Rest in Peace Pakistan (1947-1974)

`` 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.

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.

Re: # 52 abu_something_bin_gopinath_bin_prabhkarlaxinarayansrinivassunder

[...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....]

The goatbrain has a point... This is what I was pointing to being the mother of all absurdities in the Theatre of Absolute Absurds... Moslems of pure bedouin faith cannot live with hinuds of pagan faith... that`s TNT...

Yet only 5 million moved to pakiland - that too only when we kicked them out...

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.

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.

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