Pakistani Judges - Read This Lawyer’s Oath

And everyone knows that lawyers were beaten up like stray dogs in Pakistan recently.

Ao, according to Rashid miaN there must be REALLY SOLID reasons present - after all, it happened again and again!

And now answer this for me....

All over the world, many people are busy practice wholesale discrimination against Pakistanis today. They get thrown into jails without due process, and subjected to suspicion (do not deny) to the point that some hesitate to admit their national origin.

Therefore, according to YOUR logic...that is VERY justifiable! Hey, it HAPPENED again and again!

#62 bjkumar:
As I said we are talking about partition, which is a fact.
There have been communal rights and communal awards etc which is a fact. So if there is refutation for these, I am open to it.
As far as Europe and USA, their constitutional guarantees are strong enough, and are even better than in our countries. Apart from a couple of sticking point in some European countries like Hijab for women.
I think majority of Muslims living in Europe and USA appreciate this.

India through history never was one country.
Two Nation Theory was given a rationale by the division of Bengal.
According to the original partition plan calcutta was to be part of East Pakistan.
Some Indian's like Ashley Tellis (now US citizen) feel that Two Nation theory challenges India in multiple ways and he has many in India who support him.
But the recent roits were triggered over a valid cause.

bjkumar63:
#61 Rashid1961 (more)

[A very bloody partition. And that fact is sufficient to justify that there were reasons for it.]

Therefore, according to this logic - the fact that there was wholesale killing of the Jews during the holocaust - that very fact that the wholesale killings happened - makes it a justifiable fact - just because it did happen?


I did not use the word justifiable. I used reasons. It is grammatical. (sufficient to justify that there were REASONS for it meaning just this fact speaks that there were reasons for partition)
Killing is never just. (war is an exception according to human development and even killing of innocent people in war is not just).

bjkumar:
you are confusing two issues. REASON and JUSTIFICATION.
If something is happening, we need to find out reasons for it. That is the scientific way.
It is not necessary that those reasons are just.
You brought out many points.
Discrimination against Ahmadiya community. I can give you the reasons for it if you want to discuss. But can it be justified in the context of democracy and human rights. NO.
As far as "Mukhtaran Mai" rape, if you want to discuss the reasons for it we can discuss. Is it justified. NO.
As far as Lawyers being beaten, there are reasons for it if you want to discuss. There are two ways to look at it. If you look at Government point of view, they claim their first priority is law and order. If you look at democratic point of view, you will find justification for agitation.
If there is a wholesale discrimination against Pakistanis all over the world, I don't think so. If there is some suspicion, we need to look into the reason.
So finding the REASON for any happening is important.

#67 Saima Gul

What an astute observer you are!

Now tell me, since Pakistan was part of the same land mass, by that logic, it was not one nation either!

Such diversity!

Perhaps THAT explains why Bangladesh broke away! It was simply a different nation masquerading as a legitimate part of Pakistan.

Now tell me one more thing.

How many nations are hiding under that present Pakistani chador?!

After all, the Sindh, the Punjab, the NWFP, and the Baloch are all very different. Why do you look away from the common sense possibility that they could all become legitimate nations in their own rights?! Hey they were NEVER before legitimately one country - as you have so cleverly observed.

Why stop applying the same sharp logic that some seem to have applied in the past to break up the original India?

Krashid1961,

Perhaps you need to explain to the vast hordes of the chowk masses whether the Jinnah's decision to break up the original India was a good decision, or not.

In other words, was it a WELL-REASONED decision?

And in the light of all that happened afterwards, can it be JUSTIFIED?

Thanks.

#71 bjkumar
Partition of India was a tragedy. But it had its own reasons. Jinnah was lawyer. He presented the case of Pakistan to the people, political parties and British. And was successful.
It is very difficult for me to judge. Because I was born in Pakistan and we had our own problems to take care of, rather than concentrating on partition.
It is a lengthy discussion and many books have been written on partition.
There are two school of thoughts. One feels that power of Indian Muslims has been divided by partition and is one reason of backwardness and plight of Muslims in India Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and other Mullahs were of this opinion.
The other school of thought although not very optimistic now feels that it was inevitable.
My mother thinks it has been good.
Considering what is happening all around, I think I am better right now here.

bjkumar.
I would recommend you to read the book by M J Akbar which he wrote when India was in a very poor state likely mid to late 80's and he has reasoned on the same line as saima gul.
India has not only this communal problem, but problems of Tamil, Nixilites, kashmir, Khalistan etc. He reasoned very well the centrifugal tendencies in India.
Apart from Kashmir, Muslims in India are very much part of India. And apart from Kashmir regional centrifugal tendencies involve non Muslims.

bjkumar,
no. two nation theory was based on religon and not on ethnicity.Yes it is under threat from sub nationalism, but even 1971 did not write it off.Bangladesh is a seperate country.

With the advent of communist and socialist theories in the era when imperialism and colonialism were on the downside, many other theories were floated around and this one, for you divided India, and for me created Pakistan. Thats what some Indians call the 'extremes of divide'.

Certainly educated muslims felt that the ottoman empire was no caliphate and rather a kingdom that exploited Islam. So they did not support it. Division of Bengal set the precedence that ultimately led to this theory.rest is history for me and history in making for you.

If we talk of ethnicity and nationalism, perhaps over a 1000 groups live in Pakistan from at least 15 diffrenent creeds. Instrumentalism and pluralism (though theoretically lacking under a dictatorship) binds them togather. You will be amazed that this dictatorship has empowered the minorities more than anyone else.

Now just to ponder.
Many ethnic kashmiries are also Punjabis and Pathans. You have the Mirs, Butts, Khawajas, Mians, Suddans etc.
More than 50% Punjabis are actually Baloch and about 25% are ethnic Sindies.Ever heard the folklore of Murad Baloch.
Many untouchables then, are now ethnic punjabis.
Even pathans though lumped as one ehnic group speak pushto, hindko and seraiki as their mother tongue.Kohat and Attock though didvide by indus are cognitively contigous. Similarly Dera Ismail Khan is much closer to Bakhar than Peshawar.

#72 by krashid1961

Jinnah was lawyer. He presented the case of Pakistan to the people, political parties and British.

Rashid Sahib, I don't know who first started it, but claiming he was "merely a lawyer" is a clever trick designed to absolve Jinnah of any reponsibility for the mess he created, which otherwise would implicate him as being responsible for one of the bloodiest events in history. Jinnah was the supreme leader of the Muslim League, his word was command, there wasn't even a second-rung leader who could take over in case something happened to him (as subsequent events proved), and here you label him as a "mere lawyer".

Re: # 75
Radcliffe Award was debatable. It was awarded after the independence. Till then Jinnah was under the impression that the bulk of E Punjab was coming to Pakistan. He had even offered important ministries to Hindus and Sikhs. The Pakistan that Jinnah was articulating was a predominant homeland for muslims with equal opportunity for others.
Then came the bombshell.
Someone decided to just draw a line and hell broke loose.
So who was resposible? Jinnah or those who ensured to sow seeds of hatred and theocracy?

Harish.
Jinnah was politician and lawyer (and not the ruler of India at the time of partition)
One of the reason of the problems during partition was the haste to divide India. Whether it was deliberate or unintentional is difficult to judge.
With emotions running high on both sides, with boundary commission putting some lines here and there, whatever happened was not unforeseen.
Did Jinnah asked Hindus to attack Muslims. I don't think so.
Was Jinnah arrogant, detrmined, can be argued.
But killing and other crimes were reciprocal as happens in these situation. Who incited the Hindus and Sikhs to massacre Muslims if it was not Jinnah.

As a continuation, did Jinnah asked Muslims to kill Hindus, I don't think so.
It was the British responsibility to make a fair divide rather than dividing in haste to prevent the catastrophe.

Saima and Rashid Sahib, violence was there on both sides, no question about that. But the trigger was Jinnah's narrow vision that Hindus and Muslims were two separate people who couldn't live together. BTW, I am one of those who believes that Partition was a good thing, but not for the reasons Jinnah quoted. I believe Hindus and Muslims can live together as they do in India today, though the population of Muslims in a united India would have been sizeable and the fight for dominance would have made life miserable for both communities. But the premise that Jinnah used to divide the country was dishonest. That is my argument.

Harish:
I think dishonesty is the last word you can use for Jinnah. You can argue against partition.
Jinnah completely left politics and went to England for his lawyer practice in early thirties.
He was approached by Muslim leaders from sub continent by about 1935 or 1936 to come and lead the Muslims as there was no leadership for the Muslims.
As I have mentioned in my previous posts, it was the attitude of Congress Government in 1937 which led Jinnah and Muslim League to fully exploit the situation. To the point that I think in the next election Muslim League won from majority of Muslim seats. And Muslim League had sizable portion of ministers in next Government.
Moreover your reasoning was also there among some of Congress leaders.