Lahore Diaries III

In response to Jay (Reply #: 66):

Dear Jay:

The political history of pre-Partition India is extremely complex and to some extent violent. You maintain that the two-nation theory is a myth and it is damaging for decent Indo-Pak relations. I think, you need to explain why you think so. As India and Pakistan are two separate sovereign states, we could argue for the partial truth of the two-nation theory. We could also treat this theory as a myth in view of the creation of Bangladesh and the presence of a large chunk of Muslim population in present-day India. In a nutshell, one could look at society and political history from many different angles and perspective.

Akbar S. Ahmed (1997: 110) wrote: ``Many scholars trace the Pakistan movement to the two-nation theory Sir Sayyed had espoused which held that the Hindus and Muslims of India were separate people and needed to live separately.`` What Sir Sayyed meant by separation? Separation in the form of India and Pakistan (and Bangladesh) or separation in terms of family life, neighborhoods (and communities), etc.?

In fact, most Hindus and Muslims in India share the same broad territory but they still are separate in one form or another. I have no problem with some sort of separation. So, my conception of separation is relational which entails both separation and integration with reasonable realistic (socio-situational) limits. If I have to chose between integration-hatred and separation-cordiality, I will choose latter as a better compromise. Ideally, I would also like to break all barriers between the human beings.

Let me give you a realistic example of separation in modern India. A few years back in the United States, the father of a Hindu friend of mine (in his seventies), while enjoying food in my home, told me that he had never eaten food in any Muslim home. I said to him: ``I am honored.`` Following this, my friend asked his father: ``Dad, you never ate in Ahmad uncle`s home (in a village near Aligardh).`` The father replied: ``No, never.`` So, even in 1990s there are people in India (both Muslims and Hindus) who have never eaten in each other`s home yet they live peacefully with each other. Why people do not eat in each other`s homes? One reason, historical baggage (animosity, simple separation, (perceived) religious restrictions, traditions, food habits, etc.).

In short, we need to focus on friendship, conflict resolution, and peaceful coexistence (in spite of our separations and historical baggage). .

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

to bahmed,

The myth of jinnah, is essential, his vision for an alleged `secular` pakistan, i accept with out reservation, after all he was also human.

What is more damaging to the prospect of a decent indo-pak relations is the `myth` of two nation theory. This being a theory should be consistant and should with stand the test of what ever is thrown at it, un like jinnah myth.

To my understanding, the essence of two nation theory is that muslims are being persecuted in india and there is the need for a sovereign country to protect them.

As you can notice on the chowk, there is a consistant theme in the pakistani postings that muslims are being persecuted in india, a clear indication of the operational aspect of the myth of two nation theory. I accept this as a product of the myth, but the complimentary aspect of it, that is pakistan should welcome the indian muslims, has not been reflected in the pakistani postings.

The reality of today is the opposite of the two nation myth, millions of muslims are coming to live in india, illegal, from a product of two nation theory.

May be theory has passed the use by date, may be it has to be modified. I hope this wont be edited out as it happened to another simple arguement.

To ad pu li and other international trade supporters,

I am glad to see that ad and others have seen the writing on the wall, the WTO intiated opening up of the domestic markets.

The regulatory regime demands the lifting of non tariff barriers first and then the reduction tariffs.

The trick to protect the markets is to create extraneous arguments and proper `scientific` data.

Europeans have banned hormone fed beef from the US, they have scientific data. US has banned shrimp caught by using `non turtle sving` nets, mainly used in the third world. They have the patent on the feature, so more of the revenue flow back to the US. Apple export to japan from australia is banned because of suspected blight decease. Japanese, in general donot like any consumer products made in other countries. The `tastes` of the japaneses have been developed and sustained in a unique and indigenous way.

In india what i see is that the educated like you all, are the first to stampede into the golden arches, denouncing every thing indian, essentialling denying the emergence of a unique indian `taste` in the consumer product range, by our incessant clamour, `ambassedor` is s * *t, Tata steel is s *(t, Godrej soap is s *(t, the list goes on.

In response to Pu Li (Reply # 63):

Dear Pu Li:

Your statement: ``Every nation needs its myths to sustain itself. Clearly, Pakistan needs the myth of a Jinnah of the purest motives as the cornerstone of its nationhood. Impartial analysis of history tells a different story.``

Comment: I agree, the myth of Jinnah has surely been created in Pakistan. You yourself have said that ``Every nation needs its myths to sustain itself.``

How do you do an impartial analysis of history? Have you done an impartial analysis of Jinnah`s role in India`s political history? If yes, I would like to learn from you.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Here is something from The Jang: (Extract from an Opinion piece in today`s issue):

[The June 3, 1947, plan on the basis of which the subcontinent was to be divided into the independent dominions of India and Pakistan had just been announced. The Quaid was in New Delhi, staying at his 10 Aurangzeb Road residence. Recalled Khurshid (Jinnah`s Private Secretary), ``Swarthy, tall--nearly six feet and a half--the handsome young Maharaja Yadvendra Singh of Patiala arrived to keep his appointment with the Quaid-i-Azam. As the Maharaja and his entourage consisting of three or four other equally sturdy Sikhs, resplendent in their uniforms, waited in the anteroom opposite my office, their lively conversation and bonhomie indicated as if they had not a care in the world.``

The Maharaja had recently taken over as chancellor of the Chamber of Princes..... the Quaid received his guest with the utmost courtesy and the meeting began. The Maharaja asked what terms and conditions would be on offer if Patiala decided to accede to Pakistan. In Khurshid`s words, ``Mr Jinnah, in a characteristic gesture, handed the Maharaja a writing pad and a pen and said, `You write down the conditions and I shall accept them.` The Maharaja later admitted that

Mr Jinnah had offered him almost `everything under the sun`.`` The Quaid`s offer was not

taken.]

So, here was Mr. Jinnah trying to see how much land he could grab for Pakistan. After demanding a separate country for the Muslims of the subcontinent, here he was, trying to see if he could get the Sikhs to join Pakistan, offering a blank check to the Maharaja of Patiala, just as he did with the Maharajas of Jaipur, Udaypur and other Hindu Rajput states.

This evidence should shatter the myth that Jinnah was driven by the injustice Muslims would have received at the hands of the Hindu majority in his demands for Pakistan. He realized he was going nowhere within the leadership ranks of the Indian National Congress and so decided to take his marbles and play his own game. For which, millions of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs paid with their lives and property.

Every nation needs its myths to sustain itself. Clearly, Pakistan needs the myth of a Jinnah of the purest motives as the cornerstone of its nationhood. Impartial analysis of history tells a different story.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: Alil

`` Your choice of adjectives for me, moronic, idiotic etc. reflects on your inability to present your (lame) arguments coherently, and also shows some sort of simmering anger or hatred.``

-- Anger yes, but not hatred my friend. Anger with your responses which does not seek to understand the ground realities in India but to keep parrotting whatever u want to believe. I have two choices when you keep posting your views while do not give any credence to our replies. Either i repond angrily or not respond at all. i chose the former. probably i should have chosen the later.

While you are quick to laud our statements about

the bigotted Hinduism you do not give any credence to the facts that we state about India as such. And this too given the fact that you come from an even more bigotted and fanatic nation. I am surprised that you do not accept that while India is not perfect, it is way ahead in terms of minority rights and religious freedom in the sub-continent than other nations and that needs to be lauded. statements like yours makes the moderate forward thinking hindu feel that he is not being appreciated for what he is but is being clubbed with a small minority. You do not dispute any of the other facts that i state but u only repeat your view point. tell me is that not moronic.

Even looking at it rationally, the majority in India are not the brahmins or the forward class, but the backward classes . And they are asserting themselves in every sphere. And you seem to think that only the forward classes have anti-conversion tendencies. Well my friend , you are wrong. Even a hill tribe who follows animistic religions resists his fellow hill tribes conversion whether to christianity or not.

`` Every hindu extremist website that I `ve seen repeats the same argument as yours: ``Look at how Pakistanis mistreat their minorities, Indian minorities have nothing to complain about.`` ``

-- well indian minorities have a lot to complain about. But unlike in Pakistan, here even the majorities (the hindus ) have a lot to complain about (for instance about reservations for minorities, special minority acts, affirmative actions for minorities, special civil codes, extra religious freedom etc). tell me do the pakistani muslims feel persecuted in these areas by the hindus and christians the way the indian hindus feel. there in lies the difference.

`` While this argument seems to make perfect sense to you and the bigoted hindu majority, minority members would beg to differ; ask the nun who had to drink the ``pavitter`` brahmin urine.``

-- let me ask you this. ? why are the christian missionaries on a conversion spree ? and why are they not doing the same in pakistan ?

`` Your claim that a christian priest be-headed a Hindu boy is as credible as the claims that Babri mosque is Ram`s birthplace or that Taj Mahal is a hindu monument. Where did your hear it first? at some RSS rally? ``

-- let me dig out the reference for you ? it did get reported in national newspapers. On a personal note, i have had christian preachers coming to my house in India and deriding hinduism and seeking conversions. No Hindu preacher ever does that. and no muslims do that either. Can a christian preacher do that in pakistan ? why are they seeking to add more sheep to their flock ? and where did they get the guts to mock a majority religion ? They get their guts to do this because they are protected by the state to do the same.

Again India is not perfect. But we are atleast making an approach,, Statements like yours forces us to rethink our options and might end up turning india into a Hindu Pakistan. Your tears appear more like those of the crocodile tears than those of sympathy.

Rishi

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Pu Li:

Wether we like it or not, India will have to face competetion from banks, insurance companies, and consumer products, by 2005. That is the dead line. And that is the reality.

I agree that Indian banks cannot compete with the efficency of their international counter parts. And that is the reality that we need to think about today.

``Manufacturing underpins all that wealth. The cash generated by manufacturing in turn provides discretionary income that is used in the services sector.``

Well that maybe so, in the past but no longer. The reason is that in the future, the world is going to be dominated by mega corporations that will be a one stop shop for gloabl customers. Airlines, financial sector (Travellers Group, Morgan Stanley Dean Writter, BankOne/First chicago), automobiles (Diamler chrysler, Ford/Volvo), Aircrafts (Boeing/McDonnel Douglas),telephones (worldcom/mci/sprint ???)and so on. These players are already established or in the stages of getting ready for the next big game.

In this game, companies who do not go to these behemoths, will not be able to remain competetive. Why ? Because of their large size they will be able to give us better services at lower prices. In such a scenerio, if India chooses to protect its domestic industry,(read banks, insurance sector, transport and other such serices ) it will be similar to what Nehru did in the 50s. He prevented Indian manufacturers to go to international markets to get their raw materials. It forced car makers to buy steel from the Tatas, even though they could have gotten better quality steel at lower costs from elsewhere. Consequently, the cars that were made were too expensive to be able to compete in the international markets, thus rendering this vicious cycle of inefficent manufacturing.

We need to focus on the end product, not the raw material. Who cares if Toyotas use Indian steel in their chasis ? It is a Japanese car, and Japan is the one which profits from it. So you see in the end, it is the final product that matter.

Now you might be wondering where I am going with this. In the begining I had already mentioned that the rat race of manufacturing and consumer products in India will die, once international players come on board.

So the question is what will India have to sell ? And the answer is..... information. Even though it sounds difficult to believe, but in the future the most costly commodity is going to be just that.

Companies that will thrive, are companies that are going to have the right information at the right time. That means that even though India has no industries, no products, nothing... what it will have are people, who will enable companies to get that information.

You might think that its absurd that I should argue on hypothetical situations. Well if you look at the market cap of Yahoo, you might find my argument more convincing. Its market cap is more than that of CBS ! And all they do is provide information !

Ford bought out volvo at $6.5 billion. Compare that to the sale of Excite for $6.6 billion. So I think that there is a solid future in being a ``services oriented`` country.

What is wrong with that. Singapore, Hong Kong are already allocating funds to divert people from manufacturing to services. Singapore wants to be the information mecca of the digital age. For that reason, it is investing heavily into making the whole country connected via the NET.

I think countries that provide services, in the information age, are going to be at the top of the food chain, not the bottom.

AD

Re AD #: 55



``My bet is that India, is already too far back in the race, to compete in manufacturing and products. However, India, can be dominant in the

services industry, where all you need is highly educated professionals. Infosys is the poster child for that success.``

Service industry includes tourism (including hotels, food service, air and ground transportation), banking, insurance, legal services, consulting services, and a host of other activities; not just information systems.

Singapore with 200 square miles of territory and not yet 200 years old draws more tourists than India with all its monuments. Without barriers, do you think banks in India have any chance against the tidal wave of America,/European banks? Why do you think there is so much reluctance to open up the insurance sector? Check all the countries with a huge per capita income, foreign exchange reserves, etc. Manufacturing underpins all that wealth. The cash generated by manufacturing in turn provides discretionary income that is used in the services sector.

On the other hand, if you are talking about services to foreigners (who is the primary customer for the IT industry), in what way is that different from the bonded laborers who went to Fiji, Jamaica, Sri Lanka and Malaysia in the last century, except that instead of working in a sugarcane field one works in an airconditioned office?

The services train left the station a long time back just like the manufacturing train did. Some of you just got on the caboose.

It is not social conscience but ruthless exploitation that led to development of any country; exploitation of mineral resources and labor. Social and environmental conscience came much later to the US, Europe and Japan. South Asia and Africa are prime examples of where they put the horse before the cart and the resulting failure is evident.

In response to ad (Reply # 56):

Dear ad:

I agree with the main thrust of your response to my response. However, the question of individual and society and the relationship between them is extremely complex. The best we can do is to develop a critical understanding and appreciation of both in light of our self, our family, our community, our nation-state, and the world at-large.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Dear Bilal,

I certainly appreciate your concept of having a social sense. Coming from an ancient civilization, we, the people of this sub continent know that a healthy socitey is one where the individaul abides by the rules of the society (unlike the individualism that is prevelant in the States).

However, progress in our society has made some of us too open minded and some of us too close minded. And both are bad.

So consider for a minute, that I live in a socitey where the people are very close minded, say Saudia Arabia. Say, I had to go there because of economic opportunity. In such a case, should I follow the norms of society in which I live, and give up following my religon, the way I should follow it (say I am not a muslim) ?

So where do you draw a distinction between where socitey ends and where you begin, as far as excerise of your choice is concerned ? You can take this argument further. Say, I live in a country where keeping dogs in the house is a no-no. So just because other people do not keep their dogs inside, and I do, makes me an object of rejection.

You see what might be a basic necessity for some, is a huge luxury for others.

Think about it in this way. Do you eat meat ? If so, did you know that there are people in Somalia and North Korea that are starving to death. As they are part of the global society, they have a right to ask you to foresake eating meat.

(As you go higher in the food chain, the number of people who can be sustained at each level of the food chain, reduces by about a half. Example, a field of grain, may provide nutrion to a 100 people, but a cow who feeds on the field can sustain only 50 people).

So you see, even though we are a global village, the issue of society`s control over us, if highly debatable.

I for one believe, that I want to be given the option of making choices and then hopefully I will make the right ones.

Ad

Jay,

I think i can agree with you that copying American style capatilism, might not be the best thing for us. However, did you know that in 2005, members of the World trade Organisation will have to open up their markets for products from other member countries.

India, which is still in its infancy as far as free markets are concerned, will survive or fail, depending on what we do in the country today.

My bet is that India, is already too far back in the race, to compete in manufacturing and products. However, India, can be dominant in the services industry, where all you need is highly educated professionals.

Infosys is the poster child for that success.

AD

Studebaker #49

I must confess my ignorance on this special train for Durga Puja. I never heard of it, so I must ask you if they are free ? If they are, then it must be local to Bengal.

I can vouch for places in UP, Delhi and Bombay, that nothing like this happens, at least there is no sanction of that in the state budgets.

Haj on the other hand, is a well organized, and heavily subsidized trip, and the Govt of India, offically sponsors the trip each year.

Regarding the vacation for all the festivals, well, we have holidays for almost all major religons, in India.

Anyway, getting back to the Kashmir problem. Look I agree with you, that had it not being for Nehru screwing up and going to the U.N, in the first place, Kashmir would never have ended in a stalemate. What i disagree about is the fact that Pakistan is spreading posion in the valley, in the name of Islam, and polluting the minds of people who should be in schools and colleges. It is Paksitan who is responsible for the fact that people have lost their livelihoods in Kashmir. It is Pakistan that drove all the Kashmirir Pandits out of Kashmir. (tell me studebaker, just like you feel that muslims are discriminated against in India, by the Hindu majority, should the Kashmiri pandits start blaming the Kashmiri muslims for all their ills ? )

So please don`t preach about how India is in the wrong and how Pakistan is in the right. For all their rehotric about providing moral support for the Kashmiris, Nawaz Sharif finally admitted that once Kashmir got free from India, it would become a part of Paksitan.

So there you go.... another partition, another group of people (this time HIndus, again, mind you), dispossed from their homes, and land.

Cannot understand how in the world, you can even think that paksitan is not in the wrong !

AD

Re Studebaker #49

``On your comment about Haj being subsidized,what about scores of spl. train arrangements for Durga Puja weeks of vacation,or total traffic blockade for Ganesh Chaturvedi,wouldnt that be loss of money in endorsing (or subsidizing!)the majority religion.I really appreciate a unbiased analysis of this Haj subsidy.``

The train tickets are neither free nor discount priced at that time, are they? Running additional trains is both good business (you sell more tickets) and good traffic management. Not the same thing as a free or discounted ticket to Mecca. Now, if Hindus would be given discounted or free tickets to Benares or some such holy site on the same percentage basis as Muslims get to go to Mecca, the situations would be comparable.

Studebaker #48

``Pl. for once dont give the argument of Bodoland or Khalistan in the same breath as Kashmir.I am adamant about it.``

I mentioned Tamil Nad and Punjabi Subah. Not even ethnic/tribal differences compared to the guy next door. Is a Sikh Jat that different from a Hindu Jat in culture, family values? Is a Tamilian different from a Malayalee except in the language he speaks? As opposed to Nagas, Bodos, Mizos, etc., being distinct ethnic communities. So, if a mainstream Indian group could make noises about secession, it only shows that measures have to be taken to control that.

Despite the demands for Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka, do you think today anybody is interested in forming a Greater Tamil Nadu by seceding from India and merging with Northern Sri Lanka? Not a chance!

``I agree there were 550 + princely states, certainly if we follow Kashmirs history even from 47 there is no other princely state which either was disputed or held against the wish of atleast ``SOME`` of its people.``

Don`t you think the Nizam of Hyderabad and his courtiers and his army and perhaps some of the millions of Muslims in his state might have wanted to join Pakistan? In that sense, didn`t India hold them against their will? Didn`t the folks in Bhopal and such landlocked Muslim-ruled states with large Muslim populations simply accept the fact that there was no way for them to join Pakistan and so didn`t even make a feeble attempt to do so?

The trouble with Kashmir is two-fold: Keeping it as a single state with its original boundary. This wasn`t done anywhere else in India. Isn`t Bhopal now in Madhya Pradesh, Mysore in Karanataka, Hyderabad in Andhra and Travancore-Cochin in Kerala, the people thus losing their sense of being different and gaining the feeling they are all Indians first and foremost? The second is proximity to and common boundary with Pakistan. No matter what anyone says, it must be accepted that if the Pakistan govt doesn`t support the terrorists, the insurgency would die down. After all, we don`t have an insurgency in West Bengal demanding union with Bangladesh, do we?

If, as you suggest, economics is an issue as we are spending way too much to keep Kashmir, I would like to expel Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Orissa and Rajasthan from India. We would dramatically improve literacy rates, per capita income and GDP, etc., without having to lift a finger. As an added bonus, nor would we have to deal with Hindu fundamentalists.

studebaker,

At last there is some support for the efforts by india to solve the `kashmir` problem, there is some consensus for an international meet on terrorism, there is an emerging unified view on the underlying dyanamics of the `kashmir` type of problems. It is essentially a cultural conflict, different approaches to the solution to problems, the method of fatwas to coordinated charector assassination, the call for jihad to ``UN` approved invations, the low tech terrorist bombing to GPS guided cruise missile, theocratic authoritarianism to capitalistic democracy.

The fact remains that the 60 young adults perished when the US cruise missile slammed into the mountain training grounds in afghanistan, where from Pakistan; the same person who funds the training has called for a jihad to liberate kashmir. A little birdie tell me that the above two well proven events in a neighbouring country might have, just might have, something to do with the kashmir problem. Any pakistani takers for this shocking view.