Remembering the Presidential Election of 1965

YLH-

All stupid all the time manto manto

Re: # 1 YLH you know that I have great respect for your achievements.
Past is past. Please tell who you feel we should support ?
Tell us about following few things for future
1 Who you are inclined to support for better of country.
2. is Bhutto constitution defunct or can be reformed or necessary to have new start?
3. Is present constitution clear about supremacy of Primeminister and elected bodies or elected president by them or it is ambigious.
4.Kashmir/India question had reached dead end ? What should be thrust for finding solution solution acceptable and possible or elected govt will go according to majority of taking K by snatching
5. Is provinces right specially mineral and gas related is it local(province) ownership or National, what constitution defines ?
Present demand by extremist Nationalist parties for all control except three (national army,currency and foreign policy) is expressibily against constitution ? Also right to depart from federation, what the law says.

Hope you can shed some light on what constitution of our nation says about these crucial matters.
Thanks

what achievements? Please share. I would like to see Manto as a human being, and not as a bandar tamasha.


with much respect,
thinking storm

Re: # 3
He has completed education at Lahore.
He went to usa to good college.
He has worked in IT sector , he once here even advertised for High Tech people to apply to his company.
He went back to school and is LAWYER ( not low paid coolie stylist code programmer)
He was very very good in explaining his support to CJ and lawyers movement. He always kept in mind when he said that this is very important as pakstan is looked by muslim nations as spiritual leader. That was music to ears with good confidence.
He can be making lots of extra money by speding time in his profession than giving advantage of knowledge, visdom and experience of travelling different countries( I do not agree this Jinnah-holic or Gandhiphobic attitude)to readers. He is giving lots of time to this social work of spreading analysis of political things. That quite achievement

ahmed-

Thanks for the post. I appreciate you taking time out to share your opinion with me.

I have tried to view this wanabee slug manto as a human, but I see an unformed blob.

the first four or five points are not accomplishments. It is like applauding a snail that takes a few days to cross the road and continuously pisses on its way. Not accomplishments, just a part of living.

Now regarding explaining why he supported the CJ and other lawyers. Again, any dipshit with a couple of brain cells sparking could do that.

I do take offence to the part where you confuse his bullshit warblings for wisdom.

The only thing I will give him credit for is that he has been travelling (if he has indeed).

Regarding doing charity...he should keep his trap shut about that. The key to charity is to do it without gloating about it.

Well at least I don't see manto looking like a turd anymore. I see him more like a continously pissing snail. Blob like, and filthy.
with much respect,
thinking storm

Musharraf is hell-bent on creating another bloody Karachi in Islamabad -- the uncivil control-freak will destroy every civil institution of Pakistan just to keep his personal pathological control over every aspect of Pakistan governance.

The reptile is hell-bent on ruining the career of Benazir by making her the new Queen of the new Quislings of Aitzaz Ahsan's PPP -- and by preventing that half-crazed hyper man Nawaz Sharif to have a Supreme Court sanctioned -- normal run of the mill uneventful homecoming -- even after 7 years of totally illegal exile -- the man with the Kargillian brain is hell-bent on making a mediocre Sharif a larger than life figure in Pakistan politics – by making a polticial martyre -- or who knows even physically martyred like another ZAB -- besides starting another nauseating confrontation with the FULL bench of Supreme Court judges –- not just one CJ this time.

Even after 8 years of absolute power the crazy control freak is still hungry for another 5 years of ugly illegal stint.

Musharraf is surely a sick man of the subcontinent. He needs to be institutionalized in the psychiatric ward of the GHQ Hospital with his arms strapped behind his back and a duct tape over his forked tongue mouth.

When this man is going to QUIT, good grief. It's just like “Hazrat-e Daagh jahaaN baith gaye baith gaye......

Re: # 5 Posted by thinkingstorm on September 6, 2007

No you are quite wrong with your opinion about Yasser. He is the life of this web site. Just stick around and you will see the number of interacts on his article.

Gulf News, Indian Express, The Nation (Pakistan), Oman Tribune September 5,
2007



IJI De Ja Vu?

By Husain Haqqani



The last three decades have seen the ouster from power of several entrenched
authoritarian rulers around the world. The process of political change at
the end of dictatorship in most cases falls into two broad categories: the
blood-in-the-streets outcome or the negotiated transition scenario. In the
first case, disillusionment with the autocrat leads to civil disturbance or
mass protests. Either the arrogant ruler or the opposition refuses to engage
in talks and the regime collapses after excessive violence. The successor
regime is not guaranteed to be more democratic or inclusive than the
outgoing one. In the second situation, a weakened regime negotiates a
transition that protects some of the interests of its leading members but
allows a new, usually more representative, government to emerge.



As General Pervez Musharraf’s grip on power slips, Pakistanis are
contemplating the most effective way for the restoration of democracy. Given
the pervasiveness of the military in Pakistan’s politics there is a widely
expressed desire to ensure that Musharraf’s relinquishing of power should
not be under circumstances that allow the military to continue to dabble in
politics. There is a widespread desire for systemic change. Hardly anyone
wants a rerun of Pakistan’s troubled past, manifested in changes of faces at
the helm without a weakening of the army’s overall control.



Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his many supporters, especially in
the media, believe that a hardline stance towards Musharraf is in order. The
coup making general is on a slippery slope since his ill-fated decision to
dismiss the Supreme Court Chief Justice on March 9. The lawyers’ campaign on
behalf of Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry mobilized civil society
sufficiently to expose Musharraf’s lack of popular support. The Supreme
Court asserted its independence and restored justice Chaudhry to office,
raising hopes that the legitimacy of Musharraf’s arbitrary rule can now be
brought into question before the courts. Musharraf’s desire to rule with the
dual offices of president and army chief seems less and less likely to be
fulfilled.



Mr. Sharif has been allowed by the Supreme Court to return from exile and he
seems to believe that upon returning home he can bring the masses into the
streets and force Musharraf’s resignation. The “let nobody talk to Musharraf
and thereby oust the dictator” crowd is ecstatic. Mr. Sharif’s “courage’ in
deciding to return home, face the threat of arrest and challenge military
rule is being praised on TV talk shows and in newspaper columns. Negative
comparisons are being made with the decision by the other exiled former
Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto, to negotiate with Musharraf the terms of her
return to the country.



Suddenly, Mr. Sharif is the paragon of democracy and Ms Bhutto “the sell
out.” No matter that Ms Bhutto and her husband have spent more years in
prison and exile while resisting military rule than the period of hardship
under Musharraf of the entire Sharif clan added together. Those praising Mr.
Sharif’s principled stance forget that he launched his national political
career with the help of the military and the Inter-Services Intelligence
(ISI), on the shoulders of Pakistan’s Islamists. Without necessarily casting
doubt on his current commitment to democracy, is it not relevant to at least
wonder whether his enthusiasm in returning home to topple Musharraf could
mark a repetition of the Islami Jamhoori Ittehad (IJI) of 1988? Then, the
ISI had encouraged Mr. Sharif to join forces with the Jamaat-e-Islami to
contain Ms Bhutto and her Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP). Even now, it is
clear that the might and wrath of Pakistan’s establishment is reserved for
the PPP and not for Mr. Sharif’s faction.



Notwithstanding her recent negotiations with Musharraf, Bhutto is not known
for being a protégé of Pakistan’s military or intelligence services. On the
other hand, Mr. Sharif may have fallen afoul of General Musharraf but he is
clearly acceptable to other rightwing generals who still regard him as their
former ally.



Ms Bhutto is being targeted with a hatchet job comparable to that undertaken
covertly in 1988. See the proliferation of stories in some newspapers about
her party’s lobbying efforts in the United States. Pakistani-Americans
affiliated with the PPP have apparently retained the services of a lobbying
firm to advance their party’s cause just as the firm of Robinson, Lake,
Lehrer and Montgomery (RLLM) was asked to lobby for the IJI United States in
1988-90 to establish that Mr. Sharif’s ascendancy to power would not run
contrary to US interests. The Washington-based lobbying firm organized Mr.
Sharif's 1989 trip to Washington and neither that nor the current actions of
Ms Bhutto’s followers in America are sinister or unethical. Strangely, those
hyping up the PPP’s lobbying effort in the US have remained unusually quiet
for the last several years over Musharraf’s own marketing initiatives paid
for by government money rather than by contributions from Pakistani doctors
and IT professionals (as seems to be the case with PPP’s lobbying).



Ms Bhutto is also being denigrated for trying to achieve a deal with
Musharraf without mention of the fact that negotiations are an integral part
of politics. Ms Bhutto would have been at fault if her negotiating points
had excluded key democratic demands such as removal of Musharraf’s uniform
and the abrogation of the notorious eighth amendment to the constitution.
Now that the talks between Ms Bhutto and Musharraf’s emissaries have stalled
over these key issues, it is clear that Ms Bhutto has been trying to work
out a negotiated transition rather than just cutting a personal deal with
Musharraf. The general, on the other hand, has been trying to “create the
illusion of a deal without actually pursuing one” (as I wrote in these
columns on April 11). Part of the purpose, especially of the government’s
covert operatives has been to undermine Ms Bhutto’s credentials as a
democrat and to pave the way for a new IJI that challenges Musharraf but not
the military-ISI paradigm of state.



Mr. Sharif’s entire political career has comprised of deals with the
military-intelligence establishment. One cannot grudge his decision to get
out of jail in 2000 as a result of a deal with the Musharraf regime,
facilitated by foreign albeit friendly-to-Pakistan emissaries. But surely
that should disqualify him from being painted by some as an unbending
champion of civilian-democratic rule. New York based banker, Shaheryar
Azhar, who moderates one of the best online forums of discussion on
alternatives for Pakistan recently summed up the argument against jumping on
the Nawaz Sharif bandwagon. He observed, “Any talk by the Sharif-Jamaat
Islami alliance to 'sweep away' Musharraf' may come out to be true. But will
this be transformation? Or ticket to chaos?”



The better bet for Pakistan right now is a negotiated settlement that
enables both Mr. Sharif and Ms Bhutto to return to Pakistani politics while
at the same time addressing the systemic and institutional problems that
have blocked Pakistan’s path to democracy. It appears that supporters of the
‘overthrow Musharraf at all costs’ line are as much an obstruction to a
grand national bargain as those asking Musharraf to rule without changing
anything for as long as possible.



Husain Haqqani is Director of Boston University's Center for International
Relations, and Co-Chair of the Islam and Democracy Project at Hudson
Institute, Washington D.C. He is author of the book 'Pakistan between Mosque
and Military'









Husain Haqqani

Director

Center for International Relations

Boston University

So who won the 1965 conflict?

#9

Never mind, everyone knows it was India.

Debate between MQM (representing the Dictator), PML(N) representing the ex-Marde-e-Momin-Wannabe, a duffer from the French Institute of Strategic Analyst, and a Pakistani jurnalist, Zahid Hussain. The compere is cute, btw.

Highlights:
PML(N) talks about return to democracy.
MQM provides the standard MQM line (Musharraf is good, and if Musharraf goes Pakistan should give "complete autonomy" to all provinces);
Zahid Hussain ignores the MQM bakwas; supports PML(N) call for democracy saying it is the central issue - but questions if PML realizes its mistakes in behaving like a dictatorship and not respecting the Constitution when NS was PM. PML(N) assures him PML(N) will respect the Constitution in future. Doesnt sound credible - given that NS is as obsessed as Musharraf and BB with power.
The Frenchie mumbles some bs about Pakistan lacking experience in democracy - spoken like a true statist Frenchman. The same country that gave the world Napoleon the Dictator.

May God protect Pakistan from this lot.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0jXZ03tpNI

"The better bet for Pakistan right now is a negotiated settlement that enables BOTH Mr. Sharif and Ms Bhutto to return to Pakistani politics while at the same time addressing the systemic and institutional problems that have blocked Pakistan’s path to democracy.

It appears that supporters of the ‘overthrow Musharraf at all costs’ line are as much an obstruction to a grand national bargain as those asking Musharraf to rule without changing anything for as long as possible."

Haqqani is 100% on the target -- thanks Ras.

debate on youtube in #11 is 30 minute clip from French TV, in english, and post-Rawalpindi bombings. Follow-up debate from same place tomorrow.

“Today he is also seeking election in uniform. Ayub did so after 7 years and won but could not complete his term.”

I don’t know what you want to prove here but lets do a little fact checking. Ayub had resigned the army after the 1962 constitution and he was not in uniform at the time of the 1965 election. Gen. Musa was the CnC. At that time, the CnC term used to be five years.(Ayub was FM and FM never retire!)

“which essentially envisaged the election of 80000 electors known as “Basic Democrats” who in turn were to elect the president.”

The BD members were supposed to run the municipal corporations like the city council members do now.

Bhutto in 1964 was still a small fry. He was first a petroleum Minister in the Ayub Cabinet and then became Foreign Minister in the early '64. He was not even influential in Sindh. It was after the 1965 war that he gained notoriety. that too after his speeches in the UN during the Sept war. His speeches and then stories from Tashkent made him a household name.

I would just say that there was not a single politician in Pakistan who had any illusion of Ms. Jinnah winning those elections. The elections were rigged to start with when only 80k were allowed to vote. The purpose of the alliance was to challenge the army and no one was interested in MS. Jinnah becoming the President because it was impossible. Her election campaign helped the general public to take interest in Pakistani polities.

I am not familiar with the story that Ms. Jinnah approached Bhutto and I will need some serious references to that. The truth is MS. Jinnah never approached any one. People approached her. She was too arrogant to do that. She appeared only in public meetings and she had no interest whatsoever with the strategy or any other aspect of the elections.
In fact, she herself knew that she would not win.

How was Bhutto support of Ayub bad and the PNA support of the army in 1977, good?

PNA consisted of all the elements that were against Ayub in 1965. I am not interested in debate about Bhutto and his politics. I brought this up to show you that politicians do different things in different circumstances.

The debate about Bhutto is really tiring. Bhutto was a politician from a different cut and debating his politics without the context is a futile.

I hope everyone knows that Thinkingstorm is Masadi's sockpuppet... it is so transparent that it is not funny. I wonder if Chowk guidelines still forbid multinics.

Hussain Haqqani is just being ridiculous. Maybe it is time for him to curry favors with Benazir!

He is right about Benazir having no lobby in the army. I have said that in my article just two week or so ago. Her not having any lobby in the army is the thing that works against her. That is the reason she is trying to find a workable solution with Musharraf. That is a silly game. Musharraf, once out of uniform, has no value. He will in fact be a hurdle for Benazir in making a direct contact with the army.

Nawaz propped by the army is an old line. 90% of Pakistani politicians have been propped up by the army including Benazir’s father. That did not help when the Army sent him to the gallows. Alliances between the army and the civilian politicians are mostly of convenience.

There are three main issues the next government will have to deal with (pl. see my article for details) and two top issues are almost Baghawat in the tribal areas and the Suicide bombers in the city streets. The mullah and Islamists are mean. At this time, they are not interested in fighting the US. There goal is to bring Pakistan government down and divide up the state by taking the NWFP and the tribal areas as independent country.

These Havyoon are against Pakistan. The Pak army and the next civilian government will have to deal with these Havyoon.

The lack of the army support will render Benazir crying again in the PM house like she used to when she was PM. For the next several years, Pakistan needs an alliance between the army and the civilians and Benazir is not the one to pull that alliance. Nawaz has a better chance. The Musharraf-Benazir alliance at the helm in Pakistan will hasten the civil war in Pakistan. Beware of such an alliance.

THE MOVIE here!

http://www.jihadunspun.com/intheatre_external.php?article=108876&li st=/home.php&
Looks like Musharraf & the army's goose is cooked already.
__________________________________________________________
A Dark Day In Pakistan: What Is The Reality Of the Lal Mosque Massacre
Sep 06, 2007

By Ahmed Al-Marid

A new video produced in Pakistan has been released that asks some very tough questions about the Lal Mosque Massacre that was the catalyst for the impending meltdown of the Musharraf government. Produced in Urdu, here are some English highlights from the film that follows as the next news item.

The film starts of by introducing Lal Mosque, or the Red Mosque as it is commonly referred to, as one of the biggest and finest Islamic university in Pakistan where thousands of students, both male and female were getting their education. These children were as young as 10 years old and many of them were poor and orphaned. The children were taught religion as well as computer skills.

History has witnessed that Islam and Islamic teachings have always being protected by these schools.

The Musharraf regime began razing mosques in Islamabad in 2007 under pressure from the US and all religious schools protested. But the so-called Muslim government ignored this protest and continued this campaign. Under a host a varying excuses, they razed seven historic mosques in Islamabad and so to make this protest effective, female students of Jamia Hafsa, the female section of red mosque, took control of a government library.

The so-called government and its servants tried to stop all these protests but when they failed, they surrounded the Red Mosque on July 3, 2007. A propaganda campaign was launched against it using the dutiful media that claimed the following:
• Foreign fighters were inside the mosque
• The mosque had tunnels and bunkers inside it
• Adbul Rasheed Ghazi has kept women and children on gunpoint inside the mosque.
• Adbul Rasheed Ghazi was responsible for the failure of negotiations with the Musharraf regime.

In the film, a newscaster asks (Shaheed) Abdul Rasheed Ghazi:

Newscaster: “You said you have few licensed guns inside but government said a rocket was fired on armored personnel carrier?”

Ghazi: “We don’t have any rockets or anything but I’m sure when we all die inside, they will put rockets as well as atomic bomb inside saying we had it in here. That’s why I was saying media people should have been here to see what’s really going on here.”

But as time passed, it was proven that all propaganda by the government was based on lies. Those who were declared foreign fighters were found out to be Pakistani nationals. Those students who came out of the school never said they were captives.

Later in the film, a TV presenter asks a female student:

Newscaster: “Its said that you were inside the mosque because of pressure put upon you by Abdul Rasheed Ghazi or did you think your being inside was right? What do you say about it?”

Girl: “We were not inside under any kind of pressure. It was a school. I went there to study. I used to study quran from morning to evening, I used to memorize quran, our books were open when we ran out due to shelling by army, we don’t remember we closed our books or not. (crying).”

All the claims of tunnels and bunkers proved to be wrong. And the reality of the negotiations came into light.

A scholar who was in negotiations says in the film that a draft agreement was agreed to by all sides but Musharrafs envoy returned a brand new and different draft and then the negotiations failed.



What was the student’s crime???? Was protesting on razing of mosques a crime for which they were burnt alive? Who killed and injured these Islamic students and nationals of Pakistan? Who is this person who speaks like an enemy to us? (The film shows Musharraf’s picture)

Another girl on the film says:

Girl: “Where are our little sisters, our friends, our fellows? When we came out we had 100 bodies of girls inside. Parents call us and tell us that they haven’t found their daughters. Ninety five of our brothers were dead when we came out. We counted them with these very hands. Please believe us these hands were covered in blood when we came out. Are we not daughters of our nation?? If we are then why is Red mosque red with our blood? What was our crime?”

The other points the film raises are:

• If negotiations were not a drama then why did Musharraf veto it at the end?

• If the women and children were captives inside then why they didn’t speak about it when they came out?
• Why weren’t the burn dead bodies shown to media?
• If only 102 people died then where did the 1500 girls go?

The films ends with the question: Who will answer all these questions???

The film “A Dark Day In Pakistan: What Is the Reality Of The Red Mosque Masscare”

HERE!


http://www.jihadunspun.com/intheatre_external.php?arti cle=108876&list=/home.php&

manto,

behuda insaan, I don't know masadi personally, but I have read his work, and it is far superioir then you can ever aspire to be. Even Howard Zinn has reviewed it and said wonderful things.

I think masadi is a bit too angry. But you my dear slug, are a total waste of a human life.
with much respect,
thinking storm

I would like to add a little more to my previous post. The army needs to take action in the tribal areas but it is not ready to take the heat for it. That’s why there is a need for a fall guy- a civilian politician who can provide cover to the army.

They can hide behind the Prime Minister’s orders to attack the Tribal areas and then use the same against the civilian PM.

What is happening in the Tribal areas is beyond any political and diplomatic maneuvering. You either act against them or give up that part of Pakistan. And honestly, I am not being alarmist. I know these Havyoon Islamists well!

Nawaz can take the heat for it but Benazir would chicken out and would leave these Havyoon in place to save her Prime Minister ship. At this time it is in her best interest to let Nawaz take the lead.

HP,

Ayub Khan was not a civilian in 1965. According to Stanley Wolpert it was Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who came up with the brilliant idea of making Ayub Khan "Field Marshal" ... which raised him above all officers in the Armed forces.

As far as I know Ayub Khan became a field marshal in 1964 and to my knowledge promotion to field marshal is only possible for a serving officer. If Field Marshals don't retire than that just means Ayub Khan was a serving officer for life and hence in uniform. This would be the legal position.

As for FJ seeking Bhutto's support... my source is Stanley Wolpert's "Zulfi Bhutto of Pakistan- his life and times".

Re: # 18

I rest my case.

Yassar,
Then stanley Wolpert is not the right source.Gen Musa was the CnC during the 1965 war and he retired in 1967-68 after completing five years in that post I think I will do a little google and come up with the right dates.

Ayub Khan became FM after the '62 constitution. FM is not a command post so even though he is retired, still he is not. FM never write the Famous (R) after the army rank. Eisenhower and Montgomery are two examples.

Let me google this thing and I am sure I will come up with the right references.

manto-

this is not a court, dumbo.

Just pay attention to what I am saying. It will help you live your life meaningfully, it will be fulfilling.

And get that gavel out of your ass ;)
with much respect,
thinking storm

Here you go Yassar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musa_Khan

Gen. Musa Khan Date of Birth: 20th Oct. 1908 Date of Death: 12th March 1991 Chief of the Army Staff Tenure Order: 4th Army Staff Chief Held Office: 1958 - 1966 Governor: West Pakistan
Musa Khan Hazara (موسى خان) (1991-1908) was the Chief of Pakistan's Army Staff. He succeeded Field Marshal Ayub Khan, who assumed Presidency of Pakistan.
He served with distinction in the Pakistani Army and rose to the rank of the commander in chief of Pakistan Armed Forces during President Mohammad Ayub Khan’s regime (1958-1969).

Ayub Kahn became President in 1962. From 1958 to 62 he was Martial Law Admin.

HP...

Field Marshal by definition is above the commander in chief of just one army. One could argue that Ayub became FM to keep his uniform.

What is certain is a retired officer cannot be promoted to Field Marshal. Hence Ayub was in 1964 not retired.

Masadi #23,

I am not interested in your nonsense. Read the beautiful story Urstruly quoted for you on the other board.

manto-

I know masadi has been on your ass for the last few months, and that the first name you utter when you wake up from nightmare, forehead sweaty, and sore butt, is that of masadi.

But I am not masadi.
with much respect,
thinking storm

You are now holding on to semantics! Gen. Yahya took over after Musa Kahn and Ayub had no control over the army and it was not difficult for Yahya to bring him down. FM or no FM.

Thinkingstorm has no connect to Masadi, just wanted to clarify that since the fool Manto has been referring to his/her posts as Re:masadi, will comment on this article later

Manto,

Please check UP. I have opened a thread in your honor.
with much respect,
thinking storm

Manto writes "Herbert Feldman recounted in his book “Crisis to Crisis” that a certain Shaikh Karamatullah of Tasnim-e-Islami quoted Mahmoodul Haq Usmani, the General Secretary of Wali Khan’s NAP that a handsome amount was paid to Maulana Bhashani and his party by Ayub government through Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to ensure Fatima Jinnah’s defeat"

Now if an ordinary Bob presented this kind of evidence, we'd say he was just naive to accept it but when a lawyer does it we know he wants mere deception. A certain x quoted y, that political opponents said that they were bribed to ensure the defeat of Fatima Jinnah. Even a bloody fool can see this this is slander against ZAB and nothing else. The fact: Fatima Jinnah lost, Fatima Jinnah was propped up becaue of the MAJ factor (monarchial succession) erroneously thinking that the people would support her because of the MAJ cultural domination of the West Pakistan scene. They were wrong MAJ had no popular support, the first time anyone broke through to the hearts of the public of Pakistan was when ZAB went to the people with his socialist agenda. Let the dogs bark, the books have already been written and no x quoted y that he heard z say that the prophet said such and so- the classic hadith deception will ever change the facts of history...

HP,

Was Ayub Khan was a perfectly legitimate civilian president from 1962-1969? That Ayub was not in uniform during this period? Could we say then that military rule ended in 1962?

To my mind a Field Marshal is a serving officer but I am willing to be convinced otherwise.


Masadi/thinkingstorm,

You think you can win any arguments with this kind of abuse? One can imagine why you were fired from that American community college and why you were thrown out of a Pakisatni college ...

manto pappu,

I am not masadi. I am sitting in California right now, getting disgusted by your ramblings.

Please argue with me on seperate posts.

And get that gavel out of your ass and present yourself to the CJ for ass duty pronto!
with much respect,
thinking storm

Asadi

"The fact: Fatima Jinnah lost, Fatima Jinnah was propped up becaue of the MAJ factor (monarchial succession) erroneously thinking that the people would support her because of the MAJ cultural domination of the West Pakistan scene. They were wrong MAJ had no popular support,"

what are you talking about? Ms. Jinnah had overwhelming support in every city and town in Pakistan. The reason she was supported was MAJ. She was nobody without him.

Now you can debate all you want but the fact remains that MAJ is still popular in at least Karachi and Punjab.

About popular support... it is suffice to see the facts...

Forget that Fatima Jinnah was the unanimous choice of a divided polity... forget that those who sided with Fatima Jinnah included people who had opposed Jinnah...

Since 1939... Jinnah came to be known as Quaid-e-Azam- after he was referred to as by a Muslim writer from UP and later even Gandhi called him Quaid-e-Azam... though Jinnah never referred to himself as that.

Meanwhile just like Ayub became a field marshal ... Zulfikar Ali Bhutto annointed himself Quaid-e-Awam... yet not even all of his supporters call him that.

In East Pakistan she was the darling of the crowds though her speeches were in broken urdu. Still, Bengalis flocked to her public meetings.

HP writes "what are you talking about? Ms. Jinnah had overwhelming support in every city and town in Pakistan. The reason she was supported was MAJ. She was nobody without him."

My point and I stand by it is that she was propped up by the alliance because of the MAJ factor- nobody disputes this, the support like you say she had was because of the cultural factor of MAJ and not because of any message she had or he had for that matter for the people, other than legitimizing their massacre. The other fact that is also there is that she lost, while ZAB won and had popular support because of a message that was "original support" and not anything built upon cultural legitimation of the MAJ kind...

HP,

"Ms. Jinnah had overwhelming support in every city and town in Pakistan. The reason she was supported was MAJ. She was nobody without him.
Now you can debate all you want but the fact remains that MAJ is still popular in at least Karachi and Punjab. "

Well said.

Infact the greatest support Fatima Jinnah had was in East Pakistan ... even Jinnah's role in the Urdu as lingua franca was not enough to undo his popularity there.

Fatima Jinnah brought East and West together albeit briefly. This is what I feel was the greatest loss.

Seperation from the Hindus, and invoking religious sentiment in that seperation and the resulting dynamic of seperation was what popularized MAJ in Pakistan through an entire cultural enterprise. What popularized ZAB were real bread and butter economic concerns of the people, not theology and seperation. Now why would you suppor the previous kind of mass support and not the latter is what is baffling to me, seriously

Masadi,

You are tying yourself up in knots. You say Jinnah was not popular and yet FJ was a candidate because of him. You still haven't answered why FJ was so popular all over Pakistan... as HP has mentioned below.

In #39 read "Now why would you suppor the previous kind of mass support and not the latter is what is baffling to me, seriously "

As "Now why would you support the previous kind of mass support and not the latter is what is baffling to me, seriously "

This part was for HP.

Folks, in all this tu-tu main-main, one glaring fact seems to have been completely overlooked. Not so long ago, Yasser was an unabashed admirer, nay worshipper of Bhutto. Alas, poor ZAB is no longer in his good books and has been relegated to the dustbins of Yasser's study where MKG lies in his permanent resting place.

Hey manto, read #39 before getting all screwy minded, you have lost the arguments regardless of your he said she said that a secret meeting revealed bribery evidence. The Church of the MAJ has been routed on Chowk

Please correct me if I am wrong harish, but wasn't manto an admirer of gandhi too a long way back?
with much respect,
thinking storm

HP sain/Manto mian,

Re: FM Controversy

Doesn't the Chowk have a FM- Romair sahib? Why not ask him for adjudication on the FM debate.

Masadi sahib,

If MAJ's popularity arises out of his appeal to Muslim separatism how come 46% of Injuns have given him a thumbs up, Muslims are only 15% of the population.

Regards

Harish bhai,

Trust you to come up with MKG on YLH's post. Now this thread goes to 1000 for sure.

Regards

#44 by thinkingstorm

Sorry Toofan, but I have no idea of that. It could have been so way before I came across Chowk.

Respect reciprocated!

harish writes "Folks, in all this tu-tu main-main, one glaring fact seems to have been completely overlooked. Not so long ago, Yasser was an unabashed admirer, nay worshipper of Bhutto"

Yeah Bhutto has replaced Gandhi as the "most hated person" in Manto's books. The fact is, like I stated the guy is a man worshipper and like all "faith based" worship he has to revile his opponents to get legitimation for his beliefs and will support them regardless of the facts, can't you see the same tendency in the so-called Dr. Zakir Naik, the guy borrows verbatim from here n there, rudely reviles others, and then thinks that he is building up a case for Islam- not so

#39

Assuming that we accept your narrow and simplistic view of history... that still doesn't explain why people like Wali Khan and others who opposed the creation of Pakistan sided with Fatima Jinnah... surely they and their supporters had no reason to stand with Fatima Jinnah. The truth is that Fatima Jinnah represented Jinnah's vision of Pakistan as a modern democratic Pakistan and resonated with the masses. Wali Khan and others may not have agreed with Jinnah or the Muslim League but atleast on paper were committed to the ushering in a democratic and constitutional order... hence Fatima Jinnah's plank was people's rights and democracy.

Bhutto meanwhile became popular in Pakistan on the anti-India platform after Tashkent and was later utilised in that capacity by the genius J A Rahim... who was later beaten up and humiliated by Bhutto's fascist FSF.

well, I hope manto clarifies this. Manto, at one time, were you not studying the Gandhi books, and extolling the good virtue of that simple man? Hey, he was a lawyer too :). You have a lot in common.
with much respect,
thinking storm

#46 by majumdar

Trust you to come up with MKG on YLH's post. Now this thread goes to 1000 for sure.

Majumdar bhai, that reference to the racist, casteist, misogynist, bigoted freak is only incidental and not the main thrust of my post.

Majumadar writes "If MAJ's popularity arises out of his appeal to Muslim separatism how come 46% of Injuns have given him a thumbs up, Muslims are only 15% of the population"

We have talked about the survey, don't try to fool a social scientist with "surveys"; compare the Indian number to the Pakistani, I was writing about the Pakistani context and it bears out my contention, next if you want to go further compare the Indian Muslim number with the Pakistani Muslim number and it will reflect somewhat on the strength of the cultural enterprise in Pakistan

Guys,

I dont know whether Manto mian was a MKG supporter once or not. But it is OK for a person to change his views if confronted with fresh evidence. Don't scientific facts keep changing all the time. Does that mean that science or scientific methods are wrong. And mind you we are dealing with not even facts but views and opinions.

Regards

"not long ago"

Not since 2000-2001... and before that I was a lot like Masadi. There was a time when I thought Bhutto was a greater leader than Jinnah, Gandhi and Ataturk rolled into one. So you could say Masadi represents the mental maturity that I had at 20. One reads and one changes one's opinion. I don't have a very high opinion of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto ... though I think he was a highly intelligent man who could have done wonders had he not been so flamboyant.


The scientific method suggests that everything is falsifiable. I may or may not hold my views on Jinnah forever either but till now all the evidence I have found has only reaffirmed what is the popularly held opinion about Jinnah even by his opponents i.e. he was an incorruptible,thoroughly honest man who did the best he could with really bad cards.

Masadi sahib,

First of all I have no wish to fool anyone and in any case i dont think u can be fooled.

Agreed that MAJ's (pbuh) approval rating is lower in India compared to Pakistan. But your opinion is that MAJ's popularity is based only on Muslim separatism if that is the case why would 37% Indian non-Muslims ((46%-15%)/85%) assuming all IMs support MAJ) would appreicate MAJ.

Regards

#53 by majumdar

I dont know whether Manto mian was a MKG supporter once or not. But it is OK for a person to change his views if confronted with fresh evidence. Don't scientific facts keep changing all the time. Does that mean that science or scientific methods are wrong. And mind you we are dealing with not even facts but views and opinions.

Majumdar bhai, by the same token, is it unfair to expect Yasser mian to extend the same courtesy to MKG too? By rehashing the same old stuff about Gandhi's prejudice towards blacks dating back to the late 1800s when he was not even popular in his own village let alone all of India and then making a case against him, isn't that rather disingenuous?

Harishbhai,

(Majumdar bhai, by the same token, is it unfair to expect Yasser mian to extend the same courtesy to MKG too? By rehashing the same old stuff about Gandhi's prejudice towards blacks dating back to the late 1800s when he was not even popular in his own village let alone all of India and then making a case against him, isn't that rather disingenuous?)

Fair enuff. And for that reason supporters of MKG (if there are any) should confront YLH with evidence suggesting that his apparently regressive views on blacks, women, polity etc were products of his time and that his views showed a "progress" (whatever that means) with advancing age and maturity. After all MKG had a huge amount of writing all of which is available in the public domain. Someone has to read and reproduce.

Just abusing him is not the right approach.

Regards

#16 HP

I read your earlier article (Back Off Benazir) as well, and have no clue as to what you smoke.

All that BB needs from MushMush is the deal; it will enable her to return to Pakistan with all the legal cases against her thrown out for good. Once she gets that she is in a win-win situation. Consider:

A likely NS dispensation following the parliamentary elections - in reaction to her deal making - would be a Godsend for BB. It would mean Mush out, NSC out, as well as the bar on third time prime ministership gone. All these, plus freedom from corruption charges and legal headaches; what more can the lady ask for?

Contrary to your ganja induced predictions, civil war is what you will get with NS in power. As soon as the jiyalas in NWFP and Punjab figure out that he is going to (have to) continue with the WOT, absent armed forces' goodwill due to the sidelining of the NSC, new violence will erupt all over North Pakistan. MMA and IK would be the first to bolt the NS camp, as well as people like Javed Hashmi. Karachi would have been already up in arms with a NS win; it will be back to the 1990s ten times over.

NS will have a year in power, if that long. This time his pathetic political career would be over for good.

In case your peanut sized Jiye Sindh brain can't figure out who will be the new toast of the town, it will be your's and everyone else's nightmare: BB!!!

Gandhi's views that I quoted were not from the 1800s... his views on black people were from 1911... . His views on caste and women were from the 20s and the 30s.

Furthermore, there was no retraction, apology or change in point of view ever produced...


In any event... this article is not about Gandhi.

PS: Surely Gandhi's views at 45 or 65 were already well formed.

Could a 20 year old's change of opinion be equated to that of a successful Indian barrister like Gandhi of age 45 or a saint/Mahatma like Gandi at age 65 ... the evidence for which I am yet to see?

#57 by majumdar

And for that reason supporters of MKG (if there are any) should confront YLH with evidence suggesting that his apparently regressive views on blacks, women, polity etc were products of his time and that his views showed a "progress" (whatever that means) with advancing age and maturity.

Majumdar bhai, Gandhi lived in the huts of the untouchables at a time they were treated worse than Muslims were. He cleaned their toilets. He openly advocated inter-caste marriages between Harijans and the upper castes. He totally antagonized a lot of caste Hindu Congress leaders by his embrace of Harijans. Is this not enough proof that he had changed? If this isn't enough, I don't know what would.

And FTR, I am by no means a supporter of Gandhi - I find a lot of the stuff he advocated totally out of whack, but the way his character has been assassinated just to prove that he was inferior to Jinnah is something that I detest.

After all MKG had a huge amount of writing all of which is available in the public domain. Someone has to read and reproduce.

His autobiography, "My Experiments With Truth" is available online free. Plus there are tomes of literature on his opinions, some good some bad, some crazy, but they're all there. He hid absolutely nothing. One only needs an open set of eyes.

Just abusing him is not the right approach.

Please stop being charitable, you know Yasser mian himself can hardly be accused of being an innocent bystander.

#60 by MantoLives

Could a 20 year old's change of opinion be equated to that of a successful Indian barrister like Gandhi of age 45 or a saint/Mahatma like Gandi at age 65 ... the evidence for which I am yet to see?

I see...so Yasser is comparing himself with a man who was born more than a 100 years earlier when society was not as broad-minded and evolved as it is today, when there was no TV and Internet, some human beings were equated with animals, when a Hindu who crossed the seas was considered an outcaste and when even water was classified as Hindu paani and Muslim paani. How sensible!!

Thanks YLh for the timely article and as usual you have focussed on the individual, let me talk about the historical juncture.

300 pak soldiers have been captured by 30 tribals, a ratio of one to ten, approximately same as when 90,000 pak sodiers surrendered to around 12000 indians. Again the paks were in hostile territory, the same as in waziristan.

It was bhutto who got teh soldiers released by recognising bangladesh. hence it is only timely that benazir is back to secure the release of pak soldiers and hand over waziristan to teh US to sort out.

Yahya surrendred to bhutto, and mushy will surrender to benzir.

Eventaullay there was a coup and bhutto was killed, the same will happen to benazir, it will be a beareded general and benzir will be killed under sharia law.

You concluded the article correctly, pakistanis will never learn from hisotry and hence history will repeat.

Manto mian,

It does not matter whether you are 20 or 30 or 60 you can make mistakes or suffer from prejudices at any age. But if you are honest enuff to realise your errors that is fair enuff. I certainly hope someone who is a MKG expert can bring fresh evidence (if any exists)on his views on your pet peeves.

Harishbhai,

(If this isn't enough, I don't know what would.)

Nothing really. MKG's life is a fairly open book and people just have to reproduce his writings and deeds if they want to defend him, that's all.

And I do appreciate the fact that in his books he has often pointed out to his shortcomings. He has hidden nothing except his dalliances with a certain Mrs. Anne Doherty.

(I am by no means a supporter of Gandhi - I find a lot of the stuff he advocated totally out of whack)

I am really glad to hear that.

(Please stop being charitable, you know Yasser mian himself can hardly be accused of being an innocent bystander. )

I had no intention of pointing a finger at anyone or defending anyone. Sorry about that. I guess it is meant for all us, including me. It would be better if we could refute other people's arguments with facts and logics rather than resort to abuse.

Regards

YLH ,

Even ayaz amir of dawn thought of reminding this on the day your article is published. From dawn of today

The army operation in the two Waziristans is becoming a joke. Army units there dare not move out of their fixed positions for fear of being kidnapped by tribal militants. One day we hear of 10 captured, the next day 19, a few days later a mind-boggling 150 (the militants say 300).

I suppose every military convoy rash enough to move in Waziristan will need an additional convoy to guard its flanks and a fleet of Cobra helicopters to provide it with air cover. Baitullah Mehsud is one of the leading commanders of the Waziristan militants. He must be laughing up his sleeve. His major problem these days seems not to be about how best to resist the army but how to arrange adequate prison space.

How to guard the guardians? That seems to be our foremost problem at present. Not since the fall of Dhaka — and this is not said lightly — when our Eastern Command led by the heroic Gen Niazi set a new world record in meek surrender, has the army faced such embarrassment.

YLH,

here is the most depressing news from pakistan, the jihadis are killing off the cricket.

What did jinnah think of cricket

from dawn of today..

INTEREST in cricket has plummeted. Gone are the days when street after street was lit by neighbourhood boys playing cricket all night with taped balls. Whatever caused the interest in cricket to fall — Pakistan’s shocking exit from the World Cup’s preliminary round or Bob Woolmer’s death — another source of entertainment for the young is gone.

With every form of entertainment — film, drama, music and fashion shows — declared un-Islamic or frowned upon, cricket was the one channel in which the young ones directed their energy without being censured. Now only one form of entertainment is available to them — arson. Sociologists and psychologists must debate whether there is a relationship between violence and lack of entertainment. In other words, will our boys be normal if they had some extracurricular activity to enjoy.


If hostility towards all art forms and entertainment were to be mute, things could perhaps have been less traumatic. Instead, as one can see from the attacks by the Lal Masjid brigade, and in Fata, on CD shops, hostility towards all entertainment is being expressed through violence.

Scholars and non-political religious divines now must debate whether the war on such innocuous entertainment forms as music and movies has been worth its while. If the idea behind this war was to check sexual waywardness, then there is nothing to suggest that things in Pakistan are better than, say, in Egypt or Indonesia or Malaysia where intellectuals have better things to do than wage war on entertainment.

...... ... who thought the way the bowler rubbed the ball was “obscene”. It was thus wonderful to see a boy having a bat and ball in his hand instead of a Kalashnikov. Let us hope cricket is revived, Bob Woolmer is remembered as a wonderful coach, and cricket bounces back on our streets so that boys have a hobby other than burning buses.

Mantolives - your last line where you quote Asghar Khan " we never learn from history" is both correct and incorrect (IMHO).


(1) It is correct in as much as that you learn history, and understand it within your own particular framework. Understanding it does indicate that you learn from it soemthings.

(2) On the other hand, since your framework is not generic nor is is sufficientlly universal, the what is learnt is not enough to have a lasting impact. Nor is it sufficient enough to tackle new problems which arise.

Unfortunately Jinnah man did not say much beyond uttering a few lines on his thoughts. By now he should have been forgotten and left to decorate offical walls or various sqaures in pakistan. However, he is used as a peg to hang all the deritus of the land. Unfortunate, really unfortunate for it shows a lack of ideas and an inability to think beyond received wisdom.

anyway enuf of this....you seem to have your usual gaggle and giggles on the jinnah-gandhi-nehru Menage a Trois.

Majumdar,

The problem with Harish mian is that he does not himself hold the standards vis a vis evidence that he wants from others.

That Gandhi at some point started cleaning harijans toilets to me does not address the issues that Dr. Ambedkar as a Dalit raised even after Gandhi was cleaning toilets. These symbolic gestures did not address the real issue... which Gandhi did not wish to be addressed i.e. the existence of caste system which he described as a natural organisation of humanity and integral part of Hindu cultural life. Gandhi held it to be so... so his toilet cleaning antics were compensation.

And it would be fair enough if Gandhi realised his mistake. In that sense... did Gandhi apologise for or distance himself from his views that he held in 1901-1912 vis a vis black people?


Harish mian,

The question was never of inferiority or superiority vis a vis Jinnah and Gandhi. To me there is no question that Jinnah was a finer human being than Gandhi in almost every conceivable way. But that is my point of view... why should it bother you so much if I hold this view? Why such insecurity?

#64 by majumdar

And I do appreciate the fact that in his books he has often pointed out to his shortcomings. He has hidden nothing except his dalliances with a certain Mrs. Anne Doherty.

Please Majumdar bhai, there were enough people who would have been willing to let themselves be used by the British if only to discredit the man and by extension the whole freedom struggle, of which he was the most visible face. But beyond that deposition, if there is anything solid to prove that Gandhi did have something to do with the lady, why not prove it?

I am really glad to hear that.

You wouldn't believe it, but I started reading up on MKG only after I came to Chowk and read Yasser's vitriolic and hate-filled posts against the man.

#68 by MantoLives

The problem with Harish mian is that he does not himself hold the standards vis a vis evidence that he wants from others.

That is uniquely your problem Yasser mian. You claim you changed your views on ZAB and that your previous views should not be considered, yet you are unwilling to extend the same consideration to Gandhi's views of blacks. Isn't that saying something?

These symbolic gestures did not address the real issue... which Gandhi did not wish to be addressed i.e. the existence of caste system which he described as a natural organisation of humanity and integral part of Hindu cultural life.

If that is the extent of your knowledge of Gandhi's views on the caste system, then there is nothing left to argue. If this is the best you can do - selectively picking and choosing information that reinforce your own POV, then all pretensions to your scholarship just come crashing down.

But that is my point of view... why should it bother you so much if I hold this view? Why such insecurity?

Now that you agree that it is your point of view, I have absolutely no problems with it. It is when you try to cherry pick incidents and opinions to bolster your POV and then try to pass it off as a fact, that I have problem.

Harishbhai,

Chill. Manto mian never hinted that MKG had a dalliance with the said lady. It was just me adding some masala from my side.

Regards

Majumdar bhai, here's a link I found in a hurry. This adequatly addresses your concerns about Gandhi's alleged casteist nature. This shows how Gandhi's views evolved from being a thorough casteist to one who truly believed in the oneness of all humanity.

http://www.bfg-muenchen.de/caste.htm

Harish mian,

Wrong again as usual. Now don't start your abuse.

Could you tell me where I have said that my previous views on Zulfikar Ali Bhutto don't count. I admired him for all the reasons people admire him.... and infact it is evident from this article that I still consider him to be one of the most talented politicians produced by this country who squandered his potential.

Now coming to the link you hurriedly produced. As I pointed out earlier it does not address the problems and issues that Dr. Ambedkar raised in his booklets "What have Gandhi and the Congress Party done to the untouchables" and "Gandhi and Gandhiism"... nor can they be considered relevant in the case of Gandhi's racist views against black people.

Re: # 70

"Now that you agree that it is your point of view, I have absolutely no problems with it. It is when you try to cherry pick incidents and opinions to bolster your POV and then try to pass it off as a fact, that I have problem"

My point of view is that it is a fact Jinnah was in all possible ways a much finer human being than Gandhi. Your point of view might be different. That is your point of view.

And who died and made you the fuhrer to decide whether or not I can quote credible historians to show why I feel a certain way?

#73 by MantoLives

OK, so your objections to Gandhi are because Ambedkar, a Dalit raised some objections against him? By that token, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, a staunch Sunni Muslim was bitterly opposed to Jinnah. Do we draw the same conclusion as you have drawn?

BTW, where did I abuse you? Are you seeing stars in the day?

#74 by MantoLives

And who died and made you the fuhrer to decide whether or not I can quote credible historians to show why I feel a certain way?

You were a big fan of Stanley Wolpert till I pasted some damning excerpts from his writings. Then he stopped being credible to you. If your definition of "credible" is so flexible, please pardon us for taking everything you say with a ton (not pinch) of salt.

Anyways, I do not wish to turn this fine discussion on your one-time hero into a MKG-MAJ sparring match. You can have the last word.

harish mian,

Dr. Ambedkar, a leader of the untouchables, would be a better judge of Gandhi's attitude towards caste than Gandhi's hagiographers I would say. And they were not some objections but substantial ones.

Btw enlighten me... what does Abdul Ghaffar Khan's sectarian affiliation have to do with his opposition to Jinnah? So you think "Staunch sunni Muslim" Ghaffar Khan's political disagreement with Jinnah was because Jinnah was Ismaili? Interesting...

I didn't say you've abused me today but if your track record is any thing to go by, everytime you make a fool of yourself - which is often- you resort to vilest abuse which leads to your eventual banning. I am just saying lets skip that routine.

I continue to be a fan of Stanley Wolpert's writings especially his remarkable biography of Mahomed Ali Jinnah ... I especially agree with his conclusion that Jinnah was an incredibly honest and incorruptible leader who was legally and constitutionally right ... pointing out a few factual inaccuracies like the fact that Kanji Dwarkadas was not parsi ...is not what you make it out to be or that in his book on Bhutto he misquoted two speeches of Jinnah that he corrected in the next edition. You seem to have a very narrow view in black and white terms. Just because I point out a factual inaccuracy doesn't mean the other person has become worthless.

To my knowledge you've never produced a single "damning" quote from Wolpert...

Did Jinnah have Asperger's syndrome?
By :Dr M Arshad
Prof M Fitzgerald

This is a must read for fans & foes of MAJ and explains his abberations,disturbing behavior and mental condition......Also elucidates the history of Pakistan

I'll have to read this... but Mozart, Einstein, Beethoven, Newton, Michelangelo, Bill Gates, Ramanujan, Orwell, Bertrand Russel, Socrates, John Nash etc have all been diagnosed with a variant of autism including Aspergers Syndrome.

PS: Apparently Gordon Brown too...

Dont know about Gordon Brown & MAJ but the others were creative people..made a positive change in peoples lives:)

Yes... and the two people who were not diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome were Adolf Hitler and Mahatma Gandhi.

Manto mian,

To add to the list, ZA Bhoot, Gen Mush, Zia ul Haq.

Regards

Manto writes "Not since 2000-2001... and before that I was a lot like Masadi. There was a time when I thought Bhutto was a greater leader than Jinnah, Gandhi and Ataturk rolled into one. So you could say Masadi represents the mental maturity that I had at 20."

What a bunch of BS, I think better than him, write better than him, argue better than him and have dismantled the Church of MAJ and he tries to pass over all that by claiming "maturity"? What maturity, the maturity to threaten your opponents by getting them fired? Maturity of claiming to have read books when you cannot think worth a fart? Maturity of the kind that you keep repeating the BS without addressing even ONE argument of your opponent when he goes out of his way to present contrary arguments to your claims? You are full of sh** Manto and the most immature interactor I have seen here, one whose mental level is stuck at "my papa is stronger than your papa"

Re: # 85

masadi,

you are delusional ..."I think better than him, write better than him, argue better than him " ........ as borat would say: "NOT !" ......... you are a pygmy compared to the great manto

manto bhai, you sure do know how to degrade yourself....I mean MASADI and you? are you sure about the comparision!

OK - YLH, the village idiot, is back with his clown-show... :) it's deja vu all over again....

Re: # 1 Hope YLH should direct readers towards 1965 election if not to present days. History is tricky and heros and villians lies in eyes of beholder. I feel its all same liquior in new bottle. Whatever subject Manto touches turns finally to Mr. Gandhi, and QAMA its like original sin like Adam and Eves. There is cure to Jinnahaholics and Gandhi phobic mental disease. Like good wine if its so important should be preserved and rarely poured, opening wine bottle again and again spoils it they say ( I abhor alcohol and pig meat type stuff). I think moderator should do thier work, all this going as mental hospital.
I will leave mad men fighting and get ready to sleep

A side note to this article; Bhashanis role in FJ's election was very unfortunate. He effectively blocked the first opposition candidate; ex general azam khan. He also never denied being bought off to sabotage FJ's election campaign. He used ideological terms (the sino tilt by ZAB) to cover it but it was more crass opportunism.

p.s: Manto this Bhutto bashing by you is quite a surprise, what triggered the change in your opinion?

About two years ago, every Pakistani dictator's favorite attorney general Badmaashudin Haramazada claimed through the newspapers that FJ was murdered by one of her servants. He himself had witnessed the beheaded corpse of FJ. Later at the orders of the military dicatator Ayub Khan all investigation into this matter or any news was absolutely suppressed fearing that it might be construed as an assassination of a political opponent by the dictator.

If and when a true people's representative governement is establsihed in Pakistan, it should:

1. Exhume FJ's body and find out the truth.

2. Try Haramzada in court for obstruction of justice, tempering with evidence, and witholding testimony.

3. Similarly, all those re