Rest in Peace Pakistan (1947-1974)

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

I know that this article will attract a lot of attacks from all sides ... which I personally take as the validation of my point of view... but before that I want to put up a simple disclaimer..

In my personal religious view- which has evolved over time- I am quite clear that Ahmaddiya faith is simply an off-shoot of the sunni paganism which was invented in the early period of Islam by the children of Ummaya in order to usurp power ... in my estimate Ahmadis are as misguided as 80% of the rest of the Islamic world...

However... I will stand by their right to call themselves whatever they please as I will for the rights of a sunni pagan to call himself a Muslim, despite my complete antipathy for such paganism.

Masadi,

Zaban sambhal kay baat karo... I know tumhe kisi nay tameez nahi sikhai.

I have nothing to do with Chowk or Chowk staff or its editorial policies. I therefore suggest that you apologise immediately for your abusive language.

Consider: The cornerstone of Quaid-e-Azam Mahomed Ali Jinnah and Muslim League`s struggle to achieve Pakistan was that a permanent majority should not, by sheer numerical weight, be allowed to dominate a permanent minority


That ``cornerstone`` is when muslims are in the minority...

wherever muslims are in the minority, they raise a stink(and more) about their right not being protected...and countries where muslims are in the majority..well, think saudi arabia...nuff said...

Yasser,

Relevant article, one which may lead to a meaningful discussion; but I must ask re #2: was it necessary to describe Ahmadi beliefs as something rooted in misguided sunni paganism aimed at usurping power invented by children of Ummaya from early Islamic history? That is a mouthful and begs to be elaborated upon … or omitted altogether. So I remain unsure of the place of your personal views in this discussion, as they come across more as demeaning and derogatory, without serving a meaningful purpose. Thanks, but no, thanks.

If demise of Pakistan continues to be caused by self-righteous Muslims, then I hope you too will join in. Welcome to the party; hope you’ll stick around for awhile.

YLH

{The cornerstone of Quaid-e-Azam Mahomed Ali Jinnah and Muslim League`s struggle to achieve Pakistan was that a permanent majority should not, by sheer numerical weight, be allowed to dominate a permanent minority}

Absolutely beautiful, pure and simple liberal democracy. Thanks.

Dear Sattar,

If you take out the one issue on the interpretation of ``Khatim`` ... Ahmadis are for all practical purposes Sunnis following the Hanafi School of Islamic law...

My personal religious beliefs should not be an issue ... for you or for Urstruly or any other interactor... what matters is that I stand for everyone`s right to profess as they please.

The meaningful discussion ought to be around this single point alone ... or else it is as meaningless as the god awful debate about whether Jesus is dead or alive.

Is religion the sole criteron (sp?) for majority/minority decision?
A state/nation/city/country is divided into all kinds of majorities/minorities.
Why not apply ethnicity/language/sect/colour and so on?
Once you start dividing people using one criterion, there is no end to it.

Mian shishapa,

I on the other hand have been favoring using all distinctions together to bring a sense of overlapping identities...

Since you participated on my article ``Citizenship and Ethnicity in Pakistan`` ... one would imagine you would know that I already addressed that issue...

Or maybe you just don`t like to read the article before commenting.

[...Absurdities abound...]

It took you this long to figure this out, huh?...

Absurdity start from the very beginning, from the cornerstone theory of of ``tyranny of majority`` that you are throwing around... hinuds and moslems were hardly homogenous in any sense of the word - so to brand them as ``permanent majority`` and ``permanent minority`` is the biggest Absurdity and stupidity to begin with... It was pegion-holing at its worst, it was complete lack of common-sense, because of the multiple fractures that runs thru these communities spread across vast landscapes of the sub-contient... and that too when the so-called ``permanent minority`` were almost one-third of the population...

What you realized today is exactly what has been foretold in 1947 and immediately after... That pakistan was not an sustainable entity, the concepts and theories are based on which it was being created is simply untenable and patently absurd...

Only thing the subcontinent needed was sustainable development, free-wheeling democracy and fundamental rigths to all... it didn`t need identity politics, there was no need to invent ``permanent`` scare-crows where none existed... there was no need to invent paranoid theories of ``domination`` where nothing was even remotely possible...

By doing so - Mahomed Jinnah unwittingly handed over power to the forces he was opposed to... in retrospect, he wasn`t really that smart a man... he was a man who was most comfortable with hinuds who he demonized while least comfortable with mullahs and fanatic abduls which he he ended up living with...

It ended up creating lands where muslims are never at peace with each other... and gave perfect opportunity for hinuds to dominate the sub-continent...

So yes, Absurdities abound...

Re: # 9

Shishapa is exactly right... what you have been writing in your multiple articles here is just your confusion and lack of understanding of very simple facts... you keep beating around the bush, invent theories, change your minds a bunch of times... In short - you still don`t get it... :)

+++

That pakistan died in 1974,or 1971 or whenever was not a surprise to anyone... In fact, even the impostor, as you call it, that continues to exist is a big deal in itself... shows the rare committment of a very fractitious and paranoid people to keep going despite all absurdities that militates against their cohesion... I will give pakis that much, but it remains to be seen for how long...

Re: # 6 rf mian

YLH`s theory of permanent majority and minority is absurd and against common sense... as pointed out by posts below...

Yasser (#7),

Minor but critical point: The word is “khatam” … and not “khatim”. Note the subtle difference, which is at the root of bulk of misunderstanding. And I can cite reference after reference to support my viewpoint on this. Not only that, I can comfortably argue in favor of continuation of prophethood from a Quranic viewpoint on basis of reason. But do you really want to start this debate? I don’t think so. So let’s not open this can of worms when it is neither the time, nor the place for it.

If you think that difference in interpretation of one word (which remains highly debatable by any standard, to say the least) makes Ahmadi-Muslim belief part of a power-usurping paganism, it says a lot about your own narrow take on Islam. Like I said, thanks, but no thanks. I can do without such narrow-minded self-righteousness. And spare me this “Hanafi School of Islamic Law” stuff … it makes you sound dangerously like Naqshbandi.

And finally, it is very naïve of you to unnecessarily make derogatory comments about Ahmadi-Muslim beliefs, while insisting that your personal views are not an issue. Imagine Lyndon Johnson supporting equal rights for African-Americans, and ending his speech by insisting that personally he has nothing but disdain for blacks. Pardon me, but that’s a load of crap. If your personal view is irrelevant, then learn to keep a lid on it.

The claim that the District of Gordaspur had a majority of Quadianis instead of Muslims is a myth propagataed by Quadiani establishment to divert attention from the incompetence and criminal neglect of Zafarullah Khan (a Quadiani) who was representing Muslim League in the Radcliffe Award. The fact of the matter is that the Census of 1940, which was done in lieu of coming elections after failure of Congress governemnt, put the Muslim population of Gurdaspur well above 55%. So due to the two principles of partition: a. The geographical contingency principle and b. Majority principle the district of Gurdaspur was absolutely the part of Pakistan. But the fact of matter also remains that Nehru was bitterly opposed to awarding Gurdaspur to Paksitan because it was the only opperable land connection to the Kashmir, which was his birthplace and he held it dear. He made a deal with Master Tara Singh to incite violence in Gurdaspur to change the demography of the district in exchange for an autonomous Punjab. Horrendous and horrible crimes and violence were committed against Muslims there by Sikhs and Hindus from Southern Punjab to expell them.

Meanwhile, Zafarullah also wanted Quadian, which was in Kashmir to remain on Indian side where he deemed it more protected by fellow hindu pagans. During the Radcliffe Award, an uncle of mine who was very close to Quaid-e-Azam told me later that Quaid was furious at Zafarullah when he found out that despite the expectations of every Punjabi Muslim and even Hindus Radcliffe had awarded Gurdaspur to India, when whole nation was holding its breath for the expected outcome. The following conversation took place between Quaid and Zafarullah:

QA: Zafarullah! Its unbelievable. What has gone wrong with Gurdaspur.

Z: Sir! Gurdaspur was not on the agenda of todays meeting.

QA: Abbay bhootnee ke, who else was supposed to put such a sensitive issue on agenda but you?

Z: Sir! there were white people in the meeting, how could I dare to speak in front of them.

QA: Chal bhaag naalaique, aindaa shakal matt dikhaaio; qasm se naa hooi qarooli (knife)varna bhonk daita.

The proof of this factoid of history can be verified by checking the agendas of the Radcliffe Award which have been published by many authors. The rest is history.

#14 by Urstruly on June 28, 2007 12:21pm PT

stop crying over spilt milk...or a lost gurdaspur and a lost kashmir....

Yasser,

An interesting article and a good read, as usual.

You wrote: ``Forget that the Muslim majority in Gurdaspur was only a majority if Ahmadis were counted as Muslims.``

Can you substantiate that claim by number/references?

Regards,

Rafi Aamer

Re: # 13 sattar

Well said... this is yet another example of absurdity and stupidity expressed by YLH...

Re: # 14

What`s the difference anyway? Pakiland is already dead or so YLH says... Bangladesh is gone, Balochis are up in arms, taliban has taken over the ``frontier``... muhajirs have taken over karachi... so what`t big deal about gurdaspur or whatever other godforsaken place you guys have been crying over for last 60 years

get over it already...

Urstruly (#14),

Some time ago you claimed that Muslims constituted 80% of Gurdaspur population. You have now scaled it down to 55%. What gives (grin)?

Here’s a counter-point, with a reference more credible than your alleged uncle. Following is an excerpt from “Munir Report”, published by a commission to investigate anti-Ahmadi riots of 1953.

This Report suggests that in district Gurdaspur Muslims held majority by one percent, and that Qadian was one of 3 major towns where Muslims resided. If Ahamdis are declared non-Muslims, it is easy to see how Muslims are no longer the majority you make them out to be.

The Report goes on the praise Chaudhry Zafrullah Khan for his efforts to include Gurdaspur in Pakistan. FYI.

++++

“Provisional Partition had placed Qadian in Pakistan, but Muslims in the district of Gurdaspur in which Qadian was situated were only in a majority of one per cent, and the Muslim population in that district was mostly concentrated in three towns including Qadian. Apprehensions about the final location of Qadian, therefore, began to be felt, and since they could obviously not ask for its inclusion in India, the only course left for them now was to fight for its inclusion in Pakistan. Vile and unfounded charges have been levelled against the Ahmadis that the district of Gurdaspur was assigned to India by the Award of the Boundary Commission because of the attitude adopted by the Ahmadis and the arguments addressed by Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan who had been selected by the Quaid-i-Azam to present the case of the Muslim League before that Commission. But the President of this Court, who was a Member of that Commission, considers it his duty to record his gratitude to Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan for the valiant fight he put up for Gurdaspur. This is apparent from the record of the Boundary Commission which anyone who is interested may see. For the selfless services rendered by him to the Muslim community, it is shameless ingratitude for anyone to refer to Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan in the manner in which he has been referred to by certain parties before the Court of Inquiry.”

- Page 197, Report of The Court of Inquiry Constituted Under Punjab Act II of 1954 to Enquire Into The Punjab Disturbances of 1953, by M. Munir (President) and M. R. Kayani (Member)

Re: # 16

Rafi,

The highest concentration of Quadianis per square inch in anywhere in the world is that in Chenab Nagar (formerly Rabwah) in District of Jhang. The city which according to Quadiani claims is 95% Quadiani, has a total population of 48,700 (2003 numbers) whereas the district Jhang where this city is located has a population of 387,418 inhabitants (1998 numbers). This proportion makes the population of Quadianis in a district about the same size as that of Gurdaspur at about 12%. Please keep in mind that this proportion holds true only for the district of Jhang elswhere Quadianis are negligible minority. Granted that if we take the same proportion of Qudianis in district of Gurdaspur at the time of partition, the number of Muslims would still have exceeded that of Hindus, Sikhs, Quadianis, and miscelleneous put together according to the census of 1940. Quadiani propaganda about Gurdaspur is hence as absurd as Mantolives has claimed it to be.

Re: # 14
Urstruly,

You wrote: ``The fact of the matter is that the Census of 1940, which was done in lieu of coming elections after failure of Congress governemnt, put the Muslim population of Gurdaspur well above 55%.``

Can you tell me if Ahmedies were counted as Muslims in that census?

Thanks.

Re: # 21

Yes, Quadianis were counted as Muslims in the census of 1940 since a separate category for them did not exist at the time. But keep in mind that separate categories did exist for other people in the British era government. Only the Hindus were divided into 12 scheduled casts, then there were Muslims, Parsis, Christians, martial and non-martial races, and whole plathora.

Look, Quadianis try to push the matter of ``Muslim`` in Gurdaspur to lay blame that when it suited Muslims they counted Quadianis among themselves and when it didn`t they separted them. How hypocritical. But fact of the matter is that the census of 1940 was not conducted by Muslims. It was conducted by a foreign occupation that was occupying our land for the past hundered years. It was them who categorized the people into scheduled casts and attributed religious classes. Common Muslims never considered Quadianis as one of them since even when their founder was alive.

Re: # 19

Yes I claimed the population of Gurdaspur to be 80% because I was making an argument with a Hindu on the issue of Nehru inciting violence in Gurdaspur for the reasons cited in my post below. That was the only way to extarct the truth out of Hindus who have no morals and ettiquettes. Lying for them is as easy as releiving oneself of his excrement; kind of like you. Just as I expected, the Hindu chimed back and ``challenged`` my assertion and ``corrected`` me that the actual number was 55%. I made that very clear in the very next post. So just like them again you are now telling the half truth even though you know the truth; all in the fine Quadiani tradition.

Re: # 13sattar2
(((Minor but critical point: The word is “khatam” … and not “khatim”. Note the subtle difference, which is at the root of bulk of misunderstanding. And I can cite reference after reference to support my viewpoint on this. Not only that, I can comfortably argue in favor of continuation of prophethood from a Quranic viewpoint on basis of reason. But do you really want to start this debate? I don’t think so. So let’s not open this can of worms when it is neither the time, nor the place for it))))))

Sattar mian how many times do you want us to discuss this load of rubbish?I have seen the refrences that you have shown here but never did you bother to explain how do they support the continuation of Prophethood. I have requested you number of times to enlighten our dark souls with the `common usage` of the word `khatam` i.e. the meaning of the term prevailing in the time of Prophet[pbuh] and along with that.... a single unequivocal verse of the Quran which supports the crap of Qadianism.???Enough of this language game already....follow zeemax`s islam...get a life....in the hereafter.

Waisay BTW the person who claims to show the path to others MUST himself be able to see with both eyes.don`t you think?

I can sense the presence of abu_safwaan around. Nikil patli gali se..aur izaat bacha apni bhi aur HALF fried(kacha) messenger ki bhi.

Re: # 22

But fact of the matter is that the census of 1940 was not conducted by Muslims. It was conducted by a foreign occupation that was occupying our land for the past hundered years. It was them who categorized the people into scheduled casts and attributed religious classes. Common Muslims never considered Quadianis as one of them since even when their founder was alive.

I understand that the census was not conducted by Muslims but that is irrelevant. What I am trying to figure out is, had Ahmedies been counted as non-Muslims, would Gurdaspur be considered a Muslim-majority area? Were Muslims, minus the Ahmedies, could break the 50% barrier?

Thanks,

Rafi

Re: # 25

Please do the math. The 12% of 55% of Population becomes less than 6% of the total. So even if we count the Quadianis out the ration of Muslim non-Muslim population in Gurdaspur would have tied at 1:1. In that case the third principle of Partition would have taken effect, which was, holding a plebicite.

Urstruly,

So from 80%, you moved down to 55%. Your latest post takes it further down to 50%!!! What’s up with that??

You are also claiming that this consensus was conducted by foreign occupation. What exactly are you trying to say???

+++

If I recall correctly, you retracted your 80% figure when it was challenged by others. You then cited an alleged dialogue between Jinnah and Chaudhry Zafrullah. But when pressed for references, you conceded that this is probably how a dialogue took place between Jinnah and Zafrullah. Oh well …

Your remaining references turned out to be people you had talked to. That was the sad extent of the basis of your opinion. Read #19 for details.

Re: # 26
What would be the numbers if they were 12% of 51% instead of 55% as you claim.

Check the following out.

The Gurdaspur district in the undivided Punjab had on the basis of 1941 census was an overall Muslim majority of 51%.

Re: # 28

I guess it would be almost the same number.

Anyway, I would like to see the actual numbers if possible. Can you refer me to some source? Or maybe someone else can?

Thanks,

Rafi

Re: # 26

In that case the third principle of Partition would have taken effect, which was, holding a plebicite.

Now we are on the speculative grounds. I think that the plebicite would have gone the Indian way because Muslims were split about Pakistan but I don`t think Sikhs were.

philosopher (#24)

This seems to be causing you much grief: I explained a reference which asks believers to accept prophets of Allah as they appear. I asked you which part of this reference did you NOT understand. But you did not respond. Rubbish is what lies between your ears; not my problem.

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) foretold appearance of a prophet among Muslims and referred to him as Issa-ibne-Marriam. Is this enough ahadith for you?

Now, you (like Urstruly and Naqshbandi) may argue that Issa from two thousand years ago resides above clouds and will reappear in flesh and blood. If this makes sense to you, what more can I possibly say?? And we’ll deal with abu when he shows up. Any more smart comments you’d like to make?

Sahib, fatwas of kuffr have been passed against most (all?) sects by other sects of Islam. There is no end to this insanity. And that`s the point of this article, which remains lost on the faithful. What a pity ...

this article is so absurd...i mean the complete ethnic clensing of hindus and muslims from pakistan was not demise of so called ``jinnahs pakistan``? you had to wait for constitutional declaration of ahmedis as non-muslims to figure out the problem?

#32 cant argue with that. One day I hope Pakistan will officially recognize the supreme injustice that was done in 1947 when perhaps 6 million hindus and sikhs were forced to flee for their lives, leaving their property and businesses behind.

The author is a malnutritioned shrimp who is mirzayi in disguise on a mission. His sole purpose for writing this piece of sheatt is to envoke a conflict between Muslims (shias & sunnis). This moron doesnt even know a basic aspect of our creed that all sins are washed away from non-muslims past life as soon as he accepts Islam. That was the reason Umer bin Al khatab (RAW) is viewed in such high esteem, otherwise he did some mean things when he was not a muslim and thats why we dont spew venom on Abu Sufyan (RAW) for the herendous atrocities that he commited on Muslims and Prophet (PBUH) prior to conveting to Islam. He is bitter about the fact he was never treated as an equal citizen as a mirzayi, which i must admit is wrong. on social level noone should be discriminated because of their faith. But he has an agenda to incite hatred by pretending to be shia and provoking sunnis so we get in to this mud-slinging and all the mirzayis will sit on the side enjoying the brawl.

Sattar ..khush aamdayd..zara tawaquff farmaiyayy gaa..mein abhii aapkii tabyatt bhii saaf karta hoon..

Sattariyaa..

The problem with accepting every tom..dick and mirza ghulam as a prophet is that if we dont make standards of prophethood than it`ll become the easiest profession for anyone who cant earn a buck. All your khaloo would have to do to be the next prophet is just say ``listen yo all that god came to me last nite and told me that i m the new prophet now..soo follow me now and the first revelation from god is that yo all should give me money..soo pay up!``

You see it doesnt work like that. When Allah swt did in fact bestowed prophethood on people, he either gave them miracles or signs that would proove there authenticity. Problem with mirza qadiyani is that all he has is rhetoric..no substance..and he was himself confused about who he was suppose to be. First he claimed he was prophet..when masses didnt buy it he was like..ok how about ibne-mariam..can i be messiah? that didnt work either so in his later days he was like..well can i at least be a reviver? You see my friend the whole thing wreaks of insincerity..which is not prophetic trait. oh and one more thing..there is a slight issue of Quran saying ``And we have put a seal on prophethood``..other than all this stuff mirza sahab was da man.

oh, no! .......... i think it is time to have another conversation with allah mian so that he can explain the mysterious ways in which he selects prophets ............. on the other hand, the old man really doesn`t seem to have a good handle on his selection process: first there was this schizophrenic old guy who heard voices and set out to slaughter his own son; then there was this half-wit who stammered, got all shook up by instantaneous combustion, and got his people lost in the desert; then there was this sissy in sandals who was strung up by a bunch of jewish money lenders for kicking over their tills; then there was this illiterate bedouin who got his messages mixed up and whose wife couldn`t prevent domestic animals from destroying important manuscripts; then there were the two punjabis - guru nanak and mrza ghulam ahmed ! .............. have you ever seen a sikh ?..... i rest my case ! ........... and the ahmedis - what`s up with them ?....... why would anyone in their right mind want to be a muslim ? ........ i`d rather be a sikh

re . # 32

Jang please stop being a meany we even made that bhagwan daas Chief Justice, and a hindu wrote our first national anthem not to mention the annual party lahore throws for sikhs. This isnt your fight. Manto is right to be mad. Specially since he doesnt even believe in Prophethood after our Prophet PBUH. Did you hear that guys? now on what basis is Manto nonmuslim?

abu (#35),

One may accept or reject a prophet of Allah as one pleases. Heart of the matter is that a person should not be penalized if he accepts Mirza Sahib as a prophet of Allah.

And since you brought it up, I don’t think prophets performed miracles (even zeemax thinks of such beliefs as superstition). So your thesis about miracles remains meaningless in my view.

And I have seen Arabic references where “khatam” denotes a person’s high rank. So your argument does not hold water. I am comfortable with my understanding of Islam, but I fail to understand your grief …

Re: # 36
Hamid Masih

Listen u moron..i have told u million and a half times if u want to challenge Islam intellectually come up with specific question and issues or contradictions that u think my religion has and we`ll rap. But when u continue on with this same old rhetoric that u have..n ur supposed smart azz sarcasm and outright insults then i am forced to remind u that u still havent collected from the boys who have been sharing ur daughter`s ``Ice Cream``. Accept my challenge and ask me specific questions about Islam and contradictions or aspects that u have issues with in a civil manner, without sarcasm and insults and i`ll indulge u otherwise my advice would be to whither away when i am around...cause u know that i`ll bring the heat and u;ll retreat as always with ur tail between ur legs..so save face..or u can have a civil discourse..choice is urs.

Re: # 38

i dont have a grief..u can call urself santa clause for all i care..i do have a problem with u selling a big-mac..when infact all u got is a veggie burger..thas false advertising. I have no issues with u eating that veggie burger and thinking that its gao-mata..all`s i am saying is that dont lie to the consumer

I must go play cricket now..lights what a beautiful invention...tussii khush keetae aey eddison payi.

Re #40:

A person has the right to peacefully practice and profess Islam the way Islam makes sense to him. You can believe in flying prophets performing miracles ... and that`s your choice.

I’ll let you know when I need your approval. Till then, take a hike.

Re: # 39

abu,

..... please refer to my tafseer on chapters 2,3 and 4 of the koran ......... inshallah, i will complete the tafseer by this ramadhan ......... if you still have questions, then we can talk about it ........ actually my problem is not with the message itself - which is as silly as any other conventional religion - it has more to do with the moral character of the messenger ............

#37 wah bhai wah..so i am now a meany for taking pangas with manto? in the paki-echo chamber of delusion (copyritght arjun) such stuff may go unnoticed, but most others would see this 700 lb gorilla in the dewana khana

Araay yaar jangs , unlike countries who have been around since the dawn of time pakistan was a pact made recently (60 years ago) . The point manto is making is that had they been de-muslimized in 1947 they would never had been pakistani in the first time.
They are right in saying that Jinnah would never have pulled a fast one on them and they would never have supported Bhutto ....its fair to say that ``Pakistan`` which is an ideal ceased to be the promised land for them after 1974 this is the story of Manto not the story of Jang though you can write your own story. And it would also be valid.

BTW i humbly request ahmedi`s to refrain from insulting our Prophet PBUH which makes everyone see red. As an individual you are either muslim (and i support your right to self definition) or you are an insulter of the Prophet PBUH in which case forget it. Can`t be both.

Even if you dont personally care what society labels your belief numerous ahmedi`s are insultingly denied their right to self definition by the passive consent of people who are under the impression that all Ahmedis are vitriolic towards our Prophet PBUH and this is a truly dangerous stereotype to project, just my two cents.

`` As an individual you are either muslim (and i support your right to self definition) or you are an insulter of the Prophet PBUH in which case forget it. Can`t be both.``

Are you dubya`s long lost sister? ``You are either with us or against us``....

Whether Pakistan died, or when, depends upon one`s perspective. If one is a Sikh or a Hindu, Jinnah`s Pakistan was still-born. If one is an Ahmadi, it died in 1974. If one is hamidm, it died when Zia ordered ban on liquor in the Cantonments. And if one belongs to the unwashed masses lured by the slogan of ``La Ilaha L`il Allah``, then Pakistan is only now being born in the Sarhadi sooba and the environs of Lal Masjid in Islamabad.

Re: # 43
Good enuff Hamid Sahab, Shall we discuss Prophet`s(PBUH) moral charcter first? A simple yes or no will suffice. I know you will bring up the issue of Ayesha`s (RAW) marraige to Prophet (PBUH) at a very young age, you want me to start their? Make sure that you remain civil and refrain from sarcasm and insults and ill reciprocrate. So you want me to start with Prophet`s(PBUH) maraige to Ayehsa (RAW)?

Re: # 46

cobrae as it is we are so inculsive it hurts, as abu-s says we forgive everything, including those who fought against us ...dying infedels converting on the battle fields, you name it ...try getting into the jew club in comparison.

All we ask is pehla kalma after that you can eat drink screw kill and still be a muslim albeit a bad one. Is it too much to ask yaara? just respect Allah and his Prophet PBUH.

dm #47 ``unwashed masses lured by the slogan of ``La Ilaha L`il Allah``

please dont add insult to injury to the ``masses``:

First, these are not ``masses`` (as the elite of the subcontinent grandly call their lower caste compatriots), but individuals who may be poorer and less well educated than the chowk elite, but have more common sense than the average chowk dud who imagines himself to be some kind of a warrior or intellectual.

Second, they may not all have easy access to running water as you do, but most try to keep as clean as they can under the circumstances (muslims wash every time before they pray, and thus probably wash more often in one day than some of arjun`s Indian IT billionaires do in a week).

Third, you would have to be totally dumb to think that lal masjid mullah roam the streets of islamabad for any reason other than the fact that they are a convenient way for musharraf to keep the democracy movement off-balance. Blame the military, not the average Pakistani, for mullah lawlessness in Pakistan.

Thanks.

Third,

urstruly, rafi:

It is an article of faith among Paksitanis that Mountbatten changed the Radcliff recommendations re. Gurdaspur. I have never seen any mention of this in the Indian media. I am also unaware of any mention of it in the British accounts, although I have not read all the accounts and someone may have mentioned it and I would like that reference, if available.

However, this is not why I am responding to this subject. It is the mandate of the Boundary Commission. It was not supposed to go by the population distribution alone, but was also supposed to take into consideration other socio-economic-religious factors. In practice, however, demographics were almost the only consideration in the final analysis. And since the latest available figures were for 1941, various parties were also free to present their case regarding any demographic changes since 1941, which they did in marginal cases. So, while the Pakistani contention may be correct, I would wait my judgement until I find out on what basis did the Boundary Commission award Gurdaspur to India.

Someone needs to explain to me that how is that you a run a campaign to create a country for muslims. In that process you ask & sell it to ALL the muslims that their hindu neighbours that they have been living with for centuries are in fact so diabolically different than them that the only way we`ll be able to breathe is if we are detached from these monsters hindus and live in a paradise where we`ll be surrounded with muslims only. This in essence is what 2 nation theory is isnt it? So far so good right? How the fcuk once that land of promise is created you leave the majority of Muslims in the country with the same hindus that you originally said Muslims wouldnt..clouldnt and shouldnt live with hence needed a seperate country.

Its like me going to punjab and running a campaign for jinnahpoor (urdu speaking heaven) and asking the urdu speaking of punjab to support me in my quest so we can ALL(urdu speaking) live hapilly ever after, but once that disneyland comes to fruition i leave the majority of urdu speaking in punjab with the punjabis that i had originally declared as the biggest enemy of urdu speaking. Does any of this make sense. No wonder Maulana maudoodi and abul-kalam azad werent too hot about this. Rest assure this is an educational debate, i am proud to be a muslim first and then pakistani..but i think there was tremendous injustice done to the muslims of subcontinent, especially the majority that we left at the mercy of the same hindoos that we convinced them were there enemies.

tahmed saheb:

I seem to be rubbing you the wrong way these days. The expression ``unwashed`` was used in a figurative and not literary sense and you should have known that. As regards the Lal Masjid, I think that you underestimate the appeal of the mullahs to ordinary Pakistani; heck, even I found parts of Mullah Gazi`s response to Niloufer Bakhtiar posted by Urstruly quite persuasive, especially, the fact that he always seemed to be referring to the lady in respectable (aap) and polite terms.

Pakisanis are quick to march into the streets whenever they do not like what their rulers do, whether it is the CJ`s dismissal, the Rushdie affair or the Iraq invasion. Yet, I have yet to read any report of Pakistanis coming onto the streets against Nawaz Sharif`s Hudood attempts or against Bhutto`s measures against Ahmadis. And these were both civilian governments. Nor was there any effective opposition to the Objectives Resolution when it was debated in the Assembly.

If Pakistanis ever succeed in defeating the Mullahs (and it is entirely their business whether they want to do so or not, outsiders can only watch from a distance), it will not be because of those who deluded themselves into thinking that the ordinary Pakistani is not attracted by the khateeb and the aleem)

dm #53 I have full respect for you, sir, even if I noted my disagreement in #50 below.

While ``unwashed`` may be figurative, it nevertheless draws up an unduly negative image. On the appeal of the mullahs to the average Pakistani, let us just agree to disagree. Urstruly does not represent the average Pakistani - the average Pakistani despises, rather than looks up to like urstruly, the gun-toting mullahs in Pakistan. And if you are impressed by a mullah referring to a woman in respectable terms on a public forum, then I have a beachfront property in Islamabad to sell to you. :-)

Pakistanis are in fact not quick to march to the streets compared to other people in the subcontinent (e.g. Bangladesh, as I can vouch first hand having seen hartals in dhaka at the slightest pretext), this being another misconception on your part. What Pakistanis do is to take the scum to court - thus, in case of the hadood ordinance, it was in fact challenged in the Lahore High Court.

As for my deluding myself in not sharing your perception of Pakistanis, then all I can say is this: If you continue to think you understand Pakistanis better than someone who has lived half his life in Pakistan, has family and friends in cities, towns and villages all over Pakistan - then that is your choice. I would rather believe my eyes and ears, then what you think you learnt about Pakistan based on a couple of visits.

tahmed32:

``what you think you learnt about Pakistan based on a couple of visits.``

and, I might add, ten years of reading Pakistani newspapers, watching discussions by Pakistanis of all viewpoints at chowk and television.

And here is my opinion on this topic in one sentence. Ordinary Pakistani does not ordinarily care about the Mullahs but when the slogan of ``islam khatrei mein is raised``, all bets are off.

Tahmed,

I just want to address the issue you raised about Hindus and Sikhs. I agree with you but I`d like to add a few points so that liars like the person who posted 32 don`t get away with their distortion of history.

1. The number of Hindus and Sikhs who migrated from Pakistan to India was 3 million.

2. The number of Muslims who migrated to Pakistan was in access of 5.5 million.

3. The number of people dead at partition is between 200 000 to 500 000. If you research the issue you will find that 80% of them were Muslims.

4. The bulk of partition massacres happened because of Gurdaspur issue and the failure of Mounbatten- upon the egging of Nehru - to release award before 15th August 1947.

5. Ahmadis lost as many lives proportionally as any other Muslim sect.

Therefore... liars like the person who write one sided bigoted posts like the one in #32 should take some responsibility for their nation state which is much more self righteous than ours in these issues.

Manto writes <<< I therefore suggest that you apologise immediately for your abusive language. >>>

Look fool, you claim to be a lawyer and yet cannot read simple script! It was a question, I asked ``If you were the a-hole who......, If yes, then......`` Can you understand these statements.

And here is my apology: go to hell and take some reading lessons....maybe Jinnah can instruct you

#7 by Manto <<< what matters is that I stand for everyone`s right to profess as they please. >>>

Really? That is why my interact #1 mysteriously disappeared from here

hamid writes <<< actually my problem is not with the message itself - which is as silly as any other conventional religion - >>>

Slogans and hot air will not do, please elucidate on the ``silliness`` of the message, and its comparison with the silliness of ``other conventional religions``. You have no clue about either, you are just blowing hot air and as I showed earlier your so called ``tafseer`` bears no intellectually thought out content, your contentions are disconnected, have nothing to do with what the verse is talking about, and they reveal your ``silliness`` moreso than anything else, rather let me correct myself, they reveal not your silliness but the fact that you are a retard...

#58 by masadi on June 28, 2007 11:24pm PT
#7 by Manto <<< what matters is that I stand for everyone`s right to profess as they please. >>>

Really? That is why my interact #1 mysteriously disappeared from here

Asadi,
Yasser has nothing to do with filtering interacts.

HP <<< Asadi,
Yasser has nothing to do with filtering interacts. >>>

alright

#56 Manto

Where do you get these imaginary figures from? They are silly and reveal your biases. And, yes, the complete extinction of hindu-buddhist culture from pakistan is an issue that does need to be emphasized and discussed.

Here is what Mushirul Hasan, distinguished indian historian, has to say:

[quote]

No one knows how many were killed during the Partition violence. No one knows how many were displaced and dispossessed. What we know is that, between 1946 and 1951, nearly nine million Hindus and Sikhs came to India, and about six million Muslims went to Pakistan. Of the said nine million, five million came from what became West Pakistan, and four million from East Pakistan. In only three months, between August and October 1947, Punjab was engulfed in a civil war. Estimates of deaths vary between 200,000 and three million. An anguished Amrita Pritam appealed to Waris Shah ``to speak from the grave`` and turn the page of the book of love.
[ quote]

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2002/01/03/stories/2002010301241000.htm

In one of my post a few months back, I made the point that the decision in 1974 by ZAB was the most opportunistic and horrific decision ever made in the history of Pakistan. Bhutto looked at the political exigencies at that time and never paid attention to what the long term implications would be. Ahmedis are an insignificant minority. It was easy to scarify them at the political alter to appease the marauding mullah. Bhutto thought by doing what he did, the issue would just go away.

If he had taken a stand there, he probably would have punctured the Mullah balloon that was able to ride on its political success and later came back to haunt Bhutto as PNA.
Ahmedis supported Bhutto from the very beginning. They contributed to his political campaign and held some important positions in his government; still Bhutto failed to stand up for them as they never had the power to vote any one in or out of the government. Bhutto knew he could win elections without Ahmedi support but he could not keep his power base with mullah opposition.

However, I strongly disagree with Manto that that was the singular event that turned Pakistan’s ideological base upside down. Pakistan died in 1971. The ideological integral which was never there from the very beginning was formally buried on the beaches of Cox’s bazaar, Chattagaon and pultan maidan of Dhaka.

Bhutto talked about a new Pakistan. He was not talking metaphorically. He meant it. The new Pakistan should have gotten rid of its two nation theory thingamabob and should have established itself as a nationalist secular country following the Indian model.

The problem with Bhutto was that he understood what things mean but he was only interested in keeping himself in power. He wanted to stay a step ahead of the generals and he wanted to appease the groups that he perceived were close the army.

The issue was and still is that if Pakistan were to follow the Indian model, what is the point of its existence? There were several factors that justified Pakistan’s existence based on nationalism and secularism. Once the break with India was complete in 1947, the two nation theory should have buried in the hot sands of Sindh and Cholistan and smashed against the Rocky Mountains in Balochistan. 1971 gave a great opportunity to define Pakistan as a new state but Bhutto could not steer it to a pluralist, populist and secular polity. But it was wrong in the first place to expect that Bhutto would follow through on what he knew was the right thing to do.

However, in the larger scheme of things, the 1974 amendment is a minor blimp. It was not the defining moment. It was wrong and it should be condemned but Ahmedis paid a political price for being too close to throne from the early days of Pakistan. Ahmedis were the most vocal supporters of the two nation theory in Punjab and still are. The problem is that you will not find very many Ahmedi who support secularism. They are as dogmatic as their counterpart, the mullah.

HP your comments on the following statement


<<< Jinnah has a greater ``real`` role to play in the origin of the Mullah`s political inroads in Pakistani society (regardless of his secular vision/speeches) than any civilian leader thereafter >>>

Please explain your point keeping note of the history of Pakistan`s creation...

Thanks

Post-1971 Pakistan was ripe for going fundo. Absolved of a significant non-Muslim minority as well as its middle-class majority, there was little to hold back the serpents of Islam from entrenching their poisonous fangs into the heart of Pakistan.

There is nothing more shamefull than living under these legal spears of bigotry aimed at an innocent minority. The 1974 Amendment is akin to the Jim Crow laws of the South.

Re: # 56

``Therefore... liars like the person who write one sided bigoted posts like the one in #32 should take some responsibility for their nation state which is much more self righteous than ours in these issues. ``

liers like the person who write one sided bigoted posts like the one in #32 or his parents didn`t ask to be forced out of their homes in 1947 because of their religious belief either.

P-Mishra,

They are not silly nor are they based out of bias. The majority of the killing happened in Gurdaspur and environs and if you honestly study case by case reports you will see how these figures are actually the safest and most accurate estimates. The figures as mentioned by historians vary from 200 000 to 600 000 and you may study individual cases to see how and why it happened.


Cobra,

Yes... I know according to Indian nationalist mythology... 5.5 million Muslims who were forced to migrate to Pakistan either migrated out of free will or did not migrate at all...

However the facts are that a situation was deliberately created by Mountbatten, possibly at the behest of Jawaharlal Nehru, to send as many refugees to Pakistan as possible to cripple the new country at birth.

These are the excerpts from a research article by Hugh Tinker in the Journal of Asian Studies (Aug 1977):

---

When Cyril Radcliffe, who had left Delhi on the eve of independence, called at
the Commonwealth Relations Office (CRO) after his arrival in London on 19 August,
it was observed that he appeared very tired. A memorandum was prepared for
the Minister of State (Arthur Henderson) to communicate to his colleagues; it gave
the observations of Radcliffe himself, and of the CRO, upon the award. In general,
Sir Cyril Radcliffe has stated that the Indian members of the Commission made no
attempt to reach compromises and the award represents his own decisions. . . . What
was difficult for them, particularly the Pakistan members, was that they were acting
under orders.

Concerning Gurdaspur, the memorandum observes:

The reason for this change is understood to be that the headwaters of the canals
which irrigate the Amritsar District lie in the Gurdaspur District and it is important
to keep as much as possible of these canals under one administration.

---

Gurdaspur was linked almost irretrievably with Amritsar by the Upper Bari Doab canal
system; but Ferozepore was equally vital to the canals of the Sutlej Valley Project,
overwhelmingly in Pakistan. Alternatively, if Radcliffe had regarded the majority
population argument as more important than the economic argument, then he ought
to have allocated Gurdaspur, less its Hindu-majority tahsil, to Pakistan. However,
Michel finds that Radcliffe`s solution was right overall, in relation to the greatest of
the canal systems (the Triple Canals Project), in preserving its unity within West
Punjab.

---

Doubtless, careful steps were taken to safeguard the secrecy of details of the award until its publication; but almost certainly Chaudhri Muhammad Ali would pass on to his chief, Liaqat Ali Khan, the news that Gurdaspur District with its bare Muslim majority would not be given to Pakistan.lo On I I August, Liaqat Ali, in an interview with Ismay, told him that if
Gurdaspur were given to India for political reasons, this would constitute a ``breach
of faith`` on the part of the British. On the Congress side, Sardar Patel-perhaps in
consequence of a ``leakage`` of information to him regarding the Bengal boundarybegan
to make it known that the award of the Chittagong Hill Tracts to Pakistan
would be resisted.

---

Radcliffe`s first award-that defining the Bengal boundary-was handed to the Viceroy`s office
late on the evening of Tuesday, 12 August. The Viceroy ``deliberately refrained
from reading it.`` He intended that, in future, no question of doubt could arise about
his influencing the decision. However, V. P. Menon did look at the award, and he
informed the Viceroy that ``Congress would blow up.`` On hearing this, Mountbatten
decided to postpone any announcement until after the I 5th. He was to depart
for the celebration in Karachi at noon next day; he would study the award after his
return to Delhi on Thursday night.

---

Hamdani ji,

A very good article with thought provoking arguments and analysis. But I agree with last two words the most which are `Absurdities abound`. Because if you stretch backwards `74 to `47 or even further to the year when the demand for Pak was first made, the absurdities become even more evident. Had India remained united it would have been a genuinely secular country (even better than what it is today) and then the Pak and the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent would not have to live in foolishness of sectarian divide which abound not only in Pak but in India too with some difference.

Can this be reversed? Just curious. If not, what you foresee about the future of Pak? I for one, see a very violent and hideous future. Really. And allow me to say, it would be for too much of religion.

Samar

dost-mittar #: ``And here is my opinion on this topic in one sentence. Ordinary Pakistani does not ordinarily care about the Mullahs but when the slogan of ``islam khatrei mein is raised``, all bets are off.``

this is an correct statement..........and is true for all religions, historically.........

the ordinary pakistanis (as well as the extraordinary ones) are not a follower of mullahs........they are a follower of religion, but not of the mullah variety.......mullahism and secularism (the only two topics on religion that get discussed on chowk) are totally alien to pakistan........

........take a look at the history of the areas of pakistan.........what was the status of mullahs in this area.........is there any significant islamic orthodoxy that appeared from here........are their tombs of famous orthodox islamic scholars here..........i certainly haven`t seen any.......do name a few........

.........the area is awash with tombs of sufis etc..........they still, till today, get millions of visitors..........the number of people who visit data darbar, alone, today is more than the combined number of people who visit any orthodoxy........data darbar is just one site.......

........the status of a mullah, rightly or wrongly, has been quite low in the geographical areas of pakistan..........read every thing from bulleh shah to heer ranjha to parveen shakir.......

the status of religion, howeve, has been quite high........pakistanis will come out into the street if they think, ``islam khatray mein hae,``.........it is their right to do so...........why shouldn`t they?...............however, they will not come out into the street if they think ``mullah khatray mein hae``........

.........there are three political and social events that have strengthened the mullah`s position, somewhat..........these have nothing to do with religion, however........they are as follows:

- soviet and usa invasion of afghanistan - the mullah was and is on the forefront of fighting the invaders and has, thus, been able to establish some credibility........much like in a non-mullah society, like lebanon, hezbollah has established credibility through fighting israel......

- corrupt non-mullah poltiical entitites - the army and the political parties have all failed pakistan........due to this, mullah is being seen as, perhaps, an alternative........do keep in mind that, despite 60 years of failure of the generals, and ppp`s and pml`s, mullah can still only get 10% of the vote.

- lack of ability of state to provide education - this has led to a proliferation of madrassahs, which provide free education and free lodging to the poorest of kids.........leaving no option for parents to send them there.......though i am quite sure if the govt. opened up a branch of beaconhouse, next to each madrassah, nearly eveyone would send their kids to beaconhouse.........

the historical ethos of the pakistani provinces, is religious, but not mullah.........specifically for sind and punjab..........all mullah influences have come in from outside......much like all secular and western influences are from outside also.........

Samarji,

``Had India remained united``

Read H M Seervai`s ``Partition of India legend and reality`` to see how or who is responsible for what...

But I don`t share your point of view as I find it naive. I thank god every day that we did not turn into another state of the Indian Union... however loosely confederated.

Had that been the case... given that under British rule this region was agriculture and martial hub .... we would still be living under Unionist coalition government of Muslim Landlords and Hindu moneylenders....

Pakistan`s creation... thanks to the civil disobedience of Muslim League and the Communist Party of India ... gave the ordinary Muslim- Ahmadis included- here a fighting chance.. mind you in all of Pakistan - as it exists today- there were only 85 000 industrial workers - mostly seasonally employed- according to Census of India 1930.... as opposed to 400 000 in Bombay alone....

Thus ...in a united India... the situation for us would be infinitely worse then.

M.Asadi,

I can`t affect any decisions of the chowk staff... but if you wish I can get you kicked out of Government College ...

Do you wish that?

#72 now, now, now, there is no need for this kind of threat mantolives (a smirk and a finger wagging icon)

Poor Masada Complex, has had to endure a lot of indignities to reach where he is today, pliss show some mercy on him - and let your ``elitist`` sensibilities reign supreme. After all you, as a member of the elite, can make use of his brains!

Re: # 67

Are you saying that the Hindus and Sikhs migrated to India out of their free will? They didn`t ask for separate country and it was their homeland. They had every right over Pakistan as any other natives and more than the momin immegrants from India.

#70 by bulleya on June 29, 2007 3:16am PT


the ordinary pakistanis (as well as the extraordinary ones) are not a follower of mullahs


we keep hearing that and yet week after week after week we read about some paki busted for terrorism/islamic jihad...and then there`s the whole issue of 60+ pakis in gitmo and no indian muslims....

Yasser,

Now that you have established that Pakistan died in 1974, let us come up with a new name for whatever remains.

I propose - Khakistan!

Named after its rulers.

cobra,

My views on Hindus and Sikhs and their exodus are similar to those of Tahmed... all I am saying is that the whole story must be presented ... which Jang and others like him omit.

Re: # 77 Agreed.

Re: # 71, Hamdani ji,

Sorry, if you don`t consider partition itself as absurd then you should expect much much more absurdities then which abound in Pak today.

By the way, had India been united Pak would have tested the benefits of progressive policies of Nehru and its people would have freed themselves from the shackles of landlords and moneylenders long back. Also, Ahmadis would have been better off in united India. Your claim of Muslims (including Ahmadis) having gained a fighting chance due to creation of Pak is absurd in the light of your article itself.

I wrote my previous post immediately after reading your article only and not all the posts. After reading the posts, including yours, I am a bit disappointed because when you (particularly intellectuals like you) engage in suspecting, scrutinizing and declaring others as Muslims or non-Muslims then what you are left with is Pak where absurdity is bound to abound. This has been the most useless, rather most harmful discussion which I come across very frequently on Chowk. If Chowk is a kind of mirror of Paki intellectual environment then there is no way Pak could be saved (from these absurdities).

Samar

Samar,

As a newcomer u said it well..................but:

Good Riddance for us.

Had India been united, these Qadianis would have been in the forefront chanting `death to Hindus` and all that stuff.

Creation of Pakistan was a Phyrric victory for them.

Despite their sapping life they still dream to destroy us....the leftover India where the dreams of rainbow nationalism is sustained despite the occasional hits to it. However these naysayers take comfort in our poverty, which I think would be a matter of history in 20-30 years time.

The 1974 amendment could not have been done in a more democratic manner. It was strictly in keeping with the same democratic principles that Jinnah envisaged and the author espouses. Nor did ZAB keel over by any pressure of the religious parties as HP states, but in fact tried his best to moderate the outcome. It was all above board and on record.

The public sentiment against mirzaees began with their belligerence exhibited after (1) the Islamic summit in Feb 1974 (during which pamphlets were distributed by opponents re mirzaee claim to khilafat); (2) the anti-Pakistan propaganda initiated by mirzaee machinery in the international press subsequent to the World Muslim Organisation`s unanimous decision (in which 140 Muslim organisations took part) at Makkah in April 1974, that ``Qadianism which calls itself a sect of Islam is a subversive movement against Islam and the Islamic world``; and came to a head with (3) the Rabwah incident of 29 May 1974.

In the Rabwah incident, fifty students from Nishter Medical College, Multan passing through Rabwah on an excursion trip were attacked and badly beaten up leaving 13 in critical condition. The Punjab Government under Hanif Ramay had set up the Justice Samdani Commission to investigate but the demonstrations continued. The demonstrators were blaming Mirza Nasir for directly instigating the attack while the mirzaees were blaming PPP.

Due to public pressure, the Government placed the entire matter before the National Assembly. One resolution was tabled by the then Law Minister, Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, while the other resolution was sponsored by the opposition and moved by Maulana Shah Ahmad Noorani, the then Secretary, Parliamentary group of the Opposition.

Both resolutions were referred by the National Assembly to the `Whole House Special Committee` comprising of leaders of various groups in the Assembly.

Mirza Nasir Ahmad Qadiani, head of Qadiani group and Sadruddin, Amir of Lahori group requested the Committee to hear them in defense. The Committee accepted their request and asked them to explain fully their point of view. Mirza Nasir submitted a written explanation of about 200 pages and was examined and cross-examined by Yahya Bukhtiar, the then Attorney General(AG) of Pakistan.

According to later interviews of the then Speaker of the National Assembly Sahibzada Farooq Ali, there was absolutely no pressure from the (Peoples) party on them and Bhutto and other members of Assembly believed Qadianis were an educated class and would put forth sound arguments in support of their position. However, Mirza Nasir Ahmad gave extremely ridiculous arguments and created a poor impression. During the cross examinations, he miserably failed to present his point of view.

As for the Lahori Jamaat, Sahibzada said:

``We were under the impression that unlike Qadianis, Lahore section of Ahmadiyyat could possibly be saved from being declared a non-Muslim minority as they did not believe in the prophethood of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. But when Sadruddin, the aged leader of Lahore Jamaat presented his point of view to the House it became evident that each Ahmadiyya sect upheld dangerous and confused ideas. During the discussion when we asked the opinion of the House, majority of MNAs strongly maintained that Lahore Jamaat deserved to be declared a non-Muslim minority in the first instance. We did try to save them but there was no scope for it. It transpired that there was little doctrinal differences between the two groups, the real difference was political in nature. It was also felt that Sadruddin himself greatly desired that Lahore Jamaat should be declared non-Muslim minority. He was convinced that his arguments run contrary to his point of view.`` (Sahibzada Farooq Ali`s interview, Jang Magazine, cited in Ahmadiyya Movement, British-Jewsih Connection by Bashir Ahmad)

The Committee accordingly submitted its unanimous verdict.

The above account establishes beyond doubt that it was mass public pressure following the Rabwah incident, and not any mullah pressure, which resulted in a due parliamentary process instituted by ZAB to constitutionally resolve the Qadiani problem in Pakistan 1974.

...dreams of rainbow nationalism are sustained despite the occasional hits.

mantolives #56 Thanks for providing some figures that were quite interesting. I am not denying that muslims in east panjab suffered in larger numbers than the hindus and sikhs in what is now Pakistan. (as you know, my own family was among those who had to flee for their lives from east panjab in 1947).

However, as Pakistanis we should be concerned with wrongs done in Pakistan to hindus and sikhs who lived here before 1947, and I think Pakistan should take some steps to officially recognize this great injustice that was done even as Pakistan was formed. Whether or not the Indian government reciprocates is immaterial, since that is not our responsibility as Pakistanis.

As for jang, while I dont always agree with him, I will say that he is right in a sense in saying that ``Jinnah`s Pakistan`` died when Pakistan was formed as a result of this injustice to hindus and sikhs, if one believes (as you and I do) that Pakistan was meant to be a state where justice prevails.

So, one cannot simply dismiss what jang says by saying he is lying (and you would know from my post interactions that I never hold back from calling a lie if I see one). We can of course say that ``jinnah`s Pakistan died`` is too strong a term - since that would mean the future is hopeless when in fact nothing could be farther from the truth. I strongly believe that Pakistan will steadily move in the direction of becoming a more just state, that islamic-fascism is doomed to be a footnote in Pakistan history (like the kali-worshipping ``thugs`` of India), and that the grass roots Pakistani culture is strong and robust and will ultimately prevail and Pakistan will emerge as the most vibrant society in the region which is the place where it rightfully belongs.

Pakistan died in 1948 itself because it could only ``attract`` 5.5 million Muslims out of a total population of 70 million Muslims from India.........

The Muslims who chose to remain behind in India have to be commended for their foresight,
despite the rhetoric of Jinnah and the antics of Nehru and his chamchas............

Would appreciate Mantolives views on the first point.........

#47 by dost-mittar,

Good post Dost. But tahmed32 won`t be convinced. Many people here mistake the beat from their iPods for the pulse of the people.

As for me, I believe the last category of your statement to be correct. Pakistan is only ``now`` being born as per its original vision as laid down in its Objectives Resolution.

dost-mittar jee: if you think you understand Pakistan based on chowk interactions and online newspapers, then with all due respect sir I would submit that you understand the media and internet dynamics even less than you understand Pakistanis. Thus, to take one example: it is a well known phenomenon that the most timid souls in real life become obnoxious internet warriors as they live out their suppressed desires from the safety of th keyboard.

Similarly, for the media as they say, ``man bites dog`` is news while ``dog bites man`` is not news. While the jay thakerays of India may read a newspaper article titled ``man bites dog`` and use that to affirm their belief that Pakistanis do in fact bite dogs , you ought to know better than to think you understand a country by reading newspapers or watching TV. :-)

Re: # 80, Folio,

I agree with you. In fact, I wrote these posts with Paki perspective in mind. Sadly, they don`t want to understand. All of them barring a few engage in all type of divisive discussions.

Did I write sadly?

Samar

Re: # 84

It did not have to attract them. IOt was our job to kick them out.

We did not and hence all this BS.

Sanatani

Also with a Muhajir majority in Pak it would have been fun to watch the Pisser e Zameen take on the Muhajirs it would have been the peadophile murderer rapists arabia allover again after J`s death