The Nawaiwaqt Generation and the Power of No!

hamidm2, won't agree with those labels, or with "everone who prays more than twice a year" thing, but that argument seems to be right. :)

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

sorry cheema ji, had/have no intention of ignoring what you wrote. Just don't know how to respond to those words...

Goodnight everyone, Catch you all later.

Re: # 364

kaal chakri,

.... sorry, i didn't mean to mislead you .... this group of crazies is small at present, but it has a lot of potential emotionally disturbed sympathizers who can be mobilized very quickly ..... these include basically everyone who prays more than twice a year ..... zeemax could be one of them ...... it is like a virus that can kill you but it can also be managed as a chronic condition ......

hamdim2, I am personally more inclined to be with zee on this matter. I think, in spending too much time worrying about how large or small a 'political base' different groups have we will miss a lot. Sheer numbers, in my view at least, are largely an irrelevant construct. But if by political base one doesn't mean just numbers, then we have some meat there.

GT,

This is strongest opposition to LMP, IMO:

http://www.urdupages.com/showthread.php?t=52438

"Ek Muslim hone key Naate yeh hum sab chahhte hen key sharyat nafi zho..... magar yoon zabardsati Sharyat to nafiz na hogi ulta ese bhayanak Asraat samne ayengey jo Alam Islam aur pakistan key lye Tabah kun sabit ho sakte hen.... Talbanization se sirf Afghanistan jesa hi haal ho sakta hey.....Hosh se kaam lijye.... naake josh se... kyunke yeh sharpasand anasir hamare jazbaat se khelna khoob jante hen.... We r muslims not toys... aur agar dil key bajaye dimagh se sochen to samjh ajayegi key yeh sab kis ka drama hey ....America chahta hi yehi hey key... pakistan main talbanization ko tasweer key tor per pesh karke pakistan ki Atomic power ko khatam kar sake kya inhen pakistan ka darul khilafa hi mila tha yeh sab karne key lye ... just think Allah hamien in sab sazishon se mehfooz rakhe (Aameen)..!!"

Hamid:

"....the real leadership will emerge if this movement gathers steam and it will be from the nawaiwaqt crowd, not the mullahs ..."

Darn. This is just the opposite of what Kaal is saying. You are right, I am caught up in more than underwear ! .....

Re: # 358

GT, HP and ghan chakri,

..... you guys are getting all caught up in your underpants trying to understand the dynamics of the lmp party ....it is very simple

........ the lmp party is a relatively small, but very powerful group of people who cut aross communal and economic lines ... not only that, they have wealthy financiers in far away bedouin lands ...... on the surface it is led by small time mullahs from the boondocks of pakistan - like those two brothers and maulana radio - but they have supporters in the military, the business world, the nawaiwaqt crowd and students driven by horomones and fear of blindness if they masturbate ......the real leadership will emerge if this movement gathers steam and it will be from the nawaiwaqt crowd, not the mullahs .......

........ now, do you want me to explain why after the spin off of bangladesh there is no real 'communal' problem in pakistan ?

Kaal,

"Nor does it mean that Muslims have to pay any price now ...."

You mean, they should have paid the price earlier?

"but now the right wing ....may be beginning to see them as a threat."

Hmmm. Had it not been for HP's post, I would have agreed. But now I am a bit more confused than I usually am.

GT, on your second point, if you recall, I have jokingly argued that if you take non-Muslims away, then even if there were just two Muslims left, one would be promptly declared a non-Muslim/Murtid or whatever. That's also hinted at in the sense of "manufacturing communal problems" - mirzai/shia-sunni etc.

On point one, I suspect, there wasn't any real opposition to LMP up until now, but now the right wing (the only ones who count) may be beginning to see them as a threat. So that's where new opposition to LMP may arise - people who are (unfairly) scared of the Taliban bugbear and want to beat India in economic progress.

On your last point, you may be right. It just seems a lousy way to solve a problem by leaving it fully intact within India. This is not to take any credit away from anyone. Nor does it mean that Muslims have to pay any price now for the mistake made by Gandhi and Nehru.

Re: # 353

Eklavya, just exactly what are you saying? What communal problems did Pakistan solve at partition that India didn't? The country split up in two for crying out loud in 1971! May be that is one way to solve "inter-communal" problems.

Pakistan is the western 2/3 of my homeland Punjab; rest has tagged along for as long as it did by the grace of the almighty (and I use this phrase advisedly!). Solve THAT INTER-COMMUNAL problem!

Eklavya, your language is more difficult to decipher than "our holy book"; you should run for parliament! or declare prophethood!

As for Kashmir, like I said before, it should be up to the Kashmiris; both Pakistan and India should respect that. Enough of this madness!

Laddu, I am reading the document you mentioned; listen to Hamidm Sahib, our kids grow up learning more from Bollywood than they ever do from textbooks!

Kaal,

I will come to the Gandhi-Nehru issue later on, but first let me come to the communalism/fundamentalism distinction. I am yet to internalize it.

1. If communalism is ephimeral in Pakistan then it is indeed the case that the LMP does not have a "comparitive advantage" within Pakistan. At least not in terms of "religion". But then, neither should it have a "comparative disadvantage" in terms of religion. The question then arises as to whether there is any opposition to the LMP at all, and if so then who are these opponents?

2. If there are any opponents to the LMP, then can the divide between them and the LMP be the same as that of a communal divide even though the terminology is surely different? Do these groups fundamentally differ in some (perhaps small but important) set of ideology? If so, then could the difference be communaly cast as say the difference between "murtids and non-murtids", "secular vs. non-secular" etc. Are such "differences" ephimeral in time?

3. Do not blame Gandhi/Nehru. The Muslims in what came to be known as India were larger in number and politically stronger than the Hindus in what is now Bangladesh and Pakistan (economically the Hindus might have been better off). So do not take away credit from Indian Muslims. This is like Naqsh saying that the Muslims could have converted every Hindu, during their rule, if they so wanted. Indian Muslims are politically strong, but not enough. They will be better off in the future and for that they do not require the help of Gandhi/Nehru you or me.

"currently the fundamentalist don't have a large or even small political base in the country!"

That's a fair point. Both you and tahmedji have repeatedly made it, and it may be quite true.

Two points people have made (1) political groups need not always have large base to be able to push their agenda forward, (2) sometimes political situation can quickly change (although that risk is much higher in India, given our communal problems).

At this point in time, you may be right: neither of the above may pose present and immediate danger for Pakistan...

#353 Posted by Eklavya

Too many assumptions...Saying that political forces fundamentalists or not, would stop doing politics is irrational. They will continue to create issues to stay in contention but that does not change the fact that currently the fundamentalist don't have a large or even small political base in the country!

What is happening in Pakistan is of interest to Pakistanis but outsiders care about how Pakistan relates to the rest of the wrold. We don't yet know how far, and in what direction, that would change.

Now, where is my applause? Even a tiny one would do. :)

Ejlavya, the day you could convey your thoughts in clear and concise language, is the day we can all join you in your one-handed applause

GT,

HP's point about communalism is an important one. In fact, that is the only reason I keep abusing Gandhi and Nehru - they deliberately did not solve the problem of internal communalism the way Pakistan did.

Anyway, with Pakistan's problem of internal communalism solved for good and effectively, LMP should actually have very little to play with. One might expect them to be totally neutered in Pakistan.

Yet, that may not tell the full story. Pakistan's internal challenges have not always been a factor of her internal situation alone, but also of her external commitments. And in solving internal communal problem, Pakistan acquired a communal nationhood as a whole. Her external relations and commitments became automatically communalized. And that has been one factor feeding LMP, in various directions.

Will Pakistan move away from its communal identity, commitments, and goals? It's hard to say for outsiders, but for outsiders, that is what is of interest.

(Just out of curiosity, although this is not of much interest to outsiders, internally, in making clear communal choices, Pakistan could have helped feed the forces that would later manufacture new (pseudo?) communal problems, - whether it was the issue of mirzais or of shia-sunni rift.)

Hamid,
If I remember correctly I saw NS saying he wants a strong PM who is not wired. He really used the word 'wired' and made gestures to imply what he meant! You can watch the press conference on pkpolitics.com.
That disqualifies Zaradri. He is wired!

"You think someone who has spent his entire adult life defending Pakistan and the past eight years trying to put democracy back on track wants to see the government fail and the country return to political anarchy?"

All he will try and work another 8 years to bring the democracy! For crying out loud, he is asking the political parties to not do politics as that is only his right to do politics!