The need for De-Bhuttofication of the Pakistan People's Party

PPS: I write as some one who used to admire Bhutto even more than Masadi.

But I consider it my graduation to maturity that I no longer hold such views about a toady feudal who was adept at fooling the people.

Manto writes "Atleast for people like me, it was Pakistan which led to a industrialisation and creation of bourgeoisie which would have never happened otherwise"

What industrialization, I fail to see it and what bourgeoisie, it is still a feudal country. Have you ever bothered to read the figures regarding social indicators of Pakistan and its labor force? Had Muslim political power not been fragmented in India, it would certainly have achieved much more then they can now after the event of the catastrophie caused to them by MAJ. Whether he arose from the sewers or the Middle Class makes not difference after you see the deed that he did that was in line with colonial and feudal desires, this is a fact that nobody except someone with faith in his god, MAJ, contests....You have lost every single argument on here and still keep repeating your BS without a single fact. That I am a professor has nothing to do with MAJ, it has everything to do with being born in relative privilage compared to the masses whose condition has just going from bad to worse thanks to the MAJ and his shenanigans...this is the calibre of your "evidence". You have been thoroughly and completely defeated, the Church of the MAJ has been routed, is dead and buried and its high priest is on the run (maybe on a motorcycle like Mullah Omar). CASE CLOSED

Re: # 14

"If you can't do that, and you surely cannot and have not produced comparable material to my articles then might I politely suggest: shut the hell up"

Oh great scholar: No one can produce comparable crap to the kind of crap you've produced again and again.

Re:manto
"Atleast for people like me, it was Pakistan which led to a industrialisation and creation of bourgeoisie which would have never happened otherwise."

Manto, this could have happened in a united India as well. India's middle class has expanded signficantly and continues to grow. There is no reason why it wouldnt have happened in a united India as well. The difference is that talented and educated muslims like yourself would have been a part of it and expanded it further, unlike the present situation where only the backward sections of muslims were left behind. As an example look at how bulleya is participating in the thick of things in India.

The fact is that India was an economic superpower before the british showed up when we all lived together. In fact, India had never been a poor country for the past 2000 years before that. Probably some people in your ancestry came to India because it was a rich place. Because of the british, we became impoverished beyond imagination. At the time of the british raj, the only jobs open to educated people were government jobs. That was the reason for so much anxiety over who formed a government, which was a big motivation for the call to partition. Look at the situation now where no one really cares about who is in power as long as the economy booms and you can make money.

From a strictly numbers point of view, upper caste hindus are a much smaller minority than muslims and have sharp divisions with the lower castes. Indeed we are seeing that lower castes are getting political power all over India. Thats why I am suggesting that in a united india, lower castes and muslims would have aligned to control power in the entire country.

Masadi 18,

Yawn. Let me repeat:

In retrospect ... one could hold Jinnah responsible for one major issue: His creation gave people like Muhammed Asadi, who would probably not be more than a havaldar in the United Indian Army, an opportunity to masquerade as "professors" and inundate the world with recycled regurgitated crap in the academic scholarship.

You are ignorant of history and other academic disciplines so one can forgive you...

However... in 1930's census Punjab (the most developed of the "regulated" British provinces- Regulated meant ruled by the commissioner and deputy commissioner... with less powers for the elected institutions) had only 80 000 Industrial workers... in contrast to Bombay which had 400 000 and Bengal which 400 000 + industrial workers.

Before Pakistan came about the industrial units were next to nothing. It was the responsibility of having to run an independent state... where there were no factories to process raw materials in that forced Muslims of this region to get a move on.

Everything evolves. Pakistan's problems are not the result of the man who tried to solve them i.e. Jinnah. Pakistan was doing just well till Bhutto came along with his nationalisation and his full frontal attack on the industrial class (instead of the feudal class which ZAB protected) which destroyed the political evolution.

The provinces that constituted India had a long history of bourgeoisie-run and fuelled democratic institutions before independence... which is precisely why even the leadership of Pakistan movement was largely India-based. There were no bourgeoisie national leaders of the stature of Jinnah amongst the Punjabis or Sindhis... even though there were a couple of capable men in Bengal... Suhrawardy, Fazlul Haq and M A Isphahani.

So it is quite clear that without Pakistan you atleast would never have made it out of your village .. other than as a hawaldar in the Indian Army.

Re: # 20

Ranjit mian,

It wouldn't have. You have to see the distinction between the regulated and non-regulated provinces... during British India.

Logic of economics suggests that Pakistan's creation - with which largely fuelled the bourgeoisie here .... and created atleast three major economic centres in East and West Pakistan (Karachi, Dacca and now Islamabad) which were previously provincial backwaters... is what got us here.

PS: Now where do you think Bulleya would be had it not been for Pakistan?

The reason he can participate in the thick of things in India today has a logical trajectory which would just not have existed?

"The principle of division of labour would have ensured that this region i.e. modern Pakistan would forever be confined to agriculture and martial pursuits... especially the Muslims of this region while the capital of mostly Hindu and Sikh bourgeoisie would have continued to flow to the stock exchange in Bombay."

Yep, Mr. Jinnah and Muslim League leader had planned
ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs long ago.
Had nothing to do with partitioning Bengal and Punjab,
nothing to do with Gurdaspur.
Even if they had gotten all of Punjab and Bengal,
Hindus and Sikhs were going to be evicted and killed.
Truly evil and vicious people the IML leaders were.

Not true. All the facts point in a completely different direction Shishapa.

It was Congress' machinations on Gurdaspur that led to the violence and the bloodshed.

Re: # 25

PS: You may wish to read Khushwant Singh... who was a Sikh in Lahore ... who says so very clearly that Jinnah tried very hard to keep Hindus and Sikhs in Punjab ...

It was going to be Pakistan's obvious advantage ... because Hindu bourgeoisie would naturally remain in Pakistan and because of the border would have fuelled new industrialisation in Punjab and Sindh ....instead of Bombay and other parts of India.

So Hindu Bourgeoisie's departure actually created problems for Pakistan and slowed down the obvious benefits of the arrangement... which is why Jinnah was so adamant about keeping them in Pakistan.

Manto writes "But lets humor you. If it was as you say it was... could you explain why people like Wali Khan and NAP leaders who had opposed the creation of Pakistan because they believed in Congress' vision for a United India also supported Fatima Jinnah?"

Have you lost all sense of time? The deed was done, the alliance was merely for the sake of political power and not any "people mandate". How does this support your point. All it does is support my point that invoking religious exclusion and an external enemy produces group solidarity and MAJ had cultural support because of that which the FJ wanted to cash in for ulterior political motive. CASE CLOSED

Regarding your numbers about Bombay and Punjab, even that proves my case, the bourgeoisie are the death knell for feudals, the feudals in Pakistan consolidated their position not only by not allowing industrialization by hobnobbing with the colonials - we are still a feudal country, they were able to isolate themselves from the rural revolts in India, capitalized upon by Gandhi, that would have spelt the end of them. If Muslim political power was not fragmented we would certainly not be in this mess we are today both inside Pakistan and outside it in the Sub Continent. What I talk about are clear deduction from facts, the BS you spew are wild allegations at the very best....

Hmm, if Pakistan was created for Muslims, where was the
need for Hindus and Sikhs?

Re:manto

Manto, you have to look at the big picture and not just the industrialization of Islamabad. Consider the status of muslims all over India before the british rule. Consider it now after british rule. Can you say that they are better off now as compared to the past when India was united? If muslims had managed to form an alliance with sections of hindus and gained overall political power, wouldnt they have been better off?

Enough now, I said CASE CLOSED You have lost every single argument and have not addressed even one of mine, not one. You just respond with more BS and unreasoned details. I know you worship the MAJ, I care less that you do, but I wont let your worship of him keep our people in bondage, enough is enough, the minds of the people of Pakistan have to be de-Jinnafied, and the process began long ago, with the ZAB when economic issues and not theological seperation produced consciousness in our people. May Allah bless the ZAB for that and may he damn and curse the MAJ using Islam as a tool for ulterior motive and scapegoating the Muslims of India. CASE CLOSED, If you have something further to say, here is my response:go to hell Manto and give the MAJ some company, he needs it badly....

Masadi mian,

Wrong on both counts.

1. You contradict yourself when you claim that the NAP supported Fatima Jinnah for power reasons ... if that was the case why didn't the NAP join up with the Pathan Ayub Khan who was a sure shot winner... because surely Wali Khan wouldn't have gotten to be the President either way. The 1965 election was fought for Jinnah's democratic vision of Pakistan v. Ayub's militarised vision... it was not about power per se... nor were many of the participants going to taste any power.

2. Facts blow a million holes in your naive analysis. The Communist Party of India came out heavily in the favor of the Muslim League in 1940s because in their analysis Muslim League was the only party capable of undoing the feudal Unionist Party. It is true that many of the Unionists then broke ranks and joined the Muslim League in 1946-1947.... but in main the Communist Party's analysis was right: Pakistan was necessary for the creation of a national bourgeoisie in this region. To use the Stalinist vocabulary... it was the second step that they miscalculated on...

Without Pakistan... Muslims of this region would still be stuck in agriculture and the martial race myth.

Re: # 30

Claiming that you won any argument is just stupid and idiotic but you may go on claiming that.