Making a Mockery of Democracy

tahmed writes "Scores of brave Pakistanis have given up their lives for this cause, with Benazir being only the latest martyr. Thousands of brave Pakistanis have faced armed polce for this cause. Hundreds have given up careers for this cause."

This guy is atrocious, his entire life on Chowk (which is a large chunk of his retired life) is spent trying to legitimize US agenda as if it were the desire of the Pakistani people. To that end he is using, much like the US elite do, the lives of our people for his own perverse ends. The people of Pakistan give a rat's a$$ about democracy, rule of law, dictatorship or any other such thing. They care first and foremost at this juncture about their needs being met and for someone to pull them out of this animal like existence that the US and its occupation force, the military has trapped them in. They are sick and tired of US/Pak Army shenanigans and distractions by deciding "democracy" for them and all the carnage and butchering that is mere distraction and further entrapment in this cycle of BS. The people of Pakistan want food, they want clothing, they want healthcare and security for their families, and the way to get that is neither through the US occupation force (the Pak Army) or US implemented "democracy" and for God's sake get this sob (tahmed ) off the case of the people of Pakistan. We don't need backstabbers. Spend your damn time talking about Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears, leave the people of Pakistan alone.

What is "real democracy" in Pakistan? The answer is mostly in the eye of beholder. However the criticism on the political forces working with the people and for the people is mostly unjustified. In my observation, the context is critical factor to analyze the actions. Many analysts who lack the practical political experience on the ground consider the matured idealized democratic system to be achieved without going through the growing pains. The growing pain does not refer to the military dictatorship as a guide to democracy. It refers to the maturity of political process through open political process. Expecting a child to grow within few days of her birth is naïve at best. The political parties of Pakistan in general and PPP in particular have faced the wrath and brutal force of army intelligence since its inception. One can argue reasonably that PPP may not have the characteristics of an ideal political party. However, I will argue without any hesitation that it is the only people created political institution in Pakistan.
Coming back to the real democracy, I will argue that it has more to do with the attitude then anything else. I see secular and religious extremists in Pakistan with barely any moderates in the country. The moderation calls for co-existence in a pluralistic society with the acceptance of every member of the society as an equal partner in the future of the society. Both secular and religious consider each other as a threat to national integrity. While the extremist views of both sides are the major cause of intolerance and terrorism in the society.
Why transfer of chairmanship as monarchy within family? I will urge you to look at the India which is a democratic country in our neighborhood. The family factor plays a role. The Indian government had already tackled the issue of land reforms but still family factor is the strongest factor in political scene in India. There must be land reforms in Pakistan. However the lack of land reforms is not accurate logic for keeping party leadership within family. We are a society emotionally attached to individuals, groups, and/or families. This encompasses almost all groups in religion, politics, and/or other major social organizations. We can debate the reasons or causes for that behavior but it is the prevalent behavior in our society. This cultural and behavioral norm is accepted and practiced by majority. PPP represents is the representative of people and it has contributed to transform the society. It does so not by confronting the norms but working with these. It is very understandable to complain about the political forces without understanding the context.

Pakistan's flawed and feudal princess

It's wrong for the West simply to mourn Benazir Bhutto as a martyred democrat, says this acclaimed south Asia expert. Her legacy is far murkier and more complex

William Dalrymple

Sunday December 30, 2007

The Observer

One of Benazir Bhutto's more dubious legacies to Pakistan is the Prime Minister's house in the middle of Islamabad. The building is a giddy, pseudo-Mexican ranch house with white walls and a red tile roof. There is nothing remotely Islamic about the building which, as my minder said when I went there to interview the then Prime Minister Bhutto, was 'PM's own design'. Inside, it was the same story. Crystal chandeliers dangled sometimes two or three to a room; oils of sunflowers and tumbling kittens that would have looked at home on the Hyde Park railings hung below garishly gilt cornices. The place felt as though it might be the weekend retreat of a particularly flamboyant Latin-American industrialist, but, in fact, it could have been anywhere. Had you been shown pictures of the place on one of those TV game-shows where you are taken around a house and then have to guess who lives there, you may have awarded this hacienda to virtually anyone except, perhaps, to the Prime Minister of an impoverished Islamic republic situated next door to Iran.

Which is, of course, exactly why the West always had a soft spot for Benazir Bhutto. Her neighbouring heads of state may have been figures as unpredictable and potentially alarming as President Ahmadinejad of Iran and a clutch of opium-trading Afghan warlords, but Bhutto has always seemed reassuringly familiar to Western governments - one of us. She spoke English fluently because it was her first language. She had an English governess, went to a convent run by Irish nuns and rounded off her education with degrees from Harvard and Oxford. 'London is like a second home for me,' she once told me. 'I know London well. I know where the theatres are, I know where the shops are, I know where the hairdressers are. I love to browse through Harrods and WH Smith in Sloane Square. I know all my favourite ice cream parlours. I used to particularly love going to the one at Marble Arch: Baskin Robbins. Sometimes, I used to drive all the way up from Oxford just for an ice cream and then drive back again. That was my idea of sin.' It was difficult to imagine any of her neighbouring heads of state, even India's earnest Sikh economist, Manmohan Singh, talking like this. For the Americans, what Benazir Bhutto wasn't was possibly more attractive even than what she was. She wasn't a religious fundamentalist, she didn't have a beard, she didn't organise rallies where everyone shouts: 'Death to America' and she didn't issue fatwas against Booker-winning authors, even though Salman Rushdie ridiculed her as the Virgin Ironpants in his novel Shame.

However, the very reasons that made the West love Benazir Bhutto are the same that gave many Pakistanis second thoughts. Her English might have been fluent, but you couldn't say the same about her Urdu which she spoke like a well-groomed foreigner: fluently, but ungrammatically. Her Sindhi was even worse; apart from a few imperatives, she was completely at sea. English friends who knew Benazir at Oxford remember a bubbly babe who drove to lectures in a yellow MG, wintered in Gstaad and who to used to talk of the thrill of walking through Cannes with her hunky younger brother and being 'the centre of envy; wherever Shahnawaz went, women would be bowled over'. This Benazir, known to her friends as Bibi or Pinky, adored royal biographies and slushy romances: in her old Karachi bedroom, I found stacks of well-thumbed Mills and Boons including An Affair to Forget, Sweet Imposter and two copies of The Butterfly and the Baron. This same Benazir also had a weakness for dodgy Seventies easy listening - 'Tie a Yellow Ribbon Round the Old Oak Tree' was apparently at the top of her playlist. This is also the Benazir who had an enviable line in red-rimmed fashion specs and who went weak at the sight of marrons glace.

But there was something much more majestic, even imperial, about the Benazir I met when she was Prime Minister. She walked and talked in a deliberately measured and regal manner and frequently used the royal 'we'. At my interview, she took a full three minutes to float down the 100 yards of lawns separating the Prime Minister's house from the chairs where I had been told to wait for her. There followed an interlude when Benazir found the sun was not shining in quite the way she wanted it to. 'The sun is in the wrong direction,' she announced. Her hair was arranged in a sort of baroque beehive topped by a white gauze dupatta. The whole painted vision reminded me of one of those aristocratic Roman princesses in Caligula This Benazir was a very different figure from that remembered by her Oxford contemporaries. This one was renowned throughout Islamabad for chairing 12-hour cabinet meetings and for surviving on four hours' sleep. This was the Benazir who continued campaigning after the suicide bomber attacked her convoy the very day of her return to Pakistan in October, and who blithely disregarded the mortal threat to her life in order to continue fighting. This other Benazir Bhutto, in other words, was fearless, sometimes heroically so, and as hard as nails.

More than anything, perhaps, Benazir was a feudal princess with the aristocratic sense of entitlement that came with owning great tracts of the country and the Western-leaning tastes that such a background tends to give. It was this that gave her the sophisticated gloss and the feudal grit that distinguished her political style. In this, she was typical of many Pakistani politicians. Real democracy has never thrived in Pakistan, in part because landowning remains the principle social base from which politicians emerge. The educated middle class is in Pakistan still largely excluded from the political process. As a result, in many of the more backward parts of Pakistan, the feudal landowner expects his people to vote for his chosen candidate. As writer Ahmed Rashid put it: 'In some constituencies, if the feudals put up their dog as a candidate, that dog would get elected with 99 per cent of the vote.'

Today, Benazir is being hailed as a martyr for freedom and democracy, but far from being a natural democrat, in many ways, Benazir was the person who brought Pakistan's strange variety of democracy, really a form of 'elective feudalism', into disrepute and who helped fuel the current, apparently unstoppable, growth of the Islamists. For Bhutto was no Aung San Suu Kyi. During her first 20-month premiership, astonishingly, she failed to pass a single piece of major legislation. Amnesty International accused her government of having one of the world's worst records of custodial deaths, killings and torture. Within her party, she declared herself the lifetime president of the PPP and refused to let her brother Murtaza challenge her. When he persisted in doing so, he ended up shot dead in highly suspicious circumstances outside the family home. Murtaza's wife Ghinwa and his daughter Fatima, as well as Benazir's mother, all firmly believed that Benazir gave the order to have him killed. As recently as the autumn, Benazir did and said nothing to stop President Musharraf ordering the US and UK-brokered 'rendition' of her rival, Nawaz Sharif, to Saudi Arabia and so remove from the election her most formidable rival. Many of her supporters regarded her deal with Musharraf as a betrayal of all her party stood for.

Behind Pakistan's endless swings between military government and democracy lies a surprising continuity of elitist interests: to some extent, Pakistan's industrial, military and landowning classes are all interrelated and they look after each other. They do not, however, do much to look after the poor. The government education system barely functions in Pakistan and for the poor, justice is almost impossible to come by. According to political scientist Ayesha Siddiqa: 'Both the military and the political parties have all failed to create an environment where the poor can get what they need from the state. So the poor have begun to look to alternatives for justice. In the long term, flaws in the system will create more room for the fundamentalists.' In the West, many right-wing commentators on the Islamic world tend to see the march of political Islam as the triumph of an anti-liberal and irrational 'Islamo-fascism'. Yet much of the success of the Islamists in countries such as Pakistan comes from the Islamists' ability to portray themselves as champions of social justice, fighting people such as Benazir Bhutto from the Islamic elite that rules most of the Muslim world from Karachi to Beirut, Ramallah and Cairo.

This elite the Islamists successfully depict as rich, corrupt, decadent and Westernised. Benazir had a reputation for massive corruption. During her government, the anti-corruption organisation Transparency International named Pakistan one of the three most corrupt countries in the world. Bhutto and her husband, Asif Zardari, widely known as 'Mr 10 Per Cent', faced allegations of plundering the country. Charges were filed in Pakistan, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States to investigate their various bank accounts.

When I interviewed Abdul Rashid Ghazi in the Islamabad Red Mosque shortly before his death in the storming of the complex in July, he kept returning to the issue of social justice: 'We want our rulers to be honest people,' he said. 'But now the rulers are living a life of luxury while thousands of innocent children have empty stomachs and can't even get basic necessities.' This is the reason for the rise of the Islamists in Pakistan and why so many people support them: they are the only force capable of taking on the country's landowners and their military cousins.

This is why in all recent elections, the Islamist parties have hugely increased their share of the vote, why they now already control both the North West Frontier Province and Baluchistan and why it is they who are most likely to gain from the current crisis. Benazir Bhutto was a courageous, secular and liberal woman. But sadness at the demise of this courageous fighter should not mask the fact that as a pro-Western feudal leader who did little for the poor, she was as much a central part of Pakistan's problems as the solution to them.

· William Dalrymple's latest book, The Last Mughal: The Fall of a Dynasty, Delhi 1857, published by Bloomsbury, recently won the Duff Cooper Prize for History

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...233334,00.html

Dalrymple's article "but Bhutto has always seemed reassuringly familiar to Western governments - one of us."

The day the Western elite consider any one of us (Imran Khan included) as "one of us", that will be the day when a-holes like Dalrymple don't have to become "experts" on Pakistan and remind us their "best friends" are Pakistanis. Get this sob off our case, we don't need more of the orientalist BS about Pakistan who understand less about it than the illiterate, half starved eight year old who is grinding his fingers weaving carpets...

Frisco #93 While what you say about democracy being a question of attitudes is to some extent true , you are incorrect in assuming that is all there is to it.

Democracy is fundamentally a system of government - a system where every individual stays within the laws of the country, including the "apex law" namely the Constitution, on pain of charged and punished as a criminal.

By saying "it is in the eye of the beholder" you merely muddy the waters as surely as Cheema tried to muddy the waters concerning the manner in which Benazir laid down her life for the cause of democracy.

Re: # 77

{.... Did you notice that all the chest-beating mourners of May 12 are hypocritically silent at the behavior of PPP goons and the loss of life and catastrophic destruction of Pakistan that they have inflicted?}

Maybe they carry a guilty conscience, facts cannot be refuted and that they do not wish to discuss.

Re: # 92

krashid1961

Why don't u understand one thing, the people u r trying to convince have already made up their minds and refuse to hear leave alone accept voices from the south, have u already forgotten what they have done with BB?

I see that tahmed and his chaprasee have redflagged my posts again. This hypocrite talks about "democracy" while supporting colonization and US overlordship over the world. If there is one Ueber rogue nation that has absolutely no concern for international law or even for its own constitution when it comes to usurping the rights of even its own people, it is the US of A being run by a tiny elite that populate its corporate, military and political institutions and many peons like tahmed supporting their BS.

#97 Masadi {"The people of Pakistan want food, they want clothing, they want healthcare and security for their families, "}

Masadi Sahib,
At the risk of upsetting Hamidumdum Sahib and missing out on some future round of free Stroh's, allow me to compliment you on an excellent post. Goodunya

Dear Dr. Gill Sahib:

Thank you for being the voice of reason when emotions are flared up.

Democracy is not only elections but a mind set and a process based on egalitarian principles that needed to be reminded. It was certainly due at this juncture.

Thanks again.

rf786:
Do you think I am here to convince.
Lets have some good time.

tAhmed:
History of democracy is related to Struggle against king by English Aristocrats who wanted more say in decision making. Humans have not advanced to the stage with unknown name so far for what you have in mind in terms of democracy.
You are well aware of third party movements in America, and what their take is on two party system etc.

Re: # 107

{Lets have some good time.}

Rock & Roll.....

To repeat some facts:

It was Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi who manipulated religion for political ends and destroyed the unity that Jinnah had worked so hard to create. People like Tvarad are too biased to accept a fact of history. Jinnah was the only politician in the history of the subcontinent to be called the best ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity.

It was the devious alliance between Caste Hindu fascist leaders like Gandhi and their side kick the Muslim Clergy that forced Jinnah to fight for and win Pakistan. Congress' inability to accept rational and secular leaders like Jinnah as the true representatives of Muslims and Congress' reliance on freaks and Mullahs instead led to the creation of Pakistan.

And ofcourse... while the clergy wanted to keep the Muslims backwards (and thus play into the Gandhian idea of India), Jinnah and the Muslims who followed him had asked for political and economic safeguards... something patently unacceptable to Gandhi and the Congress... Muslims like Jinnah daring to speak for them ... oh my God.
there is a much greater link of Gandhi to Moplahs and indeed Jamia Hafsa ... than the two nation theory that Jayp wants to malign and has even taken to inventing quotes... you know could care less to bring them together but if someone can so illogically argue and try to link the Islamo-fascist tendencies in a small minority of Muslims to our legtimate stance for Pakistan... then one should point out the obvious links between Gandhi and true Islamic fundamentalist and terrorist movements of South Asia... I do not wish to dwell Gandhi honestly but if this line of argument is taken... should I not point out the facts?


Achyuth Patwardhan, one of the Socialist stalwarts in the Congress, has given a remarkably candid and self critical analysis of the Congress Party vis-a-vis Khilafat: ’It is, however, useful to recognise our share of this error of misdirection. To begin with, I am convinced that looking back upon the course of development of the freedom movement, THE ’HIMALAYAN ERROR’ of Gandhiji’s leadership was the support he extended on behalf of the Congress and the Indian people to the Khilafat Movement at the end of the World War I. This has proved to be a disastrous error which has brought in its wake a series of harmful consequences. On merits, it was a thoroughly reactionary step. The Khilafat was totally unworthy of support of the Progressive Muslims. Kemel Pasha established this solid fact by abolition of the Khilafat. The abolition of the Khilafat was widely welcomed by enlightened Muslim opinion the world over and Kemel was an undoubted hero of all young Muslims straining against Imperialist domination. But apart from the fact that Khilafat was an unworthy reactionary cause, Mahatma Gandhi had to align himself with a sectarian revivalist Muslim Leadership of clerics and maulvis. He was thus unwittingly responsible for jettisoning sane, secular, modernist leadership among the Muslims of India and foisting upon the Indian Muslims a theocratic orthodoxy of the Maulvis. Maulana Mohammed Ali’s speeches read today appear strangely incoherent and out of tune with the spirit of secular political freedom. The Congress Movement which released the forces of religious liberalism and reform among the Hindus, and evoked a rational scientific outlook, placed the Muslims of India under the spell of orthodoxy and religious superstition by their support to the Khilafat leadership. Rationalist leaders like Jinnah were rebuffed by this attitude of Congress and Gandhi. This is the background of the psychological rift between Congress and the Muslim League’.


and

’Since the Khilafat agitation, things have changed and it has been one of the many injuries inflicted on India by the encouragement of the Khilafat crusade, that the inner Muslim feeling of hatred against ’unbelievers’ has sprung up, naked and unashamed, as in years gone by’.

and

A terrible and gruesome fallout of the disastrous Khilafat experiment of Mahatma Gandhi was the Moplah Rebellion in Malabar District in 1921. According to the Report of the ENQUIRY COMMITTEE OF SERVANTS OF INDIA SOCIETY, the number of Hindus murdered by Moplah Muslims was 1500, the number of Hindus forcibly converted 20,000 and the value of property looted about Rs three crore. When the national and local leaders appealed to the virulently anti-Hindu Moplah Muslims in the name of Mahatma Gandhi to follow the ways of peace and non-violence, they replied bluntly with Islamic fervour: ’GANDHI IS A KAFIR, HOW CAN HE BE OUR LEADER?’ Dr Anne Besant declared: ’The Moplah Muslim marauders murdered and plundered abundantly, killed or drove away all Hindus who would not apostatize. Somewhere about 100,000 people were driven from their homes with nothing but the clothes they had on, stripped of everything’. She also accused all the Khilafat religious preachers for all this terrible atrocities. J Campbell, chief of the Intelligence Department, Government of India, held the Khilafat leaders squarely responsible for inciting racial hatred resulting in Moplah carnage.

http://www.newstodaynet.com/2006sud/06aug/2208ss1.htm

Mahatma Gandhi’s attempt to harness the feeling for the cause of national independence backfired and led to the uprising in Kerala known as the Moplah Rebellion. It took the British several months to put it down at the cost of thousands of lives.



Moplahs were very much part of the grand Khilafat Movement that Gandhi was spearheading and Gandhi kept apologising for them


The Dravidian Moplahs had directed their revolt with class venom against some Aryan high-caste Hindus with property as well as Britishers: Brahmanical elements tried to use that to spark a crisis in Hindu-Muslim relations all over India. Gandhi tried to hold a balance: like the U.S. press and the Negro nationalists who read it he stressed that the Moplah uprising could be made part of a united drive for independence by Indians of all sects.But he was also aware of the pan-Islamic dimension: in a December 1921 call to the British to suspend their attacks against the Moplahs, he was to observe that the Moplahs saw themselves as fighting for a religion with methods they considered religious: Yogesh Chadha, Rediscovering Gandhi (London: Century 1997) p. 254.


And lets not forget the Tehreek-e-Hijrat Fatwa that Gandhi’s right hand man Azad gave to Muslims which gave Muslims two options "JEHAD" or "HIJRAT".

The Muslim Ulema, thinkers and activists called for the boycott of foreign goods and non-cooperation with the British government. Meetings were organised in order to rally the masses to support these issues. The meetings were organised under the banner of Mo’tamar al-Ansar (The Workers Conference) and various newspapers such as Al-Hilal of Maualana Abul Kalam Azad and The Comrade of Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar. Both Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad and Maulana Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar were put behind bars for publishing anti-British articles in their newspapers. The latter spent four years in prison between 1911 and 1915CE.


The allegiance of the Muslim intelligentsia of India at that to the Khilafah is unquestionable. Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad summed up their view when he wrote in his newspaper al-Hilal on 6th November 1912 that the Ottoman Sultans possessed the only sword which Muslims had for their protection. Insofar as the “caliphate was essentially a religious integration of the shari’a”, it became “necessary by revelation, is of God’s institution and that obedience to its authority is farz, or positively commanded”.


The Khilafat Movement


In September 1919, Maulana Muhammad Ali and his brother Shaukat Ali, together with Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, Dr. Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari, and Hasrat Mohani, started a new organization, the Khilafat Movement (1919-1924). Their avowed aim was to use whatever leverage they had to protect the Khilafah. They organized Khilafat Conferences in several northern Indian cities. It is noticeable that the scholars and activists that were part of the Khilafat movement came from different schools of thought and backgrounds, for example Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was known to be a ‘ghayr taqleedi’ (non-taqleedi – who believed Taqleed to Mazahib is prohibited) and Maulana Mahmood Hasan was Deobandi who are followers of the Hanafi Mazhab yet they were united in the objective of working for the maintenance of the Khilafah.


In 1919, the Bombay Khilafat Committee agreed on two important organisational goals: “first, to urge the retention of the temporal powers of the Sultan of Turkey as Caliph, and second to ensure his continued suzerainty over the Islamic holy places.”

Delivering the presidential address at the Calcutta meeting of the Bengal Provincial Khilafat Conference in 1920, Maulana Azad discussed the importance of Khilafah he declared, “the purpose of this institution was to organise and lead the Muslim community in the right path, to establish justice, to bring about peace, and to spread God’s word in the world. For all this it was absolutely necessary for the caliph to possess temporal power”. Maulana Azad had no doubt that “without an Imam, their lives were un-Islamic and that they would be damned after death”.


Maulana Azad published a book in 1920 called Masla-e-Khilafat (The Issue of Khilafah), he stated: “Without the Khilafah the existence of Islam is not possible, the Muslims of India with all their effort and power need to work for this”.

In the same book page 176 Maulana Azad said, “There are two types of ahkam shariah, the first is related to the individual like the commands and prohibitions, the fara’id (obligations) and wajibat in order to perfect oneself. The second is not related to the individual but is related to the Ummah, nation, collective obligations and state politics like the conquering of lands, political and economic laws”.

According to Peter Hardy, Maulana Azad believed that, “The Muslim who would separate religion and politics for Muslims is an apostate who works silently”.


The loss of political power in India and the threat posed by a combination of forces to the temporal authority of the caliph, was so worrisome for the leaders of the Muslim community that some of them felt compelled to issue fatwas ‘in favour of migration (hijra)’ from India.


Maulana Abul Kalam Azad issued a fatwa which was published in the daily Ahl-e-Hadith of Amritsar on 30 July 1920. In his fatwa he urged Hijrat from India as an alternative to non-cooperation with the British. (YLH’s note: Was the Hijaz Born Azad a "Wahabi"... note "Ahle-Hadith)

Maulana Abdul Bari’s fatwa said, “every Muslim residing here should adopt non-cooperation but if (that is) impossible, should proceed for hijrat”. Maulana Shaukat Ali issued a statement on behalf of the Central Khilafat Committee, “expressing the hope that all dedicated Muslims would stay in India and work for the non-cooperation. Only if it did not succeed would they consider resorting to hijrat”. The impact of the fatwa was electrifying and thousands of Muslims preferred to leave the Dar al harb of India where their religious rights symbolized in the position of the Turkish Caliph was being infringed.


And most amazing was the fact that Gandhi’s encouragement led to Deobandi ulema creating the Jamiat ulema Hind ... which in its numerous forms and heads plagues South Asia even today... and all these groups are spin offs of the same.


As for Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.... whether the Masadi likes it or not... ZAB was Jinnah's greatest fan though he managed to singlehandedly dent Jinnah's legacy by allowing the Ahmadis to be declared non-Muslims. But still it was Bhutto who gave Pakistan the Quaid-e-Azam Academy and the Jinnah propagation project.


Poor Masadi lies day in day out but Zulfikar Ali Bhutto wrote from his death cell :

"With the exception of your father, the Quaid-e-Azam and perhaps Suhrawardy either charlatans or captains have run this country. Perhaps things will change with a struggle spearheaded by the militant youth. If things do not change, there will be nothing left to change. Either power must pass to the people or everything will perish."

Masadi is a classic case of someone who doesn't bother to actually read something but resorts to second guessing and third rate patch work. Hardly the academic.

The poor guy probably hasn't read a single one of ZAB's books... certainly not "Myth of Independence". Had he actually read the book, he would have come across the chapter where ZAB quotes Beverley Nichols' famous "Interview with a Giant"... Suffice to say it is a slap on the face of Masadi and his abuse directed as Jinnah by none other than Masadi's own idol of worship the Raja of Larkana.

It is the finest defence of Jinnah, by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Whatever his faults, and ZAB was after all a Wadera above all else so there were many many many least of all his absolute contempt for people... but no one can fault Bhutto for his honest devotion to Mahomed Ali Jinnah (though it was never enough for him to actually emulate the great man's honesty and integrity and courage)

To quote (Ghulam Ahmed Parwez's) Tolu-e-Islam's website (Bhutto could have been addressing freaks like Masadi):

On December 21, 1976, the then Prime Minister of Pakistan, late Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto addressed a joint session of the National Assembly and Senate of the federation held to commemorate the centenary of birth of Quaid-e-Azam. Addressing Quaid-e-Azam's portrait hanging on the wall, he said in a most dramatic fashion: -

"Quaid-eAzam!

I know what arrows pierced your heart (during struggle for Pakistan). The British said you were arrogant. This was understandable, because you had refused to bow before them. The Congress leaders and their henchmen called you stubborn. That too was to be expected, because they had failed to trick you. What is not understandable, and what must have certainly bewildered and distressed you is, that the nation, for whose sake you were putting up with all this, was in forefront of your tormentors!"

Then he went on to give details of what people from one province or the other had done against the Quaid-e-Azam. After this detail, he remarked about the irony that the Maulvis and Maulanas had also pounced upon him. He followed with an observation that among his critics, a certain person, although saying things similar to others, couched them in a comparatively fancy language. Then he started quoting in English, excerpts from the book by Mr. Maudoodi titled "Muslims and the Present Political Turmoil" Volume 3. He quoted so extensively, that the text covered two columns and a half of Pakistan Times of December 23, 1976.


So there... this lays to rest the uneducated and ignorant claims by Masadi about Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.

Now we know how he will respond:

1. He will declare that I don't have the intellectual depth.

2. He will declare that he knows Bhutto better because he has done much research on god knows what.

3. He will declare that he is gospel truth himself.


In retrospect... the worst thing Jinnah did was to create opportunities for people like Masadi. It is anybody's guess what sewer Masadi would be in if it hadn't been for Pakistan.

Since Manto is spamming three threads with similar BS about me, let me copy paste what I wrote on the other thread here, unlike Manto who can hardly write a miserable sentence after he copy pastes ten pages of BS.

In # 367 read

Now, you all think that Manto doesn't know this. He does because I have on atleast three seperate occassions elaborated on this quote by the ZAB and how he evolved and did not, towards the end of his life have any doubts that this whole experiment by the MAJ, working as a peon for the feudals/colonials, was the absolute right thing

as:



Now, you all think that Manto doesn't know this. He does because I have on atleast three seperate occassions elaborated on this quote by the ZAB and how he evolved and towards the end of his life, did not have any doubts that this whole experiment by the MAJ, working as a peon for the feudals/colonials, might not have been the absolute right thing, in other words it could have been a mistake whose victim he was going to become.
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#367 Posted by masadi on January 4, 2008 4:51:38 pm
Manto writes "In retrospect... the worst thing Jinnah did was to create opportunities for people like Masadi. It is anybody's guess what sewer Masadi would be in if it hadn't been for Pakistan. "

Jinnah didn't create any opportunity for me, the "opportunities" were created by my relatively well to do great grandparents who became less well to do in the same area (that was called Pakistan later, than they were before. You don't know shit about me so better keep your goddamned mouth shut. I don't belong to a family of petty bourgeoisie like you do that I need MAJ creating "opportunities" for me even as he slaughters millions



reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#366 Posted by masadi on January 4, 2008 4:28:31 pm
Manto writes " ...Time Magazine..."

That my friends (and enemies) is the sum total of his intelligence, to copy paste from websites, from magazines and some obscure books written by orientalists and other "experts". Regarding using well known facts (which no one not even the orientalists dispute) and his sense of reason, the guy (or "freak" ) is totally disabled.

He writes "To quote (Ghulam Ahmed Parwez's) Tolu-e-Islam's website (Bhutto could have been addressing freaks like Masadi):

On December 21, 1976, the then Prime Minister of Pakistan, late Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto addressed a joint session of the National Assembly and Senate of the federation held to commemorate the centenary of birth of Quaid-e-Azam. Addressing Quaid-e-Azam's portrait hanging on the wall, he said in a most dramatic fashion: -

"Quaid-eAzam!"

We discussed at length, (over two and a half threads worth) the ZAB and MAJ issues, but like a dishonest "freak", Manto deliberately keeps repeating his falsehoods regarding the ZAB to make unjustified claims and to fool those that have not followed the debate, and he does it in a most deceptive manner at the very end (fine print) of pages and pages worth of worthless copy pastes.

Now, this claim about the ZAB being the "founder" of the Church of MAJ is total horse sh**. ZAB the politician evolved in his time in office. At the time he wrote "Myth of Independance" (which I have read), he was trying to justify the shenanigans of the MAJ (regarding Pakistan) in the context of imperial "divide and rule", which he claimed evolved into "unite and rule" as spheres of influence developed (viz a viz the US and the Soviet block). In doing so he badly tripped himself not realizing that the creation of Pakistan itslef was the first step in this "unite and rule" thing that he was trying to rail against. Now, Manto accuses the man of being a manipulator and fooling the people of Pakistan to get power. Now that claim might hold some water when the man was on the rise and reaching the zenith of his career but it certainly cannot define this words written from the death cell in a letter to his daughter in which he opens up the possibility that what the MAJ did was a "mistake" and future events would either prove or disprove that (and they sure as hell have proven it).

Now, you all think that Manto doesn't know this. He does because I have on atleast three seperate occassions elaborated on this quote by the ZAB and how he evolved and did not, towards the end of his life have any doubts that this whole experiment by the MAJ, working as a peon for the feudals/colonials, was the absolute right thing as Manto religiously believes in it to be.

Now, he cannot answer me or counter my claims, all he can do is repeat his BS about me not having read his orientalist masters- who know shit about Pakistan by the way, and other tabulators whose work he spits out in news caster prompter style, calling that "intelligence" or literary work. The guy is a sorry excuse for a human being. He did not even refrain from using his father's death to score points against me and baselessly rail against my sincere condolences. Now he calls me a "freak" and gets away with it, watch how fast the chowk staff ban me because I called this sob a "freak" as well....

As if copy-paste is a "technology" that only freaks like him are allowed to use...