Indians and Pakistanis Must Start Anew

ylh #98

As you are describing KabuliWallah as love for the COUNTRY India.

Let us analyse.

There is love for Islam. For which people sacrifice and, they are called fundamentalist because they don`t take into consideration human right abuses in the name of God.

Then there was Aryan Ethnicism of Germany, which simply means Aryans are a superior race and have a right to rule. And you saw Hitler`s Germany abusing human rights.

If Nationalism is based on fact that one justifies human right abuses, denying human rights, persecuting people, do you call it Nationalism.

It is fascism. Pure Fascism.

Anything, which does not take into account of people and is sloganization for perpetuation of state or religion based persecution is Fascism.

Saying the sh-it as rose, does not make it rose.

If justification for love of Country means killing of people of country, that simply means one has severe hegemonist tendencies.

``God, save me from your followers`` - a piece of bumper sticker wisdom.

.............what the heck is going on here .... everyone wants to kiss and make up .... ``why can`t we all get along `` Rodney Kingisms and all this puck-hooey is nauseating - it is hypocritical, self-serving, disingeneous, putrid, and in the case of the horrid Indians, designed to lull us innocent Pakis so that they can stab us in the back with their Ram-blessed churis.....shame on the likes of Bahmed who, just to satisfy some perverse intellectual sense of moral rectitude, are willing to embrace obviously dangerous critters like Rsaxena ...... snakes, I tell you, every single one of them ........... now let me put this in perspective for all you snivelling, grovelling Pakis who are so anxious to kiss and make-up - I haven`t met an Indian I could trust, and to quote General George Tecumseh Sherman - ``the only good Indian is a dead Indian`` .....and he was a great man who knew his Indians....

tahmed321 # 151

{Kabuliwallah # 144 Thanks for explaining your viewpoint. You ask: What has Jinnah given to Pakistan`s Hindus and Sikhs? The answer is nothing much and that is because there are hardly and Hindus or Sikhs in Pakistan. Sikh religious places are respected though and Sikhs pilgrims are generally well received and never subject to any hostility. Now let me ask you: Why blame Jinnah alone for this?}

Kabuli’s exact words are {What has Jinnah`s Pakistan given the `Pakistani` Hindus and Sikhs? Ask yourselves this before saying that I`m wrong in my dislike for Jinnah}. He is probably referring to ‘Pakistani’ Hindus and Sikhs who had to move out in 1947, loose their Punjabi identity, and become UP, MP and Bihar wallahs. In addition, poor Mohajirs lost their culture and homes in Delhi, Lucknow etc. too. Millions of people, on both sides, suffered.

You see, Mr. Jinnah’s legacy cannot have it both ways. On one hand, he gets credit to create Pakistan “single handedly” against all evil schemes of British and Hindus. As a consequence though, he alone is responsible for the ensuing butchery and suffering of millions on the sub-continent. Let’s not blame peasants on both sides for killing each other when the leader used his “British trained secular lawyer” position to take whole independence timetable hostage by insisting why Hindu and Muslim religions can not be practiced in one country.

If however, Mr. Jinnah and his associates believed that it was worth sacrificing tens of millions of lives to achieve some greater good, that’s a different matter. Hitler, LBJ (in Vietnam), Mao and Stalin also played God with lives of millions. In some cases, it has worked beautifully for their countries while not so good in others. Great leaders do have to take those gambles with people’s lives for their beliefs. From Hindus and Sikhs’ point of view, Mr. Jinnah was crazy, to put it mildly. Most of us believe that Mr. Jinnah was not only father of Pakistan, he also was father of all the misery he caused for Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims at the time of partition.

It seems though that majority of Pakistanis believe that it was all worth it and that’s where our views about Mr. Jinnah differ.

Regards.

ylh, this is none of my business but might I suggest you try to win your friend back via private interactions? both he and Chowkwallas might appreciate that.

good luck.

ps I am sorry Kabuliwallah

Ok ... I want to tell all people that the way I relayed Kabuliwallah`s statements about the Prophet might have come out harsh ... they were to be understood within a context ... He has the utmost respect for our Prophet ....

and may I add that in Prem we have an Indian with whom every strong nationalist Pakistani can very cordially enjoy a sincere difference of opinion..

It is not to say that Prem will not change his views about Jinnah when he reads Ayesha Jilal or the Congress Guy I recommended him ...

One thing he will not change is his love for his country which all of us Pakistani Nationalists can appreciate ... as we love our country the same way he does......

-Yasser

Re: Bilal,

I agree with your post but it`s a bit idealistic. I so often hear the argument that religions at their heart don`t preach what some practitioners follow. But the reality is that we still have to deal with religious hatred and violence as a very real and nasty problem; it becomes yet another way to divide people. I wonder whether we in South Asia are truly as bright as we like to believe. We are trapped like helpless fools in our religions, customs, and traditions rather than focusing squarely on development, economics, science, and unfettered intellectual exploration. While the West abandons its boundaries we sink further deeper into our`s. Perhaps it`s a chicken and egg problem -- progress cannot be made until religion is abandoned but religion is all the poor have.

With regards to your other point about individuals vs. countries, it is a bit idealistic. For every Pakistani I come across Chowk whom I would like to befriend, there`s 5 I`d rather not ever see. I am sure many Pakistanis feel the same way about Indians. What general opinion am I, or those Pakistanis who share my view from the opposite perspective, to form?

Perhaps I`m being pessimistic.

Regards,

RS

Whats this Prem ???

No reply??

Listen I am sorry and I should not have acted in such a way .....

In any event ... are you going to act like Uzma?

Come on man ...

how can Pakistan and India make peace if we cant resolve our differences even after being so CLOSE?

Yasser

In response to Temporal (Reply # 154)

Dear Temporal:

Thanks. My post is ``actually`` addressed to all Chowkwallas,Rsaxena`s post provided only an excuse to do the same.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Bilal #153:

Very thoughful sentiments as usual. I concur.

Perhaps you should have considered
addressing `others` as well, even going to the extent of singling them out as you did with Saxena?

regards,

temporal

In response to Rsaxena ( Reply #: 148)

Dear Rsaxena:

Chowk is an arena that provides a good opportunity to the South Asians to discuss various matters of mutual interest. In every country of South Asia, one can easily identify a wide spectrum of people from good to bad, learned to ignorant, and wise to unwise. I think, it is our wisdom that really counts in our posts and our actions.

Rsexana, you maintain that you “used to be indifferent at best with regards to my [your] feelings toward Pakistanis.” In my case, as a Pakistani, I can never be indifferent to anyone whether a Pakistani or an Indian. Yet, I choose to deal with individuals on a one to one basis. Our nationality or citizenship does not make us good or bad, learned or ignorant, and wise or unwise. Although our social environment definitely makes an impact on us, wise individuals choose to structure their personalities and their relations with others on the basis of a bigger picture and sensibly defined objectives.

Rsexana, you further argue that “India and Pakistan have never gotten along and never will in the future unless religion disappears off the face of the earth.” This is a grand, but opinionated, abstraction. The history of India and Pakistan, as nation-states, is much shorter than the history of human relations between various segments of population in the South Asian Subcontinent. If you carefully compare, you may conclude that most people of various religions in our Subcontinent have chosen a more sensible course even in very difficult historical-geographical contexts. I believe, we (as followers of various religions) can always figure out a way to deal with our problems if we simply stick to the “essence” of our religions.

Please consider my post as a friendly gesture. Friendly relations are not so difficult to develop provided we act a little more wisely (particularly in our more difficult moments).

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

`RSSexana` .. you dont a crap about pakitan? .. well hmmm .. realy ? .. how come you are on every other post ? .. I guess in you LOVE Pakistan and dying to become a Paki-citizen .. sure it takes two hands to clap .. the clap sounds much better . when your face is between thoes two hands ..

Kabuliwallah #144 Thanks for explaining your viewpoint. You ask: What has Jinnah given to Pakistan`s Hindus and Sikhs? The answer is nothing much and that is because there are hardly and Hindus or Sikhs in Pakistan. Sikh religious places are respected though and Sikhs pilgrims are generally well received and never subject to any hostility. Now let me ask you: Why blame Jinnah alone for this? The bitterness caused by the horrors of partition (with every individual - Muslim or Hindu or Sikh who took part - being responsible, and the suffering being equally shared by innocent people on both sides) and the unresolved border issues the British (in their haste to get out while they could still do so with dignity) left behind are surely to blame, as are the narrow-minded politicians on both sides ever since. There is enough blame to be placed on a million shoulders, so why put it all on one man?

Just to try to stay above this narrow nationalism and petty hatreds, and maybe forty years from now (since you are just 18) you may have done more for the poor people of India and Pakistan and elsewhere, and thus be a bigger hero, than all the Independence era politicians - Indian and Pakistani - combined.

On the other question regarding your and YLH`s real life relations, I think krashid #150 is worth repeating here: ``Arguments and intellectual discussion and even biases should not come in the way of friendship.``

KabuliWallah!

I am in sympathy with you. Arguments and intellectual discussion and even biases should not come in the way of friendship. And the best way to do is either not to discuss or discuss it on purely scholarly way, without putting bias into it. It probably strengthens friendship. As is my experience.

As far as Jinnah is concerned. I am not a fan because he is a founder of nation. But what a politician should be. Principled, determined, vision.

He started his career as a secretary to I think some Hindu leader. He was a member of both congress and Muslim league at the same time. His main emphasis was safeguarding the interests of Muslims in Indian Union. His shock came, when in 1928, Nehru Report was not enough in safeguarding the Muslim interest in United India and he proposed 14 points. Which was blatantly rejected by Congress. Muslims were divided into Congress, Religious parties and Muslim League. Later, I think same thing happened in Round table conference in early 30`s and he was very much dejected with Politics in India and went back to England to start his practice. It were Sir Wazeer Hasan and Liaquat Ali Khan I think, who went to England and pursuaded him to come and take the leadership of Muslim League to safeguard the interests of Muslims. When he came back, Muslim League was shattered and only real platform for Muslims was Congress. The routing of Muslim League in 1937 and formation of Congress Government with full majority, lead to events like, singing of Bande Matram etc etc took the veil of secularism off the face of Congress and Muslims start to realize the danger of a Hindu majority rule. But even after that, being the most visionary politician of his time, he tried to convince Congress of safeguarding the interests of Muslims constitutionally. One of which was to give Muslims in Central Cabinet 34% of seats, but Congress persisted on 33%. Basically, It was Congress, which thought that it is the sole representative of all the groups in India, including Muslims. After, Cripps and Cabinet mission, in election of 1946, it was obvious that Muslim League was the representatives of Muslims, as it has conclusively defeated Congress, from Muslim seats. But that was hard for Congress to accept. If Congress would have accepted this fact, the transfer of power hastily done than expected (it was to be done in 1948) would not result in so much massacre. But Congress was busy cornering Muslim League, which resulted in massacres, where tensions were high on both sides. For Muslims, it was a new land and new opportunities, for Hindus, it was sacrilege of Hinduvta. (You can have some analogy with Kashmir, where there is continuous massacre and I don`t know who would you blame). Even after the formation of Pakistan, Congress tried to hinder the trasfer of assets (And one of the demands for which Gandhiji was killed was the transfer of assets to Pakistan, which was stopped by Congress effectively crippling Pakistan).

Blaming, Jinnah for this crime is your pure bias, and which is definitely a very effective friendship cutter.

As far as reference to enmity to Master Tara Singh by Pakistanis. Most Pakistanis including me don`t know who Tara Singh was except a reference by Jinnah when he told Tara Singh, that you are going to join India, you will realize later (meaning you will have to do a second struggle). Considering the Khalistan movement and massacre of Sikhs etc, I don`t think Jinnah was far off the point.

As far as you referring the Prophet as massacre of jew. Since you have given reference regarding the book, I think the book seems a little biased.

It was Ghazwa Ahzab. The Jews living in Medina had a treaty of friendship with Muslims. When people of Meccah attcked Muslims, Muslims made a trench around Medina. There were some weak spots particularly, where there were castles of jews. During the war, Muslims were in weak position, and almost all of them were in war front. The jews conspired with attakers believing that Meccans would win, which became known. Later due to bad weather and epidemic, Meccans returned home. When the case of jews was brought forth, jews selected one of the jew who (I think became Muslim) and jews accepted him as arbiter to decide. He decided according to jewish scripture the punishment. And that is the story behind your Montgomery`s massacre of jews by Prophet PBUH.

Ok ... I read your post completely and I am sure you know how I feel about the whole thing. I never wanted to lose this friendship but I always knew that something like this would eventually happen.

Now as far as anything else goes ... it was the fact that you have constantly refused to research or even change some of the opinions you have made.

I referred a book to you which was by a Congressite person .... so I obviously assumed that you really are criticizing without reading...

I am glad that you accept Pakistan ... if you read Ayesha Jalal`s book you ll probably change your mind about Jinnah but that doesnt mean that you will become the proponent of the 2 nation theory ... I dont want you to become anything that goes against what you are... I dont want you to become pro Pakistani and I dont want you to become a Muslim because then in my eyes you will lose your integrity and what makes you what you are ... so dont say that I am trying to mould you into a certain way because I admire the way you are ... the nationalistic idealistic Prem who believes in India and who believes in himself. The only problem I had was probably with your stubbourness ... it is true that countless times I have bashed India ... but it is also true that countless times I have appreciated you, your country and your culture ... let me make it clear that on my own I dont hate India, I never did I never will ... I only hate it in retaliation... there is one thing I do do on my own ... I love Pakistan ... for Pakistan is all I am ... nothing more nothing less .... If anyone in this world can understand this ... its u because you feel the same way about India ....

So there are 2 ways open to us

1) We can stop being friends and let our nationalisms take on an anti Indian or anti Pakistani out look ...

2) or we can be friends and develop and outward looking Nationalisms which derives its vitality from the love of the country from within instead of the hatred for others ... and we can learn about each other`s country more .....

I prefer the latter option ... so the choice is yours .....



Inshallah you will make the right choice ...Nobody wants anything they hold so close to their heart to be based on hatred ....

Hopefuly you will once again accept my invitation to go to Pakistan on the 19th of July.....

Pakistan Zindabad

Quaid e Azam Zindabad

Ataturk Zindabad

Jiye Bhutto

Imran Khan for PM

-Yasser Hamdani