Jinnah and the Islamic State – Setting the Record Straight

Here's a tale of two Pakistani self-haters and defeatists who enjoy every moment of hating themselves and their country: Dr. Pervaiz Hoodbhoy and Asma Jahangir.
Whenever there is a writing project in any newspaper anywhere in the world where they want to bash Pakistan using a Pakistani name, they call one man in Islamabad: Dr. Hoodbhoy. He spews more venom against Pakistan than Hamid Karzai and Bal Thackery - an Indian Hindu terrorist - combined.
Asma Jahangir, another defeatist who went to India to shake the hands of Narendar Modi, the killer of 2500 Indian Muslims, has just volunteered to Hindustan Times to confirm that Mumbai terror was a Pakistani conspiracy [see below].
Here's a letter sent by a Pakistani young man to Dr. Pervaiz Hoodbhoy, a Pakistani self-hater, and received no reply. And then watch Asma Jahangir's video.
Recommendation: We need to start a witch-hunt in Pakistan to cleanse our academia and public life of such self-haters and defeatists who poison the minds of young Pakistanis about their homeland. Such academics and human rights activists should not be allowed to hide behind the freedom of expression.
TO: Dr. Pervaiz A. Hoodbhoy
Professor and Chairman
Physic Department
Quaid-e-Azam University,
Islamabad.
E-mail: hoodb...@lns.mit.edu

NATION WILL NEVER FORGIVE YOU

Dear Dr Pervaiz Hoodbhoy Sahib,

I have been reading your articles and research reports and watching your interviews on different TV channels on different issues. I have tried to go through your articles again and again to satisfy myself that whatsoever you are speaking in the name of freedom of speech is just an ordinary criticism and could be a difference of opinion.
But I regret to say that I am unable to do so. In dozens of your articles and interviews you have never ever said a single positive thing about Pakistan and have always tried to portray a false picture of Pakistan, according to which Pakistan is a failed state. Whether it's the issue of extremism, or Pakistan's nuclear assets, or Pak-India relations, or if there is an issue of western and Indian allegations, you have always come up with your nasty ideas to prove to the world community that whatever the enemies of Pakistan are saying, you are more than happy to say it from them, using a Pakistani identity, which is an act for which you feel no shame.

I am not sure if Pakistanis have seen your massive one-man campaign against Pakistan where you have alleged that we are not capable of retaining our nuclear assets. Or, now, after the Mumbai attacks, when even the cheapest of Pakistani politicians have shown some kind of patriotism and unity for the sake of Pakistan, at this crucial time again you are trying to prove what the enemies of Pakistan are trying to do. I fail to understand what motivates you except gaining popularity in West or even in India.

India is a so-called democracy where low caste Hindus, Christians and Muslims are burned alive [a ritual unique to India, doesn't happen anywhere else], where Hindu extremists are in the government, where groups like Bajrang Dal are trained in Indian Army schools. But India seems like Switzerland after reading one of your articles on India, especially the one you wrote recently after a visit to India. India's terrorist and rogue intelligence agency, RAW, which is funding and supporting separatist movements in our tribal belt and in Balochistan, continues to be an untouchable issue for you. What really is important for you is to put all your efforts toward portraying a negative Pakistan.

I give you an example from the history which you will find self explanatory in reference to our current scenario.

I am not sure if our enemies will impose a war on Pakistan or not but at this crucial stage all your efforts to distort Pakistan's image is not going to remain unnoticed and the nation will never forgive you for what you have done.

Wassalam.

Waqas Ahmed
Muscat, Sultanate of Oman

Re: # 270
This is partially true. In West Bengal, moslems are basically descendents of lower caste people and are looked down upon due to the economic /social class. This is not particular to moslems. With time, due to good governence, the social disparity has almost disappeared and thus, large section of OBC and significant number of SC/ST has joined the so called mainstream middle class. Furthermore, those who has migrated from East Bengal, were the cream of the society there. To compete, in any field with them is not mean task.They are who's who of the world ( Pandit Ravisankar, Satyajit Ray , Amartya Sen, Dr. Satyen Bose etc...) . Anywhere in the world, moslems are not that advanced to compete with these people educationally/culturally.So, without any specific discrimination, for pure academic reason, moslems are the most backward people after the tribals in western bengal.

Re: # 360

jameel

You say:

"It’s a fashion these days to pass sweeping statements concerning Islam by looking at the muslims. The gap is very wide."

There is no gap dear. Can you define the 'Muslim' in term of Quran. Munir had failed to do that. 'Muslim' simply means one who surrenders, not necessarily to God alone.

It’s a fashion these days to pass sweeping statements concerning Islam by looking at the muslims. The gap is very wide. Writer would have known this if he ever read Quran with an intention to understand it.
Be it Zia Ahmed’s Linguistic Imperialism or what ever Khalid Suhail writes and even from Beena Sarwar, they are all meant to divide the people as us and you. Us the intelligent and you the stupid. If God is an illusion for them there is no point in talking about illusions. Islam has always been a soft target. It is often ridiculed by those born in muslim homes. These and many more writers try to philosophy simple issues and present it as a revolutionary thought and most essential to the world. Editors should not allow Chowk to become instrumental in spreading their delusions.

Re: # 358

Woh to Lal Qille pih Jhanda lehrana chahte the magar hua kia. Bengali aksariat ne Musalmani aksariat ke khilaf vote de dia(vote hi nahein dia balkih lakhon jaanoon ki qurbaani di) aur yoon Quide Azam ke Pakistan ko hi torh ke rakh dia. Aur aaj jisko Pakistan kaha jata he wahaan musalmanon ka kia hashar ho raha he.

What a homeland for muslims it has come out to be that they are trying every mean to run away from lt.

Why Pakistan was created? I don't understand what was the need by the professor to waste so much of his time and energy in finding the answer rather than paying more attention to his own filed of study ?


The simple answer is:

The unarguable fact is that the Muslims of India wanted a separate homeland of theirs and they struggled for it until they succeeded in creating such a homeland in the shape of Pakistan!

Twisting and distorting the Quaids speeches such as follows is just to appease the mentally upset people who unfortunately call them as 'liberal muslims'' instead of hypocrites, that what they are. They often refer to Quaid's foll apeeches:

“You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed – that has nothing to do with the business of the State…. You will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.� [Aug 11, 1947, Jinnah’s address to the First Constituent Assembly]



Similarly, Jinnah had indeed come out forcefully against theocracy:

"Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non-Muslims-Hindus, Christians and Parsis – but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan." [Feb. 1948, Jinnah’s broadcast address to the people of the United States of America]


It is clear from these speeches that:
1. A land of the Muslims has to be governed by the laws of Islam otherwise, as a matter of common sense, one can ask as to why did the Muslim's aspire for a separate homeland of theirs??

The writer and many of his like conceal the fact that minorities have complete rights in a Muslim or Islamic state except that which is not permitted by the injunctions of faith. It's nonsense to say that minorities are not enjoying equal social rights in Pakistan. On the contrary they are better off than many Muslims! If observing Namaz,roza, zakat, zakat,jihad, hajj are mechanisms of Talibansm then let us stop calling us Muslims. The writer is just trying to confuse and confound Islamic teachings with some of the wrong interpretations made by the Taliban or so called fundamentals. Let us join hands to bring those people in line with our faith rather than demean it through unscrupulous propagands , especially that relating to the rights of minorities and influencing governance.

Re: # 354

More little knowledge. The GOI did not declare Jinnah's house enemy property and it was not confiscated.

The legal status is quite clear.

Re: # 346

Again Harimau... little knowledge is very dangerous and you never cease to amaze me with how little you actually know.

Gandhi agreed and put his john hancock to an agreement:


The Congress does not challenge but accepts that the Muslim League now is the authoritative representative of an overwhelming majority of the Muslims of India. As such and in accordance with democratic principles they alone have today an unquestionable right to represent the Muslims of India. But the Congress does not agree that any restriction or limitation should be put upon the Congress to choose such representatives as they think proper from amongst the members of the Congress.

Gandhi agreed to it and signed it. So did Jinnah. This meant that both parties moved fundamentally from their extreme positions? Gandhi accepted that Jinnah had the right to speak for Muslims alone and Jinnah accepted that Congress could nominate Muslim members from their own party to the government.


Now coming to your comment about Mandal... even if we accept your notion about the interim government... one wonders why Jinnah agreed to make him the Law Minister though... your claim falls flat on its face as usual.

Re: # 345

Isn't it ironic that you claim that Jinnah - the middle class hero - was a facilitator but the greatest benefactor of feudals - archetypal feudal ZAB- was a hero...Wow. Amazing logic

Ref mohar11 #138

[But then J-man was already dead... too bad, the guy didn't live to see the cr@p unfold - it would have been quite a spectacle - both J-man and his "law minister" high-tailing together out of pakiland via wagah border :) ]

Jinnah-bhai was already planning to leave the Land of the Pure and retire in his palatial home in Bombay... except that India declared his house to be Enemy Property and confiscated it. So, Jinnah-bhai had no choice but to live and die in the Land of the Pure.

When Altaf Hussain of the MQM says that the partition of India was the biggest blunder, many Pakistanis scoff at him even calling him a traitor. But the fact is he is dead right.
Even the renowned and respected Islamic scholar Dr Rafiq Zakaria, father of Newsweek editor Fareed Zakaria, Minister in the state of Bombay and then Maharashtra, till the end of his life maintained that the partition of India was the biggest tragedy for it baecame the source of untold misery for Muslims of India.
MAJ in his speeches trying to justify his folly often referred to Muslims in India as a minority who faced a bleak future in undivided India. This is proving to be quite a misleading statement. If India were undivided today, of the population of 135 crore, Muslims would be approximately 50 Crore and Hindus would be 85 crore. That makes a ratio of 5:8. The ratio would have been ideal to ensure that Hindus would not been a overwhelming majority while the Muslims would not be a pushoverable minority. Just the right balance to ensure a happy secular state.
Surely crores of people would not have had to leave their hearths, the only expenditure on defence would have been in facing Chinese monster , the old Hindustani culture would have been preserved, in short, there would have been a lot of harmony and much less misery in the subcontinent.
But as fate would have it, a whisky guzzling, pork eating Muslim grandson of a Hindu parent managed to sway an undecided part of the population to separate, and there we are, two poor countries ready to go at each other's throats at the slightest excuse.
Wah re Quaid!

Ref Mullah32 #156

[Urstruly #153.... have you edited the Quran to take out inconvenient references to being honest in order to make room for maudoodism?]

How about editing the Koran to take out all references to killing the kaffirs put in by the Prophet to End All Prophets, viz. Mohammad bin Camel?

Ref anil #189

[What I have not been able to find is once the decline of the Mughals had set in, why Hindus could not come in to fill it?]

Read the history books again.

The Mahrattas were knocking at the doors of Delhi. Look at a 1855 map of India.

Who ruled Gwalior? Here is a clue: it was not a Muslim.

Ref diarrhea-i-dil #203

[By seeing the reports which borivilli_express..sent ...i wonder ..how cheap ..a human ..can fall to...by rapping innocent girls..and women..andsd then burning them alive...LANAT on all those..and all who support them even in heart...]

Ask that of Indonesian Muslims who, when they rioted against Suharto, raped Chinese women.

Exactly what was the complicity of Chinese women in the misrule of Suharto?

Ref borivili_express #205

I notice you have nothing to say about the burning of 60+ Hindu pilgrims at Godhra which PRECEDED this retaliation by Hindus.

Understand one thing: the Moguls are not in power in India for Muslim atrocities against Hindus to go unpunished.

Notice how the Muslims of Gujarat haven't attacked any Hindu pilgrims again. At least you people are fast learners.

Ref harish_hyd # 225

[Sure..the ML which campaigned for a separate nation on the basis of religious differences was non-communal and the Congress which called for a united India was communal. So what else is new?]

Isn't that the view in India too today? That the Muslim League is a non-communal party fit to be included in the UPA but the BJP is a communal party?

Don't blame rozaiba or any other Pakistani when Jwahirullah Nehru and his followers hold the identical opinion.

Ref zeemax #232

[I don't subscribe to this common ancestry theory. Hamidm2 does. We are a different people altogether, genetically.]

Most humanity is 98% chimpanzee in that that is the amount of DNA common to both species.

Maybe you are claiming Muslims have the additional 2% chimp DNA.

Ref Yasser Latif Hamdani #244

[Jogindranath Mandal's appointment as a law minister indicates one of the two things below:

1. Either Jinnah did not intend to Islamise the laws or else he would have chosen an Islamic scholar to head the law ministry but he didn't. He chose a Hindu.

or

2. Jinnah believed even qualified Non-muslims could interpret and vet bills trying to introduce Islamic law.

Given that Mandal was a lawyer and not a scholar of Islam or Islamic laws (unlike say the Parsi D F Mulla) ... it can be said that it was not a decision made because Jinnah thought Mandal was the best suited scholar for Islam even if Hindu... Remember Mandal was before this chosen to represent the Muslims at the interim government in United India by Jinnah.


Add to this the fact that during all Powerful Jinnah's government, not a single piece of legislation was enacted that sought to Islamise Pakistan... we can safely conclude that Jinnah's choice of Mandal as the law minister was a strong message sent to his followers.]

Yasser, dear boy, Jogendra Nath Mondal was a prototype of what Pakistan is today: a condom which is to be discarded after its usefulness is over.

Don't read anything more than that into Jinnah-bhai's use of Mondal.

And Jinnah-bhai did NOT appoint Mondal to represent the Muslims at the interim government in United India. Jinnah-bhai, failing in his claim that only he represented all the Muslims and that Congress had no right to appoint Muslim members of the Interim Government even if they were members of the Congress (particularly IF they were members of the Congress) then claimed that he was the representative of the Backward Castes too and to prove that gave up one valuable Muslim League appointment to install Mondal in the government.

When Mondal realized exactly what he was up against in the real world of Pakistan, he figured being a Backward Caste person India at least guaranteed him his life whereas being a non-Muslim in Pakistan deprived him of even this basic right and decided to return to India.

Do not attempt to whitewash the genocidal crimes of one of the guiltiest criminals of the modern world.

The greatest facilitator of the feudals and the colonials was MAJ who using the excuse of Muslims of India, using them as scapegoats and killing over a million of them, worked to protect the landed aristocracy of West Pakistan from the rural uprisings in India that were capitalized by Gandhi. ZAB was the one that challenged those feudal elite for the first time ever representing the rural masses.

With all respect and appreciation for Qaaide Aazam, I wonder why should he be taken as the final authority. He did his job as a leader, but he was not the last prophet. Whatever might have been his views, he has to be measured by the yardstick and on the touchstone of the Quran and Hadeeth. In fact he was not the Qaaide Aazam (the paramount leader), he was a Qaaid. Qaaide Aazam is none bu Muhammad PBUH.

ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN (Just the name)

Please do not get fooled by the name. The name is there to fool only the non-english speaking and illiterate mullahs and pro talibans in the Pakland.

Regardless of what one calls Pakistan, it is certainly secular in nature. Pakistan is free-er than USA and India combined.

This is why:

1) One is free to do the five pillars of Islam and even preach the religion.

2) Alcohol is available through the permit shops.

3) Prostitution is rampant.

4) Jirga and sardari system is also rampant, basically running a parallel legal system.

5) One is free to do honor killings

6) One can marry his daughter or sister to Quran.

7) You can even give your daughter or sister to your enemy if for some reason you have committed murder and now you are shitting in your shalwar and trying to save your life.

8) Build your house anywhere you like on anyone’s land.

9) Want to keep a weapon, no problem, keep any thing you want. Stingers are also available if you got the dough.

10) Bribes are now the law of the land.

11) Instead of hiring a lawyer, you can hire a judge thus making sure you get the outcome you want out of a case.

12) If you are fed up with the interest based system, no problem, we have profit and loss sharing accounts available.

13) Like to have more than one wife, you are free to have up to four at a time.

So why is Hoodbhoy is still caught up with this discussion about Islamic Pakistan or Secular Pakistan is beyond my comprehension. We are by any means SECULAR and beyond. In fact we should start calling Pakistan THE SECUALR COUNTRY in the world.

Asfand Siddiqui
Sacramento CA

Re: # 341

montolives

You are right that I have not read much either about Gandhi or Jinnah. As a young boy I had seen Jinnah very close by so much so that I could have touched him, but I had got too overwhelmed by his transcendent personality to do so. In fact I never saw another leader like him all my life. As regards opposition against him and the Pakistan movement by the so called Islamists who can know better than my generation.

I will read your article at leisure. Meanwhile I would like you to read an interesting article by Ehjaz Haider which appeared in the Daily Times a few days back:

"THE OTHER COLUMN: Not enough — Ejaz Haider
What does one do when an entire people decide to become grumpy or Thornapplesque. It is difficult to send millions on a vacation, except perhaps to Antarctica; they can’t all be sent to shrinks either

Growing up, life was simple.

Bhutto Sahib had emerged as a Messiah, Punjabi cinema was trying to be erotic and failing only because of lousy production and the size of heroines, people generally considered it bad form to blow themselves up, the Ahmadiyya were still Muslims and bootleggers were unheard of.

In other words, God was in His Heaven and all was right with this country and we didn’t need a Browning to tell us this.

This was also the time when we were confident of being Muslim. In any case, it was easy enough to be one. It didn’t prevent us from smiling, laughing and enjoying all that makes life worth living. The elders would pray for us while we did our own thing; the chidings, when they came, were begotten of affection, and we all said our little prayers at night to a benign and understanding God while smoking on the sly, truanting and generally being naughty.

Then at some point we decided that we were not Muslim-enough, a vexing thought that has since snowballed into an avalanche under which we all lie buried and asphyxiated.

One doesn’t need to be a shrink to know how debilitating the feeling of inadequacy can be. If we are supposed to be Muslim but aren’t Muslim-enough, it must make us irritable and mad.

Indeed, the feeling of not being anything-enough can be killing as Brutus Thornapple, the born loser, will tell anyone. My personal favourite is the one in which Thornapple is on a shrink’s couch and the shrink asks: “So, you think you suffer from feelings of inadequacy. How severe would you say they are?�

Thornapple replies: “They’re so severe... Even my inferiority complex is inadequate!�

Not being enough-anything no one wants to be. Women who think they are not endowed-enough want to change that and are, in most cases, prepared to go through much trouble and pain. For what: to be enough, adequate.

From the emails I get despite all the firewalls and filters, it seems to me that even men have been afflicted with the I-ain’t-adequate syndrome. There are ways and means to enhance the sense of manhood and from the traffic of unwanted mail it appears there is a market for this fraud. Clearly, some men are prepared to take all sorts of risks to become man-enough, adequate. The mind boggles.

But imagine. If the feeling of being not-enough in the secular — by which I mean biological — domain can make people accept so much risk and absorb so much pain, what might man not be capable of doing unto himself and others if he were struck by the thought one day, as we seem to have been, that he is not Muslim-enough?

Such then has been our plight. Add to this the fact that every time we think we are now Muslim-enough, someone stands up and warns, “Damned be him who says enough!�

Such a one is also normally a gentleman who has taken it upon himself to tell us that all our troubles are owed to our remaining inadequate and because there is not enough Islam in this land. If empirical evidence is anything to go by, and by this I mean the legislation, the increased and increasing pieties, the number of mosques and seminaries, the rhetoric, the extremism and a host of other indicators, then I would take the presumption of saying that at no time in this land has there been more Islam than there is now and I include the period right up to the time of Mohammad bin Qasim to which our history textbooks retrace the Two-Nation theory.

And yet, we contest our quantification of how much Islam there already is and how much more of it is needed, an exercise whose absurdity reminds me of the two Sardars on a motorbike fighting for the window seat.

It seems like we have reached a point where God is either not in Heaven or all is not right with us. Since I am not aware of the current position of the Lord, I suspect the trouble is more imminent than transcendent which, translated into plain English means all’s not right with us.

In normal life when someone is agitated or frustrated or unhappy with the state of affairs, we advise him to relax, go on a vacation, let his hair down and so on. But what does one do when an entire people decide to become grumpy or Thornapplesque. It is difficult to send millions on a vacation, except of the kind that was available to people in the former Soviet Union; neither can millions be sent to shrinks. What to do?

It’s a tough one. Those who have brought us to this pass insist that we are suffering because we are inadequate; but the more we try to be adequate the more inadequate we become. The equation is insoluble. Small wonder that some of us have decided to blow themselves and others up than to live with such a great feeling of inadequacy.

Life, downhill, is not simple anymore.

Ejaz Haider is Consulting Editor of The Friday Times and Op-Ed Editor of Daily Times. He can be reached at sapper@dailytimes.com.pk"

"The way to hell is paved with good intentions" as GBS had said.

Teshah,

Then you've obviously not read much about Jinnah. Jinnah was for 30 years completely committed to Hindu Muslim Unity.
He was more interested in British giving India to Indians than Gandhi ever was. Please read my article here:http://pakistaniat.com/2006/12/25/pakistan-jinnah-legislative-career/

I hope you know Gandhi was a loyal British recruiter and was probably planted to give British an excuse not to give responsible dominion status to India in 1925.

And Jinnah's Two Nation Theory- if you can call it that since it was hardly his- a theory aiming at consociationalism- has nothing to do with the extremist Islamists. Remember they were his biggest opponents calling him Kafir-e-Azam and Pakistan "Kafiristan".

Re: # 336

montolives

He may be, but he was interested more in his TNT than in 'Quit India' by the British. In cosequence; what happened as a result of all this was a carnage unprecedented in history; first, in 1947 and again in 1971.

The history of Pakistan
can be summed up in a single line:
'Jinnah's English created Pakistan and his ill-advised and undemocratic insistence on Urdu to be treated as a national language broke it'.

Where we stand today: the 'TNT', a political weapon for advocating Partition of India used by Jinnah, is being used by the extremists to day as a murderous weapon to kill people indiscriminately all over the world.

So, what had started with Gandhi's 'Aahinsa' (Non-violence) and Jinnah's TNT has brought us virtually to the brink of a war against civilization.

May God help us!

Regards

to partition each and every village of India i.e creating Pakistn in every village and town of India.

I already said that Jinnah talked abt population exchange.
Either Jinnah must be a moron or it must be u.

Re: # 334

I've already responded to this Folio.

There was really no locus standi for the Congress to insist on the partition of Punjab and Bengal and if it did , every province of India should have similarly partitioned.

Re: # 335

Dear Teshah,

If you look at the time line, Jinnah was on the scene way before Gandhi.

Re: # 325
Montolives

Thank you for your generous remarks about me. 'Man aanum kih man daanam' (I am what I know I am). All else is a myth. Gandhi was a myth and Jinnah was a myth. All passing shows. 'Rahe naam Allah ka'. 'Saancha naam uska, baaqi sab jhoot'.

I belong to the generation which saw all this passing show in the history of the subcontinent in their conscious lives. We saw the majestic power of the British Imperialism when dogs and Indians were not allowed in railway restaurants. It was that 'Dhoti Badshah' Gandhi who dared to stand up against that disgraceful position to which the Indians had been submissively subjected to by the awe of the British Raj. It was he who restored the dignity of the Indians and gave them courage to rise up against the imperialism. Jinnah came later on the scene and served as a good and sincere lawyer for the Muslim community of India. Later on he was also disappointed with the way Pakistan was actually established. In my view it would have been better if Pakistan, an unprecedented new State, was established via the Cabinet Plan.

Btw, I would suggest you to read Gandhi's book 'My experiment with the truth' wherein he himself talks humorously about his 'Mahatamai' also, which according to him was thrust upon him.

OK, lemme put it this way:

U keep saying the permanent majority in India has right to oppress the permanent minority but when it came to the Pakistan provinces the permanent majority had unfettered rights to eff the minorities.

Is that what u want to say?......how can u speak from both sides, bratha?

1937 to 1946 Muslim League's share increased and the Congress' share decreased...

in Pak provinces, thanks 2 vicious communal propaganda. That's correct.

U keep saying the permanent majority in Pak provinces had unfettered right to oppress the permanent minority but when it came to the whole of India, the Golden Rule need to to be set aside.

Is that what u want to say?......how can u speak from both sides, bratha?

Mian Folio,

This is a pathetic argument. The Congress electorate was based on the same franchise. By questioning the credentials of the electorate, you are challenging Congress' representative status more ... Congress by that logic was as unrepresentative as any other party.

Of the electorate... Muslim League won 87% of the vote. So what is your point?

And besides...as the electorate expanded from 1937 to 1946 Muslim League's share increased and the Congress' share decreased...

All evidence points towards this trend. So please atleast try and get your arguments straight.

Manto,

How can an electorate of less than 13% who votes a party i.e Muslim League can decide the fate of more than 90% of the people? You think this is the democratic principle?

You mean that ML has unfettered right to treat the unwilling 47%+ Muslims who haven't voted for ML as sheep?

Rubbish, even to propose such idea!

Granted ur victorious ML as the arbiter of justice then why the same was not conceded in NWFP where the elected Congress govt was in power?

This is typical Muslim bania (Jinnah) mentality i.e always seeking 17 annas for a rupee.

As for ALL the districts going to Pakistan, Jinnah had proposed migration of Muslims from other parts of India and migration of non-Muslims to Hindustan. U think Jinnah was stupid or lacked commonsense?

It's Jinnah and his pocketborough i.e Muslim League that was cynical.

No Folio mian that does not follow. Please consider the following:

The demand for Pakistan was couched in constituent units re-formulating a new center. Remember since the Two Nation Theory was Muslim League's slogan and Muslim League won the election on its basis not the Congress, Muslim League alone had the locus standi to explain it.

Now consider what Congress did. It said it did not believe in the two nation theory but then insisted on dividing Punjab and Bengal on its basis. Now if we say this was fair... then by that logic all Muslim districts everywhere in India should have gone to Pakistan. Then you have small ghettos of Pakistan in India... and small ghettos of India in Pakistan.

That was only logical conclusion to Congress' cynical use of the two nation theory.

that a permanent majority ought not to by its sheer numeric majority dominate a permanent minority.

Mantolives,

By the same logic the partition of Punjab and Bengal was well justified.

Thanks.

Re: # 322

And this one too... my response to this post is also based on a collossal misreading of your post.

I apologise.

Re: # 184

Teshah,

I might have misread this post and I agree with your general sentiment in it.

Re: # 307

This is absolute nonsense. Gandhi the politician had no humanity whatsoever let alone one which challenged British imperialism. This is just a repetition of a lie.

Besides... anyone who seeks guidance for politics from a dogma and "an ancient wisdom" for 3000 years ago for a modern society and nation-making... is the real Abu jehl... Gandhi did all that. He indeed was the Abu-Jehl of the modern times.


I have spent some time reading Gandhi's collected works and I don't see any evidence or cause of optimism for such naivety of changing a racist casteist hindu fascist bigot like Gandhi into some sort of a symbol of humanity.

Time will vindicate me on this issue.... once this dust settles.

Teshah,

Jinnah never said Hindus and Muslims could not live together... what he said clearly was that a permanent majority ought not to by its sheer numeric majority dominate a permanent minority. People like Harish etc simplify the argument in order to distort it.

Here is Gandhi himself acknowledging that Jinnah's vision of Pakistan was inclusive. After Gandhi Jinnah talks in 1944... Gandhi wrote as under: “Jinnah drew a very alluring picture of the Government of Pakistan. It would be a perfect democracy. I asked him what would happen to the other minorities in Pakistan: Sikhs, Christians, etc. He said they would be part of Pakistan. I asked him if he meant joint electorates. He said, yes, he would like them to be part of the whole.(The collected works of Mahatama Gandhi Volume-78).


Furthermore... historical evidence shows that Muslim League had support in UP before the Pakistan idea. In 1937's elections where Muslim League lost out Unionist Party in Punjab etc... in UP Muslim League won all the Muslim seats. It was after an offer for coalition was rejected that Muslim League realised the importance of majority provinces.

Pakistan slogan was raised not to mobilise Muslims of UP who were already in the Muslim League ... but to mobilise Muslims of this region ... who had been clamoring for a separate state atleast 50 years prior to 1940's resolution.
I suggest you read K K Aziz's views on this.

I know that you were in your youth involved with Pakistan Movement and supported Quaid-e-Azam. It is far more important for you to shed light on the topic at hand then re-visiting and trying to re-open a debate on whether partition was right or wrong because it is an established fact of history, which people like me will never allow to be subverted inshallah.

Rashid_s,

We've discussed the reality of Gandhi many times and I can discuss it again if people wish to.

I hope that one day humanity will sift through the hoopla and discover the real Gandhi for itself. That day I am sure, I would be remembered as someone who dared to go against mass hysteria gripping some people regarding this fellow they've taken to call Mahatma.

Teshah @307
No, I did not blame Gandhi Ji for 'bad blood'. Only that he as a prominent political figure introduced the dichotomy of “religiosity� and “politics� which gave an impetus to religious fanatics on both sides.
Where as, I believe, Mr Nehru and Mr Jinnah were on par.
As I said , there is nothing wrong in two siblings living in their separate houses, even in the same compound.
Rashid

Re: # 206

Harish

But ironically Pakistan was established in the regions where Muslims could live with Hindus but the latter could not do so.

After Gandhi Jinnah talks in 1944... Gandhi wrote as under: “Jinnah drew a very alluring picture of the Government of Pakistan. It would be a perfect democracy. I asked him what would happen to the other minorities in Pakistan: Sikhs, Christians, etc. He said they would be part of Pakistan. I asked him if he meant joint electorates. He said, yes, he would like them to be part of the whole.(The collected works of Mahatama Gandhi Volume-78).

And

In the interview to Weldon James of the Collier’s Weekly magazine, on or about 25th August, 1947 the Quaid said:

“We expect to evolve a progressive, democratic government, in line with the Muslim belief in the equality of all men, and to work for international peace. As I have said many times before, Pakistan guarantees the just and equal treatment of all citizens, Muslim or non-Muslim, with freedom of worship, speech, press and assembly...

“There are fanatics in all countries; and of course we have some. But the present ‘troubles’ are a hangover from old political alignments and quarrels, stirred up from the outside, and I do not expect any great internal difficulties anywhere in Pakistan. At last Pakistan has been established and now we are free and independent nation to mould, build and reconstruct and in this great task we need goodwill and friendship of all great nations�. (Quaid-e-Azam papers F. 135-GG/5-10).

Re: # 312

Harish mian,

I did not term zeemax Islamist. I was commenting on your description of Islamists.Even the biggest weasel comment was addressed to someone else.

#307 Posted by teshah on August 16, 2007 8:52:43 pm

Sir, Let me thank u for this ack.

"they dont dance shamelessly ..as indian girls.."

Hey, dancing is beautiful. Ther is nothing shaeful about dancing. Those who do not dance are full of supressed emotions. They sit tightly with their constipated look all the time.

Dancers have alovely glow on their face- they look so happy and contented.

OTOH, these hijabins look like tied up goats about to be slaughtered.

# 316thanks hraish hyderabadai accepted pakistan as a nuclear soveriegn state....

are all indians also agree with me ????????

plz..all indians ..i want your answer...

do you laso agree with harish...

#315 by diarrhea-i-dil

OK.

and for god sake ...forget about the


cocept of


Akhand Bharat


in the sugar caoting of


we were same....

lets unite again


lets open the borders


lets have joint films industry


lets have joint holi and rakhi


lets have joint commerce and trade



as they know...


we are now nuclear power...so instead of war....

kill muslims by joint culture dramai bazi...


mind it....


we have nothing common in culture....


muslims girls are pearls..in hijaab....


they dont dance shamelessly ..as indian girls..


our nothing is common....


forget about that ...pakistan ..will ver ..be in the colours of indian..culturally...


just forget about taht...

Re: # 313

Muslims can sacrifice the whole indian land on one sand grain of Medina ....

we can left india..even our life ...not Islam..mind it...


who the hell anyone to suggest that muslims should take off thier islam...

who the hell you are to suggest " Mixing" of inter faith...


we are different

we were different...


and we will remain as different..

there is nothing common between you and us...

no matter that if hese indians muslims live with you...for 1000 years...


there is nothing common ....

our faith and ideology..is far far most important thing to us....


we send LANAT to Dharti Mata concept...

#310 Posted by echoboom

[But Ajeya lately the way the neighborhoods are getting segregated in certain cities on communal basis is really frightening. It bodes a future for muslims like Palestinians in Israel.]

I can tell you as a Hindu that your fears are 100% unfounded. Yes, 100%.

Hindus are not out to convert anyone, so there is no question of "hating" anyone unless there is a perceived threat. The common Hindus are rather cowlike in their tolerance.

I think if Muslims stopped wearing their religion on their sleeve, it would help things a lot. You can't tell a person if he is Hindu or Christian - but you can say if he is Muslim by the way many Muslims choose to dress. It is not only freedom to wear anything you want - some people also do it as a defiant statement of their religiosity. Of course, some people will always dress in the traditional religious way, but the majority should blend in.

There should also be a general awakening in the Muslim community - and people speaking up against things like terrorism. They should stop talking about "root cause" and "muslim anger" and just concentrate on the here and now.

None of this would be permanent without a major edit of the koran and your prophet's life story.

None of this will probably ever happen, but one can always wish.

# various by Yasser and Rozaiba

The very fact that you're so eager to agree with zeemax, whom you termed an Islamist just a few posts earlier, just shows how well you've turned taking U-turns into an art in itself.

#248 Posted by zeemax

It was the Muslim Sub-Continent and later the British-Subcontinent in over a thousand years, and pagan before that. There was never any Bharat Maata. So what's the problem if Muslims chose to just take the North West for themselves as Pakistan?

Sorry, but I beg to disagree. Muslims controlled India for almost 800 years just as the British ruled it for a couple of hundred years later. But a large part of Muslim have roots in India going back several centuries which is why for all pratical purposes, they ARE Indians. And yes, we're OK with NW India being called Pakistan, we're all better off for it.

Why can't you accept it and work as S. Asians together with Islamists or whoever controls Pakistan?

Just what makes you think we haven't accepted it? The proponents of the "Akhand Bharat" theory are a few loonies whom nobody, not even a diehard Hindu, would take seriously. On Chowk, only Pakis seem to take it seriously. Have you noticed any Indian advocate it?

What's your problem with Pakistan when it isn't even a 'theocracy' nor likely to become one?

So long as Pakistan leaves India alone, we would have absolutely no problem with it. India's problems with Pakistan arise because of Pakistan's support to Kashmiri terrorists.

Ayeja:

When I read this I too was surprised. If it was in Mumbai or Delhi it would not be "newsy" for me. West Bengal, Calcutta & Jyoti Basu mean a lot to me..and so does Kerala & generally the whole Tamil-Naad.

It is nice that you spoke up.

I myself posted a report by Dr. Israr Ahmed, a very fundamentalist mullah maulana and Aalim who has a very large
following in Pakistan, about his joy and appreciation for the non-muslims in Panjab whop went out of their way to help him have his jalsaas in the open. If I find it I'll post it again. He was very well received by the BJP government the & there was no sham Ooons photo-op type because Dr. Israr Ahmed is not in politics. The Ooons despise him because his Tanzeem-i-Islami organisation is immensely successful. I, like many others, learn a lot from his Quraan exegesis recorded on video. This should not let you think that I subscribe to him or his party in any way or form.


But Ajeya lately the way the neighborhoods are getting segregated in certain cities on communal basis is really frightening. It bodes a future for muslims like Palestinians in Israel. I have seen Exclusively Urdu-real estate sign boards just to hint that who should buy in those new sub-divisions. Similarly Exclusively Hindi sign boards steer
are meant to steer only hindus there. Only the Cosmopolitan areas , where the westoxicated KanjarRs congregate, are the signs only in english..to spit both on Hindus & muslims & with subtleness advising them to to go ahead & flaunt their maader-Rate & Maader-RUNS with impunity.

Clifton bi,

On June 28, 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that non-Muslims may vote for any candidate at the Union Council level for seats reserved for mayor, deputy mayor, laborers, farmers, and women. However, non-Muslims still are barred from voting for Muslim candidates who run for general seats. Three of the five rounds of elections already had occurred prior to this ruling. Few non-Muslims are active in the country's mainstream political parties. Christian and Hindu leaders conducted a boycott to protest against the system of separate electorates during the local elections.

#270 Posted by echoboom

[In India, many members of religious minority hide the signs of their faith to escape discrimination]

The job of Islamic communalists is to spread lies and hatred for the "other", i.e. non-muslims.

EVERYTHING this perverted liar says is untrue.

I have stayed in Calcutta for many years. It would be difficult to find a bunch of Indians who are less communal. Even today, every year, they celebrate the birthday of the famous Bengali Muslim poet Kazi Nazrul Islam. Bengali programs are sprinkled with themes and characters drawn from the Muslim community. There are several highly respected Muslim politicians in West Bengal, like A.G. Khan Chowdhury.

What this Islamist fails to mention are the following facts:

1) All the people he talks about are IMMIGRANTS from Bangladesh.

2) For the last several decades, the Communist Party has won its elections with the collusion of these people who, for the promise of a ration-card, were willing to do ANYTHING for the Communist Party. They would go around in bus-loads and vote for different politicians in different districts many times over.

3) Some of these thugs are so strong today, that they terrorize whom they want, when they want. Recently, even Buddhadeb Bhattacharya admitted that "something has to be done about this".

4) These illegal immigrants have taken over huge areas of land, and in a country that is short of resources, they are looked upon as intruders.

5) Combine with that the fact that these SAME people who are coming across now were the people who killed Hindus by the thousands during Partition, just because they were Hindus.

Put all of this together, and it is easy to see why there is a strong dislike for them in the state.

Last time I went to Calcutta, I remember, in the middle of a previously quiet middle-class educated neighbourhood, some Muslim immigrants had erected a pale-green monstrosity of a Mosque, with the usual loudspeakers attached at the top. It looked as out-of-place as the monstrous and alien ideology it represented.

Re: # 202

Rashid

I fully agree with the following statement of yours:

"His statement of "Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests� is very significant, particularly when one notes the words -theocracy and priests -which is a clear reference to church (Iqbal also calls it a church), and its operatives who we know are shackled to the centuries old Sharia and believe it to be divine.
Significantly he differentiated between “Religion� and Islam where the dignity of mankind is supreme. And the State is charged with the responsibility of maintaining it."

But I don't agree with you when you hold Gandhi Ji responsible for bad blood among the Hindus and Muslims. It was in fact the humanity of Gandhi Ji which shook the very foundations of British Imperialism. Gandhi Ji, on his part, strived all his life for creating brotherly relations among Hindus and Muslim and gave his life even for that very cause.

Re: # 301

Echo ji,

thanks for the nasihat. You are a respected maulavi of the chowk. You daily sermons get unfortunately filtered by chowk, yet your persistence is remarkable and I admire you for that.
But Sir, your faith has been responsbile for the murder and genocide of my fore fathers. Whether it was your Ghazanavi or Akbar killing of idolators and destroying my temples was always extolled and mentioned with great pride in their own Namas and auto biographies. They all loved to butcher and behead my idolator fore fathers. They stopped only because they agreed to submit to your sword and paid the tax.
I am greatful to those Qazis and maulavis who showed mercy and declared us as Dhimmis. That allowed my fore fathers to survive. albeit as slaves.
No problem, at least the remnants of the idolator civilzation remained.
It would have been completely lost were it not for the coming of the Britishers and the occurence of 1857. The mullahs rejected the idolator Vedic Gods. The Britishers at least tried to appreciate them.
The difference between the muslim appreciation of idoaltors and that of the British was glaring.
Even in terms of law, the common law made every thing same-same. Now muslims cannot kill indiscriminately any idolator for propagating of for showing dis obefdience. All the nawabs lost their zimmas. They becamse servants of British who turned their Hadith prescribed Zimmas into Land-ownership.
1857 was a death blow for mullsh. Because they lost the control over idolators.
1947 was a resurgence of the mullah power. And it has taken 60 years for MMA to become a reality in Pakistan. The history of Islamic India is history of mullahs. Dara was killed at the behest of mullahs. Aurangzeb became a devil because of mullahs. Just as history of erstwhile Christian West was the history moulded by the Pope and Churches.

Bristishers certainly 'reformed' the hindusim. OUR LAWS were actually regressive. The common law is certainly a product of British mind - who drew a great amount from Roman law. I am proud to be associated with the Roman and call it MY OWN.
On the other hand I consider the Islamic law to be regressive and deserving contempt.
I have rejected the regressive parts of Smritis as out dated. However, it is time you also did the same with Quran and Hadiths.
The consequences of not doing so is glaring. Forget your FALSE pride. See the evil in what you call your OWN.
Reject Hudood laws!! Forget Shariah as a basis of modern nation state. Only when respected maulavi sahebs like you openly come forward and reject the hate verses of Quran and Hadith can we see the fasaad-e-momen turn into a mard-e-momeen.
I earnestly appeal to you to do this and then proudly claim to be a real muslim who does not keep on living in eternal conflict with the rest of the world.

Re: # 304

Hey arjun,

Nobody asked you if you were from Communist Party of Pakistan or not.

I know you are an atheist, probably meaning that you have hardly read and understood your own scriptures.

#301 Posted by echoboom on August 16, 2007 11:39:35 am

laddu is a troll...just like this dimag-i-rog guy...

Clifton: There is more affirmative justice for scheduled casts in India compared to Blacks in America. Try bringing about 50% reservation quota for blacks here in the US.

PS:
the prison population in US is overwhelmingly black due to bias in justice system - not so in case of dalits... dalits have the voting rights from the beginning where as blacks got that only recently...

Now, let's see what you pakis have done for your minorities and dalits - how about squat, nada :)... heck you guys don't even get to vote, with militart guy calling shots[ by proxy for Uncle Sam], not even a constitution... so what the heck!!!

Laddu:

Usualy your posts do not deserve a response but it is for orher's sake, for your fellow hindus especially that this reply is getting posted.

So the pride you are excuding is the pride of exchanging one master for the other? When was the last time you had your own laws? Or are you proud of the fact that it always takes an outsider to drill come sense in your head. Learning from outsiders on one's own terms, & arriving at conclusions to bring about change as a internal discussion, is way way different than being taught by dandaa & being forced to agree & then getting used to & then flaunting such slavery.
So did you WIN freedom, or were AWARDED freedom/Independance, or did you SNATCH freedom?...OR , as you so proudly emote, did you really choose your master this time by adopting:
1) their legal-system
their dress
their language
their Ideoalogy [otherwise called RELIGIONS..the OONS]
their food
their fashion

and then you extol your "heritage" as if you are a tourist, foriegn tourist, in your own backyard. You visit your own backwaters & backyard with the eye & ear of a FOREIGNER! & admire & shower praise on what is your own to begin with.
It is as if you visit tour children as a Heritage to be ovseved as a cultural practice & NOT as a give.

Those who rule & conquer never dance for the amusement of others..never bring out their family treasures to appreciated & approved by strangers. You guys do it always to get a nod of approval by a whiteskin & want to "attract" whiteskins so that you can pimp your motherland better. Ever ssen the Master trying to attract the Ba Ba Blacksheep to visit his homeland? No the Master knows how much the slave drools to be back in the kennels of England.

If your ancestors had fought the Huns, the greeks, the aryans, the Musalmaans & not fallen for the corrupt riches & good-life , & not considered material wealth as the sole measure of success today we would have been discussing hindu contribution to law..there is Zilch.

Notice the language on radio, tv, newspapers that despite the snskritisation almost all the words for Law are still arabie/farsi...How can you ever have the equivalent of Talaaque when you had no clue..you just "left" ( chhore diyaa)

You better learn a little bit more about yourself from your hindu compatriots ..right here on CHOWK.

of course - it is not "the same" level as in US... consideration has to be made for fact of much less resources, to be used on much larger number of people... admittedly it will take a while... it took US 100+ years of democracy... we don't have that many years, we have to do it sooner....much sooner

clifton

Blacks do not have job reservations, reserved seats in congress, senate, ministries... dalits do... black governors are rare... Dalits CMs are not... mayawait may even end up being the PM... a black president is still far away [ no - obama has no chance]

abusing a dalit is a felony, buying dalit property without govt permission is an offence...

The result is less pronounced because of the fact the pie itself has been so small oweing to commiesm and socialism... lack of efficient law enforcement has blunted the effort to completely eliminate abuses against the dalits... third worldism has blunted the entire effort... but neverthless...

you pakis simply cannot imagine the level of official and societal effort that has been made since independence... going forward - it has accelerated further, now that more resources and technology is there....

zee

your exclusion of "dalits" is completely disingenous... the entire society at every level has made enromus effort to life the dalits and other backward communities and tribes out of their historical predicament... from job reservations to reservation in political representation... progres made by the traditionally depressed sections of hinud society is tremendous - considering the point where they started from... they are not where they should be yet - but nevertheless...

I do not usuallly trumpet for indian progress - but the numbers are remarkable - but since independence, the equivalent of entire europe out of colonial-era poverty... of course - the fast population growth has made sure that still more poor are there... last 15 years of growht reduced poverty cutting across class lines...

dont try to ape to the liberaloon... do not be envious of the neigbor's success... :)

mohar its good to see that all sides of the debate believe the debate should be honest.
So honestly then , you are saying social justice for dalits in india is the same as blacks in america? economic justice for them is the same? Religious justice is the same?
Or are you going to admit that this is really the most shocking way any country has treated a whole 1/6th of its population in the modern day and age?

BTW i think your judiciary has made all the right noises regarding dalit rights , the conctitution has been duly ammended ...now its just a question of indian society to change.

zee

US is not monolithic - ask the blacks, they will tell you.... in china - it's even worse - villagers cannot even travel to their own cities without permits... there has been 84000 riots last year - yes, 84 thousand...

Mutltiple economic realities exist in every country... the income disparity in china I think worse than that of india...

You are once again displaying traits of the liberaloon you hate - lying and fudging... that's a shame...

Kaal:

I think you may be right ... Gandhi used religious symbols to get the unwashed masses politicized .... in the process he put off the upper class Muslims. Masses, at least in India, have always been politicized through religious symbols and myths ... the communists tried otherwise and failed .... the maoists, though, in Andhra, Orissa, Chattisgarh etc. liberally use religious symbols and myths. Of course, the oons do not like it. But who cares .. the ultimate goal of politicization is democracy and not necessarily constitution framing. The hindutva hordes of the early 90s do not all vote for the BJP today.

But the BIGGEST or most IMPORTANT question plaguing us today is : Where is hamidm2?

laddu you should really be called chicken little. JI has already got its ass handed to it in karachi on a platter they dont even whimper too loudly now, . It never wins against PPP in sindh or PML in punjab , ANP is reemerging in the frontier (six parties coalesced last month).... there are many islamists in pakistan but most of them would never vote MMA. Apparently the only person scared of the political might of the MMA is you.
I am not in politics and dont want to be. Even the harshest islamic state i could forsee ever coming to pakistan would be ala zia ulhaq lines ....HE NEVER REPEALED THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF MINORITIES.

JI is part of the MMA that is an alliance composed of 4 powerful religious parties: Jamaat Islami (JI), Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (F), Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (S), and Jamiat Ulema-e-Pakistan (N).

Most of them desire the pre 1857 fantasy of enslaved hindu workers and living off zimmi-daris.

They are part of this pan Islamic terror movement that is now emerging out of PAkistan.
They are the ones who are hiding Osama.
They have the support of millions.
Your ba ba black sheep education cannot stop them from taking over Pakistan now!!!
Echo ji is right!!

laddu are you aware of how many illiterates are in pakistan? lemme give you a hint ...its more than 4.5 million.

You know what Allama Iqbal said about mullahs like these ? he called them vultures. Islamists like echo/zee are not in the MMA/IJI my friend.

Re: # 289

Clifton bi ji,

I think you better ask echoji if JI and Maulana Qazi Ahmed are revered or not??
In 1997 Qazi Sahib launched a nationwide campaign to expand the party membership. His open membership campaign brought 4.5 million new members to the Jamaat.

4.5 million??!!!!!!!!!


Come on, how can you call them 'jahil'.??

laddu, that Imam is perfect example of TNT. he too like some muslim leaders of the past suggests Hindus and Muslims can never live together.

laddu the same party also decreed immunization a crime. These people are not reverred as islamists they are popularly called jahil even by the most observant literate muslims.
Remind me again how many times has this leader "of mine" has been elected to head of state? And how many times has a pakistani head of state ever said that? Even Zia never changed the constitution in re. to minority rights ....he did go after muslim rights pretty bad though. Do you know that nonmuslims can legally buy etoh in paksitan and even did so under Zia ?
Do you know that the islamist party of turkey is democratically elected and also secular?
I really think you have a lot of confusion regarding pakistan islam minoritiy rights and the islamist school of thought.

The clash of civilizations began right from beginning, the very concepts propounded by Islam were against rest of world. So says the ex-muslim lady in this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wPglHZQf-0

clifton bi ji,

let me quote from your popoular leader from Pakistan Nawabzadaa Nabiullah Khanin of Jamaat-e-Islamia.

He is really EXPLICIT in his statement that he wants Hindus as slaves of Pakistanis. Sure, after all that is what Hadiths want do to do with dhimmi hindus.

"
JAMAT WILL BRING SLAVERY BACK TO PAKISTAN Arabians own slaves. Though Allah says that the slaves should be treated in a nice manner, he did not advocate the abolition of slavery. If slavery is bad as considered in today's world, Allah certainly would have said that slavery is wrong. Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) also said that the slaves should be treated in a good manner and the slaves should be released often. But if there is no slavery, how can anyone release slaves? Hence the re-introduction of slavery in Pakistan is one of the future plans of the Jamaat.
ALL CAPTURED HINDUS WILL BE MADE SLAVES
All the captured Hindu Indians and Srilankans will be made slaves to work for Pakistani Muslims. Every God-abiding Pakistani Muslim will get slaves once we conquer India. All the slaves who embrace Islam will be set free. Slavery is Islamic. Jamaat is the only political party, which does not voice any opposition to the slavery in Pakistan. We went around all over Arabia. We were surprised to know that there are some Hindus in Yemen. These ancient Yemeni Hindus are not Indians. In my opinion, these Hindus are traders from India in the ancient times. I was also surprised to know that they have a Shiva temple in Yemen. Qazi was very unhappy over this. When he talked to the Yemen leaders, he broached this subject. But the Yemeni leaders refused Qazi's suggestion of forced conversion of these people to Islam. I don't know why they refused. I think it may be due to the large population of Hindus from India who work in Yemen and Arabia. He disliked the current leadership of Arabia for this reason.
In his opinion, Arabia should not allow any non-Muslim into the holy lands of Arabia. Arabia should be 100% pure. A large number of Hindus in Arabia is corrupting the Arabians. Though they live as contractors, they have the potential to corrupt the minds of the Arabians. "

this is from "Jamhooria Islamia", a monthly Baluchi magazine published from Panj-gar, published an interview with Maulana Nawabzadaa Nabiullah Khanin Feb 1999, a confidant of and adviser to the Amir of leading Pakistani Islamic party, Jamaat-e-Islami, Maulana Qazi Ahmed, which was conducted by Jalil Amir.

Re: # 281

Hey echo ji,

1857 was the day of liberation of the hindu idolators.

That is the year when hindu idolators no longer remained the dhimmis.
Shariat was out and British common law took over.

Hindus and muslims were now at level.

The doors of modern education was opened to hindus.

and muslims went back into their shell of depression , and are till day fantasizing about those days when they had hundreds of hindu idolators working free for them as slaves in their house holds and lands.

Thanks to Britishers hindu idolators could start throwing away the humiliating status of dhimmis that was confereed on them officially for a 1000 years.

Thanks to Britishers!!

echodada, well one thing I have learned to my misery is that language is the source of most of our common miseries. English seems singularly ill-equipped to capture our (yours and mine) key concepts, ideas, and dreams, even :(

Laddu you have surpassed yourself..."It is just a matter of time before idol breaking and kafir beheading would become an EXPLICIT law in Pakistan" ....so you admit you have to look into a crystal ball to find evidence of your contention that pakistani muslim majority are out to make dhimmis and crush idols :) ....because none exists today.

hudood ordinance also applies to muslims and nonmuslims so although i disgree with hudood how is this discriminating?

cobra the blasphemy law punishes all pakistani blasphemers....no special pass for any creed .

Kaalchakra:

What I am trying to point out that LABELLING one's ideals as Secularism,. Liberalism, or any other Oonism will never change the ground-realities.

Those who think that weraing a suit, eating double-roti, and distancing themselves fro "red-Indians" or "red-Pakians"
and acting westoxicated would make them somehow more tehzeeb-yaafta ( not civilised which is a Darwinian word, ugly word, westoxicated word)

We must set the calendar back to 1857 & make sure the clock never strikes 12noon or 12midnight again. Once the unfinished business of rtemoving the Britto-monkey from our backs & exorcised & expiated from our minds & stomacks respectively only THEN we together ( Un-divided India when Hindu-Muslims hated the Britto baboons with a vengeance) will easily be the most formidable power to in the world.

English or any other language must be learned so that we understand our enemies & destroy them ..rather than become Ba Ba Blacksheep , trying to white-wash ourselves & pretend to look smart.

No other country except the enslaved of minds like ours use a language different than their own. India & Pakistan are bigger than Europe & if there can be different languages in countries like postage stamps what prevents us from having
individual major languages & still be one...like the European Union?

What about the blasphemy law? isn't that state sanctioned discrimination?

What about the blasphemy law? isn't that state sanctioned discrimination?

[#270 Posted by echoboom on August 16, 2007 7:41:04 am ]

Discrimination is rampant in west bengal not only against Muslims but also against other non-bengalis as well. Chowk's resident bangalis and bangalans brag about how fair minded and ethnicity blind they are but that is all talk. But special position of Muslims in this is also because of historical memory how these Muslims talked about violence during independence struggle. Bengalis do not forget such bad behaviour easily.

Re: # 275

Sorry clifton bi,

Pakistan does not have Islamic Law in entirety and that is why mullahs want complete Shariat.

Pakistan has Hudood which is indeed a part of the hate legacy of Islam.
Your constitution has pledged putting all things in Islamic mode.
The complete coherence with Islamic sharia is already part of the Pakistani constitution's agenda.
It is just a matter of time before idol breaking and kafir beheading would become an EXPLICIT law in Pakistan.
This is the logic of Islamization bibi.

think this interview reveals a side unknown to us.... his favorite book was "Count of Monte Christo". Ironically to me the two fictional characters Jinnah comes closest to are the Count ... and Jay Gatsby.

http://www.dailyindia.com/show/166157.php/1916-Gujarati-interview-reveals-Ji nnahs-attributes
1916 Gujarati interview reveals Jinnah's attributes
From our ANI Correspondent

Washington, Aug 16: Pakistan's founder Muhammad Ali Jinnah followed the principle of "never be depressed" according to an interview he gave to a Gujarati journal way back in May 1916.

In the interview given in Gujarati, which was made available to the Daily Times from the back files of literary journal Visami Sadi (the 20th Century), when asked what qualities a man should be admired for, Jinnah said "Independence".

And about a woman, he said, "Taking care of the elderly".

He termed "to be admired and loved by people," as true success in life.

His favourite pastime was horse-riding, while among the flowers he admired lilly.

Shakespeare was Jinnah's preferred writer and his favourite book was 'The Count of Monte Cristo' by Alexander Dumas.

The journal also features a picture of Rutti Jinnah, taken a year after their marriage.

He signed his name 'Mahmad Ali Jhina'.


Copyright Dailyindia.com/ANI

laddu dhimmitude and idol crushing is already specifically banned by the constitution of the ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN ....so once agin you have no leg to stand on.

hey how many times killing of hindu idolators, raping and abducting their women, forcing them to convert or cutting of ears and nose of a dhimmi by muslims would happen before the hateful verses of Islam are banned through legislation by all the modern countries??

BTW - do you know that after widescale beating and humiliation of dalits the Indian constitution was ammended to say that force feeding a person of a different caste feaces was a hate crime?
How many times must it have happened for that to have been made into a law?

Thats so tragic echo sahab. Ofcourse the same stories could be written in pakistan too. The first step to ending discrimination is to accept it happens which is why its so ridiculous when hindu-indians keep saying what? us? discriminate? (Its even wilder when their protestations of tolerance come on the heels of avowed hatred toward islam.)
Ofcourse the good news is that there are many people both in india and pakistan who dont want this stuff to happen. And when it comes to the constitution both countries are more or less on the same page when it comes to minority rights.
Jinnah was absolutely right in 1947 about the different nation theory and 60 years later he is still right. All we can hope for the indian muslim community is that maybe the future will be brighter than the past and present.

echodada, welcome back!

Kya aap bhi HP ki tarah Indians ke peechhe par gaye? :)

The good news here, as you must have noticed, is that Pakistani secularists and Islamists on chowk have been able to arrive at some common understanding. That can only be good.

bTHE VISION OF JINNAH

May be India needs several more partitions.
__________________________________________________________
TheStar .com -
World
Fearful Muslims adopt Hindu IDs
Fearful Muslims adopt Hindu IDs

In India, many members of religious minority hide the signs of their faith to escape discrimination
Aug 15, 2007 04:30 AM
Shaikh Azizur Rahman
SPECIAL TO THE STAR

CALCUTTA–On a busy street in Calcutta's business district, he runs a food stall called "Rajib's Paratha" and is known as Rajib Mallick.

Using the popular Hindu name, no one suspects he is Rajab Ali Mollah, a Muslim who has adopted a fictitious identity to blend in with the neighbourhood's mostly Hindu office workers.

Sohrab Hossain, a Muslim student who came to the city to complete his Masters degree in English and lives in a Hindu-dominated housing complex, is known as Sourav Das among the students he tutors. To keep up his Hindu appearance he has a small idol of Saraswati, the Hindu goddess of learning, on his desk.

Every morning as she prepares to go to work as a fishmonger, Hasina Khatoon takes off her silver armband embossed with "Allah" in Arabic, puts vermillion powder on her forehead and red-white conch bangles on her wrist – symbols of a married Hindu woman – to maintain a Hindu appearance in a fish market where almost all of her customers are Hindus.

Rajab Mollah, Sohrab Hossain and Hasina Khatoon say they have adopted new identities in a Hindu-majority society where as Muslims they would face discrimination.

Analysts say many Muslims from all socio-economic backgrounds are quietly hiding their religious affiliation.

"Muslims in almost all spheres of life face a communal discrimination by powerful Hindus and they are denied many of their basic rights and freedom in an unjustified way," said Anjan Basu, a social analyst and executive editor of Pratidin, a Bengali daily in Calcutta.

Six decades after Partition, "many (Hindus) believe that Pakistan was created for Muslims and now they do not have right to live in India, which is meant for Hindus."

The Partition of India 60 years ago was a highly controversial arrangement, and remains a cause of much tension on the subcontinent today.

Basu, who is a Hindu, also said discrimination has been "institutionalized," with many Muslims being denied employment in government and private-sector offices where 90 to 95 per cent jobs are held by Hindus.

Gautam Ray, a senior journalist with Calcutta's largest Bengali daily Anandabazar Patrika, said that since the bulk of the dalits (low-caste Hindus or so-called Untouchables) converted to Islam when the religion spread in India, many upper-caste Hindus look down on Muslims as they had for generations looked down on dalits.

"The root of this communal discrimination is deeply entrenched in the society and most of these communal Hindus are not expected to change their feeling for Muslims any time soon," said Ray, who is also an upper-caste Hindu. "Muslims are often denied housing in Hindu-dominated modern residential complexes," he added.

"This communal discrimination against Muslims will not end unless Hindus themselves change their attitude. But we do not see hope of any such positive social change anytime soon."

Muslims who adopted fake Hindu identities believe they did nothing wrong by hiding their original identities.

"Ten years ago, when my house and land in the village was eaten up by a river and I came to Calcutta in search of a job, almost all street shops and restaurants in the city refused to employ me because I was a Muslim," Mollah said.

"Some said their Hindu customers could refuse to eat at their restaurants if a Muslim worked there," he said.

"But I met a Muslim man who worked under a Hindu identity to supply water to restaurants. I followed his advice, picked up a Hindu identity and soon an upper-class Hindu employed me to run a food stall."

Nearly all of Mollah's customers are Hindus and he fears his business would suffer disastrously if his customers found out he is a Muslim.

"I don't think I have done anything wrong because I know how they hate Muslims simply because of their religion," he added.

A federal commission recently found that Muslims "live in socio-economic conditions worse than many so-called backward tribal people," according to commission chief Rajendra Sachar, a former judge.

In the state of West Bengal, where the Muslim community makes up 27 per cent of the population, employment of Muslims in the government sector was below 3 per cent, the Sachar Commission reported.

Some Muslim leaders see education as the key to a better future.

"If the younger generation can educate themselves, it will be difficult for even the most communal Hindus to discriminate against a new Muslim force," said Nazrul Islam, a senior public servant and noted Calcutta writer.

"Maybe discrimination will not be wiped out completely, but an educated and powerful community of Muslims will be able to fight off the injustice, at least to a good extent."


Shaikh Azizur Rahman is a journalist based in India.

#267 Posted by mohar11,

No Dr Saheb. It's only Noida and Gurgaon. Bombay, bangalore, pune, mysore, chennai, Hyderabad are all another country.

You have created 'two' Indias' in your ignorance and the results will not be pleasant. It's no hegemon.

Re USA, it is a melting pot. The 15% blacks are 'americans'. So are the American Pakistanis or Indians for that matter. As well as the American Arabs and Italians and so forth. That's why it's a hegemon. It is monolithic.

Is India a melting pot? Or monolithic?

America is a monolith, as is China. India? Forget it.

clifton

There is no about face - yet another exaggeration on your part...:) we are not cuddling to islamists either - just that islamist rule in pakiland makes it easier for us to handle them...

zee

Noida, gurgaon, bombay, bangalore, pune, mysore, chennai, hyderabad - these are the constituents of the hegemon...

15% of US is black, 10%(?) hispanic - is US the hegemon?... come on dude - don't behave like your liberaloon counter-parts... you should know better than that... :)

lol...oh wow ...another about face ? mohar what happened about detroying islam in the name of bringing sanity and balance to the world? Why is it you always forget to tell hard core islamists that part of your story while cuddling upto them?

I also dont agree that your comments are a response to being needeled by liberals, tell me which liberal needled you into making that spiteful comment?

ps - btw your chris rock thing was funny.

#264 Posted by mohar11,

Oh let me not go into that again that how 1/7 India is Muslim and 1/6 India is achoot, and the rest are all rural less than a dollar a day types. That's 100%.

Is Noida and Gurgaon the 'hegemon'?

zee

Hindustan always existed. Hindu civilization is one of the oldest... I know the reason for your denial - but that's OK :)

The "needling" is done mostly from your side - usually done by your "liberals" and non-mullah rulers who have serious inferiority complex about who they are... we have only responded in kind...

India has no need to needle anybody... it's the 800 pound guerrilla in the neighborhood... it's the de facto hegemon...

Manto

Beej is beyond my understanding, really. I have no idea what he says. :)

Personally, I found the article nothing great in that it said nothing that was not known to many people (even if it was not argued on chowk explicitly). But because it was honest, it did present an opportunity for different people to recognize that they are not that far apart.

On Gandhi's role, manto, I do agree, although for a very different reason. I believe Hindu and Muslim religions and religious sensibilities are so diametrically opposite that one cannot invoke one without completely dividing the other.

Here's my hopefully not too controversial view: Hindus could NOT have done without Gandhi (exactly as he was), Muslims could NOT have lived with Gandhi.

#255 Posted by mohar11,

True Dr. Mohar, we don't lie. We only tell the truth, and you can deal with us because it is clear where we are coming from. The liberals only tell lies, and you don't know what they're saying to your face and what they're saying behind your back.

They're all self serving contemptible hypocrites.

zeemax,

As someone who knows rozaiba well, I can assure you that he is a fine gentleman who understands constitution very well.

#252/254 Posted by rozaiba,

You made a serious boo boo, and Manto rescued you. Say thanks to Manto and I will let it go.

You don't know head or tail of what you're talking about.

Regards.

Kaalchakra,

Even BJKumar and many Indians have described the article with unrestrained praise.

I wonder though if they paid close attention to this paragraph from the good doctor:

Jinnah has been often been accused of being communitarian. But ironically, as the late Eqbal Ahmad was wont to point out, it was Jinnah, then a Congress leader, who had warned against the spiritualization of Indian politics. Jinnah was adamantly opposed to the use by Gandhi of religious symbols in politics. He was right. A deeply divisive view of the world naturally emerged once the terms of discourse shifted in this way. As India approached independence, leaders of sectarian outlook and sentiments such as Sardar Vallabhai Patel and Rajendra Prasad gained commanding positions in the Congress.

#253 Posted by mohar11,

Though we disagree that Hindustan ever existed, we agree on the other point that we can keep the North West Corner and you won't needle us needlessly.

That's some progress (Thumbs Up Icon)

"This might end up being one of the most useful boards ever!"

So glad zee, rozaiba, and Manto clearly see the common ground. Working together, 'secularists' and 'Islamists' can do what they can not do alone. (Thumbs up icon here)

I have always thought of Zeemax as a thinking man. I am sure he also understands that using the word "secular" is not demonising Islam. Zee knows how proud I am of my Islamic heritage.

In any event... glad to see three Pakistanis agreeing on a fundamental point.

roz
[....It is not surprising you feel comfortable with religious fanatics...]

We are not... but then it can't become any worse than what pakiland has been under the non-mullah regimes... in fact, from our POV - a mullah-ruled pakiland becomses easier to handle...

Zeemax wrote:

"Yes I'm full of admiration for Joginder Nath Mandal, and regret that he didn't stay."

I was impressed with this comment. Sometimes I think we may be on the same page.

Because I also regret that Mandal didn't stay and left Pakistan because he found the objectives resolution with it's emphasis on one religion completely contrary to Jinnah's ideals. He left Pakistan heartbroken seeing it taken over by Maududi-ites.

zee

dude - india is always hinud land, 5000 years...even when muslims or brits ruled it, it's still hinud land, albeit occupied by foreign powers... which is why it's called hindustan... it will be always be the hinud land...

Now that said - we have no issues having a pakiland at the northwest corner... I think harish was pointing to the communal enmity generated in last decades and its associated issues... nothing more... we have no intention of taking the land back into the fold... you keep it - make it islamic or whatever... :)

Zeemax:

By all accounts I wrote formulate and not legislate. As Manto explains:

"A Law Minister's job is to formulate bills and propose laws from the government's point of view."

Thus Jinnah chose a Pakistani Kafir to formulate bills and propose laws for his government. This says a lot about Jinnah ie Kafirs can lead a Muslim nation. It also highlights the dishonesty and mala fide intentions of those who proclaim Jinnah wanted to put in Shariah laws.



Harish:

It is not surprising you feel comfortable with religious fanatics.

#250 Posted by MantoLives,

Yes I'm full of admiration for Joginder Nath Mandal, and regret that he didn't stay. Just as I am full of admiration for Sir Ganga Ram, whose hospital's name no one will ever dare change.

We agree on more than you think, Manto. It's just that demonising Islam is not acceptable ... in any shape or form. Then we guys go completely wild. It's just one of those things.

Zeemax,

Whether or not Rozaiba used the term formulate as I did, the point I made stands.

Your last post to Harish mian is a strong one. I was glad to note that we reached agreement earlier as well on the issue of a secular state where the civic morality and the basis of legislation would ethics derived from Islam.

This is the only islamic state I can understand really... because Islam is not an exclusivist faith as far as I can understand it.



Harish,

"Exposed" "unraveled"

Don't give me this unraveling business my friend. No one has been able to unravel anything what I have said or "expose" me. If anything the past few weeks have shown the desperation of those who have spent years abusing me.

It is what you want to believe and not what is true that is the problem. Otherwise stepping back would allow you to see that this is just a fantasy... that you and atif2 would like to indulge in.

As for Jinnah... his history and his struggle is there. He was right in championing the Muslim cause... and still he tried at the last moment to bring Indians together... but his failure just proves how right he was in asking for Pakistan.

#244 Posted by MantoLives,

It's of-course your sharp legal mind working. What rozaiba meant by 'formulate' was 'legislate'. Read the posts again. He doesn't know the difference.

#242 Posted by harish_hyd,

Well then zee, you tell us who else to blame. If every Indian, regardless of whether he was a Hindu, Muslim or Sikh was to have the same right, what was Jinnah fighting for?

The short answer is 'Identity'. Jinnah was neither an Islamist nor a secular, nor a nation builder. He was a great constitutionalist though. The nation building part came from Iqbal, and Jinnah implemented it as best as he could. That's my opinion.

In the end, both sides are better off. So why complain? This is something I never understood. I mean ... India never belonged to Hindus. It was the Muslim Sub-Continent and later the British-Subcontinent in over a thousand years, and pagan before that. There was never any Bharat Maata. So what's the problem if Muslims chose to just take the North West for themselves as Pakistan? Why can't you accept it and work as S. Asians together with Islamists or whoever controls Pakistan?

After all, Iran is your better friend than Pakistan. And Iran is a 'theocracy'. What's your problem with Pakistan when it isn't even a 'theocracy' nor likely to become one?

#245 by MantoLives

Harish mian's honesty is on display on many such threads where he made erroneous claims and is still missing in action after promising to apologise if proved wrong

But what about your own honesty? It continues to unravel day after day on UP.

#241 by MantoLives

Islamists don't challenge but reinforce the apocalyptic vision of the world that you seem to have ...

We have apocalyptic vision? Well apocalypse is what Jinnah predicted if India were to remain united and you go all out supporting that view. In fact, we're arguing exactly the opposite if you didn't notice.

..we challenge your bigotry with facts and ideas and that is too much for people like you to take.

Please spare us your facts. You've been exposed so many times not just by Indians, but so much more by your own compatriots that it is not even funny anymore.

Re: # 243

I meant Atif2... but alright.

Harish mian's honesty is on display on many such threads where he made erroneous claims and is still missing in action after promising to apologise if proved wrong.

Zeemax,

The word that Rozaiba used was formulate not legislate.

I am afraid you've gotten your understanding of how this parliament thing works... I suppose it is our fault that we've never actually allowed the system to work.

A Law Minister's job is to formulate bills and propose laws from the government's point of view. The said documents are then debated and passed or rejected by the parliament.

Jogindranath Mandal's appointment as a law minister indicates one of the two things below:

1. Either Jinnah did not intend to Islamise the laws or else he would have chosen an Islamic scholar to head the law ministry but he didn't. He chose a Hindu.

or

2. Jinnah believed even qualified Non-muslims could interpret and vet bills trying to introduce Islamic law.

Given that Mandal was a lawyer and not a scholar of Islam or Islamic laws (unlike say the Parsi D F Mulla) ... it can be said that it was not a decision made because Jinnah thought Mandal was the best suited scholar for Islam even if Hindu... Remember Mandal was before this chosen to represent the Muslims at the interim government in United India by Jinnah.


Add to this the fact that during all Powerful Jinnah's government, not a single piece of legislation was enacted that sought to Islamise Pakistan... we can safely conclude that Jinnah's choice of Mandal as the law minister was a strong message sent to his followers.

-YLH

#241 Posted by MantoLives,

Manto, Harish is one the very few 'honest' Indians on Chowk.

And thanks for the compliment of branding me as 'the biggest word twisting weasel on this website', but when did I ever twist any words???

If the Islamists can make SAARC work by clarifying all the cobwebs in minds on both sides, is that a bad thing? Why do you want to sabotage the effort?

#239 by zeemax

But a pre-condition for that is that each must accept the others' intrinsic differences, and not confront those as being an aberration of history (mostly blamed on Jinnah by Indians) and expect the other to come around sometime.

Well then zee, you tell us who else to blame. If every Indian, regardless of whether he was a Hindu, Muslim or Sikh was to have the same right, what was Jinnah fighting for? Was Hindu domination that real a threat that he sought a separate homeland? As you never tire of pointing out, Hindus aren't united even amongst their own castes, sects and even sub-sects, could they have united to suppress a quarter of India's population, the Muslims?

What I would really want to see is SAARC as a S. Asian Identity activated to rival that of the EU. And believe me, it can.

Well, the past behind us has been a bitter one, at least the future should see a common S. Asian identity which brings peace and prosperity to this troubled region.

Harish mian,

The Islamists' pandering to anti-Pakistan Indians and vice versa is nothing new... and is historic. Therefore your point of view is not surprising.

Ofcourse you think it is easier dealing with Islamists and not liberals. Islamists don't challenge but reinforce the apocalyptic vision of the world that you seem to have ... we challenge your bigotry with facts and ideas and that is too much for people like you to take.

And the biggest word twisting weasel on this website is someone you consider honest. What can one say.

-YLH

#238 Posted by harish_hyd,

LoL ... That's true!

#233 Posted by harish_hyd,

Well yes, I will agree here as far as dividing humanity is concerned. But a pre-condition for that is that each must accept the others' intrinsic differences, and not confront those as being an aberration of history (mostly blamed on Jinnah by Indians) and expect the other to come around sometime.

What I would really want to see is SAARC as a S. Asian Identity activated to rival that of the EU. And believe me, it can.

#236 by zeemax

I've said this before on Atif's board and I'll say this again. It is easier dealing with an unabashed Islamist than a lying and weaseling liberal Paki. At least with the Islamists, WYSIWYG (What you see is what you get), but with the liberals, you never know when to expect a U-turn.

#232 Posted by zeemax on August 16, 2007 5:07:04 am


I don't subscribe to this common ancestry theory.


8 am on the east coast and the latest news: despite his delusions, zeemax still a paki whose great great grandma got a canadian visa...

Oh well this shows the extent of intellect of these idiots who lay claim on Jinnah. rozaiba ran away when asked how was Mandal going to formulate any laws being the law minister after the claim that since Jinnah appointed a Hindu as Law Minister, he certainly meant to formulate Kafir laws. What about the constituent assembly? He doesn't appear to be aware of the existence of one, but just Mandal who was a proficient Beurocrat, and quite fittingly appointed.

Ch'tya is all I can say.

Zee whether you are like it or not either it's true that your grandpa Gopinath converted to Islam therefore your ancestors were Hindu or you are mlench an outsider.

Zee whether you are like it or not either it's true that your grandpa Gopinath converted to Islam therefore your ancestors were Hindu or you are mlench an outsider.

#232 by zeemax

I don't subscribe to this common ancestry theory. Hamidm2 does. We are a different people altogether, genetically.

Well, whether one subscribes to it or not, one cannot deny the fact that essentially we're the same people (OK, maybe not genetically, since that seems to offend you and many Pakis - associating with Kala Madrasis always seems to offend Pakis).

But if every individual is different from another, are we going to divide humanity further because of these differences and not make an attempt to live together? If so, how further?

#229 Posted by harish_hyd,

I don't subscribe to this common ancestry theory. Hamidm2 does. We are a different people altogether, genetically.

But yes, there's a cultural similarity, particularly amongst those Muslims of a Sufi bent of mind. Other than that, we love Indian music. So? I also love Jethro Tull.

PS: And Muslims in India continue to eat the cow while Hindus continue to worship it.

Clifton bi

you remind of Chris Rock's line: women exaggerate everything into apocalyptical terms... anybody having a dispute with them is actually out to do "destroy" them... :)

Either way - it's your funeral - so enjoy it... too much islam has already damaged various muslim communities around the world, more so in pakiland... and yet demand for more islamization is growing... talibanization is fast creeping over pakiland... so enjoy... :)

#227 by zeemax

Harish, look. Please understand once and for all. We eat the cow that you worship. Can that difference be trivialized as just 'communalism'?

Zee, was that one difference enough to override the hundreds of other similarities, including that of a common ancestry between us?

rozaiba,

If you can't answer the question below, then stand in the queue for canadian immigration (if you're not already one of those), and remain silent forever.

225 Posted by harish_hyd,

Harish, look. Please understand once and for all. We eat the cow that you worship. Can that difference be trivialized as just 'communalism'?

#224 Posted by rozaiba,

You didn't answer my question:

Can a law minister formulate laws? In this case Mandal?

#223 Posted by rozaiba

The overwhelming majority Muslim sentiment had become horrified by the display of overt religious piety and an embrace of caste-ist politics on part of Mr. Gandhi.

Here's what you said: "Secondly, no Ismaili-Shia in their right mind would risk annihilation at the hands of Maududi-ites and fight for the implementation of shariah laws which proclaim many Shia and Ismaili practices as shirk and deserving of a penalty. And Jinnah, being an Ismaili-Shia wasn't stupid."

This is between Muslims and Jinnah, but you had to bring Gandhi in. Can't get over that addiction with Gandhi, can you?

That was the primary reason, ie keeping the majority religion out of politics, Dalits like Mandal joined non-communal parties like the Muslim League.

Sure..the ML which campaigned for a separate nation on the basis of religious differences was non-communal and the Congress which called for a united India was communal. So what else is new?

Zeemax:

Can a Kafir lead and formulate laws on shariah? Jinnah thought Kafirs could do a better job then ulema-e-Islam and so appointed Mandal as the Law Minister. I think Jinnah's actions contradict shariah laws.

"Are you a Muslim?"

Just like MA Jinnah.

Harish:

"You seem to suggest that Jinnah was more concerned about his own personal safety than the overwhelming majority Muslim sentiment."

The overwhelming majority Muslim sentiment had become horrified by the display of overt religious piety and an embrace of caste-ist politics on part of Mr. Gandhi. That was the primary reason, ie keeping the majority religion out of politics, Dalits like Mandal joined non-communal parties like the Muslim League.

Manto's explained the rest.

#219 Posted by rozaiba

... Can a Kafir lead and formulate laws on shariah? Jinnah thought Kafirs could do a better job then ulema-e-Islam and so appointed Mandal as the Law Minister. I think Jinnah's actions contradict shariah laws.

If your understanding of democracy is that a law minister can formulate laws, then I can't help you.

Secondly, no Ismaili-Shia in their right mind would risk annihilation at the hands of Maududi-ites and fight for the implementation of shariah laws which proclaim many Shia and Ismaili practices as shirk and deserving of a penalty. And Jinnah, being an Ismaili-Shia wasn't stupid.

Sharia is one thing, Fiqah is another. You're probably confusing the two. Shariah is 'one'. Fiqahs are 'four'. We're talking about Shariah and not Fiqah. There's no disagreement amongst any sects of Muslims including Ismailis on Shariah.

Are you a Muslim?

No Harish mian,

Rozaiba is pointing out a simple fact that for example had Jinnah been visibly religious or instituted congregations as Mullahs asked him to, the ML would have fallen apart.

Thus... even to bring Muslims together you have to keep all discussions on Islam, Islamic law and theology out. It was not a question of his own personal safety because he was about to die and he knew it.

#219 by rozaiba

Secondly, no Ismaili-Shia in their right mind would risk annihilation at the hands of Maududi-ites and fight for the implementation of shariah laws which proclaim many Shia and Ismaili practices as shirk and deserving of a penalty. And Jinnah, being an Ismaili-Shia wasn't stupid.

You seem to suggest that Jinnah was more concerned about his own personal safety than the overwhelming majority Muslim sentiment. Is that what it is?

Zeemax:

"How does any of this contradict the Islamic Shariah-based system?"

Can a Kafir lead and formulate laws on shariah? Jinnah thought Kafirs could do a better job then ulema-e-Islam and so appointed Mandal as the Law Minister. I think Jinnah's actions contradict shariah laws.

Secondly, no Ismaili-Shia in their right mind would risk annihilation at the hands of Maududi-ites and fight for the implementation of shariah laws which proclaim many Shia and Ismaili practices as shirk and deserving of a penalty. And Jinnah, being an Ismaili-Shia wasn't stupid.

Dear Folio,

You will appreciate that a Mullah cannot be liberal simply because he sided with Gandhi... and liberal is not necessarily a Mullah simply because he opposed Gandhi.

That is all I am saying.

Re: # 215


The problem as I have said... is not whether one thinks it is a secular or Islamic vision ... but whehther it is being followed.

The essential issue is the substance of the vision i.e. inclusive pluralistic state with equal rights for all and state's impartiality towards faith.

Mantolives,

'It seems to me that Indians here seem to judge a person's "liberalism" or "secularism" by how subservient he was wlling to be to the Caste Hindu leadership.'

Did u expect us to be the other way? i.e.

..to judge a person by how subservient one was wlling to be to the communal Muslims and their ideologues and leadership?

MantoLives,

Perhaps you would attempt the following questions on behalf of the good professor, which have gone unanswered:

But some serious comments now, and some questions for the uninformed professor:

“You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed – that has nothing to do with the business of the State…. You will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.� [Aug 11, 1947, Jinnah’s address to the First Constituent Assembly]

How does any of this contradict the Islamic Shariah-based system?

"Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non-Muslims-Hindus, Christians and Parsis – but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan." [Feb. 1948, Jinnah’s broadcast address to the people of the United States of America]

Ditto as above.

The above speeches unequivocally demonstrate Jinnah’s strong sense of justice and secular leanings at a personal level.

Total BS as shown above.

Even when confronted by journalists, he would avoid giving a straight answer.

Attacking Jinnah for not being a slave and appeasing secular thought.

Jinnah continued to hedge:

Ditto as above.

"Then it seems to me that what I have already said is like throwing water on duck`s back (laughter). When you talk of democracy, I am afraid you have not studied Islam. We learned democracy thirteen centuries ago."

And he calls this statement of fact gleaned from very early Islamic History of the Prophet's time as 'hedging'.

Mr. Jinnah is evasive about what place Islamic law would have in the Pakistan Constituent Assembly.

Again attacking Jinnah by calling him 'evasive' when Jinnah did not want to dictate to the constituent assembly. In the author's mind he should have said "Hell no. I want no part of Islam"

Mr. Jinnah consciously seeks to articulate and protect this ambiguity.

Another attack on Jinnah for his diplomacy in getting Pakistan and not wishing it as a dictatorship of his views. And the author calls it 'ambuiguity'.

Mr. Jinnah left a legacy of ambiguity on what he wanted Pakistan to be.

Ditto as above.

“He was from first to last a constitutionalist who had argued at the time of the debate on the Child Marriage Restraint Act of 1930 that if there was a clash between a so-called religious and public morality, then morality had to prevail, mullah or no mullah. There was no change in this basic outlook even as he made tactical adjustments in his later years to accommodate new political exigencies. When asked to discuss the future constitutional framework for the Muslim homeland he was demanding, he insisted that it would be up to the people of Pakistan to decide what sort of a state they wanted even though he had no doubt that their choice would be for a moderate, democratic and forward-looking state.�

This is correct. Ayesha Jalal has a better view on who Jinnah was compared with all these amateurs, but being the Islamophobe she is, she still misses the point. The 1300 year old democracy Jinnah spoke about (quoted above) and the Islamic values (also quoted above) incorporate all this stuff. That's what Jinnah wanted.

Jinnah was no enigma. It's just that the libero-fascists are trying to use his Savile Row suits and his peg of Whiskey (not the ham sandwich which this author and others pick up from a single source of Wolpert while his closest companions with whom he regularly stayed on visits, deny) to convince people that "That's what Jinnah had wanted for Pakistan".

Arrey Bhai, Jinnah made Pakistan by hook or by crook single handedly, but refused to give it any ideology - unlike the comparable carved out state of Israel - being the utterly principled person he was, who made his exit when it was time, and left it upto the people to decide for themselves.

PS: It seems to me that Indians here seem to judge a person's "liberalism" or "secularism" by how subservient he was wlling to be to the Caste Hindu leadership.

That Jinnah after 1940 championed the cause of Muslims alone is a FACT. We are actually quite proud of it. The argument is not that Jinnah continued to be an Indian nationalist or the best ambassador of hindu muslim unity after he took up the Pakistan case... the argument is his vision for independent Pakistan.

I don't care if you wish to call it Islamic, secular blah blah .. the point is that Pakistan is a far cry from his consistent and conclusive statements about equal rights to minorities and an egalitarian society for all.

And lets not distort what Hoodbhoy has written either.

Pervez Hoodbhoy's wonderful article actually conclusively argues that Jinnah's vision was essentially a secular one and that his statements and allusions to Islamic state or Islam did not mean anything substantially different from the secular state he had in mind.

I therefore suggest that everyone here reads the article again and understands it...

Re: # 172

Tejpal,

Refer to my post #1. Jinnah's vision of the state as an inclusive pluralistic state is to my mind a secular vision.
Others seem to think that it was an Islamic vision. The issue here is not how secular you think he was or not. This is about whether Pakistan can become that inclusive pluralistic democracy?

I am bit more perplexed by your sudden reference to Faiz. There are many people in Pakistan who are highly critical of the Quaid... but Faiz Ahmed Faiz was not one of them... he remained a Jinnah-admirer and this is the obituary he wrote for Jinnah:

Jinnah's obituary by Faiz Ahmed Faiz

“The Quaid-i-Azam has passed away, after long years of toil and sacrifice and service in the cause of his people, his frail body has at last been gathered unto rest and his soul called back to the abode of the eternally blessed. No name in the history of Indian Muslims has been loved and acclaimed as the name Muhammad Ali Jinnah. No man in living memory evoked such unquestioned loyalty, such unqualified devotion, such unbounded faith; for the one-time oppressed, rejected and broken Muslim nation, Muhammad Ali Jinnah was much more than a political leader. He was the father and the brother, the friend and the counsellor, the guide and confidant, the comrade and leader all combined into one. . . We can show no greater devotion to the beloved leader and give no greater proof of our loyalty to his memory then to base our conduct on the pattern that he has immortalised and to conduct ourselves in a manner that accords with his life-long preaching. From the great grief that envelops the nation today, must emerge a new courage and a new determination to complete the task that the Quaid-i-Azam began, the task of building a free, progressive and secure Pakistan, to restore to our people the dignity and happiness for which the Quaid-i-Azam strove, to equip them with all the virtues that the nobility of freedom demands and to rid them of fear, suffering and want that have dogged their lives through the ages.� (13th September 1948)

think

#210 by MantoLives

Do you really thing one gives a damn about your opinion...

Umm..did you just say that Yasser?

bjkumar,

Do you really thing one gives a damn about your opinion... when you follow Gandhi who declared that Black people were subhuman and genetically inferior? Talk about bigots from down south... Gandhi would have been a Mahatma in South Carolina even in the 1860s....

Get a life.

Ranjit you are a good man below is not for you

Important point: All of this was done while police, government and society was supporting this. Laddu says hindus don’t believe this will lead to retaliation and bombs but only hindus can be so good at logic no one else in the world is such a genius. We will always help our muslim brothers against such heinous crimes and genocide.

Stupid muslims you are always criticizing Islam, muslims and Pakistan see how hindus like always defend India, Hinduism and hindus learn from them how to be nationalist.

They will deny any crticsm of India and hindus and point out how wrong Pakistan and muslims are even if they support a good cause like poor kasmiris or bomabay muslims they will call them terrorits and you join them and abuse ur country and fellow muslims, shame on you and shame on this Busharraf

You can see yourself the hate in their heart fror muslims, and Pakistan from this web site if not convinced read the articles I posted you will see these hindus in UK and USA are funding Gujarat, VHP, BJP and Shiv sena

And in the end thanks to Quaid whose shukrguzaar we are

Important point: All of this was done while police, government and society was supporting this. Laddu says hindus don’t believe this will lead to retaliation and bombs but only hindus can be so good at logic no one else in the world is such a genius. We will always help our muslim brothers against such heinous crimes and genocide.

Stupid muslims you are always criticizing Islam, muslims and Pakistan see how hindus like always defend India, Hinduism and hindus learn from them how to be nationalist.

They will deny and ignore any crticsm of India and hindus and point out how wrong Pakistan and muslims are even if they support a good cause like poor kasmiris or bomabay muslims they will call them terrorits and you join them and abuse ur country and fellow muslims, shame on you and shame on this Busharraf

You can see yourself the hate in their heart fror muslims, and Pakistan from this web site if not convinced read the articles I posted you will see these hindus in UK and USA are funding Gujarat, VHP, BJP and Shiv sena

And in the end thanks to Quaid whose shukrguzaar we are

#202 by rashid_s


Jinnah was a visionary. If it was not for him, all the Muslims of Pakiland would be in India. What a horrible thought!

Jinnah should get a posthumous Nobel Prize. It is true that he failed in getting ALL the Muslims out of India, at least, he gave us Hindus some breathing space.

#202 by rashid_s

Jinnah was a post-enlightened person and an eminent Lawyer and therefore the principle of Justice must have been paramount to him.

Yeah, and so paramount it was to him that he thought Hindus and Muslims could not live together. Some sense of justice it was!!

here is where I got the below report:

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engasa200012005

Calls to rape Muslim girls and women were contained in pamphlets produced by the VHP and RSS and distributed in Ahmedabad months before the violence started.(46) A VHP leaflet called Jihad (holy war), signed by VHP state general secretary Chinubhai Patel, calls on Hindus: “"We will cut them and their blood will flow like rivers. We will kill Muslims the way they destroyed Babri mosque�". It goes on to spell out the sexual nature of their communal hatred:
“"The volcano which was inactive … has erupted, it has burned the arse of miyas [Muslim men] and made them dance nude. We have untied the penises which were tied till now. We have widened the tight vaginas of the bibis [women]�"(47)

Medico Friends Circle (MFC), a voluntary organization of Indian health professionals, similarly observed, “"as pamphlets by the Sangh Parivar indicate, women’s bodies were turned into battlefields in order to perpetrate hate and dishonour and assault the pride, dignity and integrity of the whole community�".(48)

Women have been raped and sexually humiliated the world over in clashes between communities as a mechanism of dishonouring their entire community which becomes impure and polluted by the rape of an outsider. Most observers agree that rape and other forms of sexual humiliation and assault were used in the Gujarat violence as an instrument of systematic “"subjugation and humiliation of [the Muslim] community�".(49) The means and methods of assault bore a deliberate and open Hindu imprint. Women were raped while the rapists chanted Hindu slogans; the weapons with which women’s wombs were cut open were trishuls and swords; the bodies of the victims were not left where they fell but burned in the way Hindus cremate their dead. Witnesses reported that in some cases, the syllable “"Om�" which has religious significance in Hinduism, was cut into the bodies and skulls of victims.

Evidence of the systematic sexual assault on Muslim girls and women is well documented and overwhelming.(50) Girls’ and women’s bodies were subjected to “"almost inexhaustible violence, with infinitely plural and innovative forms of torture … their sexual and reproductive organs were attacked with special savagery�".(51) A doctor who examined victims in a local hospital reported injuries inflicted with a brutality he had not seen before. Women working in a relief camp in Ahmedabad reported to the International Initiative for Justice in Gujarat: “"There were many women bleeding, injured, naked. Many women had bite marks on their breasts. Three women were raped with wooden rods inserted in their vaginas. They were bleeding. We cleaned these women’s wounds after removing the objects inserted into their bodies�".(52) Reports on the violence in Gujarat concur on the pattern of violence inflicted on women. It was not only deliberate but designed to inflict maximum suffering. It was long-drawn, intended to kill not outright but, almost identically everywhere, involving a prolonged gradually increasing pain and humiliation.

Muslim girls’ and women’s sense of shame was deliberately outraged by stripping them in front of relatives and the mob. In Fatehpur, young girls were paraded naked and subjected to verbal sexual taunts, humiliation and threats of sexual violence. When an ambulance finally rescued them, they had nothing to cover themselves with. In all the cases in which groups of people were killed, several women underwent this ordeal. In an attack in the Gulberg Society in Ahmedabad on 28 February 2002, at least 10-12 women were raped and over 30 killed.

While some Muslim survivors reported that rapists had shouted that they intended to impregnate them with “"little Hindus�", the target of particular rage were pregnant women. Several eye-witnesses testified before human rights groups that a young woman, Kausar Bano of Naroda Patiya, Ahmedabad, who was nine months pregnant, was gang-raped and had her womb cut open with a sword; her foetus was ripped out, hacked to pieces and flung on the fire. The mother’s body was thrown on the fire as well. Police in Vadodara were reported by several witnesses to have hit the bodies of pregnant women with rifles shouting “"kill them before they are born�".

The logic of hatred against Muslims also explained the attacks by Hindu mobs on children, both born and unborn, which added another layer of extreme suffering to their parents. Such attacks would remove the future of the community and was certain to profoundly devastate Muslim women and the entire community. Numerous accounts show that women’s main concern during the attacks was for their children’s lives and safety. There are moving accounts of mothers describing the violation of their young daughters. One woman reported, “"I recognized two people from my village … pulling away my daughter. She screamed telling the men to get off her and leave her alone. … My mind was seething with fear and fury. I could do nothing to help my daughter from being assaulted sexually and tortured to death. My daughter was like a flower, still to experience life. Why did they do this to her?�"(53) Children of all ages were deliberately and mercilessly threatened, beaten, cut with swords and killed by Hindu mobs in front of their mother’s and other relatives’ eyes. In Naroda Patiya, a Muslim area of Ahmedabad, new born infants were torn from the arms of their mothers and thrown on the fire. Also in Naroda Patiya, mothers were reported to have pleaded with police to save their children. Some women reportedly laid their babies at their feet begging, in vain, for their protection. Bilqis Yakoob Rasool from Randhikpur village, Dahod district who was five months pregnant when a violent Hindu mob caught up with her and her family was violently gang-raped and made to watch as her three-year old daughter was killed.

Being forced to witness the fear and humiliation, gang-rape, burning to death of mothers, sisters and other female relatives has left deep scars on hundreds of children who survived the violence. At least 33,000 children, many of them orphans, lived in Gujarat’s relief camps after witnessing some of the most brutal forms of violence on their relatives. The Concerned Citizens Tribunal stated, “"They are mute witnesses to gross gender crimes perpetrated on their near and dear ones – sisters, mothers, aunts and even grandmothers – with gory and military precision, evidence of some sick minds and a vicious ideology�".(54)
The intentional sexual humiliation of girls and women is also evident in several reports of police officers exposing themselves to Muslim girls and women and waving their penises at them. A head constable of Gomtipur police station is reported on several occasions to have successfully used this technique to frighten women and cause them to run away. On 2 March 2002, Muslim women in Patel ki chali, a neighbourhood in the Gomtipur area of Ahmedabad, gathered outside the closed main entry gates to their areas to protect the men who had hidden in the houses from both the mobs and police. Two days earlier Muslim neighbourhoods had been burned down. They protested when police entered the area by jumping over the walls. In response, the head constable and his fellow policemen reportedly pulled down their trousers and exposed themselves to the women shouting obscene insults. The mob outside the gate took their cue from the police and did the same. Similar incidents are reported from other areas of Ahmedabad where Hindu men, including police officers, exposed their penises and shouted, “"your men are weak, we’re strong, you’re not strong enough to fuck your own women�".(55)

Many women victims of gang rape and other sexual assault were killed, most frequently by burning them, often while still alive. The burning of victims had the effect of depriving victims’ families of the ceremonies surrounding burial and mourning prescribed by Indian Muslim culture. Muslims bury their dead, whereas Hindus cremate them. By burning the dead or dying, the Hindu mobs enforced a cultural form of disposing of the dead that is alien to the victims’ families and deprived the already traumatized minority community of the important coping mechanism of culturally sanctioned customs of burial and mourning. Hindu mobs were clearly aware of and intended these effects. On 28 February 2002, a Hindu mob of around 25,000 surrounded a Muslim area in Saijpur Patia, Naroda, Ahmedabad, and stormed the lanes and raped girls and women in front of their male relatives. Among the victims were girls as young as 11 who were stripped of their clothes in front of the violent mobs who humiliated and gang-raped them, thrust swords and knives into their vaginas before burning them alive. They then killed Muslim men and women with swords before setting them on fire. They shouted that they would “"even spoil their deaths�". Arson and burning of the dead and the dying and living Muslim victims was clearly intended to “"obliterate a whole community�" by annihilating its culture and beliefs.(56)

The burning of bodies of women victims of sexual assault had the additional effect of destroying all material evidence. In Gujarat, the criminal justice system had been steadily communalized over several years which made it much harder for members of the Muslim minority to obtain justice. In such a context, to deprive victims’ families of the possibility to present material evidence for their complaints in court further diminished the slim chances they had to prove their cases in court.

Surviving girls and women victims of sexual assault have not had any official therapy or trauma counselling to help them cope with their experiences; in fact many had to immediately take on the new responsibilities of caring for other survivors who were equally traumatized and of tending to injured family members.

A unique feature of the sexual violence inflicted in Gujarat in 2002 was the participation of small but significant numbers of Hindu women who approved, instigated and encouraged it. Local human rights monitors have pointed out that “"women from all communities were affected by the fear and terror promoted by the state and the police�".(57) Many Hindu women were convinced of the likelihood of attacks by Muslim men as this prospect had been systematically spread in local media and numerous pamphlets.(58) Local observers have been alarmed by the “"level of hate�" among Hindu women resulting from such indoctrination. Many Hindu women during the violence stayed up at night with their male relatives to guard their homes against presumed assault by Muslims. It is a small step from such vigilante activities to joining men who went on the rampage against Muslims neighbours. Eye-witnesses have named several prominent women who took part in the violence.(59) Some were also reported to be involved in looting of Muslim properties. But many other Hindu women, resisting enormous pressure and braving personal risks, protected their endangered Muslim neighbours, sheltered and fed them and helped them escape.

They raped mothers infront of their children and killed them and children infront of parents

The Times of India -Breaking news, views. reviews, cricket from across India


'Women from minority community still traumatised'
16 Dec 2003, 0343 hrs IST,Piali Banerjee,TNN

SMS NEWS to 8888 for latest updates
MUMBAI: In an unfair world, women have always been the spoils of war. And the post-Godhra carnage in Gujarat, in February-March, 2002, reiterated this with a vengeance.

A testimony of the extent of violence against women, mostly sexual in nature, in Gujarat, comes in the form of a report published by the International Initiative for Justice in Gujarat (IIJG).

The report, titled 'Threatened Existence —A Feminist Analysis Of The Genocide In Gujarat', has been compiled by an international panel comprising feminist jurists, activists, lawyers, writers and academics, based on their interaction with women survivors, activists, doctors, etc.

"The deliberate shaming, especially of girls and young women, by raping them publicly or in front of other family members, including children, speaks of the intentional attempt to subjugate a community by attacking the female body," says the report.

And goes on to cite testimony after chilling testimony of women from the minority community, who were abused, violated, raped, and women who were forced to watch their daughters being abused, violated, raped.

There are testimonies of those who are living only so that they can see their attackers punished.

"I think the most chilling aftermath of the entire carnage comes in the third chapter of the report," says writer Shobhaa De, one of the "chilling first to read the report.

"I got gooseflesh when I read, 'In Gujarat, as in Bosnia or Rwanda earlier, the widespread and furious attacks against women of the minority community were regarded as legitimate not only by male attackers but also by women belonging to the majority community. We heard from testimonies that in some places the rapists were actively supported or even instigated by women of the majority community.' It indicates the complete breaking down of basic humanity."

Documentary filmmaker Rakesh Sharma, Sharma, who has covered much the same ground as the IIJG panelists for his film on the post-Godhra rampage in Gujarat, 'Final Solution' feels that the report will help to remove the misconception of the public that what happened in Gujarat last year was a momentary burst of madness which has now subsided.

"The report will definitely help to put Gujarat back on the agenda, when it comes to public memory," he says.

"We like to live in denial. This will at least jolt us into realising that there has been severe delay, if not complete denial of justice for hundreds of women, who are still living traumatised traumatised lives today, forced to cohabit with their violators who never lose a chance to taunt them whenever they swagger past them."

The trauma, for the women, is far from being over. Consider the example of Madina and her family, who hid in a field in Eral village in Gujarat for three days during the carnage. On the third day, the family was spotted by the mobs. Most of the members were pulled out.

The men were killed. Madina's two teenaged daughters were brutally gang-raped and then burnt to death. Only Madina remained unseen in her hiding place, clutching at her seven-yearold son. Today, when recounting her trauma, her most desperate refrain is, "Did I do wrong in not coming out when my daughters were being raped? Wouldn't they have killed my son too?"

"There are hundreds of women who haven't filed charges for fear of stigmatisation or further abuse. Those who have pressed charges, have begun to give up hope of getting justice," says Sharma.

"For instance, Sultana of Delol village, who was gang-raped has filed a complaint, but the police have claimed that the accused are absconding. Yet she pointed out a local paan-seller to me as one of the rapists."

In its final analysis, the IIJG report offers recommendations to the international community, the Indian government, the judiciary and civil society in India. It remains to be seen how seriously these recommendations are considered by any of the above sectors.

By seeing the reports which borivilli_express..sent ...i wonder ..how cheap ..a human ..can fall to...by rapping innocent girls..and women..andsd then burning them alive...LANAT on all those..and all who support them even in heart...

“…. Secularism is also just as much about the nature of law as it is about religious freedom. As a philosophy, secularism is fundamentally a post-Enlightenment belief that all laws governing human activities and decisions should be based upon the concept of reasonableness, not upon the orders of some alleged divine authority�.

The above is the best explanation I have ever come across but for the word reasonableness was replaced with justice. Jinnah was a post-enlightened person and an eminent Lawyer and therefore the principle of Justice must have been paramount to him.
One would be correct in saying that there is no country even today, including Scandinavian ones where its moral base is not tinged with ‘religion’.

His statement of "Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests� is very significant, particularly when one notes the words -theocracy and priests -which is a clear reference to church (Iqbal also calls it a church), and its operatives who we know are shackled to the centuries old Sharia and beleve it to be divine.
Significantly he differentiated between “Religion� and Islam where the dignity of mankind is supreme. And the State is charged with the responsibility of maintaining it.

As an outsider I believe that if the company of Nehru and Jinnah were to have survived for few years longer sans Mahatmaji religiosity, the relation between India and Pakistan might have been based on different paradigms altogether as compared to today—that is two siblings-- differences not with standing, choosing to live separately in their own houses with their famil;ies, for they had a lot in common.
Rashid

and still some people say..why we divided....

these baighairats sikhs and hindus would have cut us all..if we had not dividedin 1947...

O thanks Jinnah once again..you weer great ..you saw ..behnd the walls...and saved 30 crore muslims of Pakistan and Bangladesh....

Re: # 198 how shameful all this report...

i give salute to great Jinnah..who saved us from baighairat sikhs and hindus...

#183 Posted by echoboom

[Keep digging.Keep writing....Let the Secularoons have it at both ends. ]

You must be really dumb. Read the newspaper reports and add it all up. The people that are dying most, every day, are MUSLIMS.

It is YOU guys who are getting it at both ends - Shias from Sunnis, Sunnis from Shias, both from American Soldiers, from Indian soldiers, from Musharraf's soldiers, from Mubarak's soldiers, from Chinese soldiers, from Russian soldiers, from Serbian soldiers.... and so on.

Then count how many non-Muslims are dying. MUCH fewer in number.

Do the math. It is YOU guys that are taking it from both ends while spouting Jehadi nonsense. And the worst part is, there are no Houris or Ghilmans at the end of the tunnel. All of that's a lie, by the way, if you haven't figured it out. Stop thinking with your penis and endangering your own life and others'.

Stop being a loser, and fulfill your potential to become a human being. It will be a steep uphill climb, but it will be worth it.

For all muslims:

Read the Srikrishna report written by a judge on massacre of muslims in broad day light under directives of state administration, police and shiv sena in Bombay

http://www.sabrang.com/srikrish/sri%20main.htm


in Gujarat it is even worse they raped and cut open the beliies of pregnant muslim women and innocent childrens genital were cut, they raped girls infront of their mother and fathers and burnt them alive or cut them with swords read it yourself.

http://coalitionagainstgenocide.org/reports/2002/uscirf.10jun2002.n ajid.pdf

http://www.sabrang.com/tribunal/volI/incipanchmahal.html

http://h rw.org/press/2002/04/gujarat.htm

http://india.indymedia.org/en/newswire/archi ve38.shtml

They burnt down thousands of crores of muslim business's got the records from the municipality and thewas done under the directives of the state police and government.

They also imposed a boycott on doing business with muslims, so that muslims can not recover after their business were looted and burnt.

For all muslims:

Read the Srikrishna report written by a judge on massacre of muslims in broad day light under directives of state administration, police and shiv sena in Bombay

http://www.sabrang.com/srikrish/sri%20main.htm


in Gujarat it is even worse they raped and cut open the beliies of pregnant muslim women and innocent childrens genital were cut, they raped girls infront of their mother and fathers and burnt them alive or cut them with swords read it yourself.

http://coalitionagainstgenocide.org/reports/2002/uscirf.10jun2002.n ajid.pdf

http://www.sabrang.com/tribunal/volI/incipanchmahal.html

http://h rw.org/press/2002/04/gujarat.htm

http://india.indymedia.org/en/newswire/archi ve38.shtml

They burnt down thousands of crores of muslim business's got the records from the municipality and thewas done under the directives of the state police and government.

They also imposed a boycott on doing business with muslims, so that muslims can not recover after their business were looted and burnt.

http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/246411



Not the best thing to share on Independent day of neighbouring country, but couldn't resist. It might be just staring this way that people are hiding their ID as some poor desis do in west. But by looking at the dire situation of Muslims in general in India, this doesn't come as a shocker. Muslims are equally responsible for their current state. They didn't do enough to vamp up their youths in education, after 5 generations, they are still paying for it.



Fearful Muslims adopt Hindu IDs


In India, many members of religious minority hide the signs of their faith to escape discrimination

August 15, 2007
Shaikh Azizur Rahman
SPECIAL TO THE STAR




CALCUTTA–On a busy street in Calcutta's business district, he runs a food stall called "Rajib's Paratha" and is known as Rajib Mallick.




Using the popular Hindu name, no one suspects he is Rajab Ali Mollah, a Muslim who has adopted a fictitious identity to blend in with the neighbourhood's mostly Hindu office workers.




Sohrab Hossain, a Muslim student who came to the city to complete his Masters degree in English and lives in a Hindu-dominated housing complex, is known as Sourav Das among the students he tutors. To keep up his Hindu appearance he has a small idol of Saraswati, the Hindu goddess of learning, on his desk.




Every morning as she prepares to go to work as a fishmonger, Hasina Khatoon takes off her silver armband embossed with "Allah" in Arabic, puts vermillion powder on her forehead and red-white conch bangles on her wrist – symbols of a married Hindu woman – to maintain a Hindu appearance in a fish market where almost all of her customers are Hindus.




Rajab Mollah, Sohrab Hossain and Hasina Khatoon say they have adopted new identities in a Hindu-majority society where as Muslims they would face discrimination.



Analysts say many Muslims from all socio-economic backgrounds are quietly hiding their religious affiliation.




"Muslims in almost all spheres of life face a communal discrimination by powerful Hindus and they are denied many of their basic rights and freedom in an unjustified way," said Anjan Basu, a social analyst and executive editor of Pratidin, a Bengali daily in Calcutta.



Six decades after Partition, "many (Hindus) believe that Pakistan was created for Muslims and now they do not have right to live in India, which is meant for Hindus."




The Partition of India 60 years ago was a highly controversial arrangement, and remains a cause of much tension on the subcontinent today.




Basu, who is a Hindu, also said discrimination has been "institutionalized," with many Muslims being denied employment in government and private-sector offices where 90 to 95 per cent jobs are held by Hindus.




Gautam Ray, a senior journalist with Calcutta's largest Bengali daily Anandabazar Patrika, said that since the bulk of the dalits (low-caste Hindus or so-called Untouchables) converted to Islam when the religion spread in India, many upper-caste Hindus look down on Muslims as they had for generations looked down on dalits.




"The root of this communal discrimination is deeply entrenched in the society and most of these communal Hindus are not expected to change their feeling for Muslims any time soon," said Ray, who is also an upper-caste Hindu. "Muslims are often denied housing in Hindu-dominated modern residential complexes," he added.




"This communal discrimination against Muslims will not end unless Hindus themselves change their attitude. But we do not see hope of any such positive social change anytime soon."




Muslims who adopted fake Hindu identities believe they did nothing wrong by hiding their original identities.





"Ten years ago, when my house and land in the village was eaten up by a river and I came to Calcutta in search of a job, almost all street shops and restaurants in the city refused to employ me because I was a Muslim," Mollah said.




"Some said their Hindu customers could refuse to eat at their restaurants if a Muslim worked there," he said.




"But I met a Muslim man who worked under a Hindu identity to supply water to restaurants. I followed his advice, picked up a Hindu identity and soon an upper-class Hindu employed me to run a food stall."




Nearly all of Mollah's customers are Hindus and he fears his business would suffer disastrously if his customers found out he is a Muslim.




"I don't think I have done anything wrong because I know how they hate Muslims simply because of their religion," he added.




A federal commission recently found that Muslims "live in socio-economic conditions worse than many so-called backward tribal people," according to commission chief Rajendra Sachar, a former judge.



In the state of West Bengal, where the Muslim community makes up 27 per cent of the population, employment of Muslims in the government sector was below 3 per cent, the Sachar Commission reported.

Some Muslim leaders see education as the key to a better future.





"If the younger generation can educate themselves, it will be difficult for even the most communal Hindus to discriminate against a new Muslim force," said Nazrul Islam, a senior public servant and noted Calcutta writer.



"Maybe discrimination will not be wiped out completely, but an educated and powerful community of Muslims will be able to fight off the injustice, at least to a good extent."



this Article is taken from pakistan greatest forum ...

http://www.paklinks.com/gs/showthread.php?t=261635

Re: # 186 exactly...tahst why Justice Rana Bhagwandas was most powerful man of Pakistan for 4 months..but these makkars hindus and sikhs ..just shameless over thier dhoti walai makkar ledaers when they compare them with man of dignity ..respect and beauty..the prince of india..Jinnah...

#104 Posted by Ranjit


“Gandhi is a very complex figure in history and I doubt that most people understand him properly.�
“However, at some point in his life he began to change. Perhaps it was his bitter experience in South Africa. No one knows exactly when the change happened, but he started going back to his roots.�
“Therefore, Gandhi was an unique politician while Nehru, Jinnah etc were typical run of the mill politicians who wanted to curry favor with the british with the objective of inherting the empire from the british by proving their impeccable brown sahib credentials.�

Your all three statements lack any substance. First, what are most people? The people who follow politics and pay attention to details have no problem figuring out Gandhi.

Please remember first and foremost he was a politician. He was not a saint or has no unearthly or saintly miracles to show. There was noting supernatural in his politics. He was a thoughtful man and planned his moves. And, like many smart and astute politicians learned to speak in measured tone.

Your idea that at some point of time he began to change again lacks substance. Gandhi had learned politics in South Africa and he was experienced in leading people. In South Africa, his politics complied with the norms of South African political scene. Wear suites, speak English and move the courts when in need. If he had followed the same pattern in India, he would have been just another Jinnah or any other suited booted Indian politician. He knew to grab the political mental in India, he will need to be more in line with the populace in India, hence his dhoti and nakedness.

When Jinnah wanted to be the leader of Muslims, he switched to Sherwani and Shalwar. Another suited booted leader Nehru also switched to Pajama Kurta and Vest coat.

Politicians do that to be more in line with their audience. Gandhi took it to extreme by cleaning the toilets and that created an aura and a halo effect that you and others still can’t shake off.
He was no different than Jinnah and Nehru.

I don’t have time now, got to read some more papers and blogs but will come back to it, if you are interested.

Re: # 188 you are right..india is pure hindu state...by calling it secular..is just dramai bazi of hindu janta ..and hindutava ..so that they can deceive the world..when they burn christians missonaries and muslims of gujrat....

as makkars qaum...do...usually..its thier nature....makkari ..ayyari..chalaki....

Re: # 161 yes Zeemax..i fully agree....

Re: # 174
Yes he did and it is on page 305 of Stanley Wolpert's book ' Jinnah of Pakistan'. According to Notes at the end of the book, these remarks are attributed to , Reuter's "Report of Jinnah's Meeting in Cairo", in Atique Z. Sheikh and M.R.Malik, eds. ' Quaid-e-Azam and the Muslm World: Selected Documents' ( Karachi \: Royal Book Co. 1978)p. 166.

#176 by cliftonbridge

Where the goal for prosperity as seen by enlightened folk just like you is the destruction of islam and conversion of muslims in the name of a "balanced" society?

Conversion of Muslims? Not just Jinnah, now I feel even you are speaking out of your you-know-what. Can you please put let us know of a single instance of a Muslim being converted to any other religion in India? Thanks in advance.

#108

Ranjit:

"The fundamental thing to analyze is what was happening... They suffered from acute poverty both physical and intellectual. They had an overwhelming inferiority complex, especially about the westerners who were percieved as superior beings with a superior culture."

This is cliched, Ranjit. British period for the hindus in India was a kind of renaissance period after a long slumber.

Political awareness came before Gandhi - Gokhale, Tilak and a couple of bengali leaders, their names slips my memory. Even Jinnah was there before Gandhi. As Yasser rightly points out, he was an ardent nationalist at that time. Field also includes Dadabhoy Nauroji, and Madam Kama. Social reformer - Raja Ram Mohan Roy. Cultutal and Literary - Tagore, Science - Jagdish Chandra Bose, and other Bose of Bose-Einstein fame.

What I have not been able to find is once the decline of the Mughals had set in, why Hindus could not come in to fill it?

Shivaji and Gurugobind Singh were two isolated exampleries, in this decline period.

All that you read in history during this pre-British period is mainly about Mughal affluence and decadence. There is not much that I have been able to find about the majority who were certainly not muslims.

I suspect that it is in this period of the Mughal decline - those hindus who supported, and in the preceding period, majority suffered the most. Therefore, could not provide leadership - much like Baath Party and Iraqi army who was fired en masse.

After all, by default the majority must be producing the most as well. Where were the economic gains in those days, and how were they distributed?

Military power, other than guerillas (= Shivaji, and Guru Gobind Singh), was getting fragmented. This too was in Aurangzeb's time when the decline started. Even Nizam came into being as a result of this fragmentation. Other than Ranjit Singh there was no one to challenge.

If you now complete the jig-saw puzzle, you may agree that the British provided a renaissance for hindus.

Your point about Gandhi is very well made. Althoug I do get a feeling that at many times he was more interested in reforming Hindu society, and taking others in as necessary components. I made the same point about his views on African Blacks to Yasser earlier, to inline with contemporary to his time. I asked him to produce a single quote from Jinnah on this topic, because I could not find. Neither could he. Jinnah being from rich ismailie community must have contacts with others who were even then spread out in Africa. Furthermore, he being an outspoken liberal, his silence cannot be taken as he being non-conformist to the prevalent view on African race. I have a lecture that Mandela gave to Indian community in South Africa. He certainly refers to Gandhi in very reverend terms, and acknowledged his knowledge of Gandhi's utterances on African Blacks.

If you are arguing "secular" as a constitutional thing then you'd be hard pressed to prove pakistan does not belive in EQUAL treatment to minorities. If you are arguing that there are hate crimes in pakistan then save your breath ....if indian society is your definition of secular then i am against it.

:
Statistics compiled by India's National Crime Records Bureau indicate that in the year 2000, the last year for which figures are available, 25,455 crimes were committed against Dalits. Every hour two Dalits are assaulted; every day three Dalit women are raped, two Dalits are murdered, and two Dalit homes are torched.

No one believes these numbers are anywhere close to the reality of crimes committed against Dalits. Because the police, village councils, and government officials often support the caste system, which is based on the religious teachings of Hinduism, many crimes go unreported due to fear of reprisal, intimidation by police, inability to pay bribes demanded by police, or simply the knowledge that the police will do nothing.

"There have been large-scale abuses by the police, acting in collusion with upper castes, including raids, beatings in custody, failure to charge offenders or investigate reported crimes," said Narula.

That same year, 68,160 complaints were filed against the police for activities ranging from murder, torture, and collusion in acts of atrocity, to refusal to file a complaint. Sixty two percent of the cases were dismissed as unsubstantiated; 26 police officers were convicted in court.

Despite the fact that untouchability was officially banned when India adopted its constitution in 1950, discrimination against Dalits remained so pervasive that in 1989 the government passed legislation known as The Prevention of Atrocities Act. The act specifically made it illegal to parade people naked through the streets, force them to eat feces, take away their land, foul their water, interfere with their right to vote, and burn down their homes.

"muslims, to a large extent, are against secular governance and society"

1.Muslims to a large extent have not gone to college which is an islamic ideal. What is now will not always be.
2.Secular muslims to a whole extent are against being persecuted for their religious beliefs, and that will never change.

Echo sahab i agree. This is why its a pointless debate. Like countless other muslims Jinnah clearly believed in a state religion but EQUAL (not just reasonable) rights to nonmuslims. Thats the essence of secular and the only definition that matters.

arjun now you are just being silly. Ypur idea of secular does not exist outside of china.

Is the US a secular state? Is the american government debating evolution? Does God reportedly speak to the american president? Is christianity the state religion in america? are homosexuals denied marriage in the eyes of the state in most area's?
is israel a secular state? how come its got a state religion? Do jews even in america work on the sabbath day, do they accept pork based insulin? do they insist on kosher? Do most hospitals in new york have a sabbath elevator?

once again you are confusing secular with atheist.

Re: # 10

bulleya

I fully agree with you when you say:

"Using Jinnah's lines to push secularism or shariah in Pakistan is, thus, being historically and journalistically irresponsible........."

I would say: What has secularism, Shariah has to do with the state. In fact the Islamic Allah had no idea whatsoever of the nation state as such which Jinnah had intended to establish. Thinking of a tribal society of 7th century for providing any guidelines for a social and political system in this age of globalization is, to say the least,sheer anachronistic which only an Abujehl could think of.

tejpal:172

I have always valued the input by hindus here, including those of arjun2...because the stuff you guys dig out corroborates what b muslims say, have always clamoured for and will continue to aspire for the ideals Jinnah has suggested ever so frequently.

What you write may not be palateable for non-muslims or the Kanjaroons in Pakistan but it is dainty-dish for the muslim palate.

Keep digging.Keep writing....Let the Secularoons have it at both ends.

#171 Posted by cliftonbridge on August 15, 2007 6:19:11 pm


being muslim in itself means being against secular governance right?


Of all the muslim countries in the world, how many are secular democracies?

yes...muslims, to a large extent, are against secular governance and society...we see that with muslims in the west too...won't use sanitizing gel during hospital visits because it has alcohol...etc etc

#172 tejpal

[If a Hindu empire is achieved, it would mean the end of Islam in India, and even in other Muslim countries.]

Did the dead man REALLY say that?! It reminds me of the type of crap those bigots from the American south used to jibe - with the unmistakable that if blacks obtain equality, it will result in widespread raping of the pristine (white) ladies! :)

My estimation of the dead man just took another beating! Good Lord!

Cliftonbridge:171

can you believe at both things at the same time? i.e islamic principles and some western inspired ideolgies ?
____________________________________________________________

Yes , of course! & be proud of it but if not in the "WEST" then one should never do it at the expense of "EAST".

IN quraanic terms the very concept of East & West is ridiculous..but we use the terms to convey a certain meanings with wich we have impregnated these words.

" Verily for Allah are the East & the West; you may face whichever way, it really makes no difference".

and are there not muslims, in fact some of them much better muslims than myself I think, who are Americans & British ..I mean kalay gorays? Martin Lings, Yvonne Ridley , Yusuf Islam are some contemporary ones.

And who does not dream as an individual or a collective to do things their own way..to put up a better show than whatever is being played? So one can be "with" it and at the same time work "towards" it.

"Har Cheez hai mehv-i Khuud nuumaee
Zarra Zarra shaheed-e Kibraa-ee"
...................................ALLAMA Iqbal

tr:
Every thing wants to put a show of its own
Each speck of dust is a witness to His Greatness"

and as the crooner said : " I did it MY way"

First try to deny that you would want to. You will have a hard time pretending so after publically stating that detroying islam is the only way towards sanity and balance.
After that either admit that you are an exceptionally hatefull individual or admit that you are infact the vast majority of indian hindu's who are venomously intolerant of islam and consider that "secular" thinking.

what? hindu empire will drown islam in middle east?... :)

What are you complaining about mohar? that is your vision for the subcontinent as you just stated. Jinnah just verbalised what you people say and that makes HIM the aggressor? ....this is just too easy.

yeah i thought so mohar. Just wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. Let me guess you also consider yourself "secular" like the rest of India. Where the goal for prosperity as seen by enlightened folk just like you is the destruction of islam and conversion of muslims in the name of a "balanced" society?
Please remember that stated goal because two days later when you decide to talk out of the other side of your mouth and pretend muslims in India live like kings in a shining tolerant land you will be reminded.

there you go clifton bi... yet another example of J-man talking out of his 555, pandering to the audience...

172

J-man really said that? WOW!!!

clifton

J-man talked from both sides of his mouth - now thumping the koran, the next moment holding forth on secularism...

Speaking of atheism - may be you guys should try that for a change... with the amount of bedouin BS that you have loaded up over the years - atheism may prove to be a healthy anti-dote for you folks - restoring some sanity and balance into your society...

It is a sheer delight to read the article as it is from a scientist who highly values objectivity. The article gives benefit of doubt to Mr. Jinnah and his vision but unlike Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Nehru , who have left lots of written record , Mr. Jinnah was not very transparent and hence the interpretaion of his views by liberals, secularist and hard line religionist to explain his views to suit thier ways.
I am , puzzled that unlike Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Nehru who are constantlt evaluated for their failings there are hardly anybody in Pakistan who is openly skeptical of of Mr. Jinnah's views on religion in general and on Islam in particular ( I suppose except the poet faiz ahmad faiz). I find that people from Pakistan always quote Mr. Jinnah's speech in the Assembly where he refers to the religion as personal faith. What kind of a person Mr. Jinnah must have been when he said the following at a pan-Islamic meeting in Cairo in 1946 as quoted in Mr. Wolpert book , Jinnah of Pakistan.

"I told them of the danger that a Hindu empire would repress for the Middle-East and and assured them that Pakistan would tender co-operation to all nations struggling for freedom without consideration of race or colour...If a Hindu empire is achieved, it would mean the end of Islam in India, and even in other Muslim countries. There is no doubt that spiritual and religious ties bind us inexorably with Egypt. If we were drowned all will be drowned."

Could this be from a secular man coming from the subcontinent or was it sensationalism and fear mongering to get Pakistan created. How wrong was he as it is the USA, his beloved ally, and not India, which is creating havoc in the Middle East and is despised by almost all Muslim countries. Does one not see his own leanings towards a pan Islamic World and hence the present OIC which, incidentally refused to let India have an observer status despite India being a country with the third largest population of muslims in the World. Unlike Mr. Gandhi, Mr. Jinnah was not very trusting of others. If he was truly a secular man he did not have to use religion as a proxy to get Pakistan which again is not really a homeland for Mulsims of India as unlike Israel which is homeland for Jews and where any Jew can go, Pakistan still has as a large number of its citizens rotting in Bangladesh camps. Moreover Pakistan, is not open for those muslims who think victamized in India and would like to migrate to Pakistan.
If indeed Mr. Jinnah was a secular man, he gambled and I would say lost as his beloved Pakistan is now a hot bed of Islamic based terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism.
I would like to know why people in Pakistan do not see that Mr. Jinnah , for all his best intentions for muslims, was not a perfect man and prone to mistakes as most politicians do? Would Mr. Jinnah have allowed( accepted) the sharia law where woman as a witness is worth half that of a man. If history is the judge then msulims in India would not have to face sectarian violence ( by this I do not mean between hindus and muslims but between various sects of Islam)and more space for those muslims who are liberal, to adapt to the chnaging World.
Mr. Hoodbhoy is to be congratulated for this excellent article.

mohar let me guess....you must be one of those guys who believe that being muslim in itself means being against secular governance right? Which is why its tough to for you understand why a proponent of "secular " system (exact word not used) must either stand up and proudly proclaim atheism or else he is talking out of his a$$?

Echo sahab you are right that islam will always out.... but i think the question is can you believe at both things at the same time? i.e islamic principles and some western inspired ideolgies ? because i humbly suggest that a person could.

Add-on:

India was not formed as a secular state in 1947 or after.

It was as recent as 1976 this word "Secular" was added to Indian Constitution along with the word 'Socialist'.

As for criticism that western countries are not secular cut much ice, as they dont treat different citizens differently. There are no 2/3 grades of citizenry in the west.

clifton

The only reason why are on the topic is bcause J-man pulled statements out of his %%% depending on the audience... his ideas are all over the place and you pakis have no what to grab on... is it a plane, is it a bird, is it a bee... you have no clue...

That's the unfortunate reality...

Mohar, That's a funny way of putting it. Lol!

Gandhi too wanted a lot of crappy things for India eg.economy, industries, women issues, religion and what not.

But the Constituent Assembly i.e Team India followed the golden path of team work for India and devised a golden document called Indian Constitution which said 'what we are and what we do'.

However:

Pak's journey lost it course and momentum b4 the journey is started. Let them entangle themselves more with the quotes of Jinnah. ;-)

Lets see how/where it proceeds.

for the love of the Prophet & Islam

" Sar-e Khusroe sey taaj-e kaj-kulahee chhin toa jataa hai
Kulah-e Khusravee sey boo-ey sultanee naheeN jaatee"

No matter how much someone hems & haws about their pride in getting westoxicated one thing is certain & has been proven throughout history..every muslim IS a fundamentalist at heart..and when the conditions are right it emergrs if its full glory.

One must concede that for a lot of faint-of-heart roti-kaprRa-aur-makaan (aka Lifestyle & class-consciousness)
makes them do things which are "pragmatic" & hence "taqiyaa" is observed.

"Dil pey liya hai daaGh-e Ishque kho kay bahaar-i zindGi
Ikk gul-e-tar kay vaastay, meiN neiN chaman lutaa diyaa"
_____________________________________________________________

akbar S. Ahmed in the NYtimes.


It has been said that Jinnah chose Lincoln's Inn because he saw the Prophet's name at the entrance. I went to Lincoln's Inn looking for the name on the gate, but there is no such gate nor any names. There is, however, a gigantic mural covering one entire wall in the main dining hall of Lincoln's Inn. Painted on it are some of the most influential lawgivers of history, like Moses and, indeed, the holy Prophet of Islam, who is shown in a green turban and green robes. A key at the bottom of the painting matches the names to the persons in the picture. Jinnah, I suspect, was not deliberately concealing the memory of his youth but recalling an association with the Inn of Court half a century after it had taken place. He had remembered there was a link, a genuine appreciation of Islam. Had those who have written about Jinnah's recollection bothered to visit Lincoln's Inn the mystery would have been solved. However, knowledge of the pictorial depiction of the holy Prophet would certainly spark protests; demands from the active British Muslim community for the removal of the painting would be heard in the UK.

Jinnah in real life by all historical documentation was a person liberal (drink /pig ) and a political secular if you take secular to mean a believer in the EQUALITY of minorities and women. OTOH It is quite clear that Jinnah on chowk is an ink blot test, and stands for whatever the writer hold dear to their own heart.

The only reason we even engage on the topic is because traditionally speaking fundamentalists and liberals should be arch enemies so one group will not allow the other to claim a figure as widely reverred as Jinnah. Even on the flimsiest of grounds.

However when it comes to Jinnah most surprisingly we are falling all over ourselves agreeing with each other.

In the conversation so far the left has yielded that if islamic fundamantalist does not mean taliban but infact kamal atta turk (jinnah loved him) then we are all islamic fundamentalists.

And fundamentalists have conceded that a guy who may have eaten pork, drank alchohol, said a muslim is anyone who said they were muslim, said that we are not a theocracy, that idolators are free to go to their temples and be EQUAL in the eyes of the state....that this man could be an islamic fundamentalist.

Dear PH,

Many thanks for another great article.

And GT dude says J-man was "simply a nationalist"...now that clarifies everything... :)

Is it a bird or is it a plane?... come on pakis... take your pick... :)

romair
[...he talked about it far more than anyone who, as public policy, is pushing secularism.......no one pushing secularism would mention islam, as a basis of social or political policy, so much...]

Which is what I said... so what the heck are you arguing about?

decades down the drain - you guys still don't agree on what J-man stood for... YLH says he stood for secularism... Atif proves that J-man wanted islamism... ferozk says he stood for neither secularism or islamism... Hoodbhoy says he just used islam for political purpose...

you pakis don't know your head from a hole in the ground... and anybody pointing out this problem becomes your instant enemy, has an "agenda" and twisting and turning to fulfill that agenda... :)

atif2 and others:

The writer, manto, rozaiba, HP and others have made the point that Jinnah did not know much about Islam and hence he could not have desired Pakistan to be an Islamic state. Jinnah was simply a nationalist.

The Koran time and again asks the reader to place his/her loyalty only in favour of Allah. This implies the desire to implement Allah's "justice". No other loyality - to the state, its leader etc. This is clear to any reader - Muslim or otherwise. Yet Jinnah asks for loyality to Pakistan - a country (see Manto's quote "Speaking to Quetta Parsis"). I doubt whether Jinnah seriously read the Koran! Forget his desire to implement an Islamic state.

#152 Posted by dawa-i-dil,

No. None of those sacrifices will go to waste. Thanks for enumerating all.

Huh, just read this up...what if you are oart of the group but do not share the belief's of the group? Minority within a minority if you will? Aren't you screwed by
Consociationalism??

Consociationalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Consociationalism is a form of government involving guaranteed group representation, and is often suggested for managing conflict in deeply divided societies.

Consociationalism was discussed in academic terms by the political scientist Arend Lijphart. However, Lijphart has stated that he had "merely discovered what political practitioners had repeatedly – and independently of both academic experts and one another – invented years earlier".[1] John McGarry and Brendan O'Leary trace consociationalism back to 1917, when it was first employed in the Netherlands.[2] Indeed, Lijphart draws heavily on the experience of the Netherlands in developing his argument in favour of the consociational approach to ethnic conflict regulation. The Netherlands, as a consociational state, was between 1857 and 1967 divided into four non-territorial pillars: Calvinist, Catholic, socialist and liberal (although until 1917 there was a first past the post electoral system rather than a consociational one). In their heyday, each comprised tightly-organised groups, schools, universities, hospitals and newspapers, all divided along a pillarised social structure. The theory, according to Lijphart, focuses on the role of social elites, their agreement and co-operation, as the key to a stable democracy.

The goals of consociationalism are governmental stability, the survival of the power-sharing arrangements, the survival of democracy and the avoidance of violence. When consociationalism is organised along religious confessional lines, it is known as confessionalism, as is the case in Lebanon.

Manto writes "To stop one interpretation to dominate another... it follows that a secular i.e. impartial state is what Islam envisages.

Hence you have Jinnah's thought. "

No mian, Islam does not proclaim Jinnah as prophet and son of God, even though you might desire that. Islam envisages a state based on social justice for all, this does not mean that because Muslims happen to be in a majority, you take a good part of their income as Zakah for redistribution purposes and the non-Muslims go scot free and enjoy the services of the state, while they repatriate their surplus earned in Muslim lands to their churches and temples (secular or otherwise) abroad. It means that all be treated equally so if not Zakat then Jizya. Note that justice according to the Quran, where it involves others has nothing to do with the person's belief system. And let me tell you that nowhere do minorities enjoy rights in the so called secular world as they do even in today's rife with injustice Pakistan. Let the Muslims prosletyze the way Christians do here, let them own huge competing institutions as the colonials left here for the Christians and then we'll see what big noise the locals make in America and the European world.

People like FerozK who wail and cry over the rights their ancestors had under colonization enjoy a very high lifestyle compared to the lifestyle they would be able to support were they to live in the West. Here they scold the traffic police cop, shout out at people on the street that are of a lower class and get away with it, over there they would get an a$$ whipping by the police just because of their skin color or accent were they to act out, guaranteed. Here they can strut around and roam around like "gods" over there they are considered sewer rats to whom even the homeless junkie on the streets says "GO BACK HOME". Here Christians prosletyze in the jihadist fashion in the mission schools and in colleges and openly in the newspapers and churches, over there Muslims cringe and crawl trying to convince the authorities that they are not "terrorists" and yet get shouted down by saying "you don't condemn terrorism". Get real you miserable fools, if what exists in the West and in Europe is a "secular" state, I say Fcuk it!

#129 kamath

Absolutely!

bulleya...

If you investigate you'll see that this is true of all religions. Now Islam has a false church.. this false church needs to be separated from the state.

If Islam does not have a church then by clear logic Islam advocates a freedom of religion and individual interpretation.

To stop one interpretation to dominate another... it follows that a secular i.e. impartial state is what Islam envisages.

Hence you have Jinnah's thought.

Urstruly #153 Have you notified the publishers of the English dictionary of your defintion of the word "secular", so that these dictionaries may be revised?

Also, have you edited the Quran to take out inconvenient references to being honest in order to make room for maudoodism?

rozaiba #146: "Nahdlat-ul-Ulema, claims in the book 'Politics of Islam' that an Islamic state has to be secular. Yes, he uses the word 'secular'...."

...its good to see these ideas being discussed.......this is what happens, when one is willing to open up one's mind and attempt to learn from others, rather than always trying to preach to others......this is also what happens when one is willing to treat history on facts, and not on one's pre-defined political agenda....this is also what happens when one breaks out of the black and white rigidities of you are with or against us, on religion and secularism.....

the world exists in greys.....not in rhe rigid blacks and whites of religions and secularisms....

if one looks at islam philosophically, it is impossible to use it as a basis of a universal shariah, for all muslims (what to talk of non-muslims)....since shariah has to be universal, i.e. applicable to all muslims, hence islam fails in this regard, by its own design......primarily because it allows every muslim to bypass any religious group and have direct contact with God.....

....islam abstracts religion, and gives every muslim the right to define it....there is absolutely no mechanism in islam, which gives anyone the authority to define a set of religious rules that, by islam, everyone has to follow......there is, in fact, no concept of anyone claiming any govt. or social power over anyone else through religion......there is no mechanism or authority, in islam, which can declare someone a non-muslim etc.....

......due to this, islamic shariahs vary so much in different countries, societies and timeframes.....shias will never be declared non-muslims in iran.....but they might be declared non-muslims in saudi arabia, someday.......and vice-versa....who knows.....what one does know is that this would be done under two opposing shariahs based on whomever has political power and a majority......this is a religious contradiction....

......secondly, islam does not have a church.....plain and simple......if you don't have a church, then how in the world can you separate church and state......what are you separating the state from, if there is no church to separate it from?........

......secularism is a concept that gained popularity, in the west, because the christian church started gaining far too much political power.........unlike islam, christianity, especially the catholic church, has a very hierarchical structure, which carries a lot of power.......the only way to exclude such power from the state was to separate it out all together......

......islam never had to go through that because islamic church has never had so much power....specifically, because their is not supposed to be a church....even though it has come into existence, through backdoors, there is still an inherent recognition in islam that a person can sit in his room the whole day, never go to a mosque, never follow a pope or an, "islamic" scholar or a jurist and still be a practicing muslim (like i do)......

.....thus, in islamic phiolosophy (lets look at it as a philosophy, and not a religion at the momen, since many readers of this are non-muslims), there is simply a state.......no church.....

.....now how do you define the rules and regulations of the state? this is the $64k question......you cannot use a church, since it doesn't exist......the pope and the local priest cannot do it for, since they don't exist in islam......the quran can do it, but whose interpretation of the quran are you going to follow.........mine or urstruly's......what if we are in a conflict in our interpretations?.......since their is no religious authority to go to, how do we decide who is right and who is wrong?.......in islam, only God can decide.....and He won't tell us, till we are dead.......we could go to a shariah counsel, but who died and gave them the power to adjudicate......certainly not the quran, as it doesn't recognize shariah counsels either........

.......so, basically, islamic philosophy for muslims is based on a group of people, individually (i repeat individually) interpreting the quran and using it in their day to day life as guidance......they can preach their ideas to others, who may follow them.......but under no circumstance, can they claim any kind of state or religious authority on the basis of their ideas, i.e. i have as much a right to lead the prayers in kaaba as any muslim......

......now, such a group can get elected through democracy and implement their religious ideas through the state.....but, according to islam, they still cannot force their intepretation of religion down anyone's throat, as that would violate the inherent islamic right, given to every muslim, by the quran, to have direct contact with God and interpret the quran......

.....the wide group of muslims, then, gets together to form a society and has to decide how to run it.........and it has to run it without an official church or an official religious hierarchy......

.......how should they set up the public part of their lives.......that will be in part 2, assuming you and your various partners in crime are willing to accept the fact that there are others, besides you, who have something reasonable to say, also.......

if, however, you guys keep your minds shut, you will cease to grow and will turn into the fanatics who have no room for ideas other than their own, and who will cheer when people with opposing ideas are killed and subjugated by the state.......

Re: # 148

That is a remarkable piece of information.

It is quite clear then that Jinnah believed in a secular state and saw no contradiction with his Islamic faith and his championing of the Muslim cause.

SOME DEFINITIONS:

Secularism: The state will not enact any law that has its ethical basis in any religious teachings.


Political Islam: The state will not enact any law that contradicts the commands of Allah and His Prophet Mohammad (pbuh).

So do Muslims have a choice to chose between way of Shaytan who offers the way of evil wrapped in enticing names or to submit to the will of Allah and Prophet (pbuh). Your first response is the right answer.

What happened to all those who were the major players of 1971 war and seperation of Bangla Desh....









*Sh.Mujeeb-ur-Rehman

Killed by his own army in 1975...and for 3 days...nobody was willing to bury his dead body...His whole family...except his little daughter...h.Haseena wajid ...due to out of country survived.....










*Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto

one of the most popular leader of pakistan political history...but when nature came in real mode...he was hanged ...on gallows..despite of whole world sympathies with him....His two sons kiled brutally...and his daughter ....kicked out of government for 2 times..shamelessly...and cannot see the Pakistani Land...for 11 years.....











*Russia...

was mainly involve in support with india...to block Pakistan ...Air Force with AWACS techniques....but it was Pakistan single agency ISI..who shattered the world supreme power into 26 pieces.....











*Indhara Gandhi

The PM of India..in 1971..and said that we have drowned the 2 Nation theory in bay of Bengal today...wasd killedin bomb attacked by a sikh of golden temple scenario...his two sons also killed ...Rajeev gandhi...and one in plane crash...etc.....












Did NATURE spare anyone ...who was enemy of pakistan.....


The biggest transfer of population of human history took place in 1947 at pakistan Creation...about 1 crore people moved across the borders....











About 40,00 or more women were kidnapped in east punjab of india....and forcibly married to sikhs...and still some of them are alive as Sikhs grandmaothers.....











About 10 lakh people killed ...mostly muslims ...for this country.....










thousands of innocent girls jumped into well so taht hindus or sikhs could not touch them......












Are all these things happened for nothing !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



http://www.alldost.com/blogs/starsandhearts

whats this green lush colour representative of.....

whats this white represents the noor of a hoor .....




Dr.Muhammad Muzaffar Mirza...one of the top historian ...philosopher and intellectual...and younger brother of legendary Dr. Mirza Munawwar(late) .....have written that in 2005...one night....quaid-e-Azam ...came into my dream...he used to come ...in my life ....but this time after a long time ......



He said...Muzaffar..do you know...what this white and green represents....they represent the Green tomb of Prophet(pbuh) in madina...which green in dominantas compared to white(Gunbad-e-Khizra).....




27 of Ramazan...the most sacred night of the year...with more than 1000 monts...as in Sura Qadar...with many signs of coming into existence from Prophet(pbuh) .... like

*Hussain Ahmed Madni
*Zafar Ali Khan
*Ashraf Ali Thanvi
*Iqbal
*Hasrat Mohani

etc etc.....



After 1400 years ..first time in history...after the state of Madina...only 1 state that came into being in the name of Ideology..was Pakistan....and after 1 year....one another state ...on the name of Ideology...israel....after 2000 years of Diaspora of jews....


Clearly shows...the real mania will be between these two states...near end of times...at Armegadon.....



Not jocking....crystal clear evidences and proofs....confirm that.....The fire is already burning in Middle East.....Iran..Iraq...Syria...Turkey....palestine...Lebanon....all are in the line of fire....and jews === USA (no difference) ...are on thier ways...The stage for Dajjal is already created...and forces of evil and good are already in Iraq...eyes to eyes.....



The situation in Pakistan is changing drastically...political scenario is amalguming into judical blend.....and lights of freedom and power are dancing in the darkness of 60 years long era.....







Time is calling us...decisive moments are approaching fastly....lets prepare to do what Pakistan is created for..... The white star and moon....the green lush image is going to play the leading role in it.....



and whole of our life is woven between these stars of Pakistan ...and burning fires of our hearts....

whats this green lush colour representative of.....

whats this white represents the noor of a hoor .....




Dr.Muhammad Muzaffar Mirza...one of the top historian ...philosopher and intellectual...and younger brother of legendary Dr. Mirza Munawwar(late) .....have written that in 2005...one night....quaid-e-Azam ...came into my dream...he used to come ...in my life ....but this time after a long time ......



He said...Muzaffar..do you know...what this white and green represents....they represent the Green tomb of Prophet(pbuh) in madina...which green in dominantas compared to white(Gunbad-e-Khizra).....




27 of Ramazan...the most sacred night of the year...with more than 1000 monts...as in Sura Qadar...with many signs of coming into existence from Prophet(pbuh) .... like

*Hussain Ahmed Madni
*Zafar Ali Khan
*Ashraf Ali Thanvi
*Iqbal
*Hasrat Mohani

etc etc.....



After 1400 years ..first time in history...after the state of Madina...only 1 state that came into being in the name of Ideology..was Pakistan....and after 1 year....one another state ...on the name of Ideology...israel....after 2000 years of Diaspora of jews....


Clearly shows...the real mania will be between these two states...near end of times...at Armegadon.....



Not jocking....crystal clear evidences and proofs....confirm that.....The fire is already burning in Middle East.....Iran..Iraq...Syria...Turkey....palestine...Lebanon....all are in the line of fire....and jews === USA (no difference) ...are on thier ways...The stage for Dajjal is already created...and forces of evil and good are already in Iraq...eyes to eyes.....



The situation in Pakistan is changing drastically...political scenario is amalguming into judical blend.....and lights of freedom and power are dancing in the darkness of 60 years long era.....







Time is calling us...decisive moments are approaching fastly....lets prepare to do what Pakistan is created for..... The white star and moon....the green lush image is going to play the leading role in it.....



and whole of our life is woven between these stars of Pakistan ...and burning fires of our hearts....

Rozaiba #148 well said. The word 'Secular' is anathema to the maudoodite since it means sharing power equally among all citizens, and not giving the maudoodite a veto authority over this power.

Mantolives writes:

"I for one don't have a problem with you calling Jinnah's inclusive democratic state which keeps faith out of major policy considerations an Islamic state... it might be true that Islam actually envisages such a state... Holy Prophet's Mesaq-e-Medina certainly did... to me this constitutes secularism."

Actually alot of Muslims don't have a problems with this. Abdur Rehman Wahid, former president of Indonesia and the most respected Islamic scholar heading the largest Islamic organization network in the world (70 million member plus), Nahdlat-ul-Ulema, claims in the book 'Politics of Islam' that an Islamic state has to be secular. Yes, he uses the word 'secular'.

Unfortunately Maududi and his filth cannot digest this and prefer to consider their rag-tag terrorism-friendly outfits who enjoy the delusions of 7th century desert outposts, a true representation of what Islam means.

Since, according to jihadi2, the US isn't secular maybe he should be forced to eat pork and attend church...since he's taking the "separation of church and state aren't in the constitution" line most often used by the christian fundamentalists...

trust me...pork is goooood...I'm sure there are plenty of places that will make a good ham sandwich for a paki cab driver on the go...


Manto: The phrase "separation of church and state" doesn't exist in the US constitution but it clearly is the guiding principle of the US...

Re: # 145

Mian Bulleya,

While I appreciate your belated discovery of a spine... I would like you to answer my post (to me you are as much a falsifier of history as mohar11 or atif2):


#111 Posted by MantoLives on August 15, 2007 2:20:41 am
Bulleya,

I am not sure where you drew that conclusion from. You have a curious habit of inventing myths and breaking them.

The argument is and always has been very simple:

a. Jinnah- the one time secular Indian nationalist- championed the cause of Muslim minority in United India. His struggle was for and on behalf of the Muslim people(s) who he termed a nation so that there may be a consociationalist solution at the centre.

b. As a result of Jinnah's efforts, Pakistan was created advertently or inadvertently... and Jinnah was opposed by all theocrats.

c. Jinnah spoke consistently of a Pakistan where the state would be impartial to faith of the citizen, where minorities would have equal rights and where priests with a divine mission will not run the state.

Now that c. is what the contention is about. Most people would say that this amounts to a secular state. Jinnah himself knew - as a lawyer- that legally anything that is not theocratic is by default secular. However... I for one have NEVER had any qualms with those who wish to call such a state Islamic. But where the hell is such a state? Atleast make it before you declare it secular or Islamic.

Now coming to your equally ignorant argument about the word secularism... could you produce a single artefact from say the foundation documents of the United States which has the word "secular" or "secularism". How about France? Does the word secular or any french variant thereof appear in the original declaration?

The issue of secularism has always been a separation of Church and State- thus a secular state is:

1. One without a clergy determining law of the state.

2. One where the state is impartial to a person's faith.

3. One where all citizens are equal before law.

4. Sovereignty rests with the people.


Now...

1. "In any event Pakistan is nto going to be a theocratic state to be run by priests with a divine mission".

2. "You may belong to any religion caste or creed- that has nothing to do with the business of the state"

3. Numerous statements quoted in #1.

4. Read Jinnah's interview with Doon Campbell where he says sovereignty will rest unconditionally with the people.


Now all you can prove by Jinnah's references to Islamic ideals and Quran etc can only prove that Islam endorses above mentioned principles... but it cannot prove the opposite no matter how much you try.

The litmus test will be to show a single act or piece of legislation by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly that sought to Islamise the Constitution or Civil or criminal laws.... under Jinnah- who was a powerful civilian ruler.

Objectives Resolution- passed after Jinnah's death- marked a departure from these principles enunciated by Jinnah...

Not only that it violated the basic principle on which you created Pakistan:

No permanent majority by sheer majority can dictate to a permanent minority

Secular, religious or something else this was the only principle Pakistan was created on. The objectives resolution was voted against by all Non-Muslims and one Muslim League Muslim as well. Therein lies the irony of those who claim nonsense like you've done in your post.


Quaid-e-Azam Mahomed Ali Jinnah stood unequivocally for the kind of system which would be described in modern parlance as a secular democracy. If it could be defined as an Islamic democracy as well just proves that Islamic democracy is a fancy term for Secular democracy. Jinnah certainly thought his vision was compatible with Islam...

The real question we should be asking is that whether Jinnah was right in proclaiming his essentially secular vision of the state as Islamic?

I think this article also argues the same thing.

mohar11 #: "J-man talked about koran, islam all the time - "islam is in danger" was his rallying motto... compared to that his talks on secularism were few and far between..."

i have to say there is nothing more interesting and entertaining than reading the comments of individuals who have an agenda, and are trying their best to twist and turn facts, to prove their points......

J-man did talk about islam and quran quite a bit (though not all the time).....at least in public......and he talked about it far more than anyone who, as public policy, is pushing secularism.......no one pushing secularism would mention islam, as a basis of social or political policy, so much.......

however, he never talked about, "islam in danger"......once again, much like i have challenged the secular falsifiers to highlight where in the history of pakistan's creation, the term, "Secularism" was used, i would like to challenge you to highlight, where, "islam is in danger" is used.....at least where did jinnah use it?

......the answer is he never used it.......now, you can, like those arguing the opposing side, twist and turn and connect and deduce and calculate and weave his other statements to reach the conclusion you have reached.....much like those oppoosing your views are doing to reach their secular conclusions.......

but you would be as wrong as them.......at best it will be a personal opinion on your part, which would, factually, only be applicable to you.......it would not be an actual fact.....

the other option is to, as i stated, let us all know, where j-man said that islam is in danger......i tend to prefer this direct and factual approach.....

p.s. please don't tell us that in afghanistan or saudi arabia, no one ever said that, "islam is in danger," however they still have shariah governments, because they mention islam and quran a lot.....hence j-man didn't need to say it, either......even though, "islam is in danger" is what he meant, because that is what afghanistan and saudi arabian leaders mean.....

i will expect a better argument than this from you.....such arguments are for those who have no other argument.....

Yes Atif yes you are a vandal of history indeed.

So if Ataturk implemented it... and Jinnah described Ataturk as the greatest Musalman of the age and an example for Indian Muslims .... what does that mean?

Don't tell me that Jinnah didn't know anything about Turkey because you just said that Jinnah had enough rationale after Ataturk's implementation.

1. This is an academic discussion.

2. The issue is not what Pakistan is but about the historical figure called Jinnah.

3. Since I don't ascribe to Ahmadi beliefs I am not an Ahmadi Muslim.

atif #141 any thoughts on my post #117?

Manto thunders in #139 "Resorting to simple arguments like ... Jinnah didn't use the word secular in public... is ironic because in that case neither the US nor France are secular because their founding documents don't use the word secular either."

One thing that internet has done is that it has made the cost of obtaining information affordable to masses. And hence, the "enlightened" elite and other pretenders can no longer have a free run at creating smoke screens to make their arguments appear grand.

If the american and french founding documents do not contain the term "secularism", then there is a good reason for it. The term "secularism" was first coined and used by the British writer George Holyoake in 1846 (as per wikipedia)...a full 70 years AFTER the founding of America.

But what is more damaging to your (left over) credibility is the fact that the term "secularism" was coined a full 101 years BEFORE the creation of Pakistan. Not only that, Ataturk had went ahead and even IMPLEMENTED it, thus giving Jinnah good rational, opportunity and plenty of excuse to use the word "secularism", if he so desired.

Unfortunately for you, he never did.

But more appropriately for you, the term "vandal of history" was coined by Atif2 on August 12th 2007.

YLH

Read my 138, 134, 130, 121... also - read the reality - pakiland is a theocracy, you are a non-muslim being a qadiani, and J-man is dead... :)

Re: # 137

You still don't have the facts. You have emotive arguments that don't make sense.

Jinnah's vision of the state as an inclusive democratic impartial state is a fact. You guys can go on jumping about assuming that Jinnah's references to Islamic democracy and Islamic principles of equality fraternity and justice... but in the end unless you are arguing that Jinnah's ideas of equality of citizenship and state's indifference to personal faith is an Islamic vision you don't have a point. This Islamic vision thus fits the definition of a secular state.

I for one don't have a problem with you calling Jinnah's inclusive democratic state which keeps faith out of major policy considerations an Islamic state... it might be true that Islam actually envisages such a state... Holy Prophet's Mesaq-e-Medina certainly did... to me this constitutes secularism.

Resorting to simple arguments like ... Jinnah didn't use the word secular in public... is ironic because in that case neither the US nor France are secular because their founding documents don't use the word secular either.

At the root of all this is this belief that secularism is inherently anti-religion... the principle of state's impartiality - in Jinnah's view clearly- was not anti-Islam.


Mohar11,

Read my post 131...

YLH

fine - add a few more months to that - what's the difference? the guy high-tailed out of pureland when he realized it was freaking mistake... J-man mis-calculated big time... you can't piggy-back secularism on top of "la illah allah hillah" and "Koran is the best book"...

But then J-man was already dead... too bad, the guy didn't live to see the cr@p unfold - it would have been quite a spectacle - both J-man and his "law minister" high-tailing together out of pakiland via wagah border :)

bulleya # 107 - What you have managed to articulate in your one post is what perhaps it would have taken me 10 posts. Yours are EXACTLY the points I have been making over the last few weeks...that Jinnah's legacy has been hijacked and vandalized by a special interest group.

But I think blame lies with the rest of the pakistanis for letting it happen. Either we were indifferent, lazy, or just not armed with facts. But thankfully, like every cause these "enlightened" elites take, they ruined this one too. I guess being "enlightened" and being "competent" can be mutually exclusive.

Still, their incompetence is not a laughing matter...it has had bloody results through out the history of Pakistan (East Pakistan, Baluchistan, Waziristan). Since these "enlightened" elites cant make their arguments based on vandalizing history, they often resort to making their points by perpetuating and cheering mayhem and killings of people who beg to differ. And hence it is no surprise then that most of the people on this board who are the cheerleaders of "secularism" and "compassion" towards minorities, are also the same people who cheered loudest when their enlightened moderate leader massacred more than 300 people in lal masjid using army apparatus.

Now that these bearers of Jinnah's alleged "secularism" have been thoroughly discredited (at least on chowk), it is time for a new breed of pretenders to pick the torch of Jinnah's "secularism"...at least they will be starting with a clean state.

Re: # 130

"few months later"

You do know he was the law minister till 1950 right? He resigned in protest of Objectives resolution.

#126 Posted by MantoLives on August 15, 2007 5:13:06 am


I have quoted 15 from the last year alone


you don't get it, do you? What jinnah wanted has become irrelevant...you could find a recording of jinnah saying "atif, manto is right..I wanted a secular state" and it wouldn't alter the reality on the ground..the reality that pakistan today is, in your own words, a theocracy...

ironically - the only place muslims still have "constitutional, religious, cultural freedom" is Congress's India... :)

#131 Posted by MantoLives on August 15, 2007 5:38:14 am


It is actually claimed that Pakistan Ka Matlab kiya ironically was a slogan that came into existence much later than the Pakistan movement.


fine...the pork eating j-man wasn't down with that..we can agree on that..

nevertheless, that IS your slogan TODAY and that is your reality...regardless of what j-man wanted...

#125 Posted by bulleya on August 15, 2007 5:02:51 am



there is absolutely nothing in the social, political, constitutional (or any other al) history of pakistan, which includes the concept of mullah


And yet you have the blasphemy laws, certain maybach owners being declared non-muslim and the whole 4 witnesses to a rape thing...

ergo..it's the non-mullah pakis who support the law...

you can't have it both ways...either the mullahs make the rules or the rules, as they exist, are set by the non-mullah class...

Mohar mian,

It is actually claimed that Pakistan Ka Matlab kiya ironically was a slogan that came into existence much later than the Pakistan movement. I certainly haven't found any evidence of this slogan in the movement itself but I have seen sme people claim it. And no Muslim League leader uttered the words "Islam in danger" though they repeatedly said "Muslims were in danger".

At the height of the Pakistan Movement Jinnah declared:
What are we fighting for? What are we aiming at? It is not theocracy, not for a theocratic state. Religion is dear to us. All the wordly goods are nothing when we talk of religion. But there are other things which are very vital—our social life and our economic life, and without political power how can you defend your faith and your economic life.


http://www.bitsonline.net/eqbal/articles_by_eqbal_view.asp?id=6&a mp;a mp;cid=2

I think it makes it abundantly clear that religion per se was simply a determinant of the group and not the master signifier of the Pakistan Movement... No matter what the Mullahs who opposed Jinnah say now.

Folio

J-man was trying to be too clever by half... pandering to islam while trying to piggy-back his secular ideas on top of that...

He would have realized that such stuff doesn't work but unfortunately there wasn't enough time... it all happened pretty quickly, within space of a few years... Congress didn't want to fight his cr@p longer than necessary - so they called the bluff... Suddenly J-man had millions of unwashed wannabe-bedouins and he has no idea to handle them... so he came up with a speech and a stunt... make a hinud the law minister... the guy who quit a few months later and got the heck out of there...

Like they say in india - if you eat fire - you will pass charcoal... J-man was eating islamic fire and produced a lump of ugly useless charcoal called pakiland... :)

The writer Pervez Hoodbhoy is a brave and courageous man to speak the truth so candidly without fear. I hope Pakistani future generations would learn from such honest talks.
Kamath

freozk
[...Pakistan was created in the name of a religion, but it was not...]

come on dude - who are you kidding?... "Pakistan ka matlab kya - there is no other god but allah"... "islam is in danger"..."koran is the best book"... and yet you say - pakiland was not created in name of religion...

if it wasn't - then pakiland would not be where it is today... the proof is right there in the pudding... :)

J-man may have had all sorts of ideas in his mind - but on ground - it was all about islam... otherwise the masses would not have gone with him... abdul didn't really care about "consitutional, economic and religious, cultural freedoms"... neither did the feudals and other assorted folks of J-man's party... abdul cared about islam and allah... that's what he fought for - not for "consitutional freedom"...

ferozek #: "In the end, one has to look at Jinnah's personal believes on the role of the state and not what his religious believes were in the role of the state to finally decided what form; Islamist or secular he supported for Pakistan.......Jinnah, then, was neither a secularist or an Islamist as much as he was a meritocrat..."

...these two statements are somewhat contrdictory.....

i think there is enough in jinnah's personal life, to indicate that, personally, he prefered secularism.......and i assume meritocracy.....

......however, when one studies political history, one looks at the public statements of politicians, for policy guidelines.......not their private life......

.......i am quite sure obama and hillary support gay marriage personally.....however their political statements do not support gay marraige......they only support gay unions...........

....it is their political and public statements that define the future direction of any government they may lead......and the direction of their party policy....

.....public and political statements are greatly influenced by the voters and the public one is leading....this is why, in many cases, they are contradictory to one's personal beliefs.....

....in that sense, one could argue that jinnah was a hypocrite.....he personally believed in secularism, but publically never used the word, and in fact, used islam and quran much more.......i wonder if he had even read the quran......

.....or one could argue that he was a politician leading a group of people and gave the desires of the people precedence over his own personal beliefs......

but the fact remains that, from his public and policial persona and statments, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that he was pushing a secular state.......he removed the word, "secularism" from his public vocabulary.....he also did not want a theocratic state.....

i suppose, he was ok with anything but a theocratic state, and left his comments in a blur.......he opposed a theocratic state.......and neither opposed nor supported (this is important to note) a secular state.....and pushed islam and quran here and there also.....

Re: # 121

On the contrary the Islamic quotes produced by Atif2 and company.. (at most 6 or 7 quoted by people here about Islam) are few and far between Jinnah's quotes regarding democracy equality etc... I have quoted 15 from the last year alone... and there are many many more I have quoted over the years. So the "few" acts actually far out number the so called "many".


However that is not the point.... ferozk has summed it well in his post and I will let people read it.

laddu #: "Mullahs have first claim over Pakistan , just as they have the first claim over Islam."

......this is incorrect.......there is absolutely nothing in the social, political, constitutional (or any other al) history of pakistan, which includes the concept of mullah...

as i always say, as long as people try to portray history, through their agenda-based coloured glasses, they will twist it to suit what they believe in........

interestingly the two groups that distort the facts the most - mullahs and secularists - are the two groups, which have absolutely nothing to base their stands on.......

....the historical speeches, documents, resolutions related to pakistan seem to paint pakistan as a state which will have islam as its moral compass, both in public and personal life, with all minorities getting equal rights.....

on the whole the objectives resolution maps the views of the leaders of those times (including jinnah) quite well......

now how this was to be achieved was never articulated by anyone.....i think everything happened so quickly, that no one had the time to philosophise on the above.......

re: Hoodbhoy

I will defer to MantoLives, on the topic of Jinnah, but I believe that Manto's interact # 1 said it all. The constitution of Pakistan will be decided by the people of Pakistan regardless of what Jinnah may have wanted for Pakistan. The only condition is that it is done in an open and demcoratic manner and is not forced upon the people.

Jinnah was a meritocrat and he was neither an Islamist or a secularist. My inference is made on a telling point by Jinnah, in his August 11, 1947 speech, which was the reference to the religious wars between the Protestants and Catholics in English history. Religion to Jinnah, was a personal affair and it had nothing to do with the affairs of the state. Jinnah must have realized from the experience of the English religious wars that a nation, where two or more religions exist should favor all religions equally and to make sure that it happened this way, the state should not get into the business of deciding religious issues.

Secularism does not make a nation into an atheist, but it does make the tolerance of all religious believes possible and in a nation with multiple religious believes, each religion must be provided with the space to exist without being dominated or persecuted by one particular religion that has the offical patronage of the state.

In the end, one has to look at Jinnah's personal believes on the role of the state and not what his religious believes were in the role of the state to finally decided what form; Islamist or secular he supported for Pakistan. Regardless of his personal opinions, his choice of a Hindu as the first law minister of Pakistan proved that Jinnah favored the latter not because of his western education and liberal intellectual thought, but because he realized the pitfalls for Pakistan if one religion was favored over the rest of the religions in Pakistan and instead opted for a choice based on the qualifications of the person, for a task, and not his religious inclinations.

Much has been said about Jinnah and his reasons for creating Pakistan, but it still does not negate the fact that what made Jinnah great to the Indian Muslims despite his lack of Islamic knowledge or his westernized outlook, was the single minded sincerity of purpose he brought to the cause of the Muslims of India. Having said, one would expect nothing less from Jinnah once Pakistan was created and in the interests of Pakistan, Jinnah would have supported a secular form of government. He would have done so not because he was anti-Islam, but because he must have realized that Pakistan being a multi-religious state could not be single religion dominated state and still endure.

The argument, whether Jinnah was secularist or Islamist only makes sense if point was that Pakistan was created in the name of a religion, but it was not. Pakistan was created to ensure the consitutional, economic and religious, cultural freedoms of Indian Muslims and had Congress agreed to these demands, Jinnah would not have pursued the case of the Indian Muslims to the point of partition in 1947.

Jinnah, then, was neither a secularist or an Islamist as much as he was a meritocrat, who believed that meritocracy in the service of Pakistan was the best option for the new nation.

Ciao

mullah32 is freaking dense... All these years at chowk - and only now he realizes this :)

Dr. Hoodbhoy said:

"Why did a man known for his integrity fight shy of expressing his beliefs openly and forthrightly? The answer lies in the political reality of building a coalition of zamindars, pirs, and parts of the Indian Muslim elite. Mr. Jinnah surely did not share the retrogressive views of the feudal elements who chose to have him as their leader. Had Jinnah campaigned for a liberal, secular Pakistan – and that too in competition with the secular Indian National Congress under the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru – he would have certainly lost the leadership of the Pakistan Movement. So, Jinnah opted for ambiguity, hoping that:

a) People in his Muslim League would not notice his lifestyle too much.

b) That the contribution he was making to the welfare of Muslims – by helping level the playing field – would dominate everything else.

c) That a liberal, secular Pakistan would one day follow once the messy business of partition was over with, and it was unnecessary to raise the issue of secularism now."



which I think is very closer to the truth.

Jinnah had ball of his youth in Bombay and London. He got political lessons from Pherozshah Mehta and idolised Ranade and became the disciple of Gokhale.

BUT, when he needed a launching into politics he needed to take the route of as a Mulism rep of Bombay at National Assembly in Delhi (in 1910s).

WHY?

That's the GAP btw the idealism and reality in India.

Jinnah's love affair with idealism went up to 1930s and from then on realipolitic and the rest is history. As a Metro Muslim his knowledge of Islam is as good as that of Salman Khan's.

When he advocated Sharia and calling Muhammed as a true democrat and true secualrist (kinda), who he thought was the true ideal of Muslims he's obviously resrting to rhetoric and playing to the gallery.

Nevertheless his 11/8 speech is still a mystery to me. How can he say two different things? Was he too naive, like Gandhi was abt Hindu-Muslim unity?

For me, Dr. Hoodbhoy's piece gave me some clues (as quoted above).

rozaiba

As pointed out by various interactors - J-man talked about koran, islam all the time - "islam is in danger" was his rallying motto... compared to that his talks on secularism were few and far between...

So - what he really wanted is anybody's guess - but his politics clearly pointed towards an islamic system... which is why muslim masses were interested and enthused in the first place... a few acts of "secuarlism" on part of J-man is considered acts of omission rather than then his real intent...

J-man may not have wanted sharia as such - but it doesn't matter... abdul wants sharia, abdul wants more islam, abdul does NOT want secularism - secularism is NOT what abdul fought for... abdul fought for "pakiland ka matlab kya - la illlah illah hillah"... abdul fought for "no god but allah"...

J-man is dead... abdul is young and alive... he doesn't believe in secularism, he doesn't believe that J-man actually wanted secularism... he has his speeches to prove it... what are you going to do?

Ranjit #: ....i have always been interested in threading through the history of south asia, under the british rule, to figure out what is accurate and what is inaccurate.....it is quite interesting to find out that much of what has been taught to us, is not correct......

.....i am reading up on the 1857 phase, at the moment....muslims and hindus seem to have been living quite comfortably together up til this phase.......it was, primarily, the hindu soldiers who carried out the mutiny......muslims joined in later - both soldiers and volunteer jihadis.......

......in fact, 4/5th of the british forces were natives as well - primarily punjabis (and pathans) - ....this would imply, they were sikhs and muslims......

.......the hindu soldiers went to shah zafar - a muslim king - to lead them.....zafar's mother was a hindu......what is even more interesting are the speeches that were made......natives were aroused to defeat the kafir, who was trying to destroy their muslim and hindu religion.....the kafir being the christian british.......

...so somehow or the other muslims and hindus were living together quite comfortably.....in fact, there is a theory that much of the problems started, after 1857, when the british, deliberately, belittled muslims to paint them as the cause of the historical problems against the hindus....

.......in any case, it would be interesting to understand the psyche of hindus and muslims, in terms of demoralization, circa 1857 and 1947........

i think people, greatly, overblow gandhi's religious leanings......once again, another effort by individuals who are hell-bent to belittle anything they do not agree with.....

.....i am actually quite a fan of gandhi......i think his ideas, circa 47, are exactly what was needed in south asia......and jinnah was quite ok with him also.....had gandhi's ideas been implemented, south asia would have been a far more peaceful place today......and that is what should be given importance.......not how religious or secular a person happens to be.....

too many inidividuals on this site have taken religion and secularism to the point of becoming fanatically indulged in both......

#104 Ranjit

This was one of your best! And so consize, too.

#116

1. Indians would love to see Pakistan fail, as is obvious from chowk.
2. Indians would love to see maulvis determine the future of Pakistan, as is also obvious from chowk.

Luddu mian: Thanks for making things crystal clear. :-)

#116

1. Indians would love to see Pakistan fail, as is obvious from chowk.
2. Indians would love to see maulvis determine the future of Pakistan, as is also obvious from chowk.

Luddu mian: Thanks for making things crystal clear. :-)

Re: # 107
".....the words islam and quran appearing everywhere, from jinnah's many speeches to the objectives resolution, i.e. the words of the country's founder and in the legal document laying the country's foundation, is ignored......"

bulleya ji is right.

Mullahs have first claim over Pakistan , just as they have the first claim over Islam.

So, shut up you ignorant western educated elites. Burn away your western books and libraries, burn its laboratories, throw away every thing and stick to using pebbles and lotas for ablution.
conform to shariah or get your head chopped off because that is what pakistan means - Paksitan ka mutlub hai La ilaahi illilah!!! - and Raj Karega Mull-allah.

Well said Rozaiba.

It would be quite remarkable for a man who was born in a community that could be summed up as the 'minority of the minority of the minority' (ie Ismailis) to argue for a shariah/theocratic state under which his community would face fatwas of heresy.

There is much that Jinnah said that is manipulated by the Islamists to justify a shariah-based state. However, Jinnah's actions prove contrary to the assumptions taken from his words. The first law minister of Pakistan, appointed by Jinnah, was a kafir. In 1400 years of Islamic history, I've not read of a kafir administering and formulating shariat legalities of an 'Islamist State'.

Re:bulleya#110

The muslim masses were backward as well, more in the physical sense in terms of jobs, education etc. However, psychologically speaking, muslims had lost power only in 1857, so their sense of loss and demoralization was probably lower as compared to hindus who had been in political wilderness for centuries.

To be fair, there were other social reformers among hindus starting with Raja Ram Mohan Roy. Gandhi definitely leveraged that foundation. Where he excelled was in marrying social reform with political opposition to the british - making it a strongly coupled joint objective. That yielded significant benefits for India both socially and politically. Interestingly enough, Gandhi tried to pull in muslims into this process as well by appealing to core muslim values just as he appealed to core hindu values for hindus. The objective was to reject british and western values and develop confidence in our own capabilities.

As the americans debate whether to bomb or not to bomb pakistan, as mushy denies any deals with benazir so that she, a pakistani citizen can return to pakistan, when teh president of pakistan can be woken up at 2 AM by a mere secretary of the american govt to instruct not to declare emergency, when the leader of the ruling party in pak assembly declares that recognising taliban and sending the jihadis to India and teh world over is the appropriate approach for pakistan,


my dear pakistanis, there is nothing for you to celebrate on this day.

If you havnt committed suicide in disgrace, at least hold your in your palm and curse the man who delivered this day to you.

Bulleya,

I am not sure where you drew that conclusion from. You have a curious habit of inventing myths and breaking them.

The argument is and always has been very simple:

a. Jinnah- the one time secular Indian nationalist- championed the cause of Muslim minority in United India. His struggle was for and on behalf of the Muslim people(s) who he termed a nation so that there may be a consociationalist solution at the centre.

b. As a result of Jinnah's efforts, Pakistan was created advertently or inadvertently... and Jinnah was opposed by all theocrats.

c. Jinnah spoke consistently of a Pakistan where the state would be impartial to faith of the citizen, where minorities would have equal rights and where priests with a divine mission will not run the state.

Now that c. is what the contention is about. Most people would say that this amounts to a secular state. Jinnah himself knew - as a lawyer- that legally anything that is not theocratic is by default secular. However... I for one have NEVER had any qualms with those who wish to call such a state Islamic. But where the hell is such a state? Atleast make it before you declare it secular or Islamic.

Now coming to your equally ignorant argument about the word secularism... could you produce a single artefact from say the foundation documents of the United States which has the word "secular" or "secularism". How about France? Does the word secular or any french variant thereof appear in the original declaration?

The issue of secularism has always been a separation of Church and State- thus a secular state is:

1. One without a clergy determining law of the state.

2. One where the state is impartial to a person's faith.

3. One where all citizens are equal before law.

4. Sovereignty rests with the people.


Now...

1. "In any event Pakistan is nto going to be a theocratic state to be run by priests with a divine mission".

2. "You may belong to any religion caste or creed- that has nothing to do with the business of the state"

3. Numerous statements quoted in #1.

4. Read Jinnah's interview with Doon Campbell where he says sovereignty will rest unconditionally with the people.


Now all you can prove by Jinnah's references to Islamic ideals and Quran etc can only prove that Islam endorses above mentioned principles... but it cannot prove the opposite no matter how much you try.

The litmus test will be to show a single act or piece of legislation by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly that sought to Islamise the Constitution or Civil or criminal laws.... under Jinnah- who was a powerful civilian ruler.

Objectives Resolution- passed after Jinnah's death- marked a departure from these principles enunciated by Jinnah...

Not only that it violated the basic principle on which you created Pakistan:

No permanent majority by sheer majority can dictate to a permanent minority

Secular, religious or something else this was the only principle Pakistan was created on. The objectives resolution was voted against by all Non-Muslims and one Muslim League Muslim as well. Therein lies the irony of those who claim nonsense like you've done in your post.


Quaid-e-Azam Mahomed Ali Jinnah stood unequivocally for the kind of system which would be described in modern parlance as a secular democracy. If it could be defined as an Islamic democracy as well just proves that Islamic democracy is a fancy term for Secular democracy. Jinnah certainly thought his vision was compatible with Islam...

The real question we should be asking is that whether Jinnah was right in proclaiming his essentially secular vision of the state as Islamic?

I think this article also argues the same thing.

Ranjit #108:...interesting analysis......probably quite accurate.....

though, i am not sure how, "demoralized" the hindu community was during the times you have mentioned......my guess is muslim community may have been quite a bit more demoralized.....the later had fallen behind in all spheres of life, had no leadership, and were, totally, unsure of how they would survive as a minority......in addition, after 1857, the british had made it a point to demonize them even further.....

As the pakistanis sing their national anthem written in Persian language which no one knows in pakistan, as they chant kashmir banega pakistan in the backdrop of gunshots to celebrate, as the helicopter gunship shoot down the jihadis created by earlier governments, as most of karachi is in darkness due to power cuts, I wonder when will it all end, the mostrocity created by one man on a typewriter, which fitted into the colonial designs of divide and rule.

I find that Zeemax is back, this time I thought he will post pictures of pak soldiers de-capitated by the jihadis rather than the dead indian troops.

Then again zeemax will not do that , that will be contarary to the jihadic mores of killing the kafirs.

The again, the pak TV stations are portraying the soldiers as martyrs, entitled to the 32 houris, supporting my view that pak army is a jihadic army.

What a way to celebrate, it was not independance for pakistan, it was only slavery under TNT that Jinnah promised.

So my dear pakistanis, do not celebrate, shed a tear for the jihadis being created and now killed for a few silver, no no just paper dollars

Manto,

At the turn of the century, racist views against blacks were part of the mainstream views in western countries. It certainly changed later on and Gandhi changed as well. Similarly caste was part of the hindu ethos at that time, probably hundred times more than it is today. So it would be quite usual for a young hindu to have caste based thinking at that time. However, Gandhi moved away from casteism later on and tried his best to modify the system. He knew that he could never erase it but he tried to soften the boundaries and get buy in from hindus to relax the extreme barriers, especially at the lower end for untouchables.

The fundamental thing to analyze is what was happening in India at that time. The main issue in India was the lack of self-confidence and complete demoralization of the vast masses of Indians at that time. Indians, especially hindus, had been subjugated for so long and by so many, that they were basically nothing more than a bunch of habitual losers. They had regressed into an ossified social structure, blinded by superstition, narrow minded thought processes (for e.g. traveling outside India could get you kicked out of your caste) etc. They suffered from acute poverty both physical and intellectual. They had an overwhelming inferiority complex, especially about the westerners who were percieved as superior beings with a superior culture.

Gandhi was among the first few politicians to understand the deep rooted malaise in Indian society. He understood that the british rule was primarily responsible for the rot that had set in although Indians were themselves responsible for the mess as well. Therefore, he took on two objectives - resistance against british and reforming India's dilapidated society. He was able to figure out that the two objectives were deeply interlinked. Resistance to british required a reawakening of India which would lead to a further increase in social awareness that would lead to even more resistance to the british and so on. This would eventually become a self propelled dynamic as it would snowball into an increasingly greater resistance to the british even as India woke up.

This is where Gandhi displayed his genius in that he was not just a regular freedom fighter who simply wanted to replace one political system with another. He wanted to funamentally alter Indian society's value system and he succeeded to a large extent. His approach of rejecting western values and appealing to core Indian values enabled ordinary Indians to get the confidence to question the need for british rule. They regained their self-respect back. That is how the masses got involved in the process. And his partnership with muslims was a core part of that strategy.

i hope this article puts to rest the myth that secularism was ever a part of the idea of pakistan......perhaps it should have been......but it wasn't.......

....i have gone through speeches, and articles and constitutions and what not - related to pakistan - and i have yet to find even the word, "secularism" written anywhere.....forgot about a debate on the subject, during those times.......the written grammatical word, "secularism" doesn't even appear anywhere.....not in jinnah's speeches, not in zafarullah's, not in liaqut's.......not in constitutions....nowhere......

there is thus, not a single artifact of any kind, related to pakistan, during any time frame, which connects even the word, "secularism" with pakistan......much less the concept of secularism......

....the fact that individuals pushing secularism in pakistan have, still, been able to create a myth that pakistan was to be, by design, a secular society, is quite an achievement on their part......they have done so, without ever seeing this word, "secularism" anywhere in relation to the history of pakistan......this makes their achievement, even more impressive (if not more hypocritical)!......

.....the myth is created in the following manner.....

1. pakistan should be what jinnah wanted it to be....it should not be what the current people of pakistan want it to be....it should also not be what any other leader - present or past - of pakistan wanted it to be.....

2. jinnah was westernised and liberal, hence he wanted a secular set-up for pakistan......

3. jinnah repeatedly said pakistan will not be a theocracy, hence that means it was to be secular.....the tens of speeches in which jinnah mentioned islam and quran etc. are conveniently ignored

4. jinnah made a speech in which he said, "free to go to churches,"....once again, it is ignored that this was an impromptu speech, whose first part was, once again, based around religion and pakistan......and once again, his many commments with islam and quran are ignored.....not to mention the fact, that jinnah, once again, never used the word secularism in this speech either....

5. it is reputed that jinnah used the word, "secularism" with an american envoy.....this, "reputed" seems to be enough to declare pakistan a secular state.....once again, his many speeches in which he openly mentioned islam and quran are ignored......

6. liaqut ali khan and team (including zafarullah) architected some religion into the objectives resolution......however, it is stated that the reason they did so was because liaqut ali did not have a constituency in pakistan, and hence needed to appease the mullahs.....no facts or proof of this are given for this assumption.....it is just stated....the fact that literally every other muslim representative supported this non-secular resolution is also conveniently ignored.....includng the ahmedi leader zafarullah!

so based on the above house of cards, an argument is generated, falsely, that pakistan from the begining, under a design by jinnah was to be a secular state.......the word, "secular" and the phrase, "separation of religion and state" never appearing in a single text related to pakistan is ignored.....the words islam and quran appearing everywhere, from jinnah's many speeches to the objectives resolution, i.e. the words of the country's founder and in the legal document laying the country's foundation, is ignored......

yet there are people who cannot see this obvious reality...truly amazing!

as i always say, if people want to push secularism or religion in pakistan, they have every right to do so......what they should not do is distort history to suit there purposes.....

pakistan was never, by design, to be a secular state, nor was it, by design, to be a theocracy.......it was to be something in between......which is what it currently is.....neither shariah-based, nor secular.....a state with an islamic identity (in private and in public) which (somehow) provided equal rights to everyone......this shows up in jinnah's speeches and in constitutional documents......how this was to be achieved was left undecided.......and this is what pakistanis are still trying to figure out.......

Dear Ranjit,

There are two points I want to make on that well worded post- even if I disagree with it:

1. Gandhi's racist views had little to do with European discourse but his own understanding of Hinduism and caste ideology. That some similarity could be seen between the Nazi ideology and Gandhi's view does not merit a blanket denunciation of European discourse. Great Britain for example was gripped with John Morley style liberalism which had vociferously rejected racism.

2. Nehru and Jinnah were the products of their English education(s). Jinnah was the product of the late victorian age which was proper and he was also deeply influenced by John Morley and Dadabhoy Naoroji... who were the bastions of liberalism in this late victorian age. Nehru was the product of the post-victorian age and was inspired by Fabian Socialism (even though Jinnah also joined fabian society in the 1930s according to Wolpert) ... neither of them wanted to curry favor with anyone. Jinnah till the 1930s wanted Indians to be raised as equals in the British empire ruling their own Dominion just like the white dominions of Canada and Australia... Nehru was more flirtatious with the "inquilabi" and revolutionary movements of a marxist bent... like the Kirtis, communists etc.

#100 Posted by masadi

[Hey Einstein don't write about culture and society without understanding either. People's attitudes are shaped moreso by social institutions and when those institutions are designed by colonials to serve externals then you cannot talk about "people power" regardless of the religion of the masses.]

Who's talking about "people power", egghead? And in India there are enough institutions designed by us Indians. 79% of Pakis want Sharia enforced. Is that due to institutions created due to colonial conspiracy, or due to religion being constantly drilled into the Paki skull?

[Lack of democracy, (which by the way was an Islamic ideal long before the Hindu caste system "discovered" it, the Quran is explicit about "consultation" with the people regarding whom decisions are made and not forcing anything including God on them),...]

It is less than idiotic to discuss a third-rate cut-and-paste job cooked up by an illiterate bedouin for other illiterate bedouins.

[..of the kind in Pakistan is certainly not an occurrence in Muslim majority countries only. I only need to mention Mossadeq to show how the West has subverted democracy and democratic institutions in Muslim lands... ]

It is not a huge secret that you uncovered that the West has financial compulsions behind its geo-political strategies. The governments in the West are beholden to the machinations of the industry, which has resulted in a whole host of miseries for the world. All this is common knowledge.

We in India have democracy in spite of it. And that too without the koran!

If you want democracy, then bring it back, with the help of the koran. And without bombing civilians. And if you want "Islamic" democracy, then keep on the path you are on.

Good luck.

Re:HP#101

HP, Gandhi is a very complex figure in history and I doubt that most people understand him properly. He started out as an ordinary Indian eager to ape the west and pick up the prevailing western culture. Manto is right about his racist views in his early days, which were very much in line with the typical European discourse at the turn of the century.

However, at some point in his life he began to change. Perhaps it was his bitter experience in South Africa. No one knows exactly when the change happened, but he started going back to his roots. He wanted to understand the ordinary Indian, the vast millions of unwashed, starving indians across the subcontinent. His objective was to mobilize the grassroots. His turn towards religion was less to do with an interest in ritualized religion or theocracy, but rather it was a way to reject western values and replace it with indian values. In that he drew upon his hindu background but was also willing to coopt muslim values as well.

Therefore Gandhi's interpretation of hinduism was radically different from the brahminincal hinduism as supported by the hindu right wing - a difference that ultimately cost him his life. For him hinduism was an expression of native, son of the soil culture. It was the espousal of a simple, inclusive ideology that emphasized on humanity and caring for the weak via social welfare, as compared to the brutal dog eat dog, survival of the fittest, materialistic and individualist culture of the west.

His natural affinity towards the muslim religious elements was borne out of a recognition that islam had a similar emphasis on social welfare. It was not an opportunisitic pandering as imagined by jinnahphiles like manto. Rather it was a natural alliance based on a similar value system. It was a radical rejection of western values.

Therefore, Gandhi was an unique politician while Nehru, Jinnah etc were typical run of the mill politicians who wanted to curry favor with the british with the objective of inherting the empire from the british by proving their impeccable brown sahib credentials. The british never quite understood Gandhi but they were very comfortable with Nehru and Jinnah and essentially split their empire to give each a piece of it. However, Gandhi's approach and mindset was something extraordinary, which the world recognizes as such. The irony is that both Indians and Pakistanis have totally rejected his philosophy and have gone full speed in aping the west, although the religious elements in Pakistan are still fighting against it.

#101, I don't see a difference between the two, except the former (pro-West) ensures long term misery that is carried out more sophisticatedly, while the latter (the religious fringe that distorts Islam) causes short term misery till the people take care of them. Given our condition today where the latter have been used as legitimation tool by the former to control and dominate the people, I still wouldn't consider pro-West to be something good...

Echoboom Posts: 85, 86, 86
Urdu Text could not be printed...there
Please check ilog page where the same post with URdu text is available.

Asadi,
I am going to throw an interesting thing for you to consider.
If we put both Gandhi and Jinnah thru a Turing test, who do you think would come out looking like a machine?

Being pro-western in the subcontinent's context is being progressive and liberal from the next guy even when the answers are more mechanical.

Had Gandhi been left alone to lead the Indian independence struggle, he would have led India to a religious state but he was countered by a very effective Nehru and other progressive in the Indian National Congress.

Jinnah on the other hand was leading very primitive and regressive political bunch and the only way to keep them down for Jinnah was to stay as pro western as he could. Otherwise the Deobandis and Barelvis who were waiting in the wings would have taken over the whole movement.

Krishna writes "The reason for this is that people's attitudes are shaped by the culture they are born into, and religion shapes the culture in most societies. And public attitudes reinforce the culture. For Muslims born into Islamic majority societies"

Hey Einstein don't write about culture and society without understanding either. People's attitudes are shaped moreso by social institutions and when those institutions are designed by colonials to serve externals then you cannot talk about "people power" regardless of the religion of the masses. Lack of democracy, (which by the way was an Islamic ideal long before the Hindu caste system "discovered" it, the Quran is explicit about "consultation" with the people regarding whom decisions are made and not forcing anything including God on them), of the kind in Pakistan is certainly not an occurrence in Muslim majority countries only. I only need to mention Mossadeq to show how the West has subverted democracy and democratic institutions in Muslim lands...

#95, Being pro-West to me suggests being subservient to the US elite, it signifies not only acceptance of the miserable history the colonials forced on us in the past but also the current fate they have relegated us to in the present world order. Therefore I consider it something very bad for people of the "Third World".

The under was in reply to Manto's #94

Re #95, YES it is a very bad thing. Slavery and being pro-slave master is a VERY BAD THING in my book, but then like the mass society in the US most people don't think that, they are Cheerful Robots, happy and cheerful in their enslavement....don't we have tahmed here singing the praises of colonization or the Missing Hamid mian who sings often enough how the white man is superior to all?

The debate about Jinnah's motivations, about Islam, the role of Islam in the lives of Muslims, the compatibility of Islam and democracy etc. will go on forever. Muslims will want to show their religion in the kindest light possible, constructing all kinds of tortured arguments and counter-arguments.

The real proof is in the pudding. NEVER, in ANY Islamic majority country, will there EVER be a stable democracy for any length of time.

The reason for this is that people's attitudes are shaped by the culture they are born into, and religion shapes the culture in most societies. And public attitudes reinforce the culture. For Muslims born into Islamic majority societies, there is no escape from this vicious circle.

Even in a country like Turkey, with a historic proximity to Europe, and a 87% literacy rate, the army has to strain hard to suppress Islamic fundamentalism.

Nope, this concept of Islam as a personal religion that exists separate from the state is pure fantasy. Will never happen, unless ANOTHER "prophet" pops up, and popularizes an edited version of the age-old nonsense. And what will make Muslims "accept" this new prophet will have to be economic and geo-political imperatives that are applied and enforced from without.

That will take at least another 9/11.

#91 Posted by masadi

In the subcontinent's context, I don't consider being pro western a disqualification or some sort of Lackey!

Re: # 91

And I am assuming you think it is a bad thing?

Hello!

At the height of Chief Justice crisis, I submitted an article to chowk captioned *Gang-rape of Pakistan*

Chowk editors have apparently opted not to publish it.

For my fellow chowkies and for the sake of posterity (ta ke sanad rahe that I too did raise my voice) I am posting a blog link to it. It is a letter that sent to all corps commanders of Pak army.

http://gangrapeofpakistan.blogspot.com/

Sorry, very sorry, that my comments are not very article specific.

Regards

MMI

Asadi, This is a troll. Borivili is an area in Bombay!

HP writes "Jinnah was as pro western as they come. He was perhaps the most pro western politician in the sub continent before Benazir attained maturity."

A history lesson for us all...especially Manto and his gang
= )

borivili_express writes "so punk what are hindus doing to muslims in gujrat, kahmir and other spots in india, social justice?"

Is that the best you can muster a-hole? Whatever the "Hindus" are doing or not doing does not justify nuking the place- are you so dumb to understand that? Protecting your brother.....? Where did you get that? The Book talks about the oppressed, protecting them, and not even in the most convuluted logic does that translate into nuking people. Jihadists like you, a caricature of the Crusader's Version of Islam, discard the Quran at will and then talk about "Islam". And don't give me that bravery BS. Dropping a nuclear bomb does not involve bravery, it involves grotesque immorality. If you were worried about facing Allah you wouldn't advocate the barbarism you advocate. Remember any evil you do be it an atom's weight will be brought to justice, a-hole and what you are advocating is not an atom's worth but a whole planet's worth of evil. Invented stories about the US elite? Ha ha you just gave away your cover. A damn bigot yourself probably an RSS Hindu and you are pretending to be a Jihadist....funny but you fool yourself alone...like that BS Khan character we have on here

Re: # 86 i fully agree...excellent...

Last try for URDU text which must accompany the post to make any sense. This time using inverted commas.


It is important to bear in mind that people like Phoodbhoys are no longer in a position to use the titles of "Doctor" or "Professor" or them being from Harvard type universities to
be a domineering factor.

AlHamduLillah, those from who are from Madressas are fully aware of the standard of education of the Farangi Universities. It is simply because $ is assocaited with the farangi degrees so a lot of ignorant people are under the delusion that they they are somehow more learned than the Madressa ones.

In fact anyone who went to a Madresaa , AFTER doing ttheir doctorates from Harvard types, vouch for the fact that even the best of the farangi universities are several notches below those of an average Madressa.

Once Employment & Earnigs and the veneer of "glamour" is removed from the enslaved colonised minds then the Phoodbhoy types are reduced to their well-deserved street-sweeper station.

Here is a slap on the face of this Kanjaroon who has been polluting CHOWK with his forked-tongue to promote his agenda of haramkhari inside the Trojan-horse of free-thinking".

Muslims are dtermined to eradicate his types or anyone who even entertains the tough of a Pakistan without an ORTHODOX, FUNDAMENTALIST, EXTREMIST Pakistan which is diametically opposite to raushan-khayal, maader-RATE, maader-RUN or a Kanjaroon Pakistan.
___________________________________________________________
Shahnawa z Farooqui is under 40 years old; a protege, as well as son-in-law, of the one-man institution Salim Ahmad whose scholarship is still a beacon to even the acknowledged greats in literary criticism , religion and philosophy

Re: # 84

A'null,

Chalo... I'll assume you were not taught how to express gratitude. I am just glad I educated you whether you acknowledge it or not.

And I agree there are those who would like others to believe that being forced into a straitjacket not of your choice for the benefit of some elite is the epitome of individualism. Well said ... sadly not very introspective though.

It is important to bear in mind that people like Phoodbhoys are no longer in a position to use the titles of "Doctor" or "Professor" or them being from Harvard type universities to
be a domineering factor.

AlHamduLillah, those from who are from Madressas are fully aware of the standard of education of the Farangi Universities. It is simply because $ is assocaited with the farangi degrees so a lot of ignorant people are under the delusion that they they are somehow more learned than the Madressa ones.

In fact anyone who went to a Madresaa , AFTER doing ttheir doctorates from Harvard types, vouch for the fact that even the best of the farangi universities are several notches below those of an average Madressa.

Once Employment & Earnigs and the veneer of "glamour" is removed from the enslaved colonised minds then the Phoodbhoy types are reduced to their well-deserved street-sweeper station.

Here is a slap on the face of this Kanjaroon who has been polluting CHOWK with his forked-tongue to promote his agenda of haramkhari inside the Trojan-horse of free-thinking".

Muslims are dtermined to eradicate his types or anyone who even entertains the tough of a Pakistan without an ORTHODOX, FUNDAMENTALIST, EXTREMIST Pakistan which is diametically opposite to raushan-khayal, maader-RATE, maader-RUN or a Kanjaroon Pakistan.
___________________________________________________________
Shahnawa z Farooqui is under 40 years old; a protege, as well as son-in-law, of the one-man institution Salim Ahmad whose scholarship is still a beacon to even the acknowledged greats in literary criticism , religion and philosophy

It is important to bear in mind that people like Phoodbhoys are no longer in a position to use the titles of "Doctor" or "Professor" or them being from Harvard type universities to
be a domineering factor.

AlHamduLillah, those from who are from Madressas are fully aware of the standard of education of the Farangi Universities. It is simply because $ is assocaited with the farangi degrees so a lot of ignorant people are under the delusion that they they are somehow more learned than the Madressa ones.

In fact anyone who went to a Madresaa , AFTER doing ttheir doctorates from Harvard types, vouch for the fact that even the best of the farangi universities are several notches below those of an average Madressa.

Once Employment & Earnigs and the veneer of "glamour" is removed from the enslaved colonised minds then the Phoodbhoy types are reduced to their well-deserved street-sweeper station.

Here is a slap on the face of this Kanjaroon who has been polluting CHOWK with his forked-tongue to promote his agenda of haramkhari inside the Trojan-horse of free-thinking".

Muslims are dtermined to eradicate his types or anyone who even entertains the tough of a Pakistan without an ORTHODOX, FUNDAMENTALIST, EXTREMIST Pakistan which is diametically opposite to raushan-khayal, maader-RATE, maader-RUN or a Kanjaroon Pakistan.
___________________________________________________________
Shahnawa z Farooqui is under 40 years old; a protege, as well as son-in-law, of the one-man institution Salim Ahmad whose scholarship is still a beacon to even the acknowledged greats in literary criticism , religion and philosophy
............................................

Ranto,

You are being your usual pathetically presumptuous self if you imagine that my knowledge of that word owes anything to you.

Then there are those who would like others to believe that being forced into an ethnic straitjacket not of your choice for the benefit of some elite is the epitome of individualism. It takes all types …

#58 Posted by masadi and other posts.

I can understand your umbrage and Jinnah being a lackey. But I think the word lackey is too socialistic. I remember reading that often in the soviet literature where everyone was a lackey of imperialists. Now initially, I believed it but later on I realized that it is really not a suitable word to use for politicians. Yes, there are lackeys but they are not politicians. For politicians, it is making an alliance based on the current needs. The alliances go awry when needs are fulfilled.

Jinnah was as pro western as they come. He was perhaps the most pro western politician in the sub continent before Benazir attained maturity.

And that one reason makes me dispute Urstruly and Atif2’s claims that Jinnah wanted some sort of religious set up in Pakistan. That would be going against the grain and there was no way in hell he would have approved taking direction from GOD.

I don’t subscribe to the ideas of Mahatmas and Quaid azam. Politicians are politicians there is nothing saintly about politics so how come these guys become Mahatma or the quaid-e- azam? (btw, I agree with quaid e awam because it is a more earthly title even though the quaid-e- awam barely believed in awam but that is another issue).

Now once we bring these politicians to earthly level, we can deal with what they said on different occasions as part of the political expediency of that time or the audience a politician was working with.

If Gandhi had said something about Ram Rajia in India, I would have believed him because he shaped his political persona on something which was more in line with Hindu way of life.

Jinnah based his politics on what he believed in. As long as he believed in the progressive and nationalist pov, he stuck with that even though his opposition to Khalifat Movement brought his political downfall from the highs of 1916 when he was the ambassador of peace between the two communities.

Jinnah did rule Pakistan for at least some months and there is no evidence that he pursued the Islamic dream at that time. His letters to Pir sahib of Manki Sharif should really be taken as stock answers to the queries politicians get and most of those replies are written by their political secretaries.

Re: # 80

Sadna is obfuscating as usual by deliberately confusing the concept of citizenship with nationalism.... if there is to be such a thing as Pakistani nationalism, it can only be based on Pakistani citizenship.

In essence Sadna wants the Muslims who followed Jinnah to own up to even those like Maududi and JUH .. the latter in bed with the Congress. This is a ridiculous argument even for someone as inspired by jingoistic Indian bigotry as Sadna.


This is like the Pakistani establishment telling the Pushtuns :

"Pushtun" nationalism has to carry the burden of every Pushtun's ideology that Pushtuns choose to espouse. Ghaffar Khan keh gaye that what was non-Pushtun did not belong in "Pushtun" nationalism, and the corollary of that is all that was Pushtun does belong in "Pushtun" nationalism. Hence all the Pushtun Islamists are Pushtuns."

(And remember Ghaffar Khan was for most part allied with Deobandi Islamists pre-partition)...

as you have seen 16% of Indians believe that war is the only solution, pakistan is a small country it cannot survive a first strike, the moment an Indian leader makes up his mind, even before wepons are launched pakistan is doomed.

Prof. Hoodbhoy,
However wrong Maudoodi was, he was not a Hindu he was a Muslim. So how're you going to shut him out of Pakistani nationalism?

"Muslim" nationalism has to carry the burden of every Muslim ideology that Muslim Pakistanis choose to espouse. Jinnah keh gaye that what was nonMuslim did not belong in "Muslim" nationalism, and the corollary of that is all that was Muslim does belong in "Muslim" nationalism.

Apostatising is probably the only way to exclude Maudoodi. Good luck.

Re: # 75

Have some shame BJKumar... some time atleast. I hope for your sake that you are actually ignorant enough to believe what you just wrote because if you are not then you are utterly dishonest.

You don't understand two nation theory and therefore choose to interpret it in your narrow little way. And then to accuse a man like the Quaid-e-Azam - whose integrity and incorruptibility was beyond question even by his worst opponents- of doing it for personal reasons smacks of an ignorance that just cannot justified or forgiven.

And to think that this display of bigotry comes from the follower of the Racist Casteist Hindu fascist misogynist bigot Gandhi makes the whole thing even more ironic... the same Gandhi who believed black people were subhuman and that people of different castes should not eat together... talk about similarities to the Racist South... how about racist Gandhians?

Jinnah on the other hand stood unbendingly for the equality of man and equality of races... unlike "Mahatma" Gandhi who believed people of Indo-Germanic and Indo Aryan stock were superior to others.

A'null,

I am glad you read what I write so carefully and I am glad to have educated you so extensively. Be sure to write to Arend Lijphart to inform him of your enlightened views on the issue.

The "anti-individualistic" bent...the imposition of a forced national identity is equally anti-individualistic. Infact one would say that consociationalism is the epitome of individualism because it allows people to choose their identity without dealing with the self righteousness that comes with territory - yours that is.

And one day you wil see a true mard e momin will take over Pakistan or atleast its nukes and fulfill our obligations to allah and his faithfuls

Abu safwaan
The quran does not proscribe any laws for war other than when the life and property of muslims is violated, these have been repeatedly done so in India.

Nor does the quran tell us to fight only when we are prepared or when we can win, infact hazrat hussain's shahadat is an example of man who sacrificed himself and his whole family rather than accept "nahaq".

But most muslims today are cowardly they only want to defend their feloww muslims when they are ready or can win. Thousands of young men have wilingly sacrificed themselves in Kashmir and are an example to the rest of us. With nukes we are now well prepared and have to start larger scale rearmament other wise India with its nuclear ageement with the US will be far ahead.

And when ever India had superiority it attacked Pakistan and took away land- in 1947 during Partition and Kashmir and during 1971 and even after the first nuclear tests in 1998 there first reaction was to bully pakistan into accepting their terms.

This means keeping hindu duplicity and the quran's injunctions on protecting muslims we must nuke India foirst and reduce its economy to rubble.

But most muslims are cowards today they dont mind the young ghazis dying as long as their own lives are not endangered. we have to follow the example of hazrat hussain, their is no concept of surrender in the quran it enjoins us to fight the unjust until they submit as long as we did not begin the war, that is why their is still resistance in both irq and aghanistan.

This argument of resist only when ready and can win is an argument of Kufr and kafirs not of momins.

Islam zinda hota hai har Karbala ke baad

In my view, the state of Pakistan bears one hundred percent of the responsibility for the disastrous state of India-Pakistan relations – especially since 1989. That state is absolutely responsible for the sub continental edition of the scourge of international terrorism – particularly that directed at India.

The two nation theory was a lie fabricated by a dishonest human being masquerading as a lawyer for satisfying his personal lust for power! The two nation theory is no different from the racial apartheid of the South Africa of the past.

Every person who believes in the two nation theory – or looks the other way instead of denouncing it – every such person is little different from the racist bigot of the segregationist South! Shame on such persons! Most such bigots would deny being the bigots that they are – there are few bigots who are honest!

And the two nation theory can only stabilize as pair of nations of different religions – it shall forever be unstable as one secular country living like “friends� with a hostile, religion-centered, autocracy next door. Like baagh and bakree living together in Phantom’s land!

I don’t find it credible. Nature does not allow it.

Therefore, as long as Pakistanis keep clinging to a justification of the two nation theory – they will sooner or later attack India. They have no choice – because if they do not, then they become like India – then they are faced with the question – what the heck did we break apart for if we just end up like them?!

That is how I see it. But people like me do not matter – the more important fact is that vast majority of Indians (especially young Indians) are driven by common-sense and do not fall for what the Pakistanis preach!

In my view, the present status is unstable by its very nature. Over the longer term, only one will survive – either Pakistan will become like India – or India will become like Pakistan (its flip side). There are a few signs of the latter (Gujarat 2002) but a greater likelihood is of the former.

However, the current lot of Pakistanis is too gutless to own up to their own role in this sordid affair and their own culpability – so the world will have to wait for a change of mindset. I am personally doubtful that can happen soon – too many minds have been poisoned over too long a time – starting with the vamp!

If it does not happen – the next sixty years will be the pits – enough to make the past sixty years look like the golden age!

stuka,

Here is another word you can add to your collection of pompous euphemisms useful for politicians of sectarian and anti-individualistic bent: consociationalism.

Re: # 64 B.Express think about general, BB what they are doing to get certificate from USA and they feel that license for ruling country same thing in India. I have written two notes on book by Masadi " life and death under usa domination" but they sensored it. It will prudent for you to study this book then you can write critic mr. Masadi.Please read book to understand who is god father of india and pakistan its usa.

kaal

Are you calling J-man a communalist?

Re: # 63 Dear Masadi... It is good to hear from you something different than repeating western imperialistic newspapers quoted by local elites. I agree with you lots of time but will request you to moderate your writing, not asking for massaging of facts so the your thinking about topic in not lost in rhetoric. I always found many things to think and know after reading part of book of yours "IN THE SHADOW OF EMPIRE" life and death under usa domination. Then I wrote a little letter ( 2 times) in appreciation of that. Granted I am not very good in writing and not logical like others.And both came on computer for few minutes and was taken off immediately. It is policy to "extinguish you ideas" I do not now for I do not believe in miracle. But whenever I wrote disagreeing with you it was always accepted. Something fishi or sensor or what ?
As law of country allows us to thin k freely they should publish but it is destroyed if I wrote to second your opinion.
Any opinion about something is going , sensor type think. You did write to whip mental retaed about about nuclear attack.
Also you have never said what you think about mr. Gandhi ? You agree with writings of YLH also known as Mr.Manto. Was Gandhi elite and in league with British Imperial powers? I will like to know your thoughts about that. Once I started thinking in terms of our politicains on your line of thinking I do not find any difference between NS, General and BB. All above just looking for american intensions and just trying to please his or her master and exploiting masses. Most elitist thing in india and Pakistani constitution is barring person who is not college graduate. Nothing can come near this in elist snobbery.
Kindly contribute towards different topics. I may not agree with some times but your thinking simulates thinking in my mind . Best thing about you you are not obsessed with personality like mR Gandhi and jinnah. Both have been dead long time. Some time I like you thinking as you are not obssed with some historical people or papers and quote all time. You are eagle flying without map or guidence. I kind of feel like listening to Bada Khayal of Mr.K.G Komkali, no gharana , no beaten path not standard way of aaroh, fresh path with joy of notes one after, some times rising pitch of notes at next second diving down like eagle.. Please contribute and do not pay attention to infant retaerds. Your comments have been very didectic atleast to me.

HAHA..OH OK..

abey kya jawab, stuka? It's called using a similar sounding word when for whatever strange reason not wanting to use the correct word - communalist, in this case.

Communalist is a very bad word, hai na?

Abey koi mera jawab dey de?

"Is it going to be an Islamic government? Is it not begging the question? Is it not like passing a vote of censure on every Leauger? The constitution of Pakistan shall be what the people of Pakistan decide."

That says it. If Jinnah understood the meaning of above then it must be an achievemnt for a senile person. The people of Pakistan did decide. And they are still deciding.

Borivilli_Express

Are you 4 real man? Allah swt doesnt ask us to wage jihad haphazerdly aat our whim or even at maulana masood azhar's desire for that matter. There are laws & procedures- preperations and ground realities that Allah swt asks us to consdier when we are about to do Qital fi sabeel-lilah. Masadi is right..in current scenario when we are backward and behind in every aspect of life the only jiahd is defensive and any scholar of minimal repute will tell u that its incumbent on those ppl that are attacked by non-muslims, its not incumbent on all muslims living everywhere like salat is fard-ul-ayn. Offensive jihaad is done under an islamic state..n that state would have to be powerful enough to have at least an outside chance to be victorious..we are unable to provide clean water to human beings in our countries...baby steps my friend.

Happy Birthday, Pakistan!

so punk what are hindus doing to muslims in gujrat, kahmir and other spots in india, social justice?

listen u snivelling rodent islam enjoins upon every adult muslim male to protect his brother under attack if u are too cowardly o do that, thats your conscience that you have to satisfy and justify with whatever story about the US elite, but we as true muslims have to face allah after death and have to justify our conduct only to him an god knows we will do our duty as enjoined upon us by the quran.

#62, look idiot, don't try to present your BS as if that were the real world situation. Just like Jinnah you are trying to legitmize your own perversions (and foolish designs) by invoking "Hindus are killing Muslims", no "poverty is killing Muslims" in a world system dominated by the US elite that ensures that poverty just as that poverty is killing Hindus.

I don't listen to Iqbal or Mullah dopiyaza to teach me Islam, my source, as the only legitimate source of Islam, is the Quran and it is explicit that you are only allowed to fight those who attack you first and even then only to the extent of the aggression. And further that if you kill one unjustly it is as if you've destroyed all humanity. There is no justification left for "first strike" or for using nuclear weapons in Islam. First learn what "Shariah" means before you talk about "implementing" it by force. Finally Islam is not about nihilism, its about celebrating God's gifts, including life, and working for social justice (using just means not "nuking") in this world. Learn what it is about before you use it as a slogan, you little rat.

Masadi beemar tu hai har jagah tujhe US elite dikhta hai, you are the western tool, preventing the sharia from being implemented. hindus are killing and opressing muslims and hurting pakistan and you want them to continue doing so. Also they have nukes which they will use against us so we must do a first strike.

or you disagree with what islam teaches us - Shahadat hai matloob e maqsood e momin na male ghanimat na kishwar ka shahi

hai islam iske siva kya
ek sijdah shabbiri
ek zarbe yadillahi

Pakistan should follow example of turkey and Malaysia to keep islamists out of power as long as possible, there are number of ways it can be done.

Promote moderate islam by sarkari mullahs.

The british policy of divide and rule, so that mullahs do not see interest in common together and challenge liberal rulers with a united front.

#59 don't call yourself Muslim after you call for the nuking people. You are no Muslim, you're a pervert probably an RSS type who is acting out his believed caricature of Islam and Muslims. People like you, the current day "Jihadists" are Jinnah's blood brothers as are the rest of the West worshippers, you all form an unholy Trinity of perversion, for you help the West, the US elite, the Shaitan of the present, fulfil its perverse agenda around the globe.

You are the crusaders image of Islam brought to life. Like I said earlier, these so-called "Jihadists" take their morality from the US elite both are trigger happy when its comes to "nuking" people

jinnah was a vain man, wether he did something for us muslims is doubtful, he let Kashmir and its muslims come under paleet hindu rule and also left millions of muslims and most of the territory our ancestors had conquered behind.

He also took a "moth eaten" territory in two parts which could not be defended and promptly appointed himself governor general

Thank god he has become irrelevnt and we can now make pakistan into a sharia state as our majority demands.

The first act has to be to nuke india and free kashmir, let us see if India has second strike capability.

Urstruly writes "if you promise that when my brother will visit England the King of England will welcome him at the airport as well"."

Should I add nepotism to the list of "verbal dysentry"? My advice to you: Don't worship people, and criminals at that, worship your creator.

...hmmmm......jinnah mentioned islam, quran etc. in his speeches regarding pakistan so many times.......however it is only, "reputed that Jinnah privately pledged (to an American diplomat) that Pakistan would be a “secular state� (using these words)"......

this is something i have been trying to highlight on this site for ages...not because i want to support or oppose secularism, but because i think various people on this site distort history, to suit their agendas.......

......if one is going to use jinnah's speeches as a criteria for what pakistan should be, then surely, it would be a state with its foundations in some form of islam, without being a theocratic state......how that would work is for anyone to guess.....in a sense this is what it has been....a very moderate islamic state.......

but what does become clear is that he never asked or mentioned it to be a secular state....though it is, "reputed" that he mentioned it to an american diplomat.....

surely, this, "reputed" doesn't hold water against the various speeches he made where he mentioned islam and quran again and again.......does it?......

as i have said, if people want to push secularism or theocracy in pakistan, they ahve every right to do so.....however, using jinnah's words to do so is hypocrisy.......

Urstruly writes "He was anything but a lackey of British."

He was through and through a lackey of the British, who considered their system,(and that of the Ata Turk) culturally superior to that of the Muslims or the people of India, not to mention that his office of Governor General was even formally subservient to the King of England, Airport reception aside,Pakistan was a dominion not a sovereign republic.

I see the man as a hypocrite to whom was handed a country not to benefit the Muslims but to serve the Colonials who messed up our lives, to keep both India and Pakistan in check. He had a real part to play in the bloodshed that ensued. Call it verbal dysentry, I call it fact, the guy was no different to tahmed in his worship of all things Western...

The atif/echo/zeemax debate against manto is not about jinnah. Its all about their hatred of quadianis. They consider manto to be a closet quadiani. Hence his espousal of a secular jinnah is viewed as a devious strategy for quadianis to deny an islamic system in pakistan.

Its really sad to see so much religious hatred against one group of people; its almost bordering on a mass hysteria. Maybe they should leave pakistan and move to india.

Re: # 52

please spare Quaid-e-Azam from you verbal dysentery. He was anything but a lackey of British. The Daily Log at the archive of Governor Sindh secrateriat records this communication between the British Embassador and Quaid-e-Azam. The British Embassador at the visit of the brother of Duke of Gloucester requested Quaid to welcome him officially at the Karachi airport as Governor General in 1947. The Quaid's reply was "Sure I will welcome him at the airport if you promise that when my brother will visit England the King of England will welcome him at the airport as well".

Manto mian, I don't work at GC, spare yourself the trouble, just call and ask, and spare us the Jinnah BS....

respectfully submitted

PH writes "But Jinnah’s statements at different times and circumstances are far too widely spread out "

Like most hypocritical politicians, the Jinnah man spoke all across the board for political expediency. When religious identity was evoked for exclusion, Jinnah became an Islamist. When unity was desired to save the political union, Jinnah became a secularist. In truth he was as most worshippers of the West a true hypoc-arist....So while the damn fools(like PH and the Zia ul Haq) argue whether he was an Islamist or a secularist the fact of the matter is that he used Islam as legitimation (a disrespect of Islam) while being firmly in bed with the colonials answering to their King, as Governor General (a disrespect to the so called "independance"). We would be best served to let the Jinnah man rest in his grave, his creator will judge him for what he was worth, while we let the FerozK worry about whether its Saville Row or Seville Row that tailored Jinnah's suits..Let us get on with the business of the real issues on hand today. People like Manto are a pathetic waste of good intelligence as they spend their lives worshipping men who mean sh** in the current day Pakistan....

Re: # 41

Well clearly then the problem was one of phraseology.

It seems to me that both Atif mian and Urstruly pai jaan didn't bother to read the article...

Can someone explain this...

Jinnah has been often been accused of being communitarian.

At the risk of being a party pooper, I put here some quotes of Jinnah. I realize that the likes of academically dishonest professor would argue that Jinnah was drunk when here uttered these, or was disoriented, under duress, or perhaps some mullah held a gun to his head. But the fact of the matter is that Jinnah did say this "damning" things about implementation of Islam, not just at "individual" level, but at "collective" level as, and in "every department" of our society. It sounds to me that these proclamations of his are far more clear and crisp than the interpretation ladden and stretched arguments regarding "minority rights" that dishonest professor brings forward as proof of Jinnah's "secularism"...

Jinnah sounds to me more like Maulana Muhammad Ali Jinnah.


Exhibit A
"Every Musalmaan, except those who are ignorant, knows that the Quran is the general code of the Muslims. A religious, social, civil, commercial, military, judicial, criminal, penal code, it regulates everything from the ceremonies of religion to those of daily life; from the salvation of the soul to the health of the body; from the rights of all to those of each individual; from morality to crime, from punishment here to that in the life to come. Therefore Islam is not merely confined to the spiritual tenets and doctrines or rituals and ceremonies. It is a complete code regulating the whole Muslim society, every department of life, collective[ly] and individually."
- Jinnah , Eid message on September 1945

Exhibit B
It is my belief that our salvation lies in following the golden rules of conduct set for us by our great lawgiver, the Prophet of Islam. Let us lay the foundations of our democracy on the basis of true Islamic ideals and principles
- Jinnah(Civil, Naval, Military and Air Force Officers at Khaliqdina Hall Karachi on 11th October 1947)

Exhibit C
What is it that keeps the Muslims united as one man, and what is the bedrock and sheet-anchor of the community. It is Islam. It is the Great Book, Quran, that is the sheet-anchor of Muslim India. I am sure that as we go on there will be more and more of oneness, one God, one Book, one Prophet and one Nation
- Jinnah (All-India Muslim League, Karachi on 26th December)

Hoodbhoy-

you said it.

More than 50 percent Pakistanis living NOW want Shariah. The writing is on the wall. You would be forced to live under it.
Be ready to get your head chopped off for apostasy NOW.

QUAID'S VISION AND DIRECTIVE OF THE ECONOMY OF PAKISTAN

Before we go into details let me elaborate on the difference between ``vision`` and ``direction``. We can define vision as the ultimate goal of a person whereas ``direction`` is the way or it is the plan thru which you achieve that vision or that goal. Without a vision there is no plan and there can be no direction, and without a plan and a clear direction you cannot bring a vision into reality.

Now lets apply this parameter to analyze the August 11 speech of Quaid. Any fair minded person can see and then attest that thru that speech Quaid is putting forward the vision of a tolerant state based on principles of social justice. He envisions a state where personal faith of a minority has no bearing on its status in polity. But this speech falls short of giving a ``plan`` or a ``direction`` as to how Quaid intended to turn his vision into a reality. When a person is in a leadership position he cannot just tell people ``hey people establish social justice among yourself because it is my vision``. Instead he HAS to give a work plan and the direction to the people on how to get there. Therefore, in order to see what Quaid`s plan was, as to how to achieve his vision we cannot rely on just one (August 11) speech. We must also see how he directed people.

For Example, Quaid was a great proponent of economic social justice and at many places he pointed out the economic disparity among the masses. So we know that an economically just society was his vision, but what was his direction? We see that his direction to those people who were charged with establishment and implementation of his envisioned economic policy was as follows. In an address on the occasion of opening of State Bank of Pakistan on July 1, 1948 he addressed state bank personnel as:


"I shall watch with keenness the work of your Research Organisation in evolving banking practices compatible with Islamic ideals of social and economic life. The economic system of the West has created almost insoluble problems for humanity and to many of us it appears that only a miracle can save it from disaster that is now facing the world. It has failed to do justice between man and man and to eradicate friction from the international field. On the contrary, it was largely responsible for the two world wars in the last half century, The Western world, in spite of its advantages of mechanization and industrial efficiency is today in a worse mess than ever before in history. The adoption Western economic theory and practice will not help us in achieving our goal of creating a happy and contented people. We must work our destiny in our own way and present to the world an economic system based on true Islamic concept of equality of manhood and social justice. We will thereby be fulfilling our mission as Muslims and giving to humanity the message of peace which alone can save it and secure the welfare, happiness and prosperity of mankind."

By any stretch of imagination, this cannot be a message and direction of a leader who espoused ideals of a secular democracy. Now read the clauses of the Objectives Resolution in the post below and see how Quaid gave direction to establish social justice among ourselves.

THE VISION OF MY QUAID

Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah said while addressing the people of United States in a broadcast message, few months before he died, February, 1948.


"The constitution of Paksitan has yet to be framed by the Paksitan Constituent Assembly. I do not know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam. Today, they are applicable in actual life as they were 1300 years ago. Islam and its idealism has taught us democracy. It has taught equality of man, justice and fair play to everybody. We are the inheritors of these glorious tarditions and are fully alive to our responsibilities and obligations as framers of future constitution of Pakistan. In any case Paksitan is not going to be a theocratic state - to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non-Muslims - Hindus, Christians, and Parsis - but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan


THE EMBODIMENT OF QUAID`S VISION

One year later, in March 1949, the vision of Quaid-e-Azam was embodied in the Objectives Resolution in these words:



1. Whereas sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to Allah Almighty alone and the authority which He has delegated to the State of Pakistan, through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust;

This Constituent Assembly representing the people of Pakistan resolves to frame a Constitution for the sovereign independent State of Pakistan;

2. Wherein the State shall exercise its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the people;

3. Wherein the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice as enunciated by Islam shall be fully observed;

4. Wherein the Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah;

5. Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to (fully) profess and practice their religions and develop their cultures;

6. Wherein the territories now included in or in accession with Pakistan and such other territories as may hereafter be included in or accede to Pakistan shall form a Federation wherein the units will be autonomous with such boundaries and limitations on their powers and authority as may be prescribed;

7. Wherein shall be guaranteed fundamental rights including equality of status, of opportunity and before law, social, economic and political justice, and freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship and association, subject to law and public morality;
Wherein adequate provisions shall be made to safeguard the legitimate interests of minorities and backward and depressed classes;

8. Wherein the independence of the Judiciary shall be fully secured;

9. Wherein the integrity of the territories of the Federation, its independence and all its rights includ-ing its sovereign rights on land, sea and air shall be safeguarded;

So that the people of Pakistan may prosper and attain their rightful and honored place amongst the nations of the World and make their full contribution towards international peace and progress and happiness of humanity.

PAKISTAN KA MATLAB KIA, LA ILAHA IL-ALLAH

Dr. Hoodbhoy,

With all due respect, please stay focused on future and how to get there.

We already have too many on Chowk to tell us about past heroes, what they said and even what they meant.

Regards.

Well written Hoodbhoy Sahib, but a tad too long.

Maybe too much is made of the past in Pakistan

because the present appears uncertain. It is time

to think seriously about what the future is going to

look like.

Ras

Does APMA have a website? Tried googling for their charter of demands, without success. Can anyone list their demands, please? Thanks.

Re; #39 mantolives,
"Now, you've got it"

Lol!
Yasser, with due respect, now you've got it. If you check the archives I have been saying the same thing for years. Nice to see you finally agree.