A Friend of Feudalism

madani saab,

listen to the news, nawaz is back, exiled again, and see what the courts have to say. In a failed state, nothing matters, only the gun, and mushy have them, the jihadis have them and they make the rules.
videostaores will continue to be attacked, barber shops will be burnt. All of you will be in the standard jihadic uniform, the only entertainment will be the killings, and the book.

Ahmed madani sahib,

You never fail to bring a smile on my face. Keep it coming. By the way has the Prince already landed?

Regards

Re: # 144 Mujumdorbhai... forget about past watch future prince and princess of reformed peace and democracy are flying to capital and soon Signature of antifudalism Altafbhai may also join. These are all good omens and harbinger of coming good things. India seems has become unstable and GOI is going for new election.

Manto mian,

(May I suggest that the followers of someone like racist casteist hindu fascist bigot Gandhi who believed black people were subhuman, Indians were of superior "Indo-germanic stock", caste was the natural organisation of humanity and then women ought to stay indoors have no locus standi claiming other movements to b racist.)

Each and every person who follows MKG need not necessarily believe each and every thing that MKG said and did.

Regards

Re: # 141

May I suggest that the followers of someone like racist casteist hindu fascist bigot Gandhi who believed black people were subhuman, Indians were of superior "Indo-germanic stock", caste was the natural organisation of humanity and then women ought to stay indoors have no locus standi claiming other movements to b racist.

Bulleya writes "why do you need to resort to abuse to attempt to make a point......i have never figured this out about people....."

That is because you have not figured yourself out yet, you accuse me of being untruthful about your cheerleading prior to the Afghan invasion and I reproduce your quotes, that is what prompted my "abuse". But instead of taking those and saying you changed your mind, it was the passion of the moment you resort to more untruths by trying to imply that you never supported US action even when you wanted to wear the "uniform" to support the US action together with the Pakistan Army.

Now I know people sway with the wind, some change their views (not the timeline of your views)others are just hypocrites, I think you are in the former and not the latter- tahmed is the hypocrite

#139 Sir Tauheed

There is no Indian here that I see justifying or even condoning casteism – which is against the laws in India.

Virtually all Pakistanis here are VERY BUSY trying to either justify the creation of that epitome of Muslim racism called Pakistan – or, like you, are busy trying to be wishy-washy about it.

The facts in the matter are simple. The US declaration of independence says that “all men are created equal”!

If you believe in that – the corollary is also simple – being a Muslim does not give you or anyone else any extra rights – so Muslims do not have any God-given rights for an extra weight in political matters – which was that vamp Jinnah’s demand and “justification” for creating that basket of Muslim racism called PakistaN!

Every creature here that shies away from that simple fact is a bigoted closet racist and identifies with the Jinnah which – at a deeper level, is not much different from identifying with OBL!

so capt clueless says he was against the invasion of afghanistan...despite people posting his own comments from that time?

why, pray tell, didn't he have "no invasion of afghanistan" printed on his t-shirts instead of a paki flag?

Also, some people could always go back and post what he said about mushy..he was bragging to indians how mushy was some sort of a hero in the eyes of the US junta and how he was invited to camp david...

bj#138 "Here are a few simple common-sense statements that EVERY Pakistani needs drilled in his or her head!...All individuals are to be treated as equal."

Glad to see you Indians (Brahmin and Untouchables alike) are - already understand the evils of a caste-based society - already there and so you can teach muslims the goodness in egalitarianism.

Here are a few simple common-sense statements that EVERY Pakistani needs drilled in his or her head!

All individuals are to be treated as equal. All men and women are to be treated on the basis of one individual equals one vote.

Using one set of rules for Muslims and another for others is just another form of racism. Accept its legitimacy - and you have automatically legitimized the basics of racism.

The creation of Pakistan was a blatant case of Islamic racism! It also was the clear case of successful Islamic terrorism - the first of its kind in the subcontinent which set an example for the later generations of Islamic terrorists that would follow all over the world.

It paved the way for blatant discrimination against other "minorities" (some of whom keep shouting - "Hey, we are Muslims" - to no avail!)

William could have written a better article than this one.

Ras

kaalchakra #132: "After Musharraf the Great, there was a that all rounder cricketer phase - aurangzeb khan or vilaayat khan, or whatever his name is, leading a party called Intihayee-Saaf. Is he still the knight in shining armor?"

an odd question...pls feel free to contact me directly if you need a reply......

actually, i still support musharraf, like i always did, i.e. if the other option is bb or ns (or qazi hussein or fazl ur rahman)......this has always been my argument.......i think he was a better option than these three or four......and still do.....though his stock has gone down.....

as for, the party i support politically, it has always been tehrik-e-insaaf.......and still is.....and i still support imran khan as the candidate for pm.....always did....

outside of this party, i have supported aitezaz ahsan from ppp (assuming ppp happens to get in power, though i don't support ppp as a party, if it has a feudal leadership).....i have gotten to know some more politicians....i think gilani would make a good pm also.....

......i have always though an mqm without its current leadership, which breaks out of its ethnic roots and spreads out into pakistan, as a middle class party would be a good phenomenon.....though the chances of it spreading out are reducing.......maybe if imran khan's court case against altaf hussein is successful......

....to simplify....

1. i support musharraf if other options are bb, ns
2. i support imran khan if all options are available
3. if other options than bb, ns, become available, from other parties (as is now becoming the case), then i would support them, and would think it is time for musharraf to pack up.......

in addition, i have always stated that lawyers and media are two groups, which have a chance to oppose the govt....i supported ns's ouster through the supreme court, rather than through the army.......

in general, all surveys indicate that pakistanis' first priorities are economic growth/jobs and security.....and i would support anyone who increases the chance of the above happening.....

hopefully that makes it clear......if not, do contact me and i can provide further details...i can explain to you, via email, also.......

masadi# "With a maturity of a 5 year old retard"

why do you need to resort to abuse to attempt to make a point......i have never figured this out about people.....why can't they stay calm and make a point....people starting abusing, when they have lost an argument and have no other option left.....people who can make an argument, do not need to rely on abuse....

i have given you three pieces of articles published on this site, which i authored to present a point, which covered opposition to us invasion of afghanistan and iraq......there are hundreds of replies, by me, on this subject......there are hundreds of arguments i had with people on this site, on that.....

in fact, you are the first one who has stated that i supported these wars.....i find it odd....either you are wrong or the tens of other people are wrong......

pls read the folowing and let me know what they mean to you:

"To me, this war will be no different than Osama Bin Laden’s terrorist attacks. Killing innocent human beings ruthlessly or subtly is one and the same thing."

"So, if your hands are tied and you are down on your knees
It seems as though troubles will never cease; Remember
"They can bomb the world to pieces
But they can't bomb it into peace"

"This reduces the whole world to the law of the jungle, and the survival of the militarily fittest"

now what do these direct comments mean to you....pls explain (hopefully without abusive text; though you are welcome to abuse, if you cannot control it)....

masadi #: "Absolutely not, implicit in your recommendation article, that the US "should" have done such and so is the assumption that it was an "option"- what I have written and how you have turned face is 100% true poetry or not,"

you are an amazing guy......i have printed two articles and a piece of poetry authored by me, against us actions....and you are still not admitting your mistake.....truly amazing....

the fact that i left the usa, never to return, should be enough of an indication......

you have come up with some strange implication and have attempted to state that it is, "implicit."......basically what i have written explicitly is not what you want to look at.......you want to attach, on your own, implicit idea to me......

this is truly a strange site.....i spent years arguing with hamidm2 on why the us invastions were wrong.....and now masadi is completely sure i supported it.....

all my articles on this site are on books, poetry, culture etc.....the only ones i have written on politics, explicitly (not implicit in any manner) but explicitly against usa invasions.....

you need to learn to admit your mistakes......specially when facts are expressed openly to you........following is somethign else i wrote in my article regarding a us invastion (this time in iraq) - once again explicitly, i.e. the text is staring you in your face:

"I wholeheartedly oppose this brewing war. I feel the USA will unnecessarily invade a country. It will kill innocent people and create chaos in the region, not to help the local people, but for its own interests. I oppose this war, to the extent of considering it a crime against humanity – a self-serving attack by an aggressive nation against an innocent nation which has never attacked it. To me, this war will be no different than Osama Bin Laden’s terrorist attacks. Killing innocent human beings ruthlessly or subtly is one and the same thing. "

let's stick to explicits and not your implicit imagination.......now do tell me where i supported the us wars....

Kaal,

Hmmm, I think the cricketer it is for Romair sahib.

Regards

# 131

..."has graduated from his Field Marshall aka Captain Clueless days"

for information only, majumdar, what is the latest status? After Musharraf the Great, there was a that all rounder cricketer phase - aurangzeb khan or vilaayat khan, or whatever his name is, leading a party called Intihayee-Saaf. Is he still the knight in shining armor?

Masadi sahib,

It takes a lot to change your views when you are not young any more. Romair sahib has learnt a lot over the past few years and has graduated from his Field Marshall aka Captain Clueless days. I wish I could say that about every chowkie. Some of them are still stuck up in 7th century Arabia.

Regards

masadi nails capt clueless..

America was getting ready to bomb Afghanistan and this fool was rejoicing for the prospects this would have for Pakistan and now like a damn (liar) coward instead of acknowledging it he denies it:

====

#44 Posted by Romair on September 17, 2001 2:42:50 am
IMPORTANT:

---------

Advice to all Pakistanis, Indians, Sri Lankans, Arabs and Muslims in general, in the USA: If you want to feel safe and not have anyone attack you on the street, wear a shirt with a Pakistani flag on it.
------------

With a maturity of a 5 year old retard

In #127 read "does that mean that the opposes or supports the war?"

as

"does that mean that he opposes or supports the war?

----

To that I want to add that if any of you have difficulty answering that question tear up your High School Certificates and any other useless pieces of paper thereafter...

Cheerleader Romair:

---------

#145 Posted by AlephNull on September 4, 2007 3:41:58 pm
From Romair’s post:
…

I do know the PAF is on alert. I think the US C-141s are going to start rolling in soon. I have a feeling the Pakistani pilots and army will assist and guide the US into Afghanistan, if it decides to carry out an invasion (even though the Pakistani govt. won`t admit it openly). There is no way the US soldiers can carry it out on their own. They don`t have the intelligence, they don`t know the terrain, can`t speak the language. Infact, they can barely pronouce the names of the cities.

I`ve trained with the Pakistanis, with Middle Easterners and with Americans. I will take the Pakistani soldier over any other soldier anyday (any soldier except for an Afghan soldier, that is).

Man, this is getting interesting. Information Technology suc/ */s as a profession. No glory. I wanna go back and put on the uniform.

--------------------

Now if America is going to invade, Pakistan's military is going to assist and Romair wants to put on the Uniform, does that mean that the opposes or supports the war?

bulleya writes "i don't think usa wanted to do the right thing.....i never said that...pls point out where i said it.....your argument has been discredited and now you are trying to come up with reasons to justify your mistake,"

Absolutely not, implicit in your recommendation article, that the US "should" have done such and so is the assumption that it was an "option"- what I have written and how you have turned face is 100% true poetry or not, when you rally behind the benefits the Afghan war would cause Pakistan, and I have read those quotes that somebody produced (before you wrote this article), you are tacitly supporting the invasion. Liar.

Re #94, can someone please explain to me what exactly is wahabism? This is a serious question.

masadi #115: "There is an assumption in your "thinking" that assumes that the US wanted to do the right thing but chose the wrong option, that is why the need for this "moralizing" advice."

i don't think usa wanted to do the right thing.....i never said that...pls point out where i said it.....your argument has been discredited and now you are trying to come up with reasons to justify your mistake, rather than accepting it.....

following was your original statement: "Further regarding the Afghan invasion post 9/11 you were rejoicing over the prospects that presented for Pakistan"

it should be obvious from my article as well as my actions, that i was opposed to the usa attacking afghanistan.....i felt the need to write an article on it......i actually left the country, and only return on visits.....

following is another article i wrote against the usa's invasion of iraq, titled, "Three arguments against a war," http://www.chowk.com/articles/5979

.....in fact, during my rather poetic days, a few years ago, when i was regularly submitting poetry on Chowk, i even wrote poetry against it, titled, "Falcons Hearth"

"Gather 'round people, lend me your ear
Open your minds and all will be clear
Burn down the flags that you hold so dear
Raise your voice; there is nothing to fear

"Speak! for your lips are free," as a bird
Speak! if you don't, you'll never be heard
Speak! and speak, till you can speak no more
Speak! till your words knock on God's own door

If you cannot speak, talk through your eyes
Wipe off your tears and hold your head high
'Tis where you finish, not where you begin
"For the loser now, will be later to win"

Not only thy neighbour, love all men, alike
"Don't break people's heart, 'tis where God resides;" But
If ever attacked in the day or the night
Stand up and fight!; you must stand up and fight

"The jackal's wedding," under the desert palms
Their neo-con killers, our own Uncle Toms
No friends of yours and no friends of mine
Go! spit in their beer and piss in their wine

"The moving finger writes, and having writ, moves on"
Our troubles will pass, a new day will dawn
The sun and the moon are at His command
"As-shams-u wal qamaru bay-husbaan"

"Ashes to ashes, dust to dust"
Return to our Lord, someday, we must; But,
To the day of your death, from the day of your birth
"Live like a falcon, in the mountain's hearth"

So, if your hands are tied and you are down on your knees
It seems as though troubles will never cease; Remember
"They can bomb the world to pieces
But they can't bomb it into peace"

not exactly Faiz, but hopefully this will convince you to accept your error....i have presented two articles, and one piece of poetry, which totally obliterates your allegation....

..if you still won't accept your mistake, then i will have to elevate you to one level above hamidm2 mian - at the moment he was on the top of my list of chowk interactors, who can see no wrong in his views..........



you need to learn to accept your errors.....

Oops sorry multiple posts.

Regards

Masadi sahib,

(My posts contain those expletives only for those that deserve them)

You described someone as being red-a****. Since that remark was "deserved" as per your own statement (not Mr. Stanley Wolpert's or Mr. HM Seervai's but your own) do I take it that you observe the posteriors of all chowkies? Didn't know that you had somewhat queer preferences.

Regards

Masadi sahib,

(My posts contain those expletives only for those that deserve them)

You described someone as being red-a****. Since that remark was "deserved" as per your own statement (not Mr. Stanley Wolpert's or Mr. HM Seervai's but your own) do I take it that you observe the posteriors of all chowkies? Didn't know that you had somewhat queer preferences.

Regards

Masadi sahib,

(My posts contain those expletives only for those that deserve them)

You described someone as being red-a****. Since that remark was "deserved" as per your own statement (not Mr. Stanley Wolpert's or Mr. HM Seervai's but your own) do I take it that you observe the posteriors of all chowkies? Didn't know that you had somewhat queer preferences.

Regards

VRV writes "Btw, I don agree with Asadi calling u a 'red assed baboon'."

That was an expletive I borrowed from thinkingstorm in his interact on the Manto ilog, it referred to his thinking ability and had nothing to do with the graphics or the color....The guy is a criminal and a fool, the way he presents evidence and accusitions without a shread of honesty is stupendous to say the least

VRV,

You have the right to your opinion. I just think it is wrong and you haven't produced anything to back up your assertions or those of Masadi.

#98 Posted by MantoLives on September 6, 2007 10:35:00 am

Asadi indeed summarized our history in one sentence. It's amazing.

I dont agree with u even a wee bit. If u dont know or dont WANT to know, Jinnah fought for ALL Indian Muslims, not just the Muslims in West Punjab or the Muslims of NW India.

Btw, I dont like to speculate abt what'd have happened to the ppls of NW India, had there been no Pakistan. It's futile & I dont agree with ur analyses on the subject.

Btw, I don agree with Asadi calling u a 'red assed baboon'.

Urstryly writes "Your discourse cannot be cassified as an "argument". It usually starts with phrases like "you red assed baboons", "you dimwits", and "you morons", "

Oversimplification which means you are seeking excuses and lies like the lies on how you suffer living overseas in the US of A but would like to return to your homeland that doesn't offer you a livelihood. My posts contain those expletives only for those that deserve them because of the way they are being deceptive with their posts like Manto. Since you haven't been able to make me lose one single argument and we have had many, then your psychoanalysis about me is similar Mullah BS, and since I have never been married how can I be going through a divorce? I am very pleasant to be around, and very polite I might add but I don't like the company of "fat ass" mullahs that have invented a profession contrary to the Quran and are involved in making a haraam livelihood as they sell the words of Allah for a miserable price...

bulleya wrote "....highlighted the fact that USA should have exhausted all international legal options, before moving troops......"

You mean a golden opportunity presents itself to the US elite to start another "war with no end", to summarily execute peace, justified by its 9/11 hurt so it came with no public disapproval, and you say they should go legal? Which world were you living in back then? There is an assumption in your "thinking" that assumes that the US wanted to do the right thing but chose the wrong option, that is why the need for this "moralizing" advice.

Re: # 112

Your discourse cannot be cassified as an "argument". It usually starts with phrases like "you red assed baboons", "you dimwits", and "you morons", which only means that either you are having a bitter divorce or you are scared shitless of losing an argument. Why do you have to yell and insult people if you have substance or even an argument. If screaming had made a substantial argument then all books written in bold, underlined and capital letters would have been blockbuster timeless classics. I don't think you are a very pleasant person to be around and I do not think one can even slightly benefit from your company or discourse.

It was essential to kick out Hindus and Sikhs from
what was to become Pakistan.
With them around, Muslims had no chance except in
political field, like bhumiputras of Malaysia.
In all most of the spheres, Hindus and Sikhs would
have dominated, at least in matters where cerebral
matter matters.
So that was the plan all along and it worked.
If Pakistani Muslims had wisdom to woo them and
pursuade them to stay, Pakistan would have or
would have been on the way to become like Malaysia
instead of on the way to become like Afghanistan.

Urstruly writes "I think Masadi is devoid on both accounts, sincerity and presentation. "

Regarding substance, none of you mullahs from the high priest the Khota (Bakri Omar) to the low down jihadists have been able to counter what I say directly from the Quran, if I am so devoid of substance then you should be able to blow me away in argument but not one of you has been able to. Regarding presentation, I would take mine any day over the burping sermons of some mullah high on halva

Just one point I want to make clear to this "red assed baboon" Manto when he claims that I "excuse" the Bengal massacre, I never "excused" the massacre of Bengalis, it is just that the Army action that resulted in that has not ZAB but Yahya, the war criminal to blame. Bhutto was not the military commander in cheif to be giving orders and tactics to the military, it was Yahya's military. Now please clarify to me how talks between Yahya and ZAB amount to ZAB's point by point instruction on how to militarily suppress the Bengali vote? ZAB had nothing to do with the massacre and you do not have any proof , non existant talks behind closed doors do not constitute proof. ZAB the democrat, the Muslim, the friend of the poor and the downtrodden was willing to negotiate to sit as a minority but not under a plan that would cause another "bangladesh" in three of the four provinces down the road and that even if this trap that was being set by the military would be allowed to go on. That is my point of view and it is supported by the facts which are not in a "secret meeting" in some hidden room in Larkana but out in the open subject to analysis.

#107 Posted by bulleya on September 6, 2007 12:31:09 pm


following is from an article i wrote on this site: http://www.chowk.com/articles/5335


That article was written in 2002, long after the t-shirt with paki flag days were over and the canine status of pureland was becoming increasingly obvious..

in any case, the article was titled india's lose lose scenario...turns out, it was a win-win for india...so you're wrong there too..

you're acting like bill o'reilly who gets all worked up when people quote HIM.

O this was good indeed; want to share it again.


Once when Sardar Ataullah Mengal, NawaB amir Muohammed Khan ( then Gov. west Pak) & Ayub ( Pres. ) were together discussing some matter. When Mengal raised his voice high & chided Ayub, Kalabagh requested him to exercise restraint to which Mengal, aghast said to Kalabagh iright in front of Ayub: " Nawab sahib, this guy is a naukar, he is on wages, how can you ever compare him to you & I"

The worst thing that has happened to both India & Pakistan is this transplanted system of "democracy" & the dissolution of States. Hyderbad Bhopal Rampur have yet been not replaced even to their 10% level in all spheres of activities. The Great Mughals did not interfere in the Panchayat system & never ever disturbed the ground-roots of all culture & tradition

i think one needs to separate the rhetoric/manifesto etc. of ppp from the people running it.....

i think ppp has one of the better, if not best manifestos for pakistan....i actually agree with much of bhutto's rhetoric....the older i get, the more socialist i am becoming.....

......however, rhetoric is just that.....rhetoric......what the ppp has actually done is the total opposite of what it preaches.....it is ruled by the chief feudal family of pakistan, which runs it like a family fiefdom.....feudals will never support the common man....the businessman may support the common man, the army may, the ngo's may, the maulvi may, but never the feudal.....

the best thing that can happen now is for the law for not allowing three time pm to stay.......this may open up an opportunity for someone else to lead ppp as pm....

though i don't think bb is going to give an opportunity to people like aitezaz ahsan....she will stick with incompetent folks like ameen fahim.....

ppp without its top feudals would be a good prospect for pakistan.....

masadi #: Further regarding the Afghan invasion post 9/11 you were rejoicing over the prospects that presented for Pakistan"

hmm......another pakistani gentleman forced to quote arjun....we pakistanis are totally screwed now.....

i actually opposed the afghanistan invasion....in fact i moved out of the usa, and gave up an opportunity for a us passport, as i disagreed with us foreign policy....all of this is far too well documented....

following is from an article i wrote on this site: http://www.chowk.com/articles/5335

"When the United States of America was laying down its plans to attack Afghanistan, a small group of people, including the author, highlighted the fact that USA should have exhausted all international legal options, before moving troops......

This reduces the whole world to the law of the jungle, and the survival of the militarily fittest...This has made the world a more dangerous place, and will further increase every country’s desire to acquire more weaponry, both conventional and nuclear."

as i said earlier, please take it easy on the rhetoric and stick with facts......the above should highlight your incorrect rhetoric.....

there is nothing wrong with liking bhutto......however, supporting a feudal, who kept his family feudal, totally contradicts you sociological stands.....feudals are at the opposite extreme of the common man.....it doesn't matter what commentary they use......there can be no socialism in a country, as long as its land is owned by feudals and they are its prime minsiters........

jiss kaith sae dehqaan ko muyyassar na ho rozi
uss kaith kae har khosho-e-gandum ko jala do

one would think you would be burning bhutto's kaiths, not supporting him.......

104:
You said it man...
helps reminding us all once in a while of the Hikayaat-i-Saadi: the treasure house of wisdom found no where else in the world.

The wisdom of Sa'adi... he was the sage for all ages.

Re: # 101

There is a short story by Sheikh Saadi's in his book Gulstan that fits perfectly well on Masadi. Sheikh writes that once upon a time there was a Mo'azan (prayer caller) who was a very devout Muslim. He would get up early in the morning, rain or shine, climb up the minaret and call for prayers. The only problem was that he had the most terrible voice imaginable. Everybody in the town despised his call for prayers but nobody would dare tell him because of his devotion and sincere adherence to the religion.

One day this Moa'zan, who was so convinced of the beauty of his voice decided to go on a missionary trip to convert people into islam. He happened upon a distant town whose people had never heard about Islam. It was night time already when people received him as a traveller and offered him an abode for the night. They asked him about the purpose of his trip. He told them about the name of One Lord and that he had come to their town to introduce people to their salvation. People heard him intently and then since it was getting late at night everybody left him to get some rest.

Next morning, early as usual this Moa'zan woke up and climbed the roof of his room and started calling for the prayer in his horrible voice. No living beings in that town had ever heard such a horrible noise before; the small children started crying, the men and women who were sleeping in their beds comfortably fell down on the floor, cows and horses fled barns and stables, dogs started howling, and hens abandoned the eggs they were hatching. Everybody was dazed and confused about that horrible noise until they found out that it was the stranger whom they had received yesterday. They asked Moa'zan about the reason for making such a horrible ruckus in the wee hours of the night. The Moa'zan replied that he was only calling the people to the Good Lord so that they could have their salvation. The people said, if this is the way you call people to your Lord then thank you very much; we have no intention to know about your Lord.

MORAL: Devotion and sincerity in faith is not enough but presentation is also important when you reach out to the people.

I think Masadi is devoid on both accounts, sincerity and presentation.

For the sake of historical accuracy ... one must be clear that the steel mill in Karachi was conceptualised in 1968 (when Bhutto was no longer in the government) and an agreement to this effect was concluded with the USSR in January 1971.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto laid the foundation stone in 1973 pursuant to this agreement and had little to do with it per se.. though it is understandable that Bhutto tried to spin it as his achievement.

Personalities like ZaB, MAJ, or MKG can be and are discussed ad-nauseum here & elsewhere but one thing that truly makes the all great is:

None of them Khaa Paisaa of the qaum or awaam.

All of their other "mistakes" "sins" or "crimes" can be mootpoints but nothing fresh is being discussed here except
one's own predujices under the cover of who has a bigger hard disc of clutter.

Masadi says that Urstruly is depending on "he said she said".

But Masadi doesn't even have that ...does he? Other than blind ignorance and a small mind resembling that of "Shah Dola da chuha" he has been unable to provide any real basis for his adulation for Zulfikar Ali Bhutto...

How unfortunate is Bhutto to have won an admirer like Masadi who has turned Bhutto-admirers and Bhutto-sympathizers into Bhutto-haters. People who can't agree on anything... people like Urstruly, Bulleya, myself, rozaiba ... are unanimous on this one point. Indeed this is the kind of consensus that might one day help Pakistan rid itself of third rate feudal politicians (or as Dalrymple calls it "Elective feudalism") that masquerades as some sort of democracy ... and bring forth politicians on all sides in the mould of Mahomed Ali Jinnah.

Re: # 97

I don't need a sermon on democracy. When is the last time party elections were held with in PPP. Isn't it a fact that ZAB's wife became the dejure party leader after ZAB's demise and after her, BB became a lifetime party leader. WTF does the word "lifetime' mean. It means there won't be any elections for PPP leadership unless BB dies. If this is the kind of democracy you are peddling then stay with in your business territory i.e. poor illetrate masses who can be bought with the promise of a loaf of bread. Try to look outside from the well that you have started to assume to be the whole universe. The choking hold of your inferiority complex and inherent prejudices have turned you into a small minded Shah Dollah's rat.

that should read "undergraduate economic work" ... Masadi's that is.

Saima Shah,

That is an excellent post. Everyone should read it.

VRV,

Only someone like you can find absolute garbage by an irrational maniac like the self-proclaimed Howard Zinn and Chomsky rolled into one Masadi "golden words". Those who know history however have a different point of view.

The truth is the exact opposite. Had Pakistan not come into existence ... Muslims of this region i.e. Pakistan would have remained entrenched in farming and soldiering. It was the rigors of having a state and running it that forced Pakistanis to abandon traditional professions and opt for banking, commerce, medicine, trading etc.... thus quite contrary to Masadi's claims... Jinnah actually was responsible for bringing very real and actual social progress to a people who were otherwise closed up and were fast becoming dinosaurs... had there been no Pakistan... this region would have become the subcontinental backwater and producer of raw materials... just compare the capital flow and industrialisation right up to 1947.... and then afterwards... Pakistan region went virtually started from zero.

The reason why there was feudal structure more entrenched in this region was because this region was used by the British for recruiting which they did through local alliances.... the most developed of the west Pakistani province was Punjab which was a regulated province... i.e. British ruled through deputy commissioners instead of elected representatives.

Everything has its time ... and in my view atleast Muslims like me would have been stuck in the vicious downward spiral of agricultural prices... Masadi probably doesn't know - despite his so called undergraduate economic prices- that agricultural prices have been declining the world over.

Ofcourse the downside of this was that people like Masadi- who probably would have not ended as even a clerk in United India- also managed to get an education and got to go to America. This is clearly the biggest misfortune of partition.


Masadi mian,

In Masadi's bizarro world Jinnah who worked his way through sheer hard work and ability from a humble background is some how a feudal-facilitator but the feudal Bhutto- whose party today remains the bastion of feudal aristocracy- is a lower class hero.

He blames Jinnah for the half a million (by the most liberal estimates the death toll ranged from 250 000- 587 000) deaths at partition because Jinnah had asked for Pakistan and that warranted violence against Muslims... but forgives Bhutto for advising and planning the massacre of hapless Bengali people (because like Jinnah, Mujeeb too had asked for an independent country and hence according to Masadi ... the onus should lie on Mujeeb)


Claiming something without giving any evidence is not cutting it. It smacks of Masadi's ignorance of not just Jinnah but of Gandhi and Bhutto as well. I seriously suggest Madadi hit those books before making such outrageously inaccurate statements which cannot be defended on the basis of history.

As for the Raja of Larkana... Bhutto's continuing tragedy was lack of scruples ... instead of trying to be some sort of a Napoleon meets Gemal Abdel Nasser holding a Pakistani flag... had he followed the man (Mahomed Ali Jinnah) he admired but did not have the integrity or character to emulate and who he defended more vociferously than I ever have (heck had he been around you would be calling him the "high priest of Church of MAJ" as well) ...

But somewhere along the way... Bhutto decided Jinnah's law abiding constitutional ways were too cumbersome for him to fulfill his ambition of becoming a third world Napoleon ... that having scruples and being honest like Jinnah was uncool... that Pakistan was Bhutto's personal fiefdom... that he could fool the people and play with the ignorance and foolishness... that instead of solving the basic issues and fulfilling the many promises he made to the people... he would do better by holding the Islamic Summit Conference and giving false hopes to an already demoralised people.... that if nothing else worked, it would be great to ditch the Ahmadis in the name of Islam.... that if that didn't appease the Mullahs... there would always be something more he could do to appease the Mullahs.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was basically an insecure people. As per Rafi Raza... Bhutto's "phenomenal election victory" in 1970 was engineered by the Pakistan Army to offset the Awami League-National Awami Party alliance...

On this website we have often done the exercise of what would happened if Nehru had not vetoed the Cabinet Mission Plan in 1946... it is about time we consider what would have happened if Bhutto-Yahya coterie had accepted Mujib's 6 points...

My guess is that Pakistan would still be united... albeit as a confederation ... and military rule would have ended with Yahya Khan. This is precisely why the Army had to let East Pakistan go.

Re #96 Little wonder that Mullah Naseruddin picks on "he said, she said" tales. I have read the ZABs letter to his daughter from jail and nowhere is it mentioned that she should be head of PPP because she is his daughter, he gives her advice about affairs not about how to gather power, Minister of Youth Affairs is not Prime Minister. I fail to see mention of "family" and "succession" in any of the speeches of ZAB. Monarchial succession in our society unfortunately is used as mechanism to coopt democratic movements like that of ZAB, the Fatima Jinnah alliance used it and the PPP used it but ZAB cannot be blamed for it. How many times and in how many countries have the mullahs sided with the colonialists to do away with the voice of the people? It is true that he set up the Steel Mills instead of setting up Halva factories for you guys but that's no reason to invent excuses to deny the difference he made as an individual at the grassroots, rural, poor sections of Pakistani society.

Re: # 89

"If you can show that ZAB wanted PPP to be a family affair that he took action to ensure it would be a family affair then you might have a point about inconsistency and I will duly condemn the man for doing so "

ZAB did try to make PPP his personal affair. Raja Anwer, who is a well known columnist claims that ZAB asked him personally to take BB under his wings and train for the post of Minister of Youth Affiars. Raja Anwar was a political activist and student leader from Gujjar Khan, who arose to become ZAB's adviser on student and labour affairs from 1974 to 1977. During Zia era he was exiled when terrorists of Pak People's Party hijacked a pakistani plane and demanded the release of PPP political prisoners. Raja is a die hard PPP worker to this date.

ZAB himself, in one of his books (probably If I Am Assassinated) described BB as the tru heiress of his political legacy rather than his sons or any other political worker.

During last days of his rule when he was negotiating the re-election with opposition, BB was present in most of the meetings. This fact is also documented by die hards like author Saleem Ahmad and Raja Anwer.

saima, coming to terms with TNT was the biggest struggle for me too. Personally I simply gave up and accepted it as a fact of life. Like water fiding its own level, irrespective of people's preferences.

There seem to be too many issues mixed up in TNT - fear, hatred, supremacist ideology, dogma, pride, idealism, utopianism, ignorance, selfishness, greed, envy, jealousy, ambition, progressivism, self-sufficiency, whatever you want to include in order to exclude.

I think there were lots of people with lots of different interpretations (as happens invariably in any interpretationist situation). So it may not be very useful to wonder what this or that person thought. These ideas spread rapdily through huge populations, and those populations acted - each individual for a different reason (interpretation, perhaps), but ultimately toward the same practical goal.

I don't think that thinking will or can ever go away. It is too deep rooted because it is NOT one thing or two things. You can pull out one root, but a hundred other roots remain. That is also the reason why it first spread like wildfire. It had too many hooks.

So, IMHO, the only way forward is to accept it, and try to make a better world assuming that it will always be there underground a lot more than above ground, and while one of its hooks may be cut off, a hundred others will remain, ready to welcome the masses.

Re: # 29
Jayp, I wondered for the longest time, if the TNT is at heart hatred and concluded not. The TNT was fear, fear of losing a certain way of life, fear of the 'other' who seemed to be siding with the British rather than not. Unfortunately, that fear was not addressed by the politicians of the time and a meaningful solution was not presented--tehre are many reasons, british parliamentary democracy relies on nations and homogienity, with roots in autocracy. In that context, the TNT made sense. However, later on, the influence of Wahabism, and the desire for purity has led to great tragedy. The only way out of the minimimalist/pure Islam was hypocricy--say one thing, do another. That is how Saudi Arabia manages its many contradictions, through lies. Pakistani society is complex, it does not lend itself to easy comparisons, or easy solutions. For a few decades the lies that governed life allowed people to embrace modernity and at the same time oppress the masses. An elite emerged that prescribed Islam for the masses and America for themselves.

I'd like to say that Pakistanis by and large do not hate India, China or any nation. If anything they want the same status and progress as these nations, however their prescription is a pure Islam that further tightens the noose around their neck. You'd say, well why don't they change that?

It is easier said than done, it took many many decades for the wahabi ideology to reach critical mass, it will take a lot of time for enlightened Islam as well. In the meanwhile, Muslims live with a lot of conflict and grief, trying to deal with all this.

Masadi:

Do not listen to Manto, Bulleya, HP and all these folks.

You are a phenomenal character. Anyone who can compare himself to Noam Chomsky and Ann Coulter in the same post has to be one of a kind. This has never been done before.

#86 Posted by MantoLives on September 6, 2007 4:29:56 am


it goes without saying that the death toll at partition was much lower than the death toll in 1971.


but according to you, the paki army only whacked a dozen or so people in 71..and most of them were indian agents anyway...

#89 Posted by masadi on September 6, 2007 5:56:30 am


for starters, i never supported the afghan invasion.



masadi dude...capt clueless was practically wearing a cheerleaders uniform(albeit with a paki flag on it) and waving his pom-poms cheering the invasion of afghanistan...check out aleph null's post on the rawalpindi thread..he re-posted capt clueless' post from that time...

that was the time after 9/11 when he thought pakiland would have a seat at the dinner table with uncle sam instead of being treated like a female of the canine species and left in the yard..the neighbor's yard...

now while i think you're full of it, you've had consistent beliefs and have stuck by them..however wrong said beliefs might have been IMO...capt clueless is a BS artist with a difference..he spins a yarn and he's the only one who falls for it...

In #89 read "Things are that black and white as you would like them to be, just repeating your question again and again proves NOTHING"

as "Things aren't that black and white as you would like them to be, just repeating your question again and again proves NOTHING"

Bulleya writes "you need to calm down a bit, and look at what you are stating......i have already showed on so many items on which you are inconsistent......for starters, i never supported the afghan invasion.....in fact, i wrote an article against it on this site"

You haven't shown a single inconsistency. If you can show that ZAB wanted PPP to be a family affair that he took action to ensure it would be a family affair then you might have a point about inconsistency and I will duly condemn the man for doing so but what you are showing is what happened to the party AFTER ZAB, for which he certainly cannot be held responsible Now when I have said that I have nothing to do with the PPP or who is ruling it or who the leadership is I am concerned with the anamoly of ZAB in these discussion you say it is "inconsistency" that is BS. Further regarding the Afghan invasion post 9/11 you were rejoicing over the prospects that presented for Pakistan, many have caught you with your pants down in this case and in the case of supporting Musharraf, maybe your friend Arjun can repost what you wrote in you usual clueless manner.

Then he writes "could he, not have agreed to form the oppossition in a govt. and allowed mujeeb to run the country, based on the wishes of the common man of pakistan.........

landowners and political parties headed by landowners will never have the common man's agenda as a priority......."

I have already made over a dozen posts on that and why it was not tenable and even pasted ZABs own explanation for it. Things are that black and white as you would like them to be, just repeating your question again and again proves NOTHING. Try to understand the answer and refute it rather than repost it as a similar question.

Then he writes "- another form of elitism, is family dominance of institutions, politics, etc........surely, you cannot deny that bhutto's politics are dominated by his family......"

I deny it completely, there was nothing in ZAB's politics that was about his family, in order to use his name to coopt the socialist agenda his family name and members have been are are being used, that is not his fault, I have already stated this multiple times yet once again you merely restate your original question as if you have proved something. NOT SO.

Then he writes "- bhutto did not introduce socialism.....he introduced crony socialism......which destroyed the common man as it made him poorer"

BS, nationalism might make the GNP pie smaller but it surely increases the share of it going to the common man, similar nonsense has been spewed by the bourgeoisie that ran away from Cuba. What has all the privitization and dirty money flowing in done for Pakistan? It takes time to build a base, nationalization of industry and land reforms are steps number ONE and he undertook them both, making it LAW of the LAND, that itself regardless of how much success he had in implementation says a lot about why I support him in these efforts. Finally he had to do a lot of balancing as he himself claims and blames himself for seeking that but did he really have much choice? The way he was killed proves that he didn't. Finally what he did with his own wealth and family and so on are downright Ad Hominem argument with which I am not concerned, and reflect the "mullah intellect" of how they judge the expediency of a ruler.

Then he ends with ".....your criteria is rhetoric and not facts......"

BS again, not empty rhetoric but rhetoric that makes the public come out and become conscious, that was what I support, the public was woken up, supported him based on greater feelings of worth they developed for themselves, saw themselves not as peons of the West or the feudals but people in their own right. Is that too hard for you to understand in your wheelings and dealings and how to make a quick buck? You have not produced a single fact except repeat your nonsense allegations about the PPP party structure being a family affair when the ZAB had nothing to do with that...

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.


GOLDEN WORDS EVER WRITTEN ON CHOWK.

#85 Tazeen regarding the appointment of Zia those are chances that a weak political institution head has to take when the military has a long tradition of interference in political affairs. No matter who was chosen the results would have been much the same the real players in the power state wanted a change and they wanted to make an example of someone who was getting too independant and big for his boots..

#86 Manto; 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.

So according to Masadi a leader like Bhutto who does not respect a simple law like traffic lights is perfectly alright. Let us forget that he has failed to answer why people like Wali Khan and Maududi supported Fatima Jinnah... if it was a simple case of monarchial succession.

As for who caused what deaths... it is very hard to actually blame the one person who went around protecting people in Karachi and Hyderabad for the communal violence in 1947... it goes without saying that the death toll at partition was much lower than the death toll in 1971. And it might just be that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto planned and executed the whole thing.

Let us read what HP wrote:

The army too felt that the time has come to get rid of East Pakistan as Mujib's six points would have destroyed the army rule in Pakistan for good. Bhutto did support the army and I think it was Bhutto who actually planned how the whole thing would work. Gen. yahya spend days in Larkana in early 1971 consulting with Bhutto over these issues and when they came out of those meetings, east Pakistan's fate was sealed.


Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's rule was reactionary and he laid the foundation for what Zia ul Haq did later on. In many ways these two men weakened Pakistan more than anyone else.

As the English phrase goes, 'Handsome is what handsome does," and what ZAB did to Pakistan was not handsome at all. In my opinion, his greatest sin was making Zia his chief of army staff, because Bhutto, with his "GREAT" intellect, thought Zia to be least threatening of all the generals. He just thought about saving his own ass and did not care about either merit or seniority of other generals. We all know how it ended. Bhutto, in some ways, is responsible for all the fiasco Zia created. No other person in the 60 years history of Pakistan can be attributed to muck up the society for such a long time, we are still reaping the 'benefits' of Zia's legacy which ranges from communal and secterial violence to klashinikov culture to drugs to human traffic and what not. So in a way, it was Bhutto who introduced this deadliest of all viruses to Pakistani establishment.
We are honoured to have had such a great 'people's' leader

masadi #: "but because he invoked principles of socialism, something that the people of Pakistan and all poor and toiling masses of the third world demand and desire. "

yes, he did state them and then fully violated them......could he not of implemented land reforms, at least, in his own family lands......could he not have removed his own family from the hierarchy of his party....could he not have built a party around the common man and not around the feudal elites......ppp is, still, the last bastion of the feudal politic in pakistan.....it is the only mainstream political party in pakistan, headed by a feudal......

could he, not have agreed to form the oppossition in a govt. and allowed mujeeb to run the country, based on the wishes of the common man of pakistan.........

landowners and political parties headed by landowners will never have the common man's agenda as a priority.......they may talk about it to get the common man's votes, but the moment they implement it, they will lose their landholdings and importance......

masadi #78: "I challenge you to show me one inconsistency unlike you who was rallying behind Musharraf and the Afghan invasion and now does a turnaround..."

you need to calm down a bit, and look at what you are stating......i have already showed on so many items on which you are inconsistent......for starters, i never supported the afghan invasion.....in fact, i wrote an article against it on this site......this is the first point on which you are inconsistent.....like this, you are inconsistent on many points......

- you are pushing the rights of the common man, yet you associate yourself with an individual, who discarded the wishes of the common man of more than 50% of the country......this is an inconsistency...

- the most elitist figures in the world, historically, are landowners.....it is only when the power of the landowner was broken, all over the world, that the common man gained some ground....bhutto was an out and out feudal, who represented the feudal class, through and through, and his family still represents them......it doesn't matter what he said......you need to look at who he was and what he represented......this is an inconsistency......

- another form of elitism, is family dominance of institutions, politics, etc........surely, you cannot deny that bhutto's politics are dominated by his family......can you name any other political party in pakistan, which has only had one family running it......i challenge you to name one that has had a change of leadership and it never moved outside one family.....and that too a feudal family...all other parties have had, at least, some movement outside families........this is the height of elitism.......and another inconsistency

- bhutto did not introduce socialism.....he introduced crony socialism......which destroyed the common man as it made him poorer......did the banks become more accessible to the common man because they were nationalised.....did the education system become better for the common man, because it went through crony nationalism........so on and so forth......the common man was lucky that the middle east opened up during that time, other wise he would have starved.....

did bhutto get rid of the feudalistic structure of his party.....how many common men, have reached the top of his party......bhuttos (zulfiqar, nusrat, mumtaz, benazir, murtaza), khar, jatoi, gilani, makhdoom fahim, faisal hayat, abida hussain, etc. look like common men/women to you....even the urban class includes people like aitezaz ashan etc..certainly not common men.......most of all, did bhutto even get rid of the feudalistic structure of his own family.....

so you support a feudal man, born with a silver spoon in his mouth, who studied in a country you despise, who ran a family-owned party, with its own security force, whose party's top hierarchy were (and still are) all elitists, who sidelined the views of over 50% of the common men of a country, resulting in a break-up of a country, and who ran a govt. which reduced opportunities for common man.......apparently, you support him because he made exciting speeches about roti, kapra aur makaan......

.....your criteria is rhetoric and not facts......

amazing!! there is nothing wrong with supporting bhutto......but, then you lose the right to the sociological views, you keep presenting.......in fact, the views you are presenting are the ones bhutto presented.....unfortunately, it was only a presentation......his actions were contradictory to his views.......

Masadi sahib,

May I know what exactly ZA Bhoot acheived in his tenure in power apart from declaring Ahmedis as non-Muslims? He sc***** up the economy thru his nationalisation programme and all that while his so-called land reforms remained on paper. His slogan of Roti Kapda and Makaan was just like him, plain sham.

Regards

Regards

I know that many of you here like Manto are reading challenged, they think reading is about copy pasting and personal attacks of the Ad Hominem kind, so for their benefit let me help you with the quote from ZAB that I reproduced below.

The guy is staring death in the face in his miserable cell and he writes the part reproduced below about the common man, the proletariat, the worker. Now what kind of trickery is he after invoking the common man when the class he derails in the same quote, the one that will not accept any equitable solution till it is overthorwn completely, has just put him in the gallows to get rid of him? Please explain this to me Bulleya and Manto. You cannot because you know the man tried, tried and failed while becomming the most popular leader in Pakistan's history among the common man not because of the family he belonged to or the brand of clothing he wore, but because he invoked principles of socialism, something that the people of Pakistan and all poor and toiling masses of the third world demand and desire. That is what true democracy is about not the BS of the MAJ. End of story. Not interested in any more discussions about ZAB, the guy is dead, and gone, he left a great mark on Pakistan and great hope for the world's poor in their struggle against the elite, for which Allah will surely reward him regardless of what the sobs say.

ZAB in If I am Assassinated

"If I were assassinated" in which he drew the lessons from the experiencie. He said: "I am suffering this ordeal partly because I sought an honourable and equitable middle way between conflicting interests, in order to harmonise the disjointed structure of our society. It seems that the lesson of this coup d'Etat is that a middle way, a modus vivendi, a compromise is a utopian dream. The coup demonstrates that the class struggle is irreconcilable and that it must result in the victory of one class over the other. Obviously, whatever the temporary set backs, the struggle can lead only to the victory of one class, the proletariat."

Manto writes "Just then, the driver stopped the car as one of the traffic lights on Murree Road turned red. Having heard me seconds before, he (Bhutto) told the driver, ‘Drive on, no one can stop me!’ This was the difference"

Pakistani scholarship at its best, Ad Hominem and he said she said and "look at his morals" while claiming to be "better than thou". Is that all you can muster fool?
One causes the death of over a million and relegates hundreds of millions to reactionary discrimination and misery, the other goes directly to the people, listens to them and tries to consolidate the resources of this nation for its people. The difference is crystal clear, ZAB anyday!

bulleya writes "masadi #: i am afraid you are changing the rules as your arguments change......you need to make up your mind on what you stand for:"

Nonsense, not changed or being inconsistent in one thing. I challenge you to show me one inconsistency unlike you who was rallying behind Musharraf and the Afghan invasion and now does a turnaround...

Then he writes "how did bhutto make the plight of the common man his issue, other than simply making speeches about it.....he certainly wasn't too concerned about the plight of the common man in east pakistan...i hope you agree with this....."

You make the plight of the common man an issue when you visit every single village in Punjab and listen to the people, you make it a plight when you not only talk the socialism talk but implement it. You make the plight of the common man an issue when you try to get rid of the foreign BS that is keeping your people down. You take care of the people when you try to fix foreign issues that are bleeding the nation, you make the poor a priority when you raise the independance issue on the international forum and represent the poor....not to mention the land reform that was extremely hard to pass in a feudal country, going against the elite that hated the man....catch my drift? Only a fool would stretch himself to the East and fail miserably, but that is no reason to assert that he wasnt concerned with the plight of the common man in the East, if he wasnt he wouldn't have set Mujib free, if he wasn't he wouldn't have jumped the ocean to represent the poor in Africa....you don't have a foot to stand upon Army supporter...

Then he writes "why is this not your concern?...."

It is not my concern because I am not a PPP supporter, I support the efforts of the ZAB alone in trying to mainstream democracy and people power in this country.That he was setting up a monarchial system is your whim. He failed to implement the socialism that he wanted and the democracy that he wanted, after achieving much, the military coopted what little achievement were made. The BB was part of that cooptation, why should I support her? I do not. Bhutto was not an angel or a magician, I am not presenting him as such. He talked the talk of the global poor and he walked the walk in that direction as well. In the Pakistan political scence he was a maverick who went against the structures of Power, in whatever ineffective way but go against them he did, go agaisnt the imperialists he did, and he was punished for that. It would be injustice to take that away from him. In fact his case is the only case that gives me some hope for this nation. MAJ and his church are part of the same game the colonials have been playing with us for centuries, do not think of someone who has managed to push through the corridors of power with direct appeals to the people who loved him, in an environment like Pakistan, to race through reforms, it is a small incremental process unless there is a revolution, and there was no revolution though the catastrophie of 1971 offered him an open window in which to achieve much and he did...

The High Priest of the Church of MAJ responds with the same old bs, he throws a name out but does not show how that "name" disputes even a single one of the indusputed facts that I presented. Those facts aren't in the ancient history, they are well known from PRIMARY documents, from newspapers and papers that are widely available. They are no secret and he repeats his bs about Fatima Jinnah. She LOST, people wanted to capitalize on the entire industry of legitimization of the Jinnah that the creation of Pakistan produced, as monarchial succession, they failed, that is all and that was it...

masadi #: i am afraid you are changing the rules as your arguments change......you need to make up your mind on what you stand for:

"...The fact that ZAB made the plight of the common man and the integrity of this nation state his main campaign issue in the elections, and mainstreamed the people as powerful says a lot about his great leadership...."

how did bhutto make the plight of the common man his issue, other than simply making speeches about it.....he certainly wasn't too concerned about the plight of the common man in east pakistan...i hope you agree with this.....

now, in west pakistan, what was his concern?......did he do anything to remove the plight of the common name.....did he remove feudalism; what to talk of the whole country, did he even remove it in his own family?......

".....That is not my concern, my concern was with the people's agenda of the ZAB, not the cooptation of his party by the elites thereafter....."

why is this not your concern?....it is your concern when it comes to usa and to fatima jinnah and to your general concepts of sociology.....but when it comes to bhutto, it is not your concern!!.......

i am not talking of the, "cooptation" of bhutto's party by elites....i am talking about him and his family......his personal views.....the whole party is a single family elitist party...that family is the bhutto family.......how much more elitist can anyone be, then to put one's own personal relatives as the heads of one's own party, which by the way is based totally on feudalism......

.....a feudal family, heading a political party in a third world country is the ultimate peak of elitism.....bhutto founded all of this.....on top of this, bhutto took out the one major awami movement that was about to occur in east pakistan........he did so with the assistance of the military......

there is absolutely nothing more elitist, personally, or publicly than what bhutto did and represented.......this elitism is what you are always arguing against......yet when it comes to bhutto, your argument and principle makes a 180 degree turn.......

you need to look at the actions of people and not the words they speak.......bhutto, in his words, represented what you say......in his actions, and personal life, he represented exactly what u oppose.......

Majumdar,

In my view most heterodox communities of a mainstream orthodoxy tend to be far ahead of the mainstream.

I wish that close to the the end of his life... MAJ would have chosen his clients wisely... because a man is known by the company he keeps.

Manto mian,

It was quite unfortunate for us Hanuds/Injuns that MAJ (pbuh) was born in a Gujarati Muslim baniya household and MKG in a Gujarati Hindu baniya one. It wud have been much better if the roles had been reversed. In any case, MAJ was far ahead of his times for the IM community of that era.

Regards

Also:

"In the subcontinent, very few leaders emerged from the underprivileged background. The rare ones, who emerge from the poverty, ended up becoming avatars. Both Jinnah and Gandhi were of a lower middleclass background. Similarly Mujib, too was from a similar lower middleclass background."

Mahomed Ali Jinnah was son of a khoja merchant- who was not very wealthy but not very poor either. By definition he was certainly middle class.

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was the son of a Diwan (a minister of sorts) of a Princely state and was born in wealth... though he was by caste the same as Mahomed Ali Jinnah ... and was certainly not a feudal.

I don't know about Mujeeb's early origisn except the oft repeated claim that he used to cycle from town to town following Mahomed Ali Jinnah during the Pakistan movement.

I think Sardar Patel was the politician who emerged from truly humble background but I might be wrong.

Re: # 66

HP writes:

Bhutto did support the army and I think it was Bhutto who actually planned how the whole thing would work. Gen. yahya spend days in Larkana in early 1971 consulting with Bhutto over these issues and when they came out of those meetings, east Pakistan's fate was sealed.

So in other words Bhutto was the military establishment's B-Team.

Rafi Raza - Bhutto's confidant- claims in his book on Bhutto that Bhutto confessed to Rafi Raza that the military regime under Yahya had rigged the elections in West Pakistan to get Bhutto a mandate to offset the Awami League-National Awami Party alliance.

Pakistan would have been better off with six points. And remember this whole idea of Bangladesh as part of Pakistan resulted from Congress' refusal in 1947 to entertain a United Bengal with Sarat Bose, Suhrawardy and Jinnah had agreed to.

Masadi mian,

"Not disputed by a single historian"

Read "Zulfi Bhutto of Pakistan" by Stanley Wolpert. Let us just say your "facts" are not even considered facts. Since you've not quoted any historian per se... I think your claim- as with most of your "scholarship" is sham.

You still haven't explained why was it that people like Wali Khan - son of Ghaffar Khan- put their faith in Fatima Jinnah despite being Jinnah's doughtiest opponents? So much for your monarchial succession theory. It was because they realised that only Fatima Jinnah had the popular appeal (because she was the sister of Quaid-e-Azam) and integrity required for the job...

Ironic that of all the politicians you blame the one man - Jinnah- who did not create a political dynasty for "monarchial succession" ... just because a wide range of political leaders chose his sister.

Meanwhile Raja Dahir of Larkana... the avid law breaker Mr. Bhutto... self styled Napoleon Bonaparte of Pakistan is some sort of a "democrat" and a "populist". The only thing Zulfikar Ali Bhutto tried to be was Machiavelli's prince... and failed miserably at that because Zia-ul-Haq proved to be even more unscrupulous and dishonest than ZAB.



The slippery pole of Pakistan's decline in the calibre of leadership is perhaps most aptly captured in Gul Hassan's memoirs:

Whenever he could, the Quaid-e-Azam, accompanied by Miss Jinnah, would drive out to Malir in the evening. This was his only relaxation. I always took a spare car, in which Inspector (later SP) FD Hansotia of the police rode behind us. He was permanently assigned to protect the Quaid-e-Azam. There was no other escort. It seems strange when I compare those days with what happens now, when the escort of any dignitary is as menacing as the advance guard of an armoured division, if not more dangerous. On one of these drives, the rail crossing at Malir was shut and our car stopped. I looked around and saw that the train was some distance away, so I went to the gatekeeper and asked him to let us go through, of course telling him who was in the car. He obliged, I returned to my seat next to the driver, Aziz, and told him to move on. He answered that the Quaid-e-Azam had told him to stay put. Just then the Governor-General told me to go and tell the gatekeeper to close the gate. I did as I was bid and resumed my seat. He then said, ‘Gul, do you know why I told the driver not to move the car?’ I replied, ‘No sir’. He said the reason was si