A Friend of Feudalism

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......