A story sans redemption

To Karakoram ...

Why make assumptions ???? You have no idea how much i revere Ataturk and how much I know about him!!!!!!!

Whether what I said was contrary to Islam or not

(and u will see that if you had read the whole thing I was arguing from a Pakistani Nationalist perspective) the fact remains Ataturk was a Nationalist in a nation whose basis of Nationhood was Islam ... however once he established the Republic he chose to distance himself and the state from religious influences because he felt that religion was backward and that Humankind has reached maturity which no longer requires the presence of religion .... Ofcourse no one is saying that all he said was right but I personally believe in reformed Kemalism which is not authoritarian and doesnot engage in benign neglect ... Pakistan by far was always envisaged as a Kemalist state by Muhammad Ali Jinnah

-Pakistan Zindabad

-Quaid e Azam Zindabad

-Ataturk Zindabad

-Jiye Bhutto

-Imran Khan for PM

Yasser Hamdani

PS Next time if you dont have the freakin patience to read through the whole thing dont insult the other person ...

Also care to tell me why all PAKISTANI AND WESTERN SOURCES are biased and only Indian sources are worth reading ????

Pakistan Zindabad

Quaid e Azam Zindabad

Ataturk Zindabad

Jiye Bhutto

Imran Khan for PM

-Yasser Hamdani

I want everyone who writes on this forum to first read my post which is 13 I believe and then read

Karakoram and Rdesikan`s posts ....

When did I say anything against India in my posts??????

Believe me Karakoram I know more about Ataturk than you will ever know !!!!!!!!!!!....yes Islam believes in all races and cultures but then it also presupposes a certain heirarchy in which

it places them .... that hierarchy is not compatible with the Modern World. What is compatible with the Modern world is Homogenous states ... whose cultures are defined by religion or is atleast their nation unifier. Despite Ataturk`s efforts to give Turkey an alternative discourse and a nation unifier ... Islam remained the nation unifier in Modern Turkey ... it is a state which is Muslim in nature and secular in character ....

Now if you want to interact please have the patience to read the whole thing because you will eventually get to point in my post ...

AND ONCE AGAIN I AM CRITICIZED FOR SAYING PAKISTAN ZINDABAD?????? HOW IS PAKISTAN ZINDABAD AN ANTI INDIAN SLOGAN ...

CARE TO OPEN UP YOUR EYES AND READ???????

PAKISTAN ZINDABAD

QUAID E AZAM ZINDABAD

ATATURK ZINDABAD

JIYE BHUTTO

IMRAN KHAN FOR PM

YASSER HAMDANI

Karakoram:# 18

Your comment to ylh is reasonable and sound.I sincerely hope he benefits from it.

Your last para is a bit too harsh.He is young and will learn from people like you.Then again,this too is part of learning.Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind.

Like so many others,I think the slogans have made their point very loud & clear.Every once in a while they might be o.k

I hope he takes it in good stride.

__________________________________________________

Sudheendra: Welcome. I cannot comment too much on your analysis of the book, since I am still in the middle of reading the book. I do have quite a few questions about the BJP, which I will ask at a later stage.

Your bio-data seems to have started off a bigger debate than the topic you were writing on :)

Though outside the scope of your article, but related to the discussion going on, there is something I would like to point out; people in India and Pakistan have a tendency to comment on each other`s societies and ideologies without understanding them.

A bus ride and a visit to a website, in terms of events, are too small to be enough to realistically provide enough knowledge about another country. They only indicate that a person`s initial knowledge of the other country was non-existent, and it still remains non-existent. I think people need to accept this before they take the liberities of commenting about the desires (about which they have no confirmation and very little knowledge) of the people of other countries. Another point people need to keep in mind is that they have no right to impose their own likes and dislikes and aspirations onto other people. The world would be a much more peaceful place if people kept their aspirations to themselves, without unilaterally assuming or forcing other people to follow these same aspirations.

A husband may want to remain with his wife forever, however his wife may want a divorce. He may think he is treating her well, however in the end it is her decision, since she is the one who must decide how she wants to live her life. At that point, for the husband to simultaneously attempt to woo his wife back, and to attempt to kill her if she doesn`t come back, is going to do more harm than good. It would be better for him to accept the divorce, and perhaps attempt to figure out why his wife wanted a divorce in the first place, instead of trying to continously blame his wife for the divorce.

There is no point in trying to force a spouse (or peoples, in the context of the Sub-Continent), who does not want to live with you, into coming back to you. You will be viewed more as a stalker than anything else. This will destroy whatever little chance there was of existing as friends, after the divorce.

YLH says:

``The greatest of all secularists of the last century Gazi Ataturk, believed that a multi-ethnic, and Multi-cultural society is an aberration!!!!!! ``

I don`t know what Ata believed (and I doubt you have that knowledge either), but that sounds completely against what I think Islam stands for i.e. all races all cultures can/should cooperate and work towards equality, justice and the general betterment of oneself and each other.

The rest of your post sounds very muddled, and unfocused. If this interaction is important to you please put more effort into it, instead of just using it as a defecation portal.

Peace.

Sudheendra Kulkarni:

Welcome to Chowk.

First some thoughts on your comments (And Zahra: this despite the three typos!) Tell me honestly, was it the toothache that brought forth this in the middle of the night?

It is transparently obvious that you are a sharp political operative and a latent literary critic. ‘Cause of your admission in the end I cannot really accuse you of speaking from both sides of the mouth. You have covered your bases well.

What would be extremely interesting to read is what you really think. But then perhaps that is asking too much from a political activist. Now, were you a literary activist.........

Now other thoughts.....

Whether we are two individuals, two hands of a body or the maiden’s hair neatly parted (re: Padam Shree Ali Sardar Jafri’s poem) it is merely an academic discussion. The important thing is this; we like to believe in separate identities. Therefore we are! If we re-examine each other with this realisation, with pride and moderation, we can go ways. Together we can re-conquer the world. All right, let me climb down a little. Together we could be more forceful on world stage.

Time for peace is now. Despite all bravado, your masses are as poor as ours. Economic prosperity is a guaranteed harvest of Peace. (Peace is synechdochic.) I am afraid our failure to work towards a viable peace will not be easily forgotten by coming generations. Peace with its ensuing Prosperity is the only thing I can think of that can keep in dormancy the ugly specters of nazi-fundos wearing green or saffron.

Let us work for friendship, peace and prosperity in the sub-continent. With hassle free borders in our lifetime, I would like to visit you for a weekend in Delhi or have you over in Lahore or Sukkhur (to visit the banks of the mighty river Sind) with the same ease with which I can visit Washington DC and or have my friends visit me here in Toronto.


regards,

temporal

Sudheendra,

Firstly welcome to Chowk.

Speaking of this historical perspective of the Mughal analogy with Daru and Ozi - you are reading to much into it. It was just supposed to be a comparison of brotherhood and how that can be torn apart - for the love of a woman or just for power of an empire. You wrote:

``a power-hungry and bigoted Aurangzeb, who did not hesitate to have his own brother decapitated``

while the anology might not be direct,Ozi like Aurangzeb sends his ex best friend/brother Daru to the gallows.

2) The book is not supposed to be the all indian or pakistani novel. It is fictionalized tale of a slice of life. And why do novels have to have a redeeming aspects to it? Also what you wrote about love is all conquering and uplifting seems to me to be a very skewed interpretation of one who has been subject to a lot of Bollywood films:

``Daru and Mumtaz, in a redemptive way. He infuses no invigorating, life-reviving idealism into their love. Which is unconvincing, for love, even extra-marital love between two sensitive persons, is always an idealism-tinged experience. Beauty is a transformational force. It spurs lovers to ask questions about themselves and their society. It pushes them to change their own lives for the better.``

This above paragraph is nonsense. You are making a claim that they loved each other. Mumtaz did not love him. He did. Also this assumption that it pushes them to change their lifes for the better is a highly idealized notion that I wish Desi women would grow up and understand the true reality of love. This is the classic example of how desi men are brought up on porn and desi women on romantic novels. In this case it did not change their lives for the better and maybe it did for Mumtaz finally woke up to her reality.

``But the only avenue Daru chooses to enter is that of drugs (both selling and consuming it) and, later, crime. This process of waste and descent in Daru`s life is where the novel disappoints the most.``

3) I think you missed the whole point of the novel. It is dark, might be highly dramatised but it drones home the point of what Pakistan society is and even what Indian society is. People have a hard time finding jobs and livlihood without nepotism and ``pavah.`` It is hard to live an honest and at the same time wealthy life. Difficult. Many good people in both are nations have been wasted because they were disillusioned and never had the opportunties to live their dreams. You as a full time activist would probably know better than me about this. And Daru like so many other literary characters wants to be included in his niche of society. He is not.

Also I can`t understand your logic that you feel he is the weakest character. If anything you get to know him the best as he is the narrator and protagonist of the story.

My belief is that dark stories of our respective nations must be told. You are shocked at this novel because you believe things like this don`t happen may be only in a small part of society. But the truth is sex, drugs and crime are rampant in both India and Pakistan in all levels and that only when we come to grips of the darkness of the tales we don`t want to hear can we as nations and as people progress and possibly even live with one another. This is a great novel because it got such a response from someone like you. Embrace it and hopefully it makes you understand not only Pakistan but the demons that are hiding in Indian society.

RE YLH #13

Time for your Lithium, eh?

It`s one thing to be young, but it`s another to show off your immaturity in public. Whether you like it or not, people will continue to make comments, often negative, on things you may hold dear--that`s what a forum, my dear chap, is all about. With the freedom of expression comes various, vibrant and opposing points of view, and you just cannot shout off or shut down some selective voices.

-Tandoori chicken Zindabad

-alu tikka Zindabad

-Biryani Zindabad

-Jiye rosgolla

-YLH for Dictator [CE?]

Cheers

The fundamental flaw in ylh`s formulation on Pakistan being a geographical construct, secular for all who live in its boundaries is that this formulation was not broadbased - it was elitist and it was in the minds of Jinnah and a few others - more than 80% of the muslims of this new country viewed Islam as the binding factor for this country and hence it has degenerated into a rather rabid Islamic Republic intent on classifying Ahmediya`s etc as non-Muslim and full of Islamic irredentism. The fact that India is multi-national is pretty much recognized on a day-to-day level with the varying languages etc. Just because India is not one nation in a French or German sense does not mean Indians dont have a common identity. The cause for the confusion is the use of terms nation, community, state and geography. If we are careful with how we use these words, a multi-national single federal state India is not in contradiction with a unifying Indian identity. There is no benefit in getting hung up on concepts such as ``nation`` and using them in the strict European nation-state context.

Let me make a few things clear to you. Time and time again I have asked you people not to tell us what we are and what we are not. Pakistan is none of your Business. Your constant re-writing of History sickens me.

For your information madam/sir, South-Asian Muslims and Hindus have never been one nation. They were as much a nation together, as Greeks and Armenians were with Turk-Muslims. The greatest of all secularists of the last century Gazi Ataturk, believed that a multi-ethnic, and Multi-cultural society is an aberration!!!!!! Not only that but even the Muslims of India were before partition atleast 2 nations with in themselves.

I have said and I will say it again .... if it had been the fundamentalists and maulvis who made Pakistan I would be the first one to discredit it but it was not. It was Jinnah who made Pakistan. Jinnah was a completely westernized and secular man who was extremely non communal. Up untill 1939 he worked for cooperation with Congress Party... in the cause of a united India. It was the failure of Congress Party to actually to appease the insecurities of South Asian Muslims that finally led to the formation of Pakistan. Jinnah, we all know was not a fundamentalist. Much like Ataturk, he had sought to free a Muslim nation and set up a secular, progressive Democratic republic which would safeguard against the tyranny of Majority..

Pakistan was a principled struggle. It had nothing to do with Aurangzeb`s rule! If you see History objectively, not frrom Indian or a Pakistani perspective(keeping in mind that I have never attended a Pakistani school my expounding are based of the work of Western Scholars), The Kings of Dehli had been at War with smaller Indian Kingdoms for a 1000 years (Bhutto`s rhetoric was based on Historical knowledge) .... If you disregard Mahmud of Ghazna and Ghori because they were foreign, we can start from ``Slave Dynasty`` ... which was constantly pitted in war against the Hindu Kingdoms of South and of the East. Then we see the rise of Khiljis and their innumerable campaigns against the Deccan Kingdoms .... The Tughlaqs and the Syeds followed the same policy. Dehli Kingdom was largely Hostile to the Hindu Kingdoms in the South. Lodhis followed the suit. With the coming of Babur we see this intensified. His various campaigns against Rana and other Rajput Kings were the continuation of this policy of Hostility.... (By the way PTV aired a serial few years back called ``Babur`` in which the peaceful co existence of Hindus and Muslims was over emphasized.. so even Pakistanis have made attempts to distort History) .... Sher Shah Suri

campaigned largely against the Indian Kingdoms ..

Akbar, though a secularist in Policy, still was Hostile to other Kingdoms not only Hindu but Muslim Kingdoms of the South ... like Bijapur etc

Jehangir and Shah Jehan`s Empires also faced the same opposition from the Kingdoms of the South ...

Now let me come to Dara-Shikoh ... This herofication, this immortalization that Indian Authors have indebted Dara Shikoh is awesome ... Maybe time to wake up and smell the Cofee Indians!!!!.... Read a few History Books by Western Authors.... Dara Shikoh is portrayed time and again as a weakling, an over indulgent prince who was out of touch with reality. In the last 50 years Indians have made attempts to add their own flavor to History .... and to claim Mughals for themselves .... In India we have seen the most awesome distortion of History ....

Let us go back in time... far from it that I may repost my comprehensive time line of the subcontinental History ... because then I ll be

blamed for paying too much attention to Pakistani sources ... (eventhough interestingly enough Pakistani sources dont mention the facts that I have pointed out) ..... and eventhough the fact remains that a bulk of my historical knowledge comes from reading authors like Abbot, Lamb, Esposito and a few other who I thought had English names and not Pakistanis...

All Indians I have come into contact have a certain criteria for judging Historical facts and their sources... according to Indians if

1) A fact comes from a Pakistani writer ... it is biased

2) If a fact that goes against their own narrow minded interprettation of History, comes from a Western Author... the Western Author is on the pay roll of the Pakistanis ....

3) The only non biased authors are Indian Authors unless they present a fact contrary to what Indians would have us believe .... in that case he is either a)Just one author b)if he has Singh or Punjabi last name ... he is a Khalistani activist

So you see all the History and literature that we read is, atleast according to our neighbours biased ... yes we need to start reading Khushwant Singh .....

Only yesterday one of my friends started claiming that Sikhs were innocent people who didnt do anything at Partition .... and then he proceeded to tell me that Bapsi Sidwah was pro Pakistan and a Muslim wanna be ... and that the only objective writer is Khushwant Singh ...

I for one did not know that Bapsi Sidwah was an Islamic Fundamentalist or that her book ``Ice Candy Man`` (A K A Cracking India) was an anti Indian pro Muslim .. pro Pakistan book ....???

How naive am I ... I always thought Bapsi Sidwah was a Parsi .... I mean doesnt sound like a parsee name ... I wrote to her once and she replied back ... she didnt seem to be an Islamic fundamentalist...

So far from it that I suggest that the subcontinent was for the most part divided into many states and thus was never one nation ....

far from it that i expound my own crazy theories of Pakistani Nationalism ... or how Pakistanis and South Asian Muslims are a distinct community..

Oh forgive me Almighty God for transgressing and suggesting something like that ...

Let us put our egos aside ... and let me reiterate ... Pakistanis irrespective of the past now constitute a distinct nation ... which is defined by our own boundaries and yes a cornerstone of Pakistani Nationhood remains our common religion .... Is it too much to ask that you respect this??

Look at India today ... it is a Multi National state ... it has many nations living there and atleast Hindus and Muslims form two distinct nations ... yet that doesnot discredit the Indian Union not at all because now you have come to exist and hopefuly you will stay that way .... (with the possible exception of Kashmir which Inshallah will decide its own fate) .... Indian Muslims of tommorow may or may not be Indian Nationalists ... but that is not of our concern...

in 1947 South Asian Muslims formed a distinct nation and they formed Pakistan.... The truth is that any aberration cannot exist ... The East and West Pakistan together in centralized State was also an abberation !!!! So we saw the rise of Bengali Nationalism within the Pakistani State and hence they formed their own country ... a Country with 2 wings so far apart was an abberation ... Today Pakistan stands as a Nation. Its prosperity

lies in productive Nationalism. Our boundaries and our language dictate our Nationalism. Islam no doubt still plays an important role in Pakistani Nationalism but there is more to Pakistani Nationalism than Islam .....We stand at a juncture when we no longer need to or want to justify our Nationhood .... Therefore I see Pakistan moving in the direction of the vision of Quaid e Azam .... a secular republic with a progressive outlook... I have no doubt that our rational religion which solidifies our homogenous state will continue to play its vital role in our character ... We will be Muslim in nature, secular in Character .... This was the vision of the great Quaid ....

The truth is that despite secularization and other things India has not become an entity .... in my limited scope of thinking a true state can only be a Nation-state ... the model of true Nation-state is Turkey which despite being secular remains 99.8% Muslim and 80% Turkish...

I am sorry people but I dont want to be suggestive at all .... Help me out here if I am wrong but 70% of Indian population falls into the Indo Aryan ethnicity and 20% of it falls into the

Dravidian ethnicity ..... and others form the rest??? If the ancient civilization that Kulkarni mentions is the measure of Nationhood ... what are we talking about here????? Maybe it would be worthwhile not to concern ourselves too much with

ancient Histiographics ... because the Historical past of the Pakistani people is diverse ...

The Pakistani nation has people who have Arab Descent, then there are people of Persian descent, then are people from Central Asia (Turkic Pakistanis???) and then there are natives of the subcontinent .... SO LET ME PRESENT YOU A CONCISE AND PRECISE DEFINITION OF PAKISTANI NATIONHOOD WHICH YOU CAN CONSIDER IN EFFECT FROM NOW ON

``A Pakistani is the dweller in the boundaries of the Modern day state of Pakistan... he/she will be considered Pakistani regardless of race color religion or gender``

We thus are a distinct nation .... and we have a distinct raison de ettre for the formation of our country ... it is the ideal of Democracy and fairplay ... it is to shield a former minority from the tyranny of the majority ... but raison de ettre cannot be our ideology since we have already fulfilled our task ... our ideology is the ideology of progress and Modernity for its time that the valiant Pakistani-nation made a break with the past and marched forward to claim its rightful place in rank and file of the nations ...

This is Pakistani Nationalism.... I am Pakistani Nationalist before I am anything else.

-Pakistan Zindabad

-Quaid e Azam Zindabad

-Ataturk Zindabad

-Jiye Bhutto

-Imran Khan for PM

Yasser Hamdani

As a follow-up to my last post with respect to my objection to ``Islamic body and Hindu mind`` formulation. I am all for synthesis where mind meets mind, heart meets heart, soul meets soul, and body meets body. There is no need for putting elephant heads on human bodies by talking of Islamic body, Hindu heart. The equality of man, the lack of nationalism in pure Islam are extremely spiritual mental constructs which when connected to the freedom of choice in Hinduism yields to a powerful force for egalitarian freedom. But this is very much a mind meets mind thing as all synthesis must be. We should never give such synthesis a name because then it will simply become a new ``ism``, a new religion. We should simply live it as individuals.

Hi Sudheendra

I found your review immensely thought provoking. I appreciate your sentiments; personally I wish that a dialogue between our two countries takes place. It would save immense funds that otherwise go into inflated defense budgets and instead get channeled into our human resources. Having said that, your review of a review is rather well-written.

I`ll try to answer your questions with my perspective.

I wonder too, whether our elite is quite as callous as portrayed by Mohsin. I hope it is not, but decades in Pakistan have not taught me otherwise. I do know that decadence is almost moral in the Pakistani way of life. But then I am the sort that finds large supermarkets painful!

The callousness exhibited by all of us in South Asia, towards human rights, poverty; the sheer neglect of life; these are the endemic truths of a region. Pakistani ideology has sadly enhanced and brought these to high symphony of torture encapsulated by consumption.

Sudheendra:

``I want to work for changing the attitude of Hindus towards Muslims, of Muslims towards Hindus, of India towards Pakistan and vice versa.``

In the diseased mind of a Kar Sevak, India is synonymous with Hindus and Pakistan is synonymous with Muslims. I wonder how Indian muslims feel when you club them with Pakistan all the time.

Dude, the attitude that needs changing is YOURS.

Sudheendra:

A very warm welcome to Chowk. A couple of things you and others may want to keep in mind.

Pakistani society and correspondingly its elite is not as homeogenous as most people think. Hamid`s book has focused on the elite in Lahore which is only natural since he spent most of his life there and this is his first book(which in most cases has strong autobiographical tones). The upper crust in Karachi or Islamabad and even other parts of the country not only comprises of people with different backgrounds but may also differ radically in their mores and modes of behaviour.

I agree with you that the author is entirely at sea when he tries to incorporate the larger canvas of Pakistani society,its history and its economics in his story-telling. In his defence though, that may have been a massive undertaking and he may have deliberately decided to play coy(or some overzealous editor cut those parts out).

Pakistani elite right now is at war with itself due to the drastic reduction in the spoils that the state largesse allowed in the earlier decades. Corrupt to the core it might have been but at least it was united in its abhorrence of the mullahs and other reactionary elements. The present state of disarray is allowing these elements to not only strengthen but present the masses with a viable alternative. A prospect which you or your eminent bosses may not wish to confront.

later

-sac

Sudheendra:

Why is it that a visit to Pakistan changes the minds of so many Indian ``scholars``, ``journalists`` and ``officials``? Is it because they are so brainwashed to begin with? Would you admit that India, land of freedom and democracy, had you so brainwashed that a visit to Pakistan caused your beliefs to crumble?

Also, please stop mouthing empty slogans - Islamic body and Hindu mind. All intellectuals value the mind over the body and this formulation is another self-serving Hindu hypocrisy - a not so subtle elevation of Hinduism and put-down of Islam.

And for the record, I am an Indian, a Hindu and a bitter critic of the two-nation theory.