Communists and the Making of Pakistan

The so called book by PC Joshi is infact a 'booklet' i.e publicity material of CPI in those days. The booklet was translated into all Indian languages.

There's a similar 'book' on the subject with special focus on Jinnah by Vasant Naik.

There're abt 3-4 flaws in this write-up.

Very disappoimnted YLH spending his knowledge and efforts of long gone distinct things.
Hope he can write some informative objective about present goining things in court. Some understanding for Objection to General's election and basis for challenge or Can president shileld corrouption by forgivance Fatawa. I wonder what the highest book of law says about this and is it against equality of Justice as all others corroupt can claim to be given same deal as they have not done as much looting. Some times it comes to find amoung all nations only these things can happen in Pkaistan which was founded by person who was attorney , a peson in law profession.

Sooar ke Chuttar Pakistan approached USSR but India was already in cahoots

all you monolithic hinduvtas please repeat after me

"Im all out of love, Im so lost without you
I know you were right, believing for so long
Im all out of love, what am I without you
I cant be too late to say I was so wrong"

that is the only sensible thing you can say everytime the diversity of pakistanis is pointed out to you. Remember
and repeat !!!

"Then another ignorant Hindu writes "Communists do Moscow's bidding. So, if Commies were pro Pak, how come Pakistan post 1947 itself became Pro America? Serve the commies right."

You fool pakistan had to ally with the US to counter India."

Abay Gadhey kee gand, why did Pakistan not join USSR to counter India? If anything, in the post partition environment, India was closer to US than Pakistan. Indian proximity to USSR only took off later.

Yasser Thanks for bringing out this info. Communists were the only truly secular and neutral force in India if they understood the muslim demand for self determination and their desire to have a substantial weight at the center or a confederal arrangement their must have been some weight and legitimacy in that demand, after all we couldnt live as second class citizens to hindus as the muslims of India do today.

I will give you an example at a hindu wedding I went for they informed me that the girl had been a muslim but we had done her "shuddhi" before she married the boy i.e. the secular hindu Indians had converted her.

Then another asked me stupid questions about eid and ramzan and muslims which a 5 year old in the states would not. I wondered wether he came from a country with 140M muuslims.

He probably thought all muslims were terrorits but was to polite to say that; I wonder in which dungeon they keep their muslims' the guy had probably never interacted witha muslim from his social starta.

You can see from the speech of this Kaalchakra; sanatani; laddu, jay, arjun etc the level of hatred and propoganda

Mohar: "Like J-man himself said, I paraphrase: TNT was born when the first muslim rode his donkey across khyber pass...

So the TNT "seed" is pretty-much organic... There ain't nothing to blame on anyone... it's like a persistent scab on part of the body politic that never really goes away... the choice was to either treat it to keep under control or to expose and pick on it to spread..."

Dude you would sound convincing if it wasnt for the fact that secularists like Jinnah and sajjad zaheer supported the demand.


Then you said: " See - the problem with these "analyses" that YLH vomits out every few weeks is that - it assumes Muslim League was some kind of holy entity whose wishes and demands should have been given any consideration... ML was a gang of feudals and regressive riff-raff who should have been treated with absolute contempt, which is exactly what congress did"


Yes this was precisely Nehru's view, maybe also Gandhi's no wonder no one in the muslim league trusted them.

Another Gem "The theory of incompatible perspectives.

Consider the american civil war - there was sure "incompatible perspectives" between north and south... Had Lincoln compromised with south - where would we be today?... Would you want him to compromise... Of course not... he rightly pulled the plug - fought the southerners hard... whole country is better for that...

In this case - Congress pulled the plug but let them go... and we are all better for that.."

So the muslims of India were/are equivalent to southern slave owning whites? no wonder their was a partition.

Then Kaal chakra writes: "For Indians, it is critical to remember that communits have never been part of the Indian nation, as such." yes Indian as in Hindu nation muslims and communists have never and wil never be a part of; hardluck.

another gem; "mohar11, totally incompatible perspectives never compromise, nor should they." yes and they didnt and we are glad for that.


Then another ignorant Hindu writes "Communists do Moscow's bidding. So, if Commies were pro Pak, how come Pakistan post 1947 itself became Pro America? Serve the commies right."

You fool pakistan had to ally with the US to counter India.


In the end having seen the perspective of the hindus we are glad partition took place.

Communists do Moscow's bidding. So, if Commies were pro Pak, how come Pakistan post 1947 itself became Pro America? Serve the commies right.

Kaal
[...Manto's POV it is critical to point out that the demand for Pakistan was not made by just 'mad mullahs'...]

What the heck are you talking about? As YLH never tires of telling you - mad mullahs were actually opposed to pakiland... YLH has mentioned commie support to further validate and legitimize ML's position as opposed to Congress position...

As for commies - we don't need a reminder from anybody regarding who they are... Actually - I am not too bothered about their so-called support for pakiland... it didn't really matter...

WOW...manto is going all out in his attempts to whitewash pureland's PRESENT as the cradle of islamic terrorism..

sorry manto..pakis love mo more than mao..

Re: # 24
you are joking kaal bhai!

The closest religious philosophy to communist ideology is hindu philosophy of Chaarwaak which has conveniently been ignored by sanatni hindus!

array bhai log, the Congress-Muslim League stuff has been done to death. The interesting aspect of Manto's piece is about the role and the ideology of communists. And that is something important to both Pakistanis and Indians.

From Manto's POV it is critical to point out that the demand for Pakistan was not made by just 'mad mullahs' as Indians brought up on Congressi history might mistakenly conclude. For Indians, it is critical to remember that communits have never been part of the Indian nation, as such.

I was going thru the interacts and was shocked by what Mohar was writing except that by the time I replied 22 had come in place.

So let me say what Mohar can not/shall/not will not say. True Hindu ideologues had said this that Independence was a Hindu problem alone (1 of Savarkar's failings, Savarkar's biggest failing and though NOT the only failing). The Muslims also had to be fought no matter what the cost to get independence.

To prevent parition you had to recognise that the Muslims were bigger enemies than Brits and you have to fight a civil war with them to win this.

So in plain and simple terms we Hindus did not have the balls either to fight as in GODSE but not Savarkar not take it to a logical conclusion a la Ambedkar in exchange of population. We only had it in us to compromise and accept what happened to the Hindus in the Muslim majority areas as unfortunate. Indeed the so called Hindu nationalists were the Arya Samaji scum who themselves did not do anything but later badmouthed the Sardars who were the only Hindus to acquit themselves bravely in 1947. And who incidentally thanks to these same Arya Samists fx are no longer Hindu (though still Bhartiya)

We are now represented by pathetic creatures like these 3 interactors Laddu, Arjun and Jayp who mouth stoopid devoid of intellectuality crap but try and potray secularism. They are similar to chooths like Nehru, Patel, Bose and Kripanani and the assorted bunch of Kangressi bastaaards of 47 and the subsequent bunch of RSS/BJS/BJP bastards who claim to represent the Hindus since 47.

Our tragedy (th tragedy of the Hindus) much more than Pakistan is that we have never had a Hindu leader in India the closest who comes is Ambedkar and who later was an anti Hindu but yet too much of a Hindu to ally himself with the 4M enemies of teh Hindu Dharam (see sabha.info on what these 4 M's are).

I have at times felt it would have been better that my Great Grandfather had embraced Islam in 1947 and then at least 1 would have been a genuinely 1st class citizen of Pakistan than a second class one in India.

Note I feel it some times. But to cut an emotionally charged and intellectually devoid Nehruvian type half drunk rambling:

Gaand mein dum nahin hum kisi se kam nahin. This sums up the entire story of the Hindus.

So what if Pakistan came into being Gandhi won Oscars and Jinnah was portrayed by the Dracula guys.

My potty smells nicer than Paki potty and it is firmer also with nice texture, I can beat any Paki in Potty contest.

Fkkkkkkkk u most of my country men.

Sanatani

P.S I think the smallest minority in India is Hindus in my whole life, WHOLE FUKKING LIFE as a 15 year card carrying veteran of RSS/BJP/VHP 81-96 and a renegade since then I have not met more than 50 in my life and known well exactly 8. By Hindu i merely mean some one who may be atheist or agnostic but has a Hindu consciousness to be very simply described as there are some thing we call Indian that are totally Hindu e.g. Yoga

Also, drlokraj, for communists, the Congress had to be a Hindu organization, out and out. And in religious terms, communism is infinintely closer to Islam than to anything else (except some sort of kibbutz living of the Jews). So, were one to accept a religious framework, Islam-communism unity and political alliance is natural.

drlokraj, I don't think one can be a communist (or communist sympathizer) and look at any of this as a blunder.

"In theory, the communist ideology supports the right of self determination of all the nationalities, but communist parties of almost all the major communist nations have gone against this principle--China is prime example."

Communism does not have any probems with the concept of 'nation' if the nation itself is dominated by communists.

For communists, India did not exist before 1947 (and has only limited use since).

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

mohar11, totally incompatible perspectives never compromise, nor should they. Those who advocate compromise without highlighting differences are actually invariably working for the interests of one side or other.

Kaal
The theory of incompatible perspectives.

Consider the american civil war - there was sure "incompatible perspectives" between north and south... Had Lincoln compromised with south - where would we be today?... Would you want him to compromise... Of course not... he rightly pulled the plug - fought the southerners hard... whole country is better for that...

In this case - Congress pulled the plug but let them go... and we are all better for that...

You should never compromise with fools and black-mailers, no matter what... it will never end... you will be asked to compromise again and again...