The Conspiracy Theory

pavocavalry,

Your attention is drawn to #202 re Chwinda.

#197 Posted by viqarm,

...Pashtun Wali would mean more or less same feelings, and level of involvement, on the part of Pashtuns throughout NWFP.

Pashtun Wali is respected all over the Pushtuns of NWFP as something of pride, but it is only in the FATA territories where it is actually the code for daily life. The people who embody this code look down upon other Pushtuns such as Khattaks of Karak or the Khans of Charsadda/Mardan 'Verkotey Vilayat' as no Pushtuns at all.

... Would ... you say that the population in Waziristan is much more supportive of the resistance fighters than in Swat; or that, in case of Swat, the local population is, possibly, even opposed to their (resistance's) activities.

Well, the ideological basis is roughly the same, except for Pushtun Wali which rides on top of mere demand for Shariah Law in case of the FATA tribals. Swatis just want Shariah to be implemented in their part of the country while remaining within the constitutional and physical boundaries of Pakistan, while the Waziristan tribals basically had nothing more than a sovereignty pact with Pakistan (One Country two systems such as Hong Kong/China?) which has broken down and they want their own foreign policy with respect to Afghanistan.

The common enemy factor is what has brought the two together after Lal Masjid (A Swati ideological phenomenon) since both are in an existential conflict with secular forces.

Maulana Sufi Mohammad had been a long time supporter of Taliban and, arguably, had considerable local support as well.

Sufi Muhammad is a supporter of Taliban in terms of Taliban achieving an ideological Islamic State of sorts, but not a separatist from Pakistan. He did raise a volunteer army of 10,000 to fight alongside Taliban in 2001 but never incited rebellion in Pakistan against the State after failing and returning.

BTW, him and maulvi Fazlullah are local Swati aren't they?

Yes they're local Swatis.

Agreed Sir.

regards

Agha

PS- Myself/Amin are one person.

pavocavalry,

I second GT's suggestion below that you must send all you articles for publication on FP one by one. You write with plenty of technical detail, quotes, and references of historical parallels supporting your conclusions. It is a bit much to take in all in one go on such a wide canvas!

In the meantime, in your description of the Chwinda tank battle, you made no mention of the kamikaze bombers under Indian tank tracks. Is it reality or myth?

Thanks.

Dear pavocavalry,

I have by now been able to read almost all the articles by you/Mr. Amin which have been posted here. They are all very informative. I liked several paragraphs, mostly because I fully agreed with the perspective implied by them. It would be nice if you could publish them one by one on FP, I am sure that chowk would gladly (re) publish them. My reason for suggesting so is that, each of them would lead to very good discussions in the interact sections. Even if you choose not to, let me again mention that I have learnt a lot from them and I would like to thank you.

While it is important that we know our history, or at least parts of our history, it is important that we do not analyse the present and the future ONLY in terms of our past. In this sense, I flinched at your underlying theme that independence can only be brought about by violence or warfare.

First, we in the sub-continent are not free. Neither are a majority of blacks in the US or for that matter "enlightened women" exploited by ideas marketed by a still patronizing patriarchy, be it in the US or West Bengal.

Second, freedom INMHO is a dynamic which continuously expands the set from which choices can be made, AND is something which provides the individual with the ABILITY to make this choice say through "knowledge" and/or "confidence" in the individual's ability to oppose the "group".

Third, given my concept of freedom, I cannot accept the hypothesis that violence is either necessary or sufficient to induce independence or freedom. Independence can only be brought about by creating institutions which socially, politically and economically outcompete existing institutions. Imposing "new" institutions through violence just makes them transitory or unstable over time. Of course, these new institutions cannot be built by one person, nor can we have one without experimentation - installing and DISCARDING bad ones. And for this we need that imprecise tool called democracy which in turn implies that "power" centers can be changed in a systematic manner whenever so required.

We never had democracy. We can have it now and grow with it. Violence is neither necessary nor sufficient to induce democracy.

I know that you will not disagree with what I have written above, for I see glimpses of this arguement scattered over various articles of yours. It would be nice though, to have a focused discussion on this.

Nehru and Gandhi was not ready to accept partition, though it was reality. The violence during the partion has created the worst enimity of neighbours. If the partition was accepted peacefully, and relocation of moslems and non-moslems were held proper way, then current situation should not arrived. The Indian conspiracy is fomented by Pak military establishment to keep them in power in Pakistan. Most of the rural Indian's does not bother about Pakistan. They have their own set of local problems. Whenever Pakistani military establishment wanted to grab power, they have attacked India, and then replaced the civilian ruler.

Re: # 194:-- HP you have shallow knowledge of history so you should not give your petty opinion in everything.You are a self centered and confused person.

Re: # 197:-- Waziristan is closer to Afghanistan and the tribes have a far more militant background than the swat tribes.I am not specialist like zeemax or pavo though.

#160 Pavocavalry
#164 Zeemax

Both of you definitely know a lot more about the local populations in that area than I do.
For some reason, I was under the impression that adherence to Pashtun Wali would mean more or less same feelings, and level of involvement, on the part of Pashtuns throughout NWFP. Clearly, this seems to me to be a misplaced assumption.

Would either, or both, of you say that the population in Waziristan is much more supportive of the resistance fighters than in Swat; or that, in case of Swat, the local population is, possibly, even opposed to their (resistance's) activities.

It seems to me that Maulana Sufi Mohammad had been a long time supporter of Taliban and, arguably, had considerable local support as well. BTW, him and maulvi Fazlullah are local Swati aren't they?

HP sain,

(It is the will of the people and the love for their land that gives them the resolve to fight anything that could destroy their land. Punjabi, Indian and Bengali just did not have it in them.)

More it was plain luck on part of Sind that the Hindus were a relatively small minority in Sind and were scattered across cities rather than concentrated in a few districts.

(Sindh was never going to be divided.)

No, it will not be. Sind will remain united with Sindhi Muslims (like Assamese Hindus) being in a minority.

Regards

Re: # 194

HPji,

That is very noble, but my contention is that, if
INC wanted it, Brits would have agreed and ML
would have relented, and it would have happened
not withstanding the noble sentiments you stated.

#191 Posted by shishapa

It is the will of the people and the love for their land that gives them the resolve to fight anything that could destroy their land. Punjabi, Indian and Bengali just did not have it in them.

Re: # 192

Dada,

I think Sindh had then, Thar Parkar (I think it had
Hindu Majority up until now, could be wrong) and
may be one or two more bordering Kutch of Gujrat.

HP sain

(I hope you will realize that despite the Muslim majorities demanding Pakistan, their demand was not communal in nature.)

We will leave it at that!!! In any case, since I am pro-Partition, it does not really matter to me whether the demand was communal or not. I hope by the same token you will not label the INC/Hindu/Sikh demand for partitioning of the provinces of Punjab and Bengal as communal.

Shishapa,

(The only regret I have is INC should have asked to
partition Sindh. )

The partition of Bengal and Punjab was on grounds that there were large number of contiguous districts with Hindu/Sikh majorities. I dont know whether Sind had any Hindu majority district just like UP and Bihar in spite of large Muslim populations (probably) didn't have any Muslim majority district except maybe Moradabad.

Regards

Re: # 190

If India, Punjab, and Bengal could be partitioned,
what was so different about Sindh that it should
not have been/could not be partitioned?
If INC had asked for it, it would have happened.

#189 Posted by shishapa
"The only regret I have is INC should have asked to
partition Sindh."

abb Puchtawat kiya howat jab churian chug gaeen khet!

Sindh was never going to be divided. It is not India!