Drama of Succession - Pakistan People’s Party

bulleya:

"whenever i am in india, i discuss indian domestic politics with indians there.....interestingly, they point out exactly the same corruption, incompetence, dislike etc. for indian politicians.....it is almost 100% identical to pakistan......yet i have yet to meet an indian who does not support the electoral system, as a whole......"

This does not show Indians to be very bright, does it? they continue to support a system which continues to throw up the most incompetent rulers election after election. They seem to be so drunk on the democracy intoxicant that they couldn't care less if produces the worst form of governance.

If the Indian economy is doing well, it is because of a few honest politicians like Manmohan Singh and a few honest bureaucrats like Montek Singh Ahluwalia who freed the economy from the clutuches of these corrupt rulers. As for the areas which are still under politicians, especially at the state level, such as literacy, health and law and order, the situation in India is dismal. They can't even manage the city traffic; the High Court in Delhi has advised the state administration to seek he help of the private sector in solving Delhi's nightmarish traffic situation.

Majumdar#216:

"This is the most intriguing part. Why were the Muslims of Muslim minority provinces agitating for Pakistan when their homes wud end up in India?"

I don't know if this helps: I recently read a column by an old Muhajir in Dawn who said that Indian Muslims were quite aware that they would be left in India at the mercy of the Hindus and will become a hated minority for seeking Pakistan and staying in India but they were willing to make that sacrifice for the sake of creating an Islamic country.

The fact is that whatever some leaders might have wanted, for most ordinary Muslims, the matlab of Pakistan was a land of the pure, by the pure, for the pure. This is mostly what has happened.

Romair,

(up muslims were the biggest supporters of this is a clear indication that the basis of this was a fear of domination by hindus)

This is the most intriguing part. Why were the Muslims of Muslim minority provinces agitating for Pakistan when their homes wud end up in India? I can still understand the Mojos who voted for Pak and ended up migrating to it. But more puzzling was the attitude of UP/Bihar Muslims who stayed back in India after wholeheartedly endorsing Partition. These guys surely deserve some medal in woolly-headedness.

(the day india can ensure that it is not a threat to pakistan, the borders of pakistan and india will start to disappear.....)

As Arjun mian has put it, that ain't happening. That is not until Pakistan stops being a threat to India and rest of the world.

Regards

Mohar,

(Was pakiland founded on secular ground? Is "Muslim Nationalism" a secular concept?)

The answer is I DONT KNOW. Please refer to my interact #197 addressed to YLH. What I do know for certain is that MAJ (pbuh) never intended Pakistan to be anything but a secular state and certainly not a theocracy.

Regards

OK - so what's the conclusion here: Was pakiland founded on secular ground? Is "Muslim Nationalism" a secular concept?

Majumadar dude - you being the other worshipper at the "High Church of MAJ,PUBH" [borrowing masadi's nomenclature] - what say you?

Re: # 205

Massaddi Mian:

"....in effect don't take anything from the great achievements regarding democracy that were made possible ..."

Since when you have become a proponent of democracy? You are ready to say "Go, ________ yourself" to all without exception. As I asked do you say so to your mother, sisters, brothers etc, and did not answer, can I assume all includes these also?

If democracy is brought to Pakistan, Islamic red-necks, like you and your running dogs, will bring it down to the knees. Plurality and tolerance are not in the genes of any red-neck anywhere, let alone Islamic red-neck like you. 7th Century to Mills is your par course.

Democracy needs what you do not have, it dies when you limit, and will never survive the limit to your 7th Century to Mills par course.

State your ulterior motive clearly, the cry of democracy is so shallow. Please stick to "Go, __________, yourself". At least this makes you stand out.

#210 Posted by bulleya on February 13, 2008 10:26:02 am


india can ensure that it is not a threat to pakistan, the borders of pakistan and india will start to disappear.....


indians don't want the boundary to disappear because you pakis are a threat to the whole world..

indians are fervent believers in TNT...the two nation theory

as in one nation for IT(info tech)...and one nation for IT(Islamic terrorism)...

#189 Posted by MantoLives on February 13, 2008 12:18:04 am


Hence ... everything that you blame on TNT is actually the denial of the basic principle that TNT put forth right from Sir Syed to Jinnah.


so the pureland of today is completely different from what jinnah envisioned(according to you)..

i.e. jinnah has been rendered irrelevant...so quit quoting his aug 11th speech at godforsakenabad all the time...it's irrelevant..

trying to convince everyone that pakistan was founded as a secular country is equivalent to trying to put a square peg in a rectangular hole.....

at the same time, pakistan was not founded as a theocracy either....

pakistan was founded as a coincidence......muslims felt that they would be discriminated against in a united india, so they asked for an autonomous area in a federation of a united india.....kind of like quebec in canada.....it was a very very valid claim and probably the best solution for south asia......

the fact that up muslims and bengali muslims were the biggest supporters of this is a clear indication that the basis of this was a fear of domination by hindus......wherever muslims were in a clear majority - punjab, nwfp, etc - there was no fear and hence no demand for pakistan......

when congress did not agree with this.....pakistan - originally a bluff - was formed.....since it was primarily a muslim demand (i am sure dost-mittar and other hindu punjabis did not want pakistan), hence it was not a secular demand.....

having said that muslims were happy to live in a secular federated india, if they were given autonomy.....the creatino of pakistan, was, thus a result of fear of domination by a religious majority and not a desire of a religious minority on the basis of theocracy.....

in any case, it is the right of any minority to demand independence, if the majority cannot ensure their security.....it is the job of the majority to ensure security of the minority......

i think the day india can ensure that it is not a threat to pakistan, the borders of pakistan and india will start to disappear.....

Re: # 202 Dost

You won't find anything in the Lahore Resolution (aka Pakistan Resolution) about 'equal rights' for non-Muslims. YLH/Manto made that up.

The only paragraph in a 5-paragraph resolution that deals with minorities offers 'protection' by way of 'effective and mandatory safeguards should be specifically provided in the constitution for minorities in these units and in the regions for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights and interests in consultation with them and in other parts of India where the Muslims are in a minority adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards shall be specifically provided in the constitution for them and other minorities for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights and interests in consultation with them'

This is not the same as 'equal rights' a pre-condition for secular government. YLH has been playing this word game for years on Chowk.

http://www.worldsindhi.org/publishedreports/5July05.html

masadi #: "No he could not have, he was subordinate to the army all the way at the time, his subordinate position only improved after the war when the Army was temporarily weakened..."

he could have resigned and asked for a re-election, if we assume his intention was true democracy and that he did not support the army action against mujeeb.......that would have made him and his party side with mujeeb against the military.....

there isn't a single statement of his, on record, where he states that mujeeb should be allowed to form the govt......and there are quite a few of his action and quotes that indicate exactly the opposite, i.e. that he wanted to ensure that the true winner of the election was not allowed to form the govt.........

bhutto was, without a doubt, the biggest and only beneficiary of the 1971 war.....amongst pakistani leaders....

Masadi sahib,

Further to #206.

(great achievements regarding democracy)

Democracy is not just about setting up a Parliament, Constt and having elections in five years. It is about a mindset as well. A mindset which includes respect for dissenting viewpoints. Not dismissing dissenters as "Peons of the West" or with the simple advice "Go _____ yourself"

A respect which neither you nor your mentor ZAB ever had.

Regards

Masadi sahib,

{many parliments have seen even fist fights and threats so that was no big deal}

Hindoos are reputed to have the morality of tree toads but I have yet to hear of a state CM let alone the PM of the nation threaten to bump off the leader of the Opposition. Although it is alleged that Mr. MSY almost did that with Ms. Mayawati in 1995 (the Lucknow Guest House kand) although he himself denies that he resorted to violence.

And you can bet Prez/PMs in the great Satan (US/UK) have yet to resort to violence against their Leader of Opposition at least post 1918.

Btw you are still silent on:

Mass bombings in NWFP/B'stan in his regime while you (rightly) condemn American violence in Iraq and A'stan.
The torture of Amer Tufail and his son in police custody.
The decision to make the Butcher of Dhaka, Tikka Khan his Defence Minister.

Regards

bulleya writes "he could have opposed the army action........"

No he could not have, he was subordinate to the army all the way at the time, his subordinate position only improved after the war when the Army was temporarily weakened...

Majumadar's BS, in effect ad hominem attacks against ZAB, many parliments have seen even fist fights and threats (so that was no big deal), in effect don't take anything from the great achievements regarding democracy that were made possible at the time that exist to this day (PPP) with the necessary ingredient of the ZAB

hamid writes "... that was a hoot ! let's hope we have seen the last of masadi and his madness ...... "

An immature made-up tale by ferozk when he cannot argue with the facts, throwing in information about his i-phone- like a typical upstart-wannabe, does nothing to take away from my posts.

Now that you mention what you'd do (on the other thread) if Hillary is elected (option #2), tempts me to try campaigning for her,...if only I didn't know better about these thugs

Ref dost_mittar #201

[Mantolives#196:

"It also envisaged states where Non-muslims would have have equal rights."

This raised my curiousity. Would it be possible to reproduce the exact wording of that statement? Thanks.]

In Pakistan, whether you are a Muslim or a Hindu, the punishment for throwing away anything printed in Urdu script is death, for having defiled the Koran.

Didn't you know that?

That was the equality Jinnah-bhai was willing to offer the minorities.