP thing was complete buffoonery on his part... I mean, come on... It was possibly a bluff, a max position of negotiation, as YLH has opined a number of times... he should have calculated the risk of his bluff being called... the rest is history...

The point is - who lost?... it`s the muslims who lost out... if you don`t agree with that - then we have nothing to argue about - it`s all good.

For people who are not aware of the history behind CMP discussions, I`m providing the summary here. Interesting read.. Let`s ignore the crazy mathematics involving Muslims.. and just see what is proposed for princes..


Cabinet Mission Plan
14. Before putting forward our recommendation we turn to deal with the relationship of the Indian States to British India. It is quite clear that with the attainment of independence by British India, whether inside or outside the British Commonwealth, the relationship which has hitherto existed between the Rulers of the States and the British Crown will no longer be possible. Paramountcy can neither be retained by the British Crown nor transferred to the new Government. This fact has been fully recognised by those whom we interviewed from the States. They have at the same time assured us that the States are ready and willing to co-operate in the new development of India. The precise form which their co-operation will take must be a matter for negotiation during the building up of the new constitutional structure, and it by no means follows that it will be identical for all the States. We have not therefore dealt with the States in the same detail as the Provinces of British India in the paragraphs which follow.
...

15. We now indicate the nature of a solution which in our view would be just to the essential claims of all parties and would at the same time be most likely to bring about a stable and practicable form of Constitution for all India.
We recommend that the Constitution should take the following basic form:

(1) There should be a Union of India, embracing both British India and the States which should deal with the following subjects: Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Communications; and should have the powers necessary to raise the finances required for the above subjects.

(2) The Union should have an Executive and a Legislature constituted from British Indian and States` representatives. Any question raising a major communal issue in the Legislature should require for its decision a majority of the representatives present and voting of each of the two major communities as well as a majority of all members present and voting.

(3) All subjects other than the Union subjects and all residuary powers should vest in the Provinces.

(4) The States will retain all subjects and powers other than those ceded to the Union.
...


And the states can appoint (remember these seats are not representative and not thru elections but through the whims and fancies of the princes) 93 out of the 385 federal seats.
i.e, Nizam of Hyderabad and Nawab of bhopal, add the Raja of Mysore/Travancore can appoint dozen seats each.. And these folks are no democrats. If you want to know about the lives of princes/princesses read ``memoirs of a princess`` by gayatri devi, third wife of the prince of jaipur, where she writes how she was unhappy when her husband told her she can no longer have her private aeroplane. Can you imagine (a private aeroplane) this in 1940s/50s?.. When people in Hyderabad were starving or finding rats to eat, the Nizam was happy that he was the richest person in the world..

Add another 78 for the Muslim seats. So out of the 385 seats, 93+78 (171 seats, just 22 short of majority) is not available for Congress. I`d think that no fool would accept this plan. Congress and Nehru rightly rejected the plan. Great guys, Patel/Nehru/Ambedkar/Gandhi etc.. Hats off to them.

We all know what happened to Ambedkar`s follower Mandal in Jinnah`s ``secular`` Pakistan.
He realised his fate pretty soon, unlike the Ahmediyas (for whom it took some time).. :-)

Re: # 1148

Yep, the land was saved by a whisker... My man Nehru made the right call... :)

#1088

[And I`ve showed you that some of the secular nations in the world are states that were hyphenated democracies but secular in practice....

Amazing that millions of Muslims and Hindus have no problem living in the Anglican Christian nation of Britain... where the Queen is the head of the Anglican Church as well... ]


Let`s see where the differences are:

1) This business of ``Queen is the head of the Anglican Church`` was constituted in non-democratic times, and the British, being fond of tradition, have retained the queen`s position SYMBOLICALLY. But the Queen is not who runs the country, the Prime Minister does.

In sharp contrast, Pakistan was created from scratch when the concept of democracy was well known and practiced around the world.



2) Ask any British - are you a ``Christian`` nation? And they will say - no, we are a secular nation. If you asked the same question to Iqbal or any other Muslim when Pakistan was formed, he would have called Pakistan a ``Muslim`` nation.

Therein lies the difference.

While I am deeply indebted to Jinnah for removing a huge number of Muslims from India, I do blame him for not achieving a COMPLETE population exchange.

A TOTAL population exchange would have prevented many of the problems we see today. Everybody would have been happier.

Jinnah was ABSOLUTELY right on the money. Oil and water do not mix. They are finding that out in UK, France, the Netherlands, Spain, Germany, Canada, Australia, USA, China, Thailand and everywhere else.

There is going to be a gradual waking up in the world. Listen to TV and talk radio - you`ll feel the change. Already freeing ourselves of Gulf oil is a BIG winner in electoral politics.

Let`s hope the momentum keeps up and Muslims can truly live free lives separately in their own ummahland where they are not repressed by others not belonging to their ``identity``.

Here`s looking forward for a better tomorrow where Muslims and non-Muslims can live COMPLETELY separately in peace, just as Jinnah had envisioned.

That happy day will come.

May be that`s why I am not a Gandhi worshipper, nor do I believe in the divine rights of the Nehrus :(

Re: # 1146
[..that`s why I am not a Gandhi worshipper,...]

Nobody is... nobody worships the naked fakir, everybody derides him... also Nehru... But curiously - you are already close to being a jinnah-worshipper - not that anybody cares :)

What everybody recognizes is the fellas like gandhi, nehru, patel made immense contributions to take us where we are today... they are political leaders and that`s all there is to it... sure they made mistakes, so what?... they have given us a real platform to build upon...

It`s up to us to take this further, instead of spinning wild theories, re-inventing history and what not...

First, I have not evaded any arguments on any board. The following is what I have said all along.
Princes did have different position, Muslim seats were entirely out of the picture.. after CMP. so that they can`t join with Muslims and make the process a nightmare for the Congress..

It is the classical `divide the enemies` technique of Congress, the enemies being ``Princes`` and the ``Muslims under Jinnah``. Princes are treated as enemies by Nehru and you can learn that from the various statements he made from time to time. Nehru/Patel (and sometimes Gandhi) played the bad cop/good cop act to perfection in the case of Princes.. whose territories criss-crossed the length and breadth of India (45% of the current geographic area) and are so essential for the viability of the country. Get rid of Muslims giving them a ``moth eaten Pakistan`` and getting rid of the princes once the situation is stabilised. Classic.... :-)

Nice to know that your dad is happy, what is the point of this article then. If Ahmediyas feel happy in Pakistan now, what drove you to write this article. :-)

Of all our recent leaders, Baba Sahib is my personal hero. The more I learn about him, the more I like him.

He was not perfect, but compared to my personal self and limitations, he was as perfect as one gets....

Perception of a separate self along with a deeper, in often unstated, conviction of an ultimate unity.

Exactly like Indians have one - all except Hindu liberals :)

Re: # 1141

One could say Dr. Ambedkar best represented this ideal ... but these people will never get the simple fact that Dr. Ambedkar was a finer human being than any of the Hindu ``Liberals``... and it is precisely because of Dr. Ambedkar that India has a truly secular constitution which champions individual freedom - including the right to profess an identity separate from others- above all else.

Manto, only a blind man would see the same genes in all Muslims. It`s the question of a perception of a separate self. Nation, race, ethnicity, xyz....that`s just labels.

Re: # 1140

Some of these people are champions of misinterpretation.

Yes, I do believe that fully, Muhiyal. If you prefer ethnicity, you can use that instead.

Why do you find it odd?

Kaalchakra, do you really believe (#19) that Muslims from across various regions of South Asia constitute a separate race together?

That sounds so like the 60s in Pakistan, when most of the negative stereotyping of Hindus used to be powered by a delusion that Muslims are a universally taller and fairer race than them.. in spite of all the dissenting evidence from the appearance of Punjabi Hindus or Bengali Muslims.

Even when East Pakistan was around with its millions of generally shorter and darker Muslims, the fact that the race varies by region not by religion was lost on so many Pakistanis especially in armywallah circles. I concede this gora fixation plagues us Punjabis on our side of the border too, the only difference being that it does not power as much racist hatred at least across religions.

In any case, I can understand the reasons that some needed to peddle this theory, but your own subscribing to a view like that is odd.

Re: # 1135

I think kaal used the term race by mistake.

The issue was always of imagined identity ... never ``Race``. I`ve known Kaal long enough not to suspect some reverse logic to abuse Pakistanis.

ylh

I understand it very well and I am very clear about where we are and where we want to go... unlike you pakis who are groping in dark and not sure who you are, where is the future... which is why pakiland is so f***ed up... killing and brutalizing each other... spreading terrorrism and what not...

Re: # 1134

Yes... Ahmedabad Gujurat ... the likes of which Pakistan has never seen ... was secretly made part of Pakistan through a negotiated treaty right?

Re: # 1137

Gujrat: 2000 muslims died... bangladesh: 1 million muslims died, killed by muslims themselves, people of the ``same race``... All in all - number of muslim killed in all communal riots put together - I will take a guess -