Indians and Pakistanis Must Start Anew
Udayakumar June 27, 2000
#113 Posted by mohajir on June 29, 2000 1:41:19 am
Looks like Pakistan will now also object to Indian Ocean because it has ``India`` in it.
South Asia is not ``Indian subcontinent`` -Pakistan
Reuters
Jun 26 2000 12:38PM ET
ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan said Monday that South Asia should not be called the ``Indian subcontinent`` and accused arch-rival India of using this description to manifest its ``long-cherished dream of exercising hegemony in the region.``
``As India is only one of the countries of Asia, the term `Indian subcontinent` is entirely inappropriate as a description for the whole region,`` a Foreign Ministry spokesman said in a statement.
He said he was objecting to the reported use of the term by Indian Home (interior) Minister Lal Krishnan Advani while talking to reporters in Paris last Monday after talks with his French counterpart Jean-Pierre Chevenement.
``Its use betrays India`s long-cherished dream of exercising hegemony in the region, a dream that India has failed to realize and which it will never succeed in achieving,`` he said.
He said another recent statement by Advani proposing a confederation in the subcontinent was ``also reflective of the same unfortunate mindset.``
``The government of Pakistan, therefore, hopes that use of the term `Indian subcontinent` to refer to South Asia will be avoided,`` the spokesman said.
The ``Indian subcontinent`` has been used to describe the area covered by five countries -- India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan and Nepal -- which, together with Sri Lanka and the Maldives, form the seven-nation South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation group.
South Asia is not ``Indian subcontinent`` -Pakistan
Reuters
Jun 26 2000 12:38PM ET
ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan said Monday that South Asia should not be called the ``Indian subcontinent`` and accused arch-rival India of using this description to manifest its ``long-cherished dream of exercising hegemony in the region.``
``As India is only one of the countries of Asia, the term `Indian subcontinent` is entirely inappropriate as a description for the whole region,`` a Foreign Ministry spokesman said in a statement.
He said he was objecting to the reported use of the term by Indian Home (interior) Minister Lal Krishnan Advani while talking to reporters in Paris last Monday after talks with his French counterpart Jean-Pierre Chevenement.
``Its use betrays India`s long-cherished dream of exercising hegemony in the region, a dream that India has failed to realize and which it will never succeed in achieving,`` he said.
He said another recent statement by Advani proposing a confederation in the subcontinent was ``also reflective of the same unfortunate mindset.``
``The government of Pakistan, therefore, hopes that use of the term `Indian subcontinent` to refer to South Asia will be avoided,`` the spokesman said.
The ``Indian subcontinent`` has been used to describe the area covered by five countries -- India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan and Nepal -- which, together with Sri Lanka and the Maldives, form the seven-nation South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation group.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#114 Posted by Umairr on June 29, 2000 1:41:19 am
macgupta #112: You seem to have missed part of my reply. Please read all of it. Perhaps, I was unclear.
``So why is everyone fighting about a partition, or laying claim to a historical culture? The only people who should be complaining about the partition are the British (whose empire was broken up when Pakistan and India came into existence), AND THE STATES LIKE PUNJAB (note: this touches on what you mentioned in #112) which were broken into two parts at partition.``
I think the last sentence covers your query. The point I was trying to make was that the Sub-Continent had all the makings of breaking into more states than it did. No one can, nor should, force people to live together, if they do not want to. In my opinion, it is religion that has actually kept the division of South Asia into just three countries, and not twenty three countries. It is the common factor which united the twenty or so historically independent areas in South Asia into three independent nations.
When it comes down to it, Islam is the only common factor amongst the four provinces of Pakistan (at least during the early days of Pakistan). Pakistan is now evolving a common culture, which will be a combination of the combined cultures of its provinces. This combined culture will take decades, if not centuries, to override the individual cultures of the provinces. Similarly, Hinduism is the common thread that allowed historically independent states to form India. For some reason, Indians don`t want to admit this. However, do you really think India would be one country, if each of its provinces had a completely different religion? They already had different languages, cultures, and histories; with separate religions, there would have been no common bond.
The other point I was trying to make was that India (or Pakistan) cannot lay claim to a historical national culture, since they only came into existence in 1947. The culture belongs to independent states that consituted the area. Do I as a Punjabi/Kashmiri share a common culture with a South Indian? I only share a common culture with an Indian Punjabi or a Kashmiri. How can a South Indian lay claim to the fact that Punjabis, Kashmiris and South Indians were one nation before the partition, and so should have continued to remain one nation?
Also, India and Pakistan broke away from the British empire. I have yet to figure out how (and why) Indians have come to the conclusion that Pakistan broke away from India, when India actually came into existence one day after Pakistan. How can India claim to be the inheritor of the South Asian culture, when India itself never existed before 1947? Infact, Muslims could make (an equally ridiculous) claim that South Asian states should still be Hindu majorities ruled by Muslim minorities. If Indians feel that the status quo of South Asia is based on one giant state, then the above should be acceptable to them, since that is how things were for 800 years. I doubt any Hindu Indian would accept being ruled by a Muslim minority, yet Hindu Indians (for some strange reason) are bent upon suggesting that Muslims should have agreed to live as a minority in a majority Hindu state of united India. Don`t you see the inconsistency in that? No one wants to live as a minority in a place where they do not feel safe.
I am not quite sure why you brought migration into it. I never mentioned it in my reply. Since you have mentioned it, I would like to point out that migration is the last resort of a person in fear. People only migrate if they feel they will be worse off if they do not migrate. Muslims wanted a separate state, not because they had a separate religion (if this were the case, then they would demand a separate state in every country in which they are a minority). Muslims demanded a separate state because they felt due to their religion, they would suffer in a combined India. At a later stage, Bangladeshis demanded a separate state for similar reasons. Not because they were of a different ethnicity, but because they felt that due to their ethnicity they were suffering in a combined Pakistan. Religion and ethnicities, in and of themselves, are never enough to demand a separate country. It is the discrimination that people feel due to their religion and ethnicities that causes them to demand a separate land. That is why Pakistani Muslims would not want to live in a combined India, but are more than happy to migrate to US and live as a minority.
Migrations and the killings related to partition, are the unfortunate consequences of a partition. Just like divorce is the unfortunate consequence of an unworkable marraige. However, the fact that people are willing to migrate (or get a divorce), despite all its harmful effects, is an indication that they would be worse off, if they did not.
Ideally speaking, I think Muslims could have given it a shot at living in a joint India with Hindus. However, this would have been based on one condition. If, at a later stage, the Muslims felt they were being discriminated against by the majority (more than likely to occur in a third-world country), then the Hindus should have peacefully allowed the Muslims to form their separate country, through a referendum (much like Quebec). If the Muslims did not discriminated against, then they could continue in a united India.
Would India have allowed Muslims to separate peacefully, at a later stage, if required. Unfortunately, after seeing the way Indians are treating Kashmiris, the answer is an obvious, ``no.`` Now, if India had allowed the Kashmiris to peacefully decide their own future, then Indians would have some sort of an argument about the success of a giant united India. Unfortunately, with their actions in Kashmir, Indians have justified the Pakistanis worst fears about living as a minority in a united giant India. Keeping that in mind, I am quite glad my grandparents generation struck when the iron was hot.
``So why is everyone fighting about a partition, or laying claim to a historical culture? The only people who should be complaining about the partition are the British (whose empire was broken up when Pakistan and India came into existence), AND THE STATES LIKE PUNJAB (note: this touches on what you mentioned in #112) which were broken into two parts at partition.``
I think the last sentence covers your query. The point I was trying to make was that the Sub-Continent had all the makings of breaking into more states than it did. No one can, nor should, force people to live together, if they do not want to. In my opinion, it is religion that has actually kept the division of South Asia into just three countries, and not twenty three countries. It is the common factor which united the twenty or so historically independent areas in South Asia into three independent nations.
When it comes down to it, Islam is the only common factor amongst the four provinces of Pakistan (at least during the early days of Pakistan). Pakistan is now evolving a common culture, which will be a combination of the combined cultures of its provinces. This combined culture will take decades, if not centuries, to override the individual cultures of the provinces. Similarly, Hinduism is the common thread that allowed historically independent states to form India. For some reason, Indians don`t want to admit this. However, do you really think India would be one country, if each of its provinces had a completely different religion? They already had different languages, cultures, and histories; with separate religions, there would have been no common bond.
The other point I was trying to make was that India (or Pakistan) cannot lay claim to a historical national culture, since they only came into existence in 1947. The culture belongs to independent states that consituted the area. Do I as a Punjabi/Kashmiri share a common culture with a South Indian? I only share a common culture with an Indian Punjabi or a Kashmiri. How can a South Indian lay claim to the fact that Punjabis, Kashmiris and South Indians were one nation before the partition, and so should have continued to remain one nation?
Also, India and Pakistan broke away from the British empire. I have yet to figure out how (and why) Indians have come to the conclusion that Pakistan broke away from India, when India actually came into existence one day after Pakistan. How can India claim to be the inheritor of the South Asian culture, when India itself never existed before 1947? Infact, Muslims could make (an equally ridiculous) claim that South Asian states should still be Hindu majorities ruled by Muslim minorities. If Indians feel that the status quo of South Asia is based on one giant state, then the above should be acceptable to them, since that is how things were for 800 years. I doubt any Hindu Indian would accept being ruled by a Muslim minority, yet Hindu Indians (for some strange reason) are bent upon suggesting that Muslims should have agreed to live as a minority in a majority Hindu state of united India. Don`t you see the inconsistency in that? No one wants to live as a minority in a place where they do not feel safe.
I am not quite sure why you brought migration into it. I never mentioned it in my reply. Since you have mentioned it, I would like to point out that migration is the last resort of a person in fear. People only migrate if they feel they will be worse off if they do not migrate. Muslims wanted a separate state, not because they had a separate religion (if this were the case, then they would demand a separate state in every country in which they are a minority). Muslims demanded a separate state because they felt due to their religion, they would suffer in a combined India. At a later stage, Bangladeshis demanded a separate state for similar reasons. Not because they were of a different ethnicity, but because they felt that due to their ethnicity they were suffering in a combined Pakistan. Religion and ethnicities, in and of themselves, are never enough to demand a separate country. It is the discrimination that people feel due to their religion and ethnicities that causes them to demand a separate land. That is why Pakistani Muslims would not want to live in a combined India, but are more than happy to migrate to US and live as a minority.
Migrations and the killings related to partition, are the unfortunate consequences of a partition. Just like divorce is the unfortunate consequence of an unworkable marraige. However, the fact that people are willing to migrate (or get a divorce), despite all its harmful effects, is an indication that they would be worse off, if they did not.
Ideally speaking, I think Muslims could have given it a shot at living in a joint India with Hindus. However, this would have been based on one condition. If, at a later stage, the Muslims felt they were being discriminated against by the majority (more than likely to occur in a third-world country), then the Hindus should have peacefully allowed the Muslims to form their separate country, through a referendum (much like Quebec). If the Muslims did not discriminated against, then they could continue in a united India.
Would India have allowed Muslims to separate peacefully, at a later stage, if required. Unfortunately, after seeing the way Indians are treating Kashmiris, the answer is an obvious, ``no.`` Now, if India had allowed the Kashmiris to peacefully decide their own future, then Indians would have some sort of an argument about the success of a giant united India. Unfortunately, with their actions in Kashmir, Indians have justified the Pakistanis worst fears about living as a minority in a united giant India. Keeping that in mind, I am quite glad my grandparents generation struck when the iron was hot.
#115 Posted by Hum log on June 29, 2000 1:41:19 am
Ref: UdayaKumar
This is exactly how a sensitive issue should not be handled. Without doubting honest intentions of the writer, it is my opinion that animosity between people, nations, groups is a product of many complex issues, one of which is fear of being assimilated or absorbed. Writer possibly thought that he will draw big applause from the readers but unfortunately the reaction is negative from both sides.
It is difficult to fortell what future holds for all of us but if ever India and Pakistn were to live peaceful then first and foremost need is to become good neighbours. This requires good borders and by borders I do not mean barbed wires but a policy of keeping away from peeping into each other`s affairs. There should be no government support to any group spreading hatred against each other. Kashmir issue should be solved by plebiscite after a cool off period of 5-10 years with a choice of becoming independent.
Our politicians have let us down but people are equally responsible to fall into their slogans. India and Pakistan both need good, open, responsive democracies where every individual is powerful so that he or she does not have to join a group to be heard. Central government in India and Army in Pakistan has too much power and they need to delegate most of the power to states and local governments.
Well I can go on. Bottom line is this. Let us respect Pakistan as a nation. I am with those Pakistanis who have shown their displeasure. Idea of a unification causes more harm than good. It magnifies the mistrust. Let us live as good neighbours first.
Peace first and always
This is exactly how a sensitive issue should not be handled. Without doubting honest intentions of the writer, it is my opinion that animosity between people, nations, groups is a product of many complex issues, one of which is fear of being assimilated or absorbed. Writer possibly thought that he will draw big applause from the readers but unfortunately the reaction is negative from both sides.
It is difficult to fortell what future holds for all of us but if ever India and Pakistn were to live peaceful then first and foremost need is to become good neighbours. This requires good borders and by borders I do not mean barbed wires but a policy of keeping away from peeping into each other`s affairs. There should be no government support to any group spreading hatred against each other. Kashmir issue should be solved by plebiscite after a cool off period of 5-10 years with a choice of becoming independent.
Our politicians have let us down but people are equally responsible to fall into their slogans. India and Pakistan both need good, open, responsive democracies where every individual is powerful so that he or she does not have to join a group to be heard. Central government in India and Army in Pakistan has too much power and they need to delegate most of the power to states and local governments.
Well I can go on. Bottom line is this. Let us respect Pakistan as a nation. I am with those Pakistanis who have shown their displeasure. Idea of a unification causes more harm than good. It magnifies the mistrust. Let us live as good neighbours first.
Peace first and always
#116 Posted by krashid on June 29, 2000 2:58:09 am
Anil Kumar #105
Ottoman Empire, which was basically a continuation of previous Muslim Empire, mostly ruled on predominatly Muslim subjects in Asia and Africa. Their European Incursions they could not keep but its evidence is still in the form of Muslims in Balkan region.
What caused the Europe to advance rapidly and Muslim world into slumber is to be discovered.
It may be related to many factors.
The trade and intellectual activities in Muslim world was at its height. The European basically came into interaction with Muslims during crusades and in Spain.
JR # 104
Although Pakistan remains at the verge of default, but people of Pakistan are in good position. The idea of Pakistan was the economic progress of Muslims and which they feared will not be possible with Hindu domination.
Korakoram #102
Although you are writing that Amnesty International does not care about Terrorist (freedom fighters). It cares. The human right abuses it reports is death under custody. Attacks on civilian population by armed forces and other crimes by state on its civilian. It clearly says that terrorist encounter (freedom struggle) is not in its agenda, nor is it there to support for or against it.
That is why Amnesty International is gold standard for human right abuses by every country. You can dispute its findings, but you cannot dispute its impartiality.
Kabuliwallah #101
You are stating that India does not want to gobble up Pakistan. First of all this a great fear among Pakistanis. 2nd considering the history of India in Kashmir how can one trust you, while most of your compatriots are saying that Kashmir is past of India. While Indian forces were invited by Hari Singh just to prevent attack by Pakistan and to keep them there until the wishes of Kashmiris are known. Now instead of knowing the wishes of Kashmiris, you people are claiming it to be part of India.
Scout #88,89
I totally agree with points made in both of your posts.
YLH #many posts.
There will never be consensus in Pakistan regarding which direction to be taken. There will always be Islamist, liberals, ethnicities etc. To get out of this morass, education and Economic progress is the key. And to stop labelling every voice of dissent as anti-Islam, anti-Pakistan and pro Indian.
Ottoman Empire, which was basically a continuation of previous Muslim Empire, mostly ruled on predominatly Muslim subjects in Asia and Africa. Their European Incursions they could not keep but its evidence is still in the form of Muslims in Balkan region.
What caused the Europe to advance rapidly and Muslim world into slumber is to be discovered.
It may be related to many factors.
The trade and intellectual activities in Muslim world was at its height. The European basically came into interaction with Muslims during crusades and in Spain.
JR # 104
Although Pakistan remains at the verge of default, but people of Pakistan are in good position. The idea of Pakistan was the economic progress of Muslims and which they feared will not be possible with Hindu domination.
Korakoram #102
Although you are writing that Amnesty International does not care about Terrorist (freedom fighters). It cares. The human right abuses it reports is death under custody. Attacks on civilian population by armed forces and other crimes by state on its civilian. It clearly says that terrorist encounter (freedom struggle) is not in its agenda, nor is it there to support for or against it.
That is why Amnesty International is gold standard for human right abuses by every country. You can dispute its findings, but you cannot dispute its impartiality.
Kabuliwallah #101
You are stating that India does not want to gobble up Pakistan. First of all this a great fear among Pakistanis. 2nd considering the history of India in Kashmir how can one trust you, while most of your compatriots are saying that Kashmir is past of India. While Indian forces were invited by Hari Singh just to prevent attack by Pakistan and to keep them there until the wishes of Kashmiris are known. Now instead of knowing the wishes of Kashmiris, you people are claiming it to be part of India.
Scout #88,89
I totally agree with points made in both of your posts.
YLH #many posts.
There will never be consensus in Pakistan regarding which direction to be taken. There will always be Islamist, liberals, ethnicities etc. To get out of this morass, education and Economic progress is the key. And to stop labelling every voice of dissent as anti-Islam, anti-Pakistan and pro Indian.
#117 Posted by mannyd on June 29, 2000 2:58:09 am
Dear Mr. Udayakumar,
Thanks for a well written and bold article. You have rightly pointed out the root cause of friction between India and Pakistan, namely the botched up divison of British India. There are some sincere proposals to remedy the animosity between the two countries, but they address only superficial symptoms. Some examples:
1. Allow HR organizations to enter Kashmir. Will this stop the influx of Jihadis?
2. Give the right of self-determination to Kashmiris. Kashmir was one of 550 `Indian` states. Was this right given to any other state? Why are 3 million Kashmiri muslims so special compared to 130 million Indian Muslims? Why not mini-Pakistans all over India?
3. Give autonomy to Kashmir. What have the other states done not to get the same right?
It has been the dream of Pakistani military planners to break up India into managable smaller pieces. Your proposal gives them their dream on a silver platter.
There have been so many indignant posts about slaughter of innocent Muslims and christians in India. Your proposal gives Pak Army an open invitation to interfere in India`s internal affairs.
Yes, despite these overlooked concessions and costs to India, I second your vision of a Unified Greater Pakistan (or call it Akhanda Pakistan if you must). Pakistan, supposedly the homeland for all Muslims of South Asia is a house divided against itself. I have seen enough Pakistani posters on Chowk, who would make eminent leaders to lead this Union. Then there are some, who could not win the elections for `Dog catcher of Lahore`, if there were one to be held. They would be the most vociferous opponents of such a proposal.
A slogan of Muslim Leauge in 1947 was:
`` Hans ke liya hai Pakistan
Lad Ke lenge Hindustan ``
Your bold proposal offers Hindustan without any Ladai. Any takers from Pakistan?
A question for the scholars on Chowk: How many Koreans died during the Korean war? Was it more or less than the number killed during 1947?
Thanks for a well written and bold article. You have rightly pointed out the root cause of friction between India and Pakistan, namely the botched up divison of British India. There are some sincere proposals to remedy the animosity between the two countries, but they address only superficial symptoms. Some examples:
1. Allow HR organizations to enter Kashmir. Will this stop the influx of Jihadis?
2. Give the right of self-determination to Kashmiris. Kashmir was one of 550 `Indian` states. Was this right given to any other state? Why are 3 million Kashmiri muslims so special compared to 130 million Indian Muslims? Why not mini-Pakistans all over India?
3. Give autonomy to Kashmir. What have the other states done not to get the same right?
It has been the dream of Pakistani military planners to break up India into managable smaller pieces. Your proposal gives them their dream on a silver platter.
There have been so many indignant posts about slaughter of innocent Muslims and christians in India. Your proposal gives Pak Army an open invitation to interfere in India`s internal affairs.
Yes, despite these overlooked concessions and costs to India, I second your vision of a Unified Greater Pakistan (or call it Akhanda Pakistan if you must). Pakistan, supposedly the homeland for all Muslims of South Asia is a house divided against itself. I have seen enough Pakistani posters on Chowk, who would make eminent leaders to lead this Union. Then there are some, who could not win the elections for `Dog catcher of Lahore`, if there were one to be held. They would be the most vociferous opponents of such a proposal.
A slogan of Muslim Leauge in 1947 was:
`` Hans ke liya hai Pakistan
Lad Ke lenge Hindustan ``
Your bold proposal offers Hindustan without any Ladai. Any takers from Pakistan?
A question for the scholars on Chowk: How many Koreans died during the Korean war? Was it more or less than the number killed during 1947?
#118 Posted by fuzair on June 29, 2000 2:58:09 am
Whew! Quite a donnybrook going on here! I agree with the view that the Partition of the British Indian Empire was a mistake and certainly not a decision that the Muslim majority areas of Pakistan wanted. The evidence would seem to suggest that Mr. Jinnah did not want partition either, using the threat of it as the ultimate bargaining chip. He succeeded to the extent that the Cabinet Mission Plan offered an Indian confederation with two muslim majority areas that satisfied him but not Mr. Nehru.
As I pointed out in an earlier post on a different thread, the BJP and its friends would choke on an additional 300 million Muslims in India. We would be better off with 800+ million non-Muslims to keep our Maulana this-idiot and Maulana that-idiot in check. Alas for missed opportunities.
All this having been said, I would have to disagree with those, mainly Indian Hindus, that seem to hold the belief that we can somehow reunify peacefully. The only peaceful reunification was that of East and West Germany adn that took place because (i) the E. German state imploded and (2) the W. Germans (and presumably the Ossis as well) all thought of the division as an artificial one orchestrated by the hated Russians.
After 50 years of hatred and warfare (something not found in the German case), I seriously doubt that the conditions for reunification are ever likely to occur. In any case, why would the Indians want all these millions of additonal Muslims? N. Ireland and the Irish Republic are a similar split-state and you don`t see them rushing to reunify do you?
As I pointed out in an earlier post on a different thread, the BJP and its friends would choke on an additional 300 million Muslims in India. We would be better off with 800+ million non-Muslims to keep our Maulana this-idiot and Maulana that-idiot in check. Alas for missed opportunities.
All this having been said, I would have to disagree with those, mainly Indian Hindus, that seem to hold the belief that we can somehow reunify peacefully. The only peaceful reunification was that of East and West Germany adn that took place because (i) the E. German state imploded and (2) the W. Germans (and presumably the Ossis as well) all thought of the division as an artificial one orchestrated by the hated Russians.
After 50 years of hatred and warfare (something not found in the German case), I seriously doubt that the conditions for reunification are ever likely to occur. In any case, why would the Indians want all these millions of additonal Muslims? N. Ireland and the Irish Republic are a similar split-state and you don`t see them rushing to reunify do you?
#119 Posted by Vicky on June 29, 2000 2:58:09 am
Ummair #116
I think you are really going overboard trying to prove that there never was India. It looks like you digested your history and geography lessons without the benefit of a reasoning mind. Some of your assertions are mind blowing
–You say there was nothing like India before 1947. Simple question what did the British refer to and administer the land mass AND the people as? What did the mughals and all the other rulers refer to the land mass as for 2000 years ? How did the West Indies get their names ? How did the red Indians be called Red Indians? Where do you think Huen Tsang said he was going to ? Are you trying to change the way we, Indians or the world looked at us by repeatedly carrying on with your vague theories? Understand clearly that national borders of most modern nation states were drawn in the past 100-200 years your argument is not even pretending to be intelligent.
–Actually, you will have more in common with some of your cousins then other Punjabi/Kashmiris, so do you want to exclude all others from Pakistan? A Kerala Muslim might have less in common with a Punjabi Muslim compared to a UP Muslim, But all three of them are likely to have more in common than a Yemenite or an Indonesian. Differences and similarities are relative. Nations have been built on common history, culture and religion in that order, and boundries have been more often than not compromises between rulers. There was/is more `commonness` in the ancient land called India most other countries in the world.
–You say muslim minority ruled Hindu majority. For your KI & R that was a minority of one. And don’t attempt to confuse a monarchy with a democracy.
In the interest of having a better discussion, I suggest you raise your level of analysis beyond religious jingoism. This, I am aware you can.
Regards
Vikram
I think you are really going overboard trying to prove that there never was India. It looks like you digested your history and geography lessons without the benefit of a reasoning mind. Some of your assertions are mind blowing
–You say there was nothing like India before 1947. Simple question what did the British refer to and administer the land mass AND the people as? What did the mughals and all the other rulers refer to the land mass as for 2000 years ? How did the West Indies get their names ? How did the red Indians be called Red Indians? Where do you think Huen Tsang said he was going to ? Are you trying to change the way we, Indians or the world looked at us by repeatedly carrying on with your vague theories? Understand clearly that national borders of most modern nation states were drawn in the past 100-200 years your argument is not even pretending to be intelligent.
–Actually, you will have more in common with some of your cousins then other Punjabi/Kashmiris, so do you want to exclude all others from Pakistan? A Kerala Muslim might have less in common with a Punjabi Muslim compared to a UP Muslim, But all three of them are likely to have more in common than a Yemenite or an Indonesian. Differences and similarities are relative. Nations have been built on common history, culture and religion in that order, and boundries have been more often than not compromises between rulers. There was/is more `commonness` in the ancient land called India most other countries in the world.
–You say muslim minority ruled Hindu majority. For your KI & R that was a minority of one. And don’t attempt to confuse a monarchy with a democracy.
In the interest of having a better discussion, I suggest you raise your level of analysis beyond religious jingoism. This, I am aware you can.
Regards
Vikram
#120 Posted by mannyd on June 29, 2000 2:58:09 am
Dear Mr. Udayakumar,
Thanks for a well written and bold article. You have rightly pointed out the root cause of friction between India and Pakistan, namely the botched up divison of British India. There are some sincere proposals to remedy the animosity between the two countries, but they address only superficial symptoms. Some examples:
1. Allow HR organizations to enter Kashmir. Will this stop the influx of Jihadis?
2. Give the right of self-determination to Kashmiris. Kashmir was one of 550 `Indian` states. Was this right given to any other state? Why are 3 million Kashmiri muslims so special compared to 130 million Indian Muslims? Why not mini-Pakistans all over India?
3. Give autonomy to Kashmir. What have the other states done not to get the same right?
It has been the dream of Pakistani military planners to break up India into managable smaller pieces. Your proposal gives them their dream on a silver platter.
There have been so many indignant posts about slaughter of innocent Muslims and christians in India. Your proposal gives Pak Army an open invitation to interfere in India`s internal affairs.
Yes, despite these overlooked concessions and costs to India, I second your vision of a Unified Greater Pakistan (or call it Akhanda Pakistan if you must). Pakistan, supposedly the homeland for all Muslims of South Asia is a house divided against itself. I have seen enough Pakistani posters on Chowk, who would make eminent leaders to lead this Union. Then there are some, who could not win the elections for `Dog catcher of Lahore`, if there were one to be held. They would be the most vociferous opponents of such a proposal.
A slogan of Muslim Leauge in 1947 was:
`` Hans ke liya hai Pakistan
Lad Ke lenge Hindustan ``
Your bold proposal offers Hindustan without any Ladai. Any takers from Pakistan?
A question for the scholars on Chowk: How many Koreans died during the Korean war? Was it more or less than the number killed during 1947?
Thanks for a well written and bold article. You have rightly pointed out the root cause of friction between India and Pakistan, namely the botched up divison of British India. There are some sincere proposals to remedy the animosity between the two countries, but they address only superficial symptoms. Some examples:
1. Allow HR organizations to enter Kashmir. Will this stop the influx of Jihadis?
2. Give the right of self-determination to Kashmiris. Kashmir was one of 550 `Indian` states. Was this right given to any other state? Why are 3 million Kashmiri muslims so special compared to 130 million Indian Muslims? Why not mini-Pakistans all over India?
3. Give autonomy to Kashmir. What have the other states done not to get the same right?
It has been the dream of Pakistani military planners to break up India into managable smaller pieces. Your proposal gives them their dream on a silver platter.
There have been so many indignant posts about slaughter of innocent Muslims and christians in India. Your proposal gives Pak Army an open invitation to interfere in India`s internal affairs.
Yes, despite these overlooked concessions and costs to India, I second your vision of a Unified Greater Pakistan (or call it Akhanda Pakistan if you must). Pakistan, supposedly the homeland for all Muslims of South Asia is a house divided against itself. I have seen enough Pakistani posters on Chowk, who would make eminent leaders to lead this Union. Then there are some, who could not win the elections for `Dog catcher of Lahore`, if there were one to be held. They would be the most vociferous opponents of such a proposal.
A slogan of Muslim Leauge in 1947 was:
`` Hans ke liya hai Pakistan
Lad Ke lenge Hindustan ``
Your bold proposal offers Hindustan without any Ladai. Any takers from Pakistan?
A question for the scholars on Chowk: How many Koreans died during the Korean war? Was it more or less than the number killed during 1947?
#121 Posted by Umairr on June 29, 2000 4:41:15 am
mannyd #120: ``Allow HR organizations to enter Kashmir. Will this stop the influx of Jihadis?``
Are you suggesting that HR organizations should not be allowed into Kashmir!!! What is there to hide? How in the world can someone oppose internationally recognized HR organizations? They are the salt of the earth. Is the average Indian willing to go to such lengths to ensure that civilians in Kashmir continue to get killed? Anyone with an iota of respect for human life will support HR organizations; at the very least they will not oppose them. It is one thing to hate Pakistanis and Kashmiris, but I hope that Indians don`t HR organizations also. I also hope there are at least some Indians left, who have enough courage to not toe their govts.` line on not allowing HR organizations entrance into Kashmir.
The purpose of HR organizations is not to take action against anyone. They cannot kick out the Indian army, nor can they kick out the militants from Kashmir. Their purpose is to notify the world of what is exactly going on in an impartial manner. Organizations like Amnesty International have a great deal of credibility. If you are so convinced that the Kashmir problem is being caused by, ``Jehadis,`` then you should be in favor of HR organizations entering Kashmir. They may confirm your views. However, until the Indian govt. allows internationally recognized HR organizations entrance into Kashmir, the rest of the world has no choice, but to assume, that India has quite a bit to hide in Kashmir. Your statements only seem to be augmenting this point.
Are you suggesting that HR organizations should not be allowed into Kashmir!!! What is there to hide? How in the world can someone oppose internationally recognized HR organizations? They are the salt of the earth. Is the average Indian willing to go to such lengths to ensure that civilians in Kashmir continue to get killed? Anyone with an iota of respect for human life will support HR organizations; at the very least they will not oppose them. It is one thing to hate Pakistanis and Kashmiris, but I hope that Indians don`t HR organizations also. I also hope there are at least some Indians left, who have enough courage to not toe their govts.` line on not allowing HR organizations entrance into Kashmir.
The purpose of HR organizations is not to take action against anyone. They cannot kick out the Indian army, nor can they kick out the militants from Kashmir. Their purpose is to notify the world of what is exactly going on in an impartial manner. Organizations like Amnesty International have a great deal of credibility. If you are so convinced that the Kashmir problem is being caused by, ``Jehadis,`` then you should be in favor of HR organizations entering Kashmir. They may confirm your views. However, until the Indian govt. allows internationally recognized HR organizations entrance into Kashmir, the rest of the world has no choice, but to assume, that India has quite a bit to hide in Kashmir. Your statements only seem to be augmenting this point.
#122 Posted by Cheema on June 29, 2000 7:44:14 am
Daer Udayakumar,
I praise you for taking a very bold yet ambitious step. I am happy there can be a dialogoue with Indians through chowk. You have seen the reaction of an average Pakistani in the form of replies from ``ylh``. Well there are difficulties on both sides of the border and we should start to educate our masses particularly younger generation. Pakistani on their part are wrong when they try to deny the Indian influence on their customs, culture, even religion etc. Similarly Indian reactionary/nationalist movements (RSS,Shiv Sena) must accept and absorb the foreign influences either Central Asian, Turkish, Arab, that have incurred on them for a period of centuries. Lets hope to breed an ecclectical and tolerant South Asain society, nothing can remain pure in evolutionary universe, to deny change is to deny life.
Pakistan and India make some sort of confederation - this is the need of the time! I some time wonder if it was a British conspiracy to divide the two countries and prevent leaving behind a super power in the making. Just think how much the two countries have spent on defence against each other in the last fifty years, if that money would have been spent on human resource develop things would have been a lot better.
In the end, for ylh - its not your fault to be such a jingoist, everyone is brainwashed in this country through biased textbooks and mullah. Try to read unbiased history of Partition. And remember only those people use cheap language who have ran out of reason.
Truly,
Cheema,
Islamabad.
I praise you for taking a very bold yet ambitious step. I am happy there can be a dialogoue with Indians through chowk. You have seen the reaction of an average Pakistani in the form of replies from ``ylh``. Well there are difficulties on both sides of the border and we should start to educate our masses particularly younger generation. Pakistani on their part are wrong when they try to deny the Indian influence on their customs, culture, even religion etc. Similarly Indian reactionary/nationalist movements (RSS,Shiv Sena) must accept and absorb the foreign influences either Central Asian, Turkish, Arab, that have incurred on them for a period of centuries. Lets hope to breed an ecclectical and tolerant South Asain society, nothing can remain pure in evolutionary universe, to deny change is to deny life.
Pakistan and India make some sort of confederation - this is the need of the time! I some time wonder if it was a British conspiracy to divide the two countries and prevent leaving behind a super power in the making. Just think how much the two countries have spent on defence against each other in the last fifty years, if that money would have been spent on human resource develop things would have been a lot better.
In the end, for ylh - its not your fault to be such a jingoist, everyone is brainwashed in this country through biased textbooks and mullah. Try to read unbiased history of Partition. And remember only those people use cheap language who have ran out of reason.
Truly,
Cheema,
Islamabad.
#123 Posted by dL on June 29, 2000 8:57:24 am
re:
cheema: Its a bit unfair to describe ylh`s `posts` as Pakistani. He is not the product of a Pakistani educational system (as I am sure he is bound to assure you in an upcoming or previous barrage - depending on when my post turns up) ... so please don`t label him as representative ...
Infact, it`s amazing this chap is actually a product of `a uniformly foreign` education and by his own admission has read a variety of objective texts on the subject. Maybe its time this education was tempered with some serious time spent in Pakistan?
Pakistani history books are sadly biased to put it politely but all students in Pakistan have not been raised on this bilge. And some of those who have, have even made an effort to rise above it ... surprising though it may seem. (The vast majority of kids raised on said bilge are not in a position to interact on this site ... at least not in Pakistan ...then there would have been some excuse for these imbecilic posts)
The relentless tirade defining this `discussion` seems to suggest that no one has really given much thought to what they have read and even less to what they have not read. Leaders on either side of the divide were less than perfect. But if the blame is continuously to be laid at Jinnah`s door and if this grudge is to be dragged through every single discussion (Kabuliwalla, anyone ?) then really there is no room for serious discourse.
Pakistan doesn`t need any more `I hate India` mongers. It has enough as it is. It doesn`t behoove individuals who have had the benefits of education and breeding to be behaving exactly like the ones who haven`t. Idle minds for heavens sake ... If the masses of unemployed youth and the multitudes of madrassah going babies had jobs and schools to keep them occupied there would be some hope for the country. What hope is there when said benefits seem to have done nothing for the mind-set of the priviliged few ?
There is no point in either idolizing or reviling Jinnah. Or Nehru. Or Gandhi. They did what they believed they had to and not all in the name of altruistic patriotism. Much of it was arrogance, ambition, and the lust for power. What now. India/Pakistan`s future is not in their hands. So get on with it.
PS: In view of your post ... Broadvision ... thats a misnomer if I ever heard one ...
PPS: Kabuliwalla, is your dislike of Jinnah based on rationale of some sort. I`m not asking out of mere curiousity, I would really like to know. thanks.
cheema: Its a bit unfair to describe ylh`s `posts` as Pakistani. He is not the product of a Pakistani educational system (as I am sure he is bound to assure you in an upcoming or previous barrage - depending on when my post turns up) ... so please don`t label him as representative ...
Infact, it`s amazing this chap is actually a product of `a uniformly foreign` education and by his own admission has read a variety of objective texts on the subject. Maybe its time this education was tempered with some serious time spent in Pakistan?
Pakistani history books are sadly biased to put it politely but all students in Pakistan have not been raised on this bilge. And some of those who have, have even made an effort to rise above it ... surprising though it may seem. (The vast majority of kids raised on said bilge are not in a position to interact on this site ... at least not in Pakistan ...then there would have been some excuse for these imbecilic posts)
The relentless tirade defining this `discussion` seems to suggest that no one has really given much thought to what they have read and even less to what they have not read. Leaders on either side of the divide were less than perfect. But if the blame is continuously to be laid at Jinnah`s door and if this grudge is to be dragged through every single discussion (Kabuliwalla, anyone ?) then really there is no room for serious discourse.
Pakistan doesn`t need any more `I hate India` mongers. It has enough as it is. It doesn`t behoove individuals who have had the benefits of education and breeding to be behaving exactly like the ones who haven`t. Idle minds for heavens sake ... If the masses of unemployed youth and the multitudes of madrassah going babies had jobs and schools to keep them occupied there would be some hope for the country. What hope is there when said benefits seem to have done nothing for the mind-set of the priviliged few ?
There is no point in either idolizing or reviling Jinnah. Or Nehru. Or Gandhi. They did what they believed they had to and not all in the name of altruistic patriotism. Much of it was arrogance, ambition, and the lust for power. What now. India/Pakistan`s future is not in their hands. So get on with it.
PS: In view of your post ... Broadvision ... thats a misnomer if I ever heard one ...
PPS: Kabuliwalla, is your dislike of Jinnah based on rationale of some sort. I`m not asking out of mere curiousity, I would really like to know. thanks.
#124 Posted by kabuliwallah on June 29, 2000 8:57:24 am
re: Pardesi #107 and 108
Thanx. I hope Scout Aunty likes it as much as you did :)
You said ``. Let progressive states (e.g., Karnataka) progress fast at their speed and backward states suffer and choke themselves until they learn their lessons. No federal subsidies based on population.``
How will that solve India`s problems? As it is there is disparity between the states. By doing what you have suggested, there will be widespread economic discontent within the country and the country will split at its seams. The North East for example, continues to receive step-motherly treatment from the rest of the country. If states seem backward and hopeless, all the more reason why the rest of India should be concerned and not leave them to their fate. The integrity of the Union at all costs my friend.
Aside from that I do agree with you that the centre should stop acting as big brother and give the states enough room to meet the specific requirements of their respective populations. However the states too should not step out of their `large` jurisdictions and go overboard. There has to be a sense of balance, give and take . The end result should be the establishment of a vibrant democracy where people feel that their voice is heard and implemented upon, they are not being suppressed by any particular group and the integrity of the Union is not disturbed.
You said ``As we implement these changes, not only will USI become more efficient but also neighbors will develop more faith in Indian justice system. We also will have a blue print to follow, if other friends from the sub-continent (e.g., Nepal) want to join us.``
Unfortunately our neighbours tend to become uneasy upon hearing statements like these. They say it is an indication of territorial ambitions (a country as populous and large as ours will have ambitions, but that doesn`t mean we`ll have our neighbours for breakfast). And why should we care about others anyway. For the time being lets worry about our own. Lets feed and clothe the teeming millions of those fellow Indians who through no fault of their own, lead lives very different from us. Let us make them proud they belong to India and India is theirs. And finally your use of the word ``sub-continent`` is anathema to the RSS counterparts on the unfortunate side of the border. So please keep using it.
Regards,
Kabuli
Thanx. I hope Scout Aunty likes it as much as you did :)
You said ``. Let progressive states (e.g., Karnataka) progress fast at their speed and backward states suffer and choke themselves until they learn their lessons. No federal subsidies based on population.``
How will that solve India`s problems? As it is there is disparity between the states. By doing what you have suggested, there will be widespread economic discontent within the country and the country will split at its seams. The North East for example, continues to receive step-motherly treatment from the rest of the country. If states seem backward and hopeless, all the more reason why the rest of India should be concerned and not leave them to their fate. The integrity of the Union at all costs my friend.
Aside from that I do agree with you that the centre should stop acting as big brother and give the states enough room to meet the specific requirements of their respective populations. However the states too should not step out of their `large` jurisdictions and go overboard. There has to be a sense of balance, give and take . The end result should be the establishment of a vibrant democracy where people feel that their voice is heard and implemented upon, they are not being suppressed by any particular group and the integrity of the Union is not disturbed.
You said ``As we implement these changes, not only will USI become more efficient but also neighbors will develop more faith in Indian justice system. We also will have a blue print to follow, if other friends from the sub-continent (e.g., Nepal) want to join us.``
Unfortunately our neighbours tend to become uneasy upon hearing statements like these. They say it is an indication of territorial ambitions (a country as populous and large as ours will have ambitions, but that doesn`t mean we`ll have our neighbours for breakfast). And why should we care about others anyway. For the time being lets worry about our own. Lets feed and clothe the teeming millions of those fellow Indians who through no fault of their own, lead lives very different from us. Let us make them proud they belong to India and India is theirs. And finally your use of the word ``sub-continent`` is anathema to the RSS counterparts on the unfortunate side of the border. So please keep using it.
Regards,
Kabuli
#125 Posted by kabuliwallah on June 29, 2000 10:25:23 am
dL:
Leaders in the sub-continent(I love that word now)tend to become deified and put on a pedestal, a lot due to the inherent culture of the land(submissive, patriarchal and feudal) and still more due to political reasons. The Congresswallahs claim Gandhi and Nehru as their own and I`m guessing the PPP does the same with `Shaheed` Bhutto. However the reason I dislike Jinnah is not because of any political, ideological reasons nor because I`m an avowed fan of Gandhi or Nehru or any other Congress stalwart. The reason I dislike him is more personal. You see Jinnah believed in something and there is nothing wrong in that. But in the bargain he needed something for his would be supporters to direct their emotions, pent up anger and hatred against. This something unfortunately were the Hindus who happened to be dominant economically. These Hindus, he lumped together, without distinction. Everyone from the Hindu community all of a sudden became the filthy, vile, interest taking Hindu when in reality it was the trading community among the Hindus that was subjugating the populace, both Muslim and Hindu. I`m not saying it is ok to hate the trading community, just pointing out the differences. And it wasn`t just the trading or land holding Hindus that were subjugating the populace, the Muslim landlords too were as as oppressive as any other and the Pathan moneylenders in India are notorious for their moneylending. But all these didn`t matter to Jinnah. These distinctions would be too costly for his ambition. You see, it is just not a question of Hindus vs. Muslims. There are many nuances which drawing room intellectuals fail to realise.
Before the realization of Pakistan, Jinnah constantly invoked the fear among the Muslim masses of a monolithic Hindu community subjugating them, economically and culturally. Lets say for argument sake that Jinnah really sensed danger to the Muslim community. But surely not from the whole Hindu community? There is no such thing as uniform Hinduism. The vast majority of Hindus happen to be low-caste and the vast majority of Muslims are converts from the low-castes. Both were poverty-stricken and backward. Meaning that there wasn`t a lot of prejudice between the vast majority of both the communities. It was only the small minority of upper-castes that didn`t get along well with upper `castes`/classes of Muslims. But Jinnah did not see all this. Small insignificant incidents that might have occured in Congress ruled provinces(one of which was NWFP) were blown out of proportion and exaggerated and portrayed as the Hindu`s evil plan to destroy Islam and its adherernts in India. The Hindus in the Muslim mind became this poison secreting, gargantuan behemoth, which is far from the truth. But untruths were the need of the day and Jinnah carried it with aplomb. Hey the Congress leaders weren`t perfect, in fact many of them were crooked, but at least they didn`t resort to hatred to achieve their ends.
Finally `Independence` occurs. Then Jinnah makes a uturn. All of a sudden Hindus and Muslims become equal and the state has nothing to do with religion. Who was he kidding? He took the Muslim masses on a long ride and there he was pouring water over all the Mullahs` dreams. However that didn`t dampen the Muslims` spirits. They were waiting for their pound of flesh and they jolly well got it. A civilization became ruined in a matter of days. Pakistan changed forever due to the scarry days of Partition. There are those who say that Jinnah didn`t realize that the violence would go out of hand, he had secular leanings, those were mad times and people went crazy and all that. I don`t buy it one bit. Jinnah was supposedly a leader of great stature. He should have had the foresight that the fires he was stoking to get Pakistan could not be doused by giving a speech after getting it. He should have known how emotional and passionate sub-continental people are. It is not good enough if people say he did not realise. Any leader worth his salt would and many did see the dangerous consequences of the ploys Jinnah and his League adopted. His ploys are eerily reminiscent of the strategies Hitler employed against the Jewish Business Community of Germany. Hitler too needed a scapegoat and a source of funding for his masterrace. Jinnah too needed the wealth of the Hindus and the lands of the Sikhs if he was to satisfy Muslim demands in an Independent Pakistan.
I guess I wouldn`t have hated Jinnah as much if he hadn`t given the speech in your assembly. He would have just remained a bigot in my eyes and there are many of those in these unfortunate times. But he added insult to injury by saying Hindus were free in Pakistan. I don`t know why his hypocrisy riles me more than is bigotry. Maybe it was a last ditch effort on his part to save himself from the wrath of all those people killed during Partition. But unfortunately it was too late.
#126 Posted by dL on June 29, 2000 11:01:00 am
re: Jinnah - Kabuliwalla
Thanks Kabuliwalla, for the time and effort. Your post puts much into perspective. i think I might disagree with some of your points, (surprisingly?) but by no means all. As I said to a query from an offline friend ...
`you really think Jinnah had the right idea?`
`there might have been some sanity in his original idea .. but I think he screwed up ... and succumbed to his own pride too many times ... not
much to show for it therefore because I think the people who eventually subscribed to the Pakistan concept didn`t really understand what they
were asking for ... and how that related to what he was dreaming about ...
just a big mess .. then and now ... `
thanks again, maybe, i`ll write again when I`m not at work.
dL
Thanks Kabuliwalla, for the time and effort. Your post puts much into perspective. i think I might disagree with some of your points, (surprisingly?) but by no means all. As I said to a query from an offline friend ...
`you really think Jinnah had the right idea?`
`there might have been some sanity in his original idea .. but I think he screwed up ... and succumbed to his own pride too many times ... not
much to show for it therefore because I think the people who eventually subscribed to the Pakistan concept didn`t really understand what they
were asking for ... and how that related to what he was dreaming about ...
just a big mess .. then and now ... `
thanks again, maybe, i`ll write again when I`m not at work.
dL
#127 Posted by dL on June 29, 2000 11:32:10 am
kabuliwalla
Just a ps: you do know Jinnah had to be dragged back to India once he had gone and peacefully settled in England ... Liaquat Ali Khan is to be credited with having convinced him. And you haven`t forgotten Nehru did push him rather hard.
Besides Jinnah is idolized in retrospect ... he was a sharp lawyer, an intelligent man and far removed from the masses. Politics was played on both sides. I think you credit him with being more machiavellian than he really was.
cheers
dL
Just a ps: you do know Jinnah had to be dragged back to India once he had gone and peacefully settled in England ... Liaquat Ali Khan is to be credited with having convinced him. And you haven`t forgotten Nehru did push him rather hard.
Besides Jinnah is idolized in retrospect ... he was a sharp lawyer, an intelligent man and far removed from the masses. Politics was played on both sides. I think you credit him with being more machiavellian than he really was.
cheers
dL
#128 Posted by kabuliwallah on June 29, 2000 12:28:57 pm
dL re# 127
I am aware that Jinnah had to be dragged back, he was prior to that known as ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity (which makes me even madder because he did espouse something good (from my perspective of course) but latter turned his back on it when it suited him), that he drank, ate pork, married a Parsi, was most Westernised (I don`t know why Pakistanis give these reasons to justify his actions; do all these qualifications make anybody a better person?). I am also not championing Congress Cows and Co either. In fact I hate the bourgeoisie, egoistic and self-serving nature of most leaders of that time. They didn`t lose much in all the strategems and brainstorming of those days. It was the poor people on both sides of the border who lost their homes and lives. The bourgeoisie could rebuild theirs with their money and influence. I despise the congress for not being able to come to an agreement with Jinnah (though they had their own reasons, land reforms for one). But all these are not the reasons I dislike Jinnah. It is his callous attitude that works me up. He just did not calculate the havoc his policies would wreak. And leaders are responsible for what the masses do. Leaders have to take into consideration every word they utter, for those very words manifest themselves in the masses` minds. Jinnah might not have meant to actually kill the non-Muslims, but the way his words took form in people`s minds was different from the way he meant them to be. And from this he cannot shy away, he has to take the blame. The masses get swayed away by rhetoric and they don`t realise that rhetoric is just supposed to be that, rhetoric. At least the congress leaders, Nehru in particular, had been voicing his concerns all along that communal politics would have disastrous consequences, maybe because he was a better student of history. The Direct Action Day called by Jinnah was the supreme example of callousness and irresponsibility. Now what would a simple, uneducated person understand from Direct Action? We have the answer in the form of the massacres in Bengal.
Don`t get me wrong, I`m not saying Muslims are innocent or Hindus are innocent or Sikhs are innocent. But I AM saying that had Jinnah and his Muslim League been more careful in their political speeches or if Jinnah had shown sensitivity towards the Non-Muslims, then Partition would not be the nightmare that it is to most people today.
Kabuli
I am aware that Jinnah had to be dragged back, he was prior to that known as ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity (which makes me even madder because he did espouse something good (from my perspective of course) but latter turned his back on it when it suited him), that he drank, ate pork, married a Parsi, was most Westernised (I don`t know why Pakistanis give these reasons to justify his actions; do all these qualifications make anybody a better person?). I am also not championing Congress Cows and Co either. In fact I hate the bourgeoisie, egoistic and self-serving nature of most leaders of that time. They didn`t lose much in all the strategems and brainstorming of those days. It was the poor people on both sides of the border who lost their homes and lives. The bourgeoisie could rebuild theirs with their money and influence. I despise the congress for not being able to come to an agreement with Jinnah (though they had their own reasons, land reforms for one). But all these are not the reasons I dislike Jinnah. It is his callous attitude that works me up. He just did not calculate the havoc his policies would wreak. And leaders are responsible for what the masses do. Leaders have to take into consideration every word they utter, for those very words manifest themselves in the masses` minds. Jinnah might not have meant to actually kill the non-Muslims, but the way his words took form in people`s minds was different from the way he meant them to be. And from this he cannot shy away, he has to take the blame. The masses get swayed away by rhetoric and they don`t realise that rhetoric is just supposed to be that, rhetoric. At least the congress leaders, Nehru in particular, had been voicing his concerns all along that communal politics would have disastrous consequences, maybe because he was a better student of history. The Direct Action Day called by Jinnah was the supreme example of callousness and irresponsibility. Now what would a simple, uneducated person understand from Direct Action? We have the answer in the form of the massacres in Bengal.
Don`t get me wrong, I`m not saying Muslims are innocent or Hindus are innocent or Sikhs are innocent. But I AM saying that had Jinnah and his Muslim League been more careful in their political speeches or if Jinnah had shown sensitivity towards the Non-Muslims, then Partition would not be the nightmare that it is to most people today.
Kabuli
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- Levitate: I mean akcheema are... Pleas For Sanity as
- nkg: Re: # 13 qyousuf... If I... I Am A Pakistani
- Levitate: Tahir... but hindoos are... The Future of Indo
- Levitate: akcheema are retarded?... Pleas For Sanity as
- zarrar2: No sir i am... Nothing Queer About It
- bulleya: ..interesting article by one... The Future of Indo
- tahir: Miss Khan, You will eventually... I Am A Pakistani
- iron_mask: Aha_snark, HP and others:... Pleas For Sanity as
