Indians and Pakistanis Must Start Anew

Well meaning thoughts but impractical, unrealistic and quite frankly, annoying. Indians and Pakistanis are different people who have to be separated into two countries - ideally far apart from each other, but geography is a cruel reality for us.

The best we can hope for is to stay out of each other`s business. Other than superficial and meaningless similarities such as language, halwa, and malai kofta, there`s nothing of substance in common! Political ideology, religious inclinations, philosophical ideas, and ethos are as different as can be. And they will continue to diverge in the future. So to harbour dreams of any cooperation is BS. I`m sure even some of you across the border agree.

I agree with Saxena, and I can not understand this obsession with some Indians about `cooperating` with Pakistan and `making a world-beating combination`. What rot! I just hope India and Pakistan to get out of each-other`s ways. India is large enough anyway, and the thing to do is try to make a `world-beating combination` of Indians.

re 1/2

With a casual line and equally casual thoughts, history is flipped upside down. You are suggesting that fifty years (of horrific trauma, I agree) have wiped out thousands of years of history?

Ths history of the South Asian sub-continent cannot be re-written. Pakistan`s ignominous envy of India and India`s blatant arrogance will of course not help matters. But that doesn`t mean aeons of shared culture, history, languages should be swept aside for the sake of an unseeing few. India is a melting pot certainly in `recent` history.

Sure, there can be no question (and no desire presumably) of `reuniting` the subcontinent. But if the two nations were to stop squabbling at the expense of their respect futures and to cooperate, life on both sides of the border could be more prosperous. Are there not more commonalities in this region of the world then those pulling the European continent together. Obviously economic and social realities have yet to set.

dL

Re:saxena, satish

// *Other than superficial and meaningless similarities such as language, halwa, and malai kofta, there`s nothing of substance in common! Political ideology, religious inclinations, philosophical ideas, and ethos are as different …” *//

What nonsense !! As an Indian I have nothing in common with the political ideology, religious inclinations or philosophical ideas of the saffron brigade thugs. I do not believe in a Hindu Nation, I do not believe in the killing of minorities and unlike the philosophical founders of RSS I have never admired Hitler.

I can safely say that I do not share even what you call superficial things as Language and halwa with Bal Thackray’s Shiv Sainiks.

These people have more in common with the fundamentalists in Pakistan ( who incidently will agree with satish/saxena thoughts) and Taliban than people like me.

The tragedy is that there is so much common among those, in Pakistan and India, who want to continue this atmosphere of hate and violence that they conciously help each other in suppressing any sane voices.

Udaykumar’s thoughts may be too idealistic, far fetched or whatever but they do point in the right direction. Sooner or later the people in the subcontinent will have to take matters into their hands and stop these religious bigots from making us fight each other. That is the only way forward.

Re:saxena, satish

// *Other than superficial and meaningless similarities such as language, halwa, and malai kofta, there`s nothing of substance in common! Political ideology, religious inclinations, philosophical ideas, and ethos are as different …” *//

What nonsense !! As an Indian I have nothing in common with the political ideology, religious inclinations or philosophical ideas of the saffron brigade thugs. I do not believe in a Hindu Nation, I do not believe in the killing of minorities and unlike the philosophical founders of RSS I have never admired Hitler.

I can safely say that I do not share even what you call superficial things as Language and halwa with Bal Thackray’s Shiv Sainiks.

These people have more in common with the fundamentalists in Pakistan ( who incidently will agree with satish/saxena thoughts) and Taliban than people like me.

The tragedy is that there is so much common among those, in Pakistan and India, who want to continue this atmosphere of hate and violence that they conciously help each other in suppressing any sane voices.

Udaykumar’s thoughts may be too idealistic, far fetched or whatever but they do point in the right direction. Sooner or later the people in the subcontinent will have to take matters into their hands and stop these religious bigots from making us fight each other. That is the only way forward.

I fully support Satish (#2). We should be looking at ways to take India forward. It is a large country as it is.

Even if we entertain this thought of reunification, it is important to think about the excessive concentration of power in Delhi with a Unified Punjab taking away an even more disproportionate share of the resources. The objective of federalism you espouse will be least served through such a set up.

No country, least of all Pakistan, can help with India`s progress. Our priority should be better planning and allocation of resources for uniform development throughout the country. The eastern part (Eastern UP, Eastern MP, North AP, Bihar, Orissa, WB and NE states) needs to be developed and that should put an end to all this nonsense about reunification. A start would be to duplicate the Green Revolution in my home region of Chattisgarh (about to become a state).

All that Pakistan can do for better relations is to give us MFN status, which it has to as a member of the WTO. If an economic relationship develops we add another dimension to our policy. Until then it is strictly a military problem and nothing more. Unfortunately, the media has given too much currency to this reunification nonsense just because Delhi is dominated by refugees from what is now Pakistan. The best service we could do to the nation would be to treat the concerns of people from all parts of India equally.

Ashish

Chowk staff,

Time and time again I have brought it to your attention that any talk of reunification is insulting and offensive ....

People like Udaykumar should take a break .... and grow up for a change.... Pakistan and India are not the same case as West Germany and East Germany .... simply because the people in Germany did not choose to be divided .... whereas Pakistan was an open and shut case of right to self determination

espoused by Muslims of South Asia .... through the 1946 elections .... do you understand ....it is this kind of insulting and degrading attitude that makes me HATE INDIA .... I reiterate I never hated India till I came across Indians who have no respect whatsoever for the other person ....

Time and time again I have requested all Indians on this forum to spare us there enlightened opinions ...

and since this is going to move in the direction of Pakistan and its ideology ....

Pakistan was made through the general will of the Muslims (and Muslims in name) of South Asia who constitute a distinct nation through their Turkish/Persian/Afghani heritage, History, culture and Language, ... and Jinnah had envisioned a Kemalist state for the Muslims of South Asia ....

Islam had in essence the same role of a nation unifier that it had for the Turks in their nationalist struggle against the Allies and the Greeks after the World War 1 under Ataturk....

Today we no longer need to define ourselves in those terms because today we are Pakistanis ... of Pakistan ... a reason enough to make us a distinct nation .... so FOR GOD SAKES SPARE US THE TALK OF REUNIFICATION if you have any hope for peace ....

-PAKISTAN ZINDABAD

-QUAID E AZAM ZINDABAD

-ATATURK ZINDABAD

-JIYE BHUTTO

-IMRAN KHAN FOR PM

Yasser Hamdani

Chowk staff,

Time and time again I have brought it to your attention that any talk of reunification is insulting and offensive ....

People like Udaykumar should take a break .... and grow up for a change.... Pakistan and India are not the same case as West Germany and East Germany .... simply because the people in Germany did not choose to be divided .... whereas Pakistan was an open and shut case of right to self determination

espoused by Muslims of South Asia .... through the 1946 elections .... do you understand ....it is this kind of insulting and degrading attitude that makes me HATE INDIA .... I reiterate I never hated India till I came across Indians who have no respect whatsoever for the other person ....

Time and time again I have requested all Indians on this forum to spare us there enlightened opinions ...

and since this is going to move in the direction of Pakistan and its ideology ....

Pakistan was made through the general will of the Muslims (and Muslims in name) of South Asia who constitute a distinct nation through their Turkish/Persian/Afghani heritage, History, culture and Language, ... and Jinnah had envisioned a Kemalist state for the Muslims of South Asia ....

Islam had in essence the same role of a nation unifier that it had for the Turks in their nationalist struggle against the Allies and the Greeks after the World War 1 under Ataturk....

Today we no longer need to define ourselves in those terms because today we are Pakistanis ... of Pakistan ... a reason enough to make us a distinct nation .... so FOR GOD SAKES SPARE US THE TALK OF REUNIFICATION if you have any hope for peace ....

-PAKISTAN ZINDABAD

-QUAID E AZAM ZINDABAD

-ATATURK ZINDABAD

-JIYE BHUTTO

-IMRAN KHAN FOR PM

Yasser Hamdani

Listen UDAYKUMAR

WE DID NOT MAKE A MISTAKE IN 1947 !!!!!!!!!

Pakistan ZINDABAD!!!!

I want to make an appeal to all Pakistanis coming on this FORUM ... please DO NOT RESPOND TO this

Article .... in the reply section just type IGNORE so that the Chowk Staff dont publish stuff like this just to attract people to their site and for the love OF A USELESS MEANINGLESS AND INDEED A WASTE OF TIME DEBATE ....

PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS ARTICLE SO THAT!!!!!

Remember I started hating Indians when I came across Indians .....

I HATE INDIA !!!!!!!!!

I HATE INDIA !!!!!!!!!

I HATE INDIA !!!!!!!!!

I want to make an appeal to all Pakistanis coming on this FORUM ... please DO NOT RESPOND TO this

Article .... in the reply section just type IGNORE so that the Chowk Staff dont publish stuff like this just to attract people to their site and for the love OF A USELESS MEANINGLESS AND INDEED A WASTE OF TIME DEBATE ....

PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS ARTICLE SO THAT!!!!!

Remember I started hating Indians when I came across Indians .....

I HATE INDIA !!!!!!!!!

I HATE INDIA !!!!!!!!!

I HATE INDIA !!!!!!!!!

And this is a call out to all good intentioned Pakistanis out there ..... a Boycott of Chowk is imperative unless they apologize and take off Uday Kumar`s article ``Pakistanis and Indians must start anew`` .... I am all for Freedom of speech but to put up an article just to cause anguish to other people and to start off a meaningless India Pakistan verbal match to gain cheap popularity for the site is just too much .... obviously even a dumbo can see that we have a reason and we have the right to exist and be respected as Pakistanis without being told that we were wrong ...

How would you like it if someone told you that you were wrong to be born???

This is an extremely unprofessional attitude by Chowk staff ....

For the love of God, when will these goody-goody, saccharine sweet, Bullshitting Indians get the point that India and Pakistan are two distinct nations, whose ideologies and paths are entirely different and will never converge. The Indian ethos is cohabitation and tolerance, live and let live (at least in theory and as India`s foundation). The Pakis adopted a communal ideology in 1947 and went their own way, though there are efforts now on part of so called ``liberal`` Pakis that Jinnah never meant it that way. He wanted a secular Pakistan where all religions could co-exist. Whatever. Though I curse the day the TNT ideology was founded, I believe that there is no going back. A lot of blood has been shed and to think of reunification (vile that the word sounds) or cooperation between our two countries is just plain silly. Indians should concentrate on India and her betterment. Not the whole damn South Asia. Peace is a requisite for that betterment. We`ll have to live as neighbours with Pakistan, but we don`t have to slather them with our kisses and vice-versa. Let `em go to hell or wherever it is they wanna go...why should we care? People like Udaykumar and co. should concentrate on evolving solutions and ideas for India`s betterment alone. As it is, that will be a difficult task. Decentralization is not a bad idea, provided the integrity of India is not questioned. Large states like UP and MP should be divided to make smaller administrative units. UP has a population equivalent of Pakistan!!!

Finally, India should seriously start thinking about making arrangements to arrest the possible inflow of refugees from Pakistan in the next 10 or 20 years. We should man the borders with Pakistan vigilantly to stop the inflow of guns, mullahs, drug money and most dangerous of all, Pakis running away from Pakistan (refugees). We have the lessons of Afghanistan before us.

Udayakumar,

Which world do you live in? We cannot summon the will to trade or even travel freely in each others countries, we are going to be in political confederation? We are going to internalize and deal with our neighbours failures, when we haven`t learnt to internalize and deal with our own ? Lets first solve the Naxalite problem, caste killings, high illiteracy, huge unemployment and a AIDS epidemic, to list just a few problems that willnot go away with a grand federation, before we think of what happens in NWFP or Sindh.

Our national ideology doesnot need retooling, its way past time that navel-gazing intellectuals began to dirty their hands with implementation.

Sadhana

Here`s what I think:

Indians and Pakistanis can unite only under Punjabistan (or Kalistan), Sindudesh, Gujaratistan, etc. South and middle India has nothing in common with Pakistan and people there would rather go their own way than have anything to do with Pakistanis. Think of it this way: Why would someone from UP care about Afghanistan?

The Indian interest (speaking for myself) in Pakistan is mainly political. If there were no conflicts, we probably would do business with each other but by and large ignore each other.

An impractical idea!

Re: YLH

YLH, Chowk is an open forum, where ideas are posted in the shape of articles and discussed. Everyone on this forum has a right to be heard and no one has the right to deny them their right to express their opinions regardless of their nationality, sex, creed, religion or sexual preferances.

Chowk is registered, as a domain name, in the United States of America and the First Amendment of the American Consitution protects Chowk`s right to publish anything its editorial staff might like to publish. Consequently, it is not your right or place to impose any editorial policy on the Chowk staff, which impinges or curtails or restricts in anyway, or form either implicitly or explicitly any opinion expressed on these pages.

You, by your own accounts, are studying in the United States and if nothing else, you should have learned some tolerance from your stay in the United States. You are absolutely right that this article might be offensive to Pakistanis who visit this site, but whether this article is offensive or not is a determination which they have to make for themselves. You, sir, have no right to impose your views on them. If you disagree with this article, you could have simply said so and left it at that, but your political tirade and outburst has ended up, ironically, to only fuel a Indo-Pak debate filled with hatred and the personalization of the issues based on the illogic of hate and revenge, which you have said you wanted to avoid yourself!

Sir, in an article by Beena Sarwar, you applaud her article`s message, which was an attempt to bridge the Indo-Pak gulf of mistrust through personal contacts and the willingness to hear the other sides point of view. In this article`s posts, you reverse your stand and engage in an xenophobic display of the worst sort of national pride based on your personal interpretations of this article`s message and intent.

Sir, I say this to you in the least offending manner, but yours rights end where my rights begin and such, I will be the judge of this article and you cannot tell me whether I can or I can not read this article or post a reply here. If this article offends you, then do not visit these interact pages, but do not deny others their rights, because you seem to have an inflated opinion that your right to decide outweighs others right to decide for themselves.

No one appointed you to decide their rights for themselves and please do not take upon yourself this task, because no one wants you to.

Ciao!

Reply (YLH # 12)

Apologies are in order from Udaykumar for suggesting that the vast majority of Indians would like to ``reunify`` (ugh) with Pakis...that is vile and disgusting and it ain`t ever gonna happen. And apologies are also in order from YLH for suggesting that Indians subscribe to Udaykumar`s view. We`d rather give away Kashmir (which is never). But then again if everybody had to apologise for the views they hold, all the time and writing space would be wasted in writing apologies. Hence this is a very immature and fascist concept that YLH is advocating.

Kabuliwala,

Well said. I couldnot agree more.

Jagdeep,

I dont understand why my teling that Indians should focus more on developement of India and less on weaving elaborate theories of reunification makes me a fundamentlist communalist monster, but if it does, then so be it. In this case, I agree more with YLH, noisy slogan shouting as he is, than the stupid wagha-border-lamp-lighting, reunification dreaming `secularist parivar` in India.

Dr. Udayakumar

As a native of Tamil Nadu I am sure you understand that the future of TN is in trade with Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, Sri Lanka, hopefully a democratic Myanmar, Vietnam and others in the SE Asian region. Something that people of TN have understood and are moving towards. What I can`t understand is why you want to bring Pakistan in this picture. As it is India and Pakistan get lumped together a lot of times much to the consternation of people on both sides of the border. This talk of reunification has no support south of the Vindhyas or east of Lucknow (example, response to Mulayam Singh`s statement along these lines).

I am still trying to figure out why you chose this topic. I hope the replies of Anamika, Sadhana, kabuliwalla and Satish will convince you of the general feeling in India.

Ashish

Re: YLH

``I HATE INDIA !!!!!!!!!

I HATE INDIA !!!!!!!!!

I HATE INDIA !!!!!!!!!``

Dear YLH,

No one gives a rat`s ass if you like or hate India...after all you are only a Pakistani and that coming from a Pakistani is not very surprising (in any case, Pakistani opinion doesn`t amount to much nowadays)...what matters is what Indians think about India and most Indians can see well enough that our country is beset with many problems and is in a very bad shape. But that doesn`t mean Indians hate India....it means that we love Her even more...or else we would have taken her for granted. As a neighbour (mind you not as a desi or a bhai or any of that mushy stuff) it is my advice that you, instead of wasting your energy crying at the top of your shrill voice that you hate India(again, doesn`t matter), make an effort to do something beneficial (beneficial doesn`t mean hating India) for Pakistan. But then again, me being an Indian and all (oops I forgot to tell you, I`m also a KAFIR), it wouldn`t be surprising if you take my advice to be some sort of plot to reunify Pakistan with India and subject Pakis to unmentionable torture with my filthy, kufr-laden hands

Udayakumar:

I have misplaced my usually reliable crystal ball so I cannot peer and predict what will happen in say 2050.

As the journey of thousand miles, we’ve been told, begins with a single step.

Let us tone down on the rhetoric, diffuse Kashmir, or at least take steps to move it way from the hot plate, raise the living standards of our masses, (provide clean drinking water at the least, provide sustainable and sustaining education.)

Or forget everything. Let us create a clime for open and free borders. A free border will bring down a lot of fears, suspicions and hatreds. And then we can sit under the ‘peepul’ tree and smoke ‘hookahs’ and discuss the other USA.

regards,

temporal

There is almost no polite way to respond to the author, but here is an attempt.

It is true that while the decision to partition the subcontinent in 1947 was taken by a vote, the electorate was rather limited. Nevertheless, after fifty-plus years the decision would be any different today.

Governance of today`s India is broadly based on a one-person,one-vote scheme, and one of the reasons for Partition was that one-community, one-vote was not acceptable to the leaders of those who became India (and whose point of view was shown to have general support by vote).

This works very well with India`s diversity, and where the boundaries between communities has traditionally not been well defined. E.g., Tamil Muslims share Tamil with Tamil Hindus, and Islam with UP Muslims, and so far, no one is asking them to choose between these two parts of their identity. Community-based rather than individual-based democracy would immediately tear people asunder in a million different ways in an exact repeat of the Partition.

As far as India is concerned, it is fairly stable politically, and what is necessary is rapid economic growth, and not constant tinkering with the Constitution, and political set-up.

Our neighbors, the Pakistanis, are still not sure what they want to be, politically; but that need not concern India. Pakistanis will sooner or later sort it out.

Fortunately for us all, Mr. Udaya Kumar cannot unilaterally decide for all of us. The collective wisdom or folly of all the voters of India will have to be involved in making the changes he proposes. I am confident that apart from the feel-good ideas of peace and cooperation, they won`t give it a second thought.

-arun gupta

HEY PAKISTANI AND INDIAN HATERS (I.E. HATERS OF ONES OWN ROOTS):

I have an idea! Why not set up a meeting somewhere, and fight it out, hand to hand, man to man. That way there will at least be some resolution to both both groups of cowards who basically use forums such as these to express nerdy refletions of cyber underdeveloped minds. All of you are as pathetic as Thakeray. No amount of reading or reflection can cure you of your bitterness or hatred. May some god have mercy on your souls.

Dear Udayakumar,

I agree with you second paragraph when you talk about constructive dialogue between India and Pakistan. However, if you are taking of an ideal world, why not unification of entire world!!

Need of the moment is to correct the weaknesses in our society, that led to partition, and are leading to more partitions.

Let us use constructive dialogue to reduce the military spending and divert our resource to Bihar, Orrisa, MP, Manipur, Tripura and Rajasthan. Before we even dream of re-unificaton, we must take steps to correct the social ills and corruption. I believe that Pakistani`s also have similar issues and they will also like to tackle those issues first. Both counteries have enough land mass and human resources individually and do not need any unification for progressing further.

Regards

“…………Feeling gratified by the fact that we have managed to incorporate hundreds of princely states into more or less orderly states based on language, culture and ethnic identity, we should seriously consider reverting the fatal trends that plague our socioeconomic-political affairs.”

Just to remind you that almost all of these “princely states” opted to go independent Junagarh, Manavader, Bhopal, Hyderabad are few examples. I guess you like to “incorporate” Pakistan too. On the same line it is only Indians who wants unification, try asking this question to a Pakistani. No Pakistani wants unification. No Pakistani wants to be unified to India where mosques are burned and the administration is helpless. Even after the destruction of the mosque there is not even a talk to rebuild it. Thank you Uday we do not want “unify” with such a “secular” country.

Another argument I have heard from a Indian friend of mine is that “Just imagine if Imran is bowling from one end and Kapil from the other”, I agree that this would make a very effective couple but if Indians can not find an Imran from 200 million muslims they have now, I have very little hope that they will pick Imran as bowler in case of a “unified” south asia.

“Imagine the political road that would take us all to a ``Union of South Asian States`` where Assam, Baluchistan, Punjab, Kashmir, Tamil Nadu, and all other states become autonomous and manage their own affairs under a broad regional umbrella. A one-state/one-vote South Asian confederal body may manage the foreign affairs, currency matters, environmental issues, and other common concerns on the basis of collective bargaining and consensus. A regional peacekeeping force can maintain inter-state law and order, police the borders, and carry out emergency operations.”

I am surprised with this comment. Do you live in India? Which state is autonomous in India? Please name one. I am anxious to hear. What makes you thinks that after the “unification” states will be autonomous?

``The richest resource on the earth can only be human resources. If South Asians utilize this fully to correct our thinking and connect our lives, to mend our actions and merge our interests, a great life is certainly assured for all of us.``

Please tell this to Indian Government. Try utilizing the one billion people you already have effectively then talk about unification.

temporal,

[...``lets have open borders...``]

not too long ago, the ce said - `when 700,000 strong indian army in occupied kashmir can not prevent the infiltration of mujahideen, how can they expect pakistan to stop them?`

temporal, the `religious volunteers` that umairr so fondly speaks of, would love to have open borders throughout india. i am not so sure if reality dictates that to be a very wise move.

also it has been heard that `open borders`, `economic cooperation`, etc. etc were all part of the (now dwelling in dustbin) `lahore declaration`.

anyway, there is a general belief amongst the good-hearted people in cyberspace that ordinary people on both sides want peace, but the fault lies with the politicians who would never let that happen.

i am not convinced that it is the truth. had that been the case, loud protests would have been heard in pakistan during kargil, even lamenting the death of lahore spirit. sadly, though nothing like that happened. infact, on the contrary, a great support for the mujahideen was visible in the pakistani press and the local pakistani radio stations in the usa. when the mission failed, the critique was simply `why do it, if you couldn`t succeed` instead of `it was a wrong thing to do to begin with`.

in essence, a widespread support for an aggressive posture against india exists in pakistan (and here on chowk, even amongst the elite). it may not include every man, woman and child on the street, but it seems widespread nevertheless.

pakistani people want peace but not `at the cost of kashmir` - open borders or closed.

Well said, Uday. They say a fool does the same thing as a wise man. Only, the wise man does it earlier and the fool does it later (i.e. after learning the hard way, or when there are no more choices). The foolishness (and great cost in terms of direct and indirect human suffering on both sides) of the India-Pakistan antagonism is I think increasingly apparent to all on both sides of the border.

Uday,

I just read the other responses to the article. I am not surprised by YLH`s usual mindless slogans. I am surprised at the large number of your fellow Indians who came out against the article. Time will prove you are on the right path, my friend.

concerned #28:

---sigh----

Yaar, for Pete’s sake live up to your monicker :)

You say, “in essence, a widespread support for an aggressive posture against india exists in pakistan (and here on chowk, even amongst the elite). it may not include every man, woman and child on the street, but it seems widespread nevertheless.”

Do you realise the irony? If I may change just the order slightly it will still hold true--- “in essence, a widespread support for an aggressive posture against pakistan exists in india (and here on chowk, even amongst the elite). it may not include every man, woman and child on the street, but it seems widespread nevertheless.”

Even if I hide the idealist-romantic aspects, and come out of the closet as a neo-realist one will have to concede that somewhere along the line, better neighbourly relations are inevitable. Okay, so they may not come about in our lifetimes. Does that mean we should give up and not try?

regards,

temporal

PS: By the way I was amused when you invoked me in the ‘a’ vs. ‘the’ discussion. I refrained because it was just a minor storm in the tea cup.

HaiN aur bhi ghum zamanay maiN mohabbat kay siwa....

How many of you Indians actually stopped and read what I said ????

On this forum I have requested time and again that

lets respect each other`s existence ....

East Germany and West Germany can hardly be described as an issue similar to Pakistan and India ...

1)Pakistan is an open and shut case of the right of self determination for the people of Pakistan

2)People of Germany never wanted seperation and they did not have ethnic or religious conflict the way we have

As people like TAhmed it is time that I finally laid down completely and coolly what I have said time and again .... I hate India only because of their lack of respect for our foundation... to me for example country is more important than anythign else.... My slogans were not mindless ... they were a statement ... statement that if you DISRESPECT US DONT EXPECT US NOT TO HATE YOU ...

it is a simple rule ...

Clearly by any amount of discourse in the Economics of the whole situation we will see that

a unified India would have been worse off ... but lets not go there ...

Pakistan was made in the name of Democracy and fair play and not religion.... clearly it must be obvious to all people who read history objectively that Islamic Fundamentalists didnot make Pakistan... but Secular minded muslims did .... In any event these secular minded Muslims saw a threat to their community and decided to opt

for a seperate homeland ....

Unified Hindostan has been an aberration in History .... new states emerge out of aberrations of the yesteryear .... Ottoman Empire was dissolved last century and it gave way to other states ...Arabs, Armenians, Greeks etc ... and the Ruling Turk Muslims of the Ottoman empire chose Turkey for their homeland .... similarly the Mughal Empire died out and the British took over ... obviously the aberration had to give way for the ruling Persian/Tukish/Afghani Muslim elite to form their own state as the formerly subjugated

groups such as Hindus etc claimed their own destiny ... the whole process of the making of Pakistan is consistent with Historical precedent and the course that mankind has taken time and time again ...

So the Muslims, who were the former ruling class of India, demanded a state of their own ... and so they got one ... through a democratic process ...

Now before people like Kabuli Wallah go on with their vicious diatribe ... and accuse me of fundamentalism and fascism and God knows what they should sit back and think about what I am saying here ... It is the lack of respect that the Indians have for us that has made me anti Indian ... like I have said again and again and again I DID NOT HATE INDIANS TILL I ACTUALLY CAME ACROSS SOME OF THEM ....

We, the people of Pakistan, no matter what mindless people like TAHMED say, will never capitulate to our subjugation ... because Pakistan is our essence ... Pakistan is what we are ...

People like Uday Kumar really need to grow up and smell the cofee ....

Down WITH NEO NAZIS !

The Origins of Pakistan 2

It is not difficult to see the short term calculations of this strategy for Jinnah, for it legitimised his All-India position and strengthened his bargaining position.

The reason for the decision of the Provincial magnates for accepting the Muslim League label is less obvious. It was not the vote pulling power of the

Muslim League, for it was the landed magnates them selves who controlled the mainly rural vote. What the League offered to the landed magnates of

Punjab and Sind is best understood only if we consider the fundamental shift in the long term political prospects that began to be visible to the landed

magnates whose eyes were so far focused too narrowly on the provincial scene. With independence in sight, they had to look beyond their Provincial

horizons and some of them could see the writing on the wall earlier than others. It was clear that it was only a matter of time before the colonial rule would

end. With the departure of their colonial patrons they were faced with the prospects of the rule of the Congress Party, with its commitments to land reform.

If they were to preserve their class position, the only viable option for them was a government at the centre of the Muslim League rather than the Congress.

If that was to mean Pakistan, so be it. Whatever form it took it would guarantee their own survival for the Muslim League was wholly dependent on them. It

is they who would wield power in any autonomous regional grouping of Muslim majority provinces that would ensue. It was not a question of ideology but

clearly understood class interest that lined them up behind the Muslim League. They were unimpressed by Muslim League politics until the imminence of

independence. Only at that juncture did they decide to jump on to the Muslim League bandwagon and, in fact, took it over.

When the Pakistan slogan was raised Jinnah`s opponents continually complained that he was refusing to specify precisely what Pakistan was actually to be.

As a seasoned negotiator evidently Jinnah did not lay all his cards prematurely on the table. But it was not difficult to see that what he was aiming for was a

grouping of Muslim majority provinces enjoying a degree of regional autonomy, possibly within an overall Indian Federal Union rather than the Partition of

India, especially if that was to entail carving up of Punjab and Bengal. That he was quite happy to accept Pakistan as a regional grouping within an Indian

federal union is testified by his ready acceptance of the three-tier Cabinet Mission Plan which offered just that in April 1946. It was the Congress who

rejected it. Such a solution, resulting in a weak centre, would have undermined a major objective of the Congress and the Indian bourgeoisie namely to

embark on planned development of free India; in retrospect one may well conclude that India`s progress in planned industrial has justified that strategic

decision. For the Muslim League, the logic of the federal union solution was particularly important for Muslims of the UP and Muslim minority Provinces,

for that would have established a link between them and those in power in Muslim majority regions within the federal union. The `reciprocal hostages`

theory was premised on the idea that the fate of non-Muslims in the Muslim majority zone would be a guarantee for their own protection in the other zone

in which they were in a minority. The issue revolved around the fate of communities. Pakistan, in whatever form, was not to be a theocratic state.

Jinnah had consistently opposed theocratic ideas and influences and never minced his words about his commitment to a secular state. Speaking to students

of Aligarh Muslim University, the heart of the Muslim salariat, in February 1938, he declared:

`What the League has done is to set you free from the reactionary elements of Muslims and to create the opinion that those who play their selfish game are

traitors. It has certainly freed you from that undesirable element of Maulvis and Maulanas` (a derogatory reference to the Ulema).32

Jinnah re-iterated, time and again, that Pakistan would be `without any distinction of caste, creed or sect.` Aisha Jalal, in her excellent study of Jinnah`s

political role, records at least two occasions on which Jinnah successfully resisted attempts to commit the Muslim League to an `Islamic Ideology`.33

Jinnah`s memorable inaugural address to the Pakistan Constituent Assembly on 11th August 1947 was a clarion call for the establishment of Pakistan as a

secular state. From the principal forum of the new state he declared:

`You may belong to any religion or caste or creed - that has nothing to do with the business of the state ... We are starting with this fundamental principle,

that we are all citizens of one state. ... I think we should keep that in front of us as our idea and you will find that in the course of time Hindus will

cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense because that is the personal faith of each individual but

in the political sense, as citizens of the state`. 34

There could be no clearer statement of the secular principle as the basis of Pakistan. The true heirs in today`s Pakistan of what the Pakistan ideology really

was, are the secularists. They include practising Muslims, who, nevertheless, reject and repudiate the idea of exploitation of Islamic ideology in pursuit of

political ends.

If Islamic Modernism was the initial ideology of the emerging Muslim salariat, it has long ceased to be a live intellectual movement and has been

marginalised. It exists in small and peripheral groupings such as the Tulu-e Islam group which was led by Ghulam Ahmad Parvaiz. Many of the basic ideas

of Islamic Modernism, have passed into conventional wisdom. Insofar as they still have currency, they are accommodated within secular political

attitudes. It may help to put things into perspective if we quote from an account by Rosenthal, a renowned Islamic scholar, of his investigations in Pakistan,

even though his report is quite old.

Rosenthal summed up his impressions of attitudes that he encountered in Pakistan with the words:

`On balance, I should say that among the academic youth there is a minority in favour of an Islamic state in substance not just in name. The Majority are

divided in their allegiance to Islam from personal faith to indifference and outright rejection, as being out of date and dividing men instead of unifying and

leading them to a world state`.35

More recently this issue has been dealt with sensitively and perceptively by Sibte Hassan in his influential urdu book Naveed-e-Fikr, which has been

translated into English with the title: `The Struggle for Ideas in Pakistan`, where he arrives at similar conclusions.36

1A See K.K. Aziz, The Murder of History in Pakistan, Vanguard, Lahore 1993

1 See Ram Gopal, Indian Muslims, (London, 1959), Ch XI, for an Indian nationalist view and R. Palme Dutt, (India Today, Bombay, 1970) pp

456-9 and D.N. Pritt `India` in Labour Monthly, XXIV April 1942 for the Communist view (Mark I).This view was reiterated by R. Palme Dutt,

`India and Pakistan`, in Labour Monthly, XXVIII March 1946.

2 G. Adhikari, Pakistan and Indian National Unity,(Bombay, 1943) and also R. Palme Dutt, `Notes of the Month`, Labour Monthly, XXIV Sept

1942 for the Communist view (Mark II).

3 Yuri Gankovsky and L.R. Gordon-Polonskaya, A History of Pakistan, (Lahore, n.d.)

4 e.g. Edward Mortimer, Faith and Power: The Politics of Islam, (London, 1982)

5 H. A. Alavi, `The Army and the Bureaucracy in Pakistan Politics`, paper presented at the Centre d`Étude des Mouvements Sociaux, at C.N.R.S.,

Paris in 1965. An extended version of this paper written in 1967 was widely distributed in mimeographed form during the 1960s and was published in

French translation under the title `Armée et Bureaucratie dans la Politique du Pakistan` in Anouar Abdel Malek (ed) L`Armée Dans La Nation,

Alger, 1975. See also: H.A. Alavi, `The State in Post-Colonial Societies` in New Left Review No.74, July-August 1972, reprinted in Kathleen Gough

& H. Sharma (eds.) Imperialism and Revolution in South Asia,(New York, 1973), and in H Goulbourne, Politics and the State in the Third

World, (London, 1979).

6 B.T. McCully, English Education and the Origins of Indian Nationalism, (Williamsburg, 1940) and Aparna Basu, The Growth of Education and

Political Development in India 1897-1920, (Delhi, 1974)

7 Francis Robinson, Separatism Among Indian Muslims: The Politics of the UP Muslims 1860-1923, (Cambridge, 1974), p 46

8 For an analysis of the role of the bureaucratic-military oligarchy in the state of Pakistan see Hamza Alavi, `Class and State in Pakistan` in

H.N.Gardezi and J. Rashid (eds.) Pakistan: The Roots of Dictatorship: The Political Economy of a Praetorian State, (London, 1983). Within

the bureaucratic-military oligarchy, the military emerged as the senior partner by the 1970s and the coherence of the once tightly knit bureaucracy,

which was controlled by the elite CSP cadres, was destroyed by Bhutto`s `Administrative Reforms`; all the same, the Punjabi salariat continues to

dominate both the military as well as the civil bureaucracy.

9 Abdul Hamid, Muslim Separatism in India, (Lahore, 1967)

10 McKim Marriott, Caste Ranking and Community Structure in Five Regions of India and Pakistan, (Poona, 1960).

11 Aparna Basu, op.cit. p 151

12 Report of the Court of Inquiry...into the Punjab Disturbances, 1953 (Munir Report) Government of West Pakistan Press, (Lahore, 1954), p.

219

13 Zia-ul-Hassan Faruqi, The Deoband School and the Demand for Pakistan, (London, 1963); Barbara Metcalf, Islamic Revival in British India:

Deoband 1860-1900, (Princeton, 1982), passim.

14 David Gilmartin, `Religious Leadership and the Pakistan Movement in the Punjab` in Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 13, No 3, 1979; Barbara

Metcalf (ed.) Moral Conduct and Authority, London 1984, articles by David Gilmartin and Richard Eaton.

15 For an account of political factions in the Punjab, dominated by landlords and Pirs, see Hamza Alavi, `Politics of Dependence: A Village in West

Punjab`, South Asian Review Vol. 4 No. 4, January 1971

16 Iftikhar Ahmad, Pakistan General Elections 1970, Lahore 1976

17 Clarence Maloney, Peoples of South Asia, (New York, 1974), p 506

18 David Kopf, The Brahmo Samaj and the Shaping of the Modern Indian Mind, (Princeton, 1979)

19 Christian W. Troll, Sayyid Ahmad Khan: A Reinterpretation of Muslim Theology, (Karachi, 1979), p 18 and footnote No.75

20 Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Rah-e-Sunnat dar Radd-e-Bid`at, Tasanif-e-Ahmadiya Vol. I, (Aligarh, 1883)

21 Mohammad Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, reprinted, (Lahore, 1958)

22 ibid. p. 173

23 ibid. p. 174

24 ibid. p. 175-176

25 K. K. Aziz, Party Politics in Pakistan 1947-58, (Islamabad, 1976), pp 143-4

26 Francis Robinson, op cit. passim

27 ibid. pp 173-175

28 ibid. p 252

29 Azim Husain, Fazl-i-Husain: A Political Biography,(Bombay, 1946), pp 315-316

30 Mohammad Iqbal, Letters of Iqbal to Jinnah, Lahore 1963, pp 28-32

31 Dow to Wavell 20th September 1945, Fortnightly Reports - Sind, L/P&J/5-261, (Jan-Dec, 1945), India Office Records

32 Jamil-ud-Din Ahmad (ed.) Speeches and Writings of Mr. Jinnah, Vol. I, (Lahore, 6th edition, 1960), p. 43

33 Aisha Jalal, The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan, (Cambridge, 1985), pp 95-96

34 G.W. Choudhury (ed.) Documents and Speeches on the Constitution of Pakistan, (Dacca, 1967), pp 21-22

35 E.I.J. Rosenthal, Islam and the Modern National State, (Cambridge, 1965), p 245

36 S. Sibte Hassan, Naveed-e-Fikr, (urdu) (Karachi, 1983)

37 Rounaq Jehan, Pakistan: A Failure in National Integration, (London, 1972), pp 25-27

38 G.W. Choudhury, op.cit. p 25

39 ibid. p 30

40 ibid. p 31

For the complete ARTICLE go to

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/sangat/Pakislam.htm

So pin it down to a conclusion to this nonsense ... and as Feroze K decided to be the champion of this non sense let me address him first ....

Pakistan has a lot of problems as does India which could be talked about and indeed something positive can come out of it if only the CHOWK people published articles which had anything to do with that ... search my name and you will find that my articles have nothing to do with India ... because India does not concern me ... my concern is Pakistan , I am first, second and last a Pakistani nationalist ....

I have been called a fascist, communist, Islamic fundamentalist etc etc etc .... but I really dont care ... because I was called all those things because I am not willing to be told that the very essence of mine ... the fact that I am Pakistani is wrong ... like I said I am first second and last a Pakistani ... and thats what I am ....

There has been a systematic campaign .. a prejudice of sorts... whenever a Pakistani is friends with an Indian, the Indian feels this irresistable urge to suggest that ah if only we were one ....

What would have happened if only we were one ....

No Economist in his her right mind would tell you that Pakistan or India would have benefitted from it Economically ...

Like Afsand said ... these people ... these UdayKumars, Happyones, Roopams and the BJP character ... these people then immediately fall back on cricket ...``ah pur hamari Cricket team to achi hoti`` ... come on seriously , do you seriously think that the Unified Indian Cricket team would be better ... if there was no Pakistan ... there would be no Imran Khan, No Wasim Akram, No Waqar Younis, No Shoaib Akhtars ... they just would be discarded because they are Muslims ...

Afsand is totally right .... and this is true for things other than Cricket too ...

So let us now expound upon what makes a nation ...

and let us stick to the western concept of nation

not the Islamic concept nor the Asian/Indian etc .... what makes a race and what makes a nation ...

Only last week somebody had accused me of adhering to the ideology of racial superiority something to which I am farthest disposed .....As a matter of fact I believe in the opposite ... I believe that race is not the deciding factor in nation making ....

So what made South Asian Muslims one nation ????

Other than Religious dichotomy in India which made Muslim outlook different from a Hindu`s outlook???

Obviously you are not going to neglect the role of Persian/Turkish/Afghani heritage that Muslims of the sub continent revere as their own whether or not their families were converts?????

So now let me get to the conclusion that I was going to make ....

PAKISTANIS IN PAKISTAN HAVE NO DESIRE WHATSOEVER TO EVER REUNIFY WITH INDIA FOR GOOD OR FOR BAD BECAUSE WE HAVE AN IDENTITY OF OUR OWN ... WE ARE PAKISTANIS...SO UNLESS INDIANS LEARN TO RESPECT THAT THERE WILL BE NO PEACE ... NO PEACE ATALL ...

-PAKISTAN ZINDABAD

-QUAID E AZAM ZINDABAD

-ATATURK ZINDABAD

-JIYE BHUTTO

-IMRAN KHAN FOR PM

Yasser Hamdani

And Kabuliwallah`s lack of Historical facts appalls me ...

Jinnah was always a secular man and no one not even the staunchest of his opponents have denied this ... to say anything otherwise is fallacy ...

Prem Bodagala speak only if you know enough .... it is very clear that a Western Educated Lawyer looking after the needs of his community cannot be described as communal or fundamentalist .... Jinnah was as communal and fundamentalist as Ataturk .... both mobilized their Muslim nations to a democratic and secular polity...

Obviously the lack of understanding that has plagued the ignorant minds like Kabuliwallah who is I suspect Prem Bodagala is simple ... its implication is simple ... that before Partition

Indians were one nation ... but this is not so ..

Muslims were always a distinct nation as they remain even in India today .... today they are called a community ....

So Yes Jinnah was a Muslim Nationalist but not a communalist .... because there always have been two nations in India ...

no matter how many times Indians re write History

Muslims will always take Mahmud Ghaznavi as their Hero .... No Matter how many times Indians re write History ... Shiva Ji will never be a hero for Indian Muslims even in the most Indian of the Indian cities ....

So Prem Bodagala stop being insulting .... Pakistanis and Indians never were one and never will be .... Inshallah ....

Also if you happen to be on Douglass Campus Mr Bodagala it will help if you read the book about Jinnah by a Hindu author an ardent follower of Gandhi who initially also believed that Jinnah was a communalist like you but then found out otherwise .... and dont get me wrong .. he is still anti partition ... still an ardent admirer of Gandhi jee but he clearly states that ``Jinnah was the most secular of Indian leaders`` .....

Little knowledge Mr Prem is dangerous !!!!!!!

We shall not capitulate to Indian Bullying!!!

Also I believe that the misunderstanding might be on thinking plane ....

Jinnah was a secularist when it came to the state and affairs of religion ... as far as nationhood is concerned he was a South Asian Muslim Nationalist which means simply that he believed that culturally socially and linguistically the group describing themselves as Muslims were a distinct nation (today you call them Pakistani)

just like it was the Turkish Muslims in the Ottoman Empire which made made up Turkish Nationalism and not Jewish Turks or for that matter Armenians etc .... the group described as Turk Muslims consisted of Macedonian Muslims, Circassian Muslims, Persian Muslims, Armenian convert Muslims, Albanian Muslims, Kurdish Muslims etc ... in the end it was Gazi Ataturk`s status as a Muslim hero that helped him unify and create a Turkish Nationalist State ...

So will you also describe Ataturk (the most secular of the secular leaders) as a communalist????

I dont think so !!!!!!

Pakistani Nationalism Zindabad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quaid e Azam Jinnah Zindabad!!!!!!!!

Ataturk Zindabad!!!!!!

Jiye Bhutto!!!!!!

Imran Khan for PM!!!!!

Yasser Hamdani

I feel that if Indians write articles like these they should be prepared for Pakistani Nationalist backlash .

ylh is right! these articles are pointless and whereas freedom of speech allows as per Feroze K`s impassioned speech ... these articles dont serve any purpose. So whats the use?

yasser dont waste your energies on people like UdayKumar. Like an intelligent person from the other side of the border pointed out that we are fortunate that someone like the author is not making any decisions. As for TAhmed, I suspect that he is just an ABCD who knows precious little.

Pakistan Zindabad

And as a parting question ...

Tell me Mr Bodagala

How would it feel if I said that you shouldnt have been born????

food for thought!

The author obviously belongs to a very small minority of dreamers. Thinking about so-called reunification is a goddamned waste of time especially considering all the other matters on hand that have to be taken care of. But that aside, devolution of power is something that will happen very soon. The centre will be reduced to nothing more than defence, law, foreign policy and monetary policy and a general state vs state referee and everything else left to the states. I see India evolving into an uglier and more chaotic version of the EC, but still nevertheless vibrant enough to grow--they have the Euro, we have the Rupee. Who needs a ministery plus the bureaucrats for civil aviation, steel or railways when we can privatize and spin these off?

That said, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, and as a forum, this is the place for us to agree and disagree with it.

Re: the various rantings of YLH aka aYatolLaH

As many pointed out, he has to learn to allow others to express their viewpoints instead of resorting to the very same shrill behaviour of his beloved hero, ZAB.

What is that kid taking? Must be what we in the pharmaceutical business call drug-drug interactions--when the intake of one drug negatively affects the intake of the other drug taken concurrently. In this particular case, must be what happens when one is on an antihypertensive, an antipsychotic, and an antidepressant simultaneously.

HAVE NOT MADE IT CLEAR MANY TIMES ... that the only reason why I hate Indians is because of people like UdayKumar who are hell bent on telling us that we were wrong ...

I have said it more than once that nobody wants peace more than me ... nobody want(ed) friendship with Indians more than me ...

But Articles like Uday Kumar`s article is what makes me hate India!!!!!!

Unlike what Indians on this forum have liked to portray me as ... my hate for India is principled and has a reason ...

I hate India for the simple reason ... Indians never cease to berate us ...

If India keeps producing Udaykumars I ll keep hating India !!!!!!Remember I started hating Indians only after I came to this forum where I came across the enlightened views of various Indians here !!!!!

-Pakistan Zindabad

-Quaid e Azam Zindabad

-Ataturk Zindabad

-Jiye Bhutto

-Imran Khan for PM

Yasser Hamdani

Untill next time .... ciao

re: temporal (#8)

I`m sorry if I was not ``civil`` and made a comment not ``called for``. I saw you as a Pakistani playing India`s Muslims against Hindus, which would be a justification and vindication of the TNT theory. I do not subscribe to it and I despise it. Indian Muslim problems are India`s problems and Indian Muslims are not the sole recipients of injustice in India. They are just one of the many communities in India fighting backwardness, poverty, illiteracy etc and they just happen to be Muslim. The vast majority of India`s populace face the above mentioned problems and the majority of Indians are Hindus. For the love of God, do not make it a religious issue. It is not. There are many incompetent and criminal Hindus just as there are many incompetent and criminal Muslims and etc. You seemed to be supporting Indian Muslims irrespective and this to me seemed like communal politics and thus I took a dig at Pakistan (based on TNT and thus communal and divisive). Once again I apologise. I was all the more disappointed because you seemed like one of the more reasonable Pakistanis on this site

regards

Kabuli

and the BOTTOM LINE IS

Pakistanis will never compromise their national sovereignty!

If anything my hate India slogans will put to rest the expansionist, Hindutvastic ambitions of those desirous of reunification !

We will not capitulate to neo nazi ideologies under the disguise of ancient names!

If anything we will one day inshallah put to rest the aims and objectives of Hindutvatists and on that beautiful morning Kashmiris will determine their own destiny ....for our ideal is peace with honor and our ideal is fair play ...

So call me fascist, call me communalist , call me anything you want ....

I am first, second and last a Pakistani nationalist

Pakistan Zindabad

Quaid e Azam Zindabad

Ataturk Zindabad

Jiye Bhutto

Imran Khan for PM

Yasser Hamdani

PS I take my appeal back ... Pakistanis who were boycotting this forum should come back and argue on this forum ... for even the most meaningless of battles will have to be won for preservation of national self respect!

Udhaykumar!

Instead of writing on this board, you better do some home work in your country.

Killing thousands of Kashmiris, letting loose a rein of terror on minorities, demolishing temples and mosques. And all with state sponsorship, where according to your own judicial enquiries, police was either keeping the eyes closed or was actively participating.

You have to do a lot of home work, before coming and preaching.

I can foresee, if things continue to go like this, where India is heading. Russia will be a small story compared to India. Do your home work.

Pakistanis are more than happy to create a relationship on equal basis as an independent nation.

ylh#41

Why are you so peed off by Indians.

Do you think they are serious.

They are just wasting their times.

If the Indians are seriously writing their post and their thinking is such, then it is discussing with illiterate, who have made their concept after watching Door Darshan, which they think is the only truth.

You know how to answer them. Put them with rubbish, like Morarji Desai used to drink cows urine as Aab-e-Hayat. Most of their moderate leaders are killed by their own people in the wake of violence. If moderates are hated by Sikhs to the point of killing Indra Gandhi and massacre later on. If the moderates are killed by Tamil in bomb blast.

You can understand the now the Hinduvta party BJP, with state sponsored terrorism.

You have to stoop down to their level.

Any body seriously discussing like BD or Sadhna needs serious discussion. For rest of them they need filth to understand.

You have to treat a Janawar like a Janawar.

Just look at this guy .... ``I took a dig at`` ....

well see it was because this Indian author who penned such nonsense ... and indians like you who keep insulting Pakistan that makes me take a Dump On India ....

its time you showed up Krashid ... I was being cornered !

Pakistan Zindabad

Quaid e Azam Zindabad

Ataturk Zindabad

JIYE BHUTTO

Imran Khan for PM

-Yasser Hamdani

ASK #19

I agree with you prosperity of India (or for that matter Pakistan) is basically a prosperity of its people.

If Indians don`t realize this and continue to harp on ``Akhand Bharat``,and pursue its current policy, the economics of region will make whole of India into Kashmir.

temporal #29 -

[...``Do you realise the irony? If I may change just the order slightly it will still hold true...``]

really temporal, i don`t think it holds true. you may not believe it though. without getting into too many of the hackneyed arguments, let me just ask you this - what percentage of the pakistani population support the `status quo` solution in order to avoid a lot of continued bloodshed and waste of resources? compare that to the percentage on the other side. do you see that as a compromise on BOTH sides?

[...a vs the...]

it is fun to rile umairr every now and then and watch him disappear.

rgds

Re: Ylh #32,

Dear Yasser,

It is my personal resolve not to get mixed up in these mindless mudslinging matches that you seem to quite revel in. However you mentioned my name so I am forced to retort.

It has never been my intention or an expressed desire to see a unified Indo-Pak team. In fact in light of what has transpired lately, all the cricketers; Indian and Pakistani can go f//k themselves.

The one time I vaguely broached this subject was when I mentioned that I have PAKISTANI friends who have in the past talked of a unified team with me.

In the future, please do refrain from miss-quoting me.

Happy

concerned # 6

But there is another irony.

It is only Indians who want status quo.

With 700,000 Indian soldiers, on Kashmiri soil.

Why would Indians not want a status quo.

It is the freedom fighters who don`t want Indian soldiers on Kashmiri soil.

It is the assembly, which under people`s pressure is demanding autonomy.

Which hegemon does not want status quo.

Someone shoot a tranquilizer dart into the pubescent moron from Rutgers.

I guess when there`s not much value in what you say, you can try to say it 56 times and pray to allah that it makes up for the deficiencies.

krashid,

Kashmir has been, is, and will remain India`s. Ain`t a damn thing you or anyone else across the border can do about it. And from the looks of it, there`s no one in the world particularly interested in helping you either.

I share the sentiments of some of the crows from across the border. India & Pakistan do NOT belong anywhere near each other and thoughts of even cooperating on anything are out of the question.

I have no interest in seeing the difficult progress of my country get diluted by the piles of uneducated Jehadis and lunatics from the other side. We have nothing in common! Keep us separated and far apart and out of sight if possible!!!

RSaxena #50

You are saying that get lost and out of sight.

But after all it is you who continue to frequent this board.

And this board is not Kashmir and nor is there 700,000 army personnel here to tell me and get lost.

This board like Kashmir does not belong to you.

Even India is ruled by you for a meagre 50 years.

And it has filled so much air in your head.

India Pakistan reunion!!!

Heck no!!

Even the US & Canada, who have cultural similiarties dont ever talk of reunification.

I`d be happy if Indo-Pak relations were as cordial as US-Canadian relations. Thats the goal we should aspire for.

So rest in peace ylh. 99% of Indians dont want to touch Pakistan with a million mile pole. I`m just amused how insecure you are. You have kittens everytime some one bemoans the creation of Pakistan. Its soooo easy to bait you. .

RSaxena!

You don`t want to see lunatics and Jehadis from across the border.

Do I presume that you are happy to see your own Jehadis and Lunatics.

ylh #45

You were not being cornered. You were being bashed.

And I can just realize the pattern in India.

Just ignore their bashing.

Your quotations from books are very relevant.

Continue to write.

Jawab Jahilan Khamooshi Hast.

Answer to ignorant is keep quiet.

krashid,

[``...urine drinking moraraji desai...``]

oh yes, and why did pakistan honor with their highest civilan award (or some such thing) a person like that?

Based upon Udayakumar`s previous articles, being a strong proponent of social justice and peaceful coexistance, I will not be critical of him for proposing an idea which does not have the remotest chance of acceptance on either side of the border.

This article is more than just a proposal for a loose confederation; it is about reevaluation of our mindset and rigid stands which have so far been only counterproductive. There is no place for such behavior in the new world paradigm. The Author has very smartly set a lofty unachievable target of going for a marathon distance while really hoping for both sides to at least move a yard in a positive direction, through dialogue. Unfortunately we target for going only one yard and end up in static positions or moving an inch backward.

Right now it is more in the interest of Pakistan to decrease the level of hostilities, decrease entropy and focus on education, economy and social justice for its people.

and Krashid is right ....

You have treat a Janwar like a Janwar ... so henceforth I will ignore all Indian responses ...

Thanks Krashid for your support and your response ...

Pakistan Zindabad

The author`s views are very idealistics. Unlike many other Pakistanis on this board I did`nt take any offense. The crusade that some Pakistanis have started against the author is vey unplesant. YLH logic is very much like a 9th class student who takes Pakistan Studies very seriously. Whatever arguments he has given are directly from that garbage. One thing I don`t understand why Pakistanis have to now and then defend the existence of the country? Other thing I don`t understand is the Muslim nationalism. If a nation consist of many different religions then is every religion a seperate nation? Are Christines in Palestine and Egypt not Arabs? Are Buddist, christins, athiest not one nation in China? Why only in SOuth Asia Muslims and Hindus are seperate nations? If Pakistan is the aspiration of the Muslims of South Asia then what is the nationality of christines and hindus in Pakistan? Are they Pakistanis? If Pakistan was not made in the name of Islam then what was the need for it? Can`t Muslims remain secular while living in India? If Pakistan is made for the Muslims of South Asia then why there is visa and other restrictions from Muslims if India to visit Pakistan?

Dear Udayakumar:

An interesting article. A confederation of South Asian states sounds like an utopia (though I am not opposed to identifying utopias). Udayakumar, what kind of steps are needed to make your proposal a reality?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

It is quite interesting to see Indians fighting over whether Pakistan should, ``reunify`` with India, or not. One person suggests it; the others fight over it, and everyone ends up back at square one. Perhaps a better solution would be to ask the Pakistanis whether they are interested in reunifying with India. If they say, ``no,`` then that should be the end of the story.

I have yet to figure out why Indians are so obssessed with this idea. Is it because they are thinking for the betterment of the Pakistanis? Or is it because they are afraid the Indian Muslims, continuing to fall furthur and furthur behind Indian Hindus, may start getting, ``wrong ideas`` and start causing problems, if a Muslim state continues to exist on their border. I am not naive enough to believe the former, and not knowldegeable enough to be convinced of the later.

I cannot think of anything more rude and arrogant than to doubt a person`s existence. Similarly, to suggest that a country should not have existed is equally rude, insulting, and arrogant. It is also incorrect to assume that Pakistanis would want to reunify. My own guess is that an overwhelming majority of Pakistanis would not want to reunify with India; not because they hate Indians; just because they have nothing to gain (and perhaps a lot to lose) in a unified India.

For any unificaition or loose confedartion of states to take place, there must be some motivation for the people to do so. It cannot be done for nostalgiac or sentimenatal reasons. The examples of Germany(s) and Korea(s) (my knowldege of Korea is a bit limited) are incorrect in this perspective. Those were political partitions against the will of the people. What would motivate Pakistanis to join India? What would they gain from it? It is not safe for one country to unify into a a larger nation as a minority; specially amongst third world countries. Suppose after the unification or confedaration, Pakistanis decide it was a bad idea. To regain their independence, would they have to fight it out like the Kashmiris, or would the majority Hindu population give them a right to decide their own future in peace. The example of Kashmir points towards the later occuring, and not the former.

Despite all the crying and weeping by Pakistanis, and all the enthusiasm by the Indians, regarding their respective economies, the living standard of the average Indian has just reached that of the average Pakistani. The Indian Muslims are regarded to be at the lower end of the Indian economic ladder, so the living standard of the average Pakistanis Muslim is still higher than that of the average Indian Muslim (Azim Premji excluded). This at a time, when the Pakistani economy is at rock bottom; the worse it has ever been. So there isn`t any economic motivation for reunification either.

The BJP manifesto regarding tearing down a mosque and accepting Hinduvta as the Indian future, would be quite scary for most Pakistanis also. Not to mention the fact, that the BJP openly declares in their philosophy that all Muslims are actually Hindus, and will convert back to Hinduism, once they get their minds cleared (www.bjp.org).

The only reasons left for a confedaration or reunification are sentimental and nostalgiac; not strong enough to hold people(s) together in the long run.

Instead of such grand ideas, I think we need to solve the immediate problems. Even if the following can be accomplished, it would be quite an achievement:

- Both sides accept that the other country exists. They do not try to indulge in defining the ideologies and reasons for existence for each other. Defining another country`s existence is quite rude, arrogant (not to mention humurous and ridiculous). This also includes not assuming that the two populations would agree to any grand futuristic solutions proposed by any one of the two countries.

- Ending any conflicts in which the militaries of both countries are involved. The only one going on right now is Siachen. Both countries need to withdraw from there, and leave the glacier to the state it was in 1984, before India occuppied it. It is the most expensive and most useless battle in the world. In terms of finances, it is costing India many times more than Pakistan.

- Both countries agree to stop furthur nuclear and missile testing, and freeze their nuclear programs. Now that Pakistan has nuclear tipped missiles, its deterence against India is assured. And regardless of how many nukes India has, it will not become a superpower. There is no point in proceeding any furthur. Bombay, Lahore, Karachi, and Dehli can only be destroyed so many times.

- Both countries agree to freeze their defence budgets. Once again for reasons described above.

- Everyone needs to accept the fact that Kashmir is the core problem between Pakistan and India. This should be quite evident from the discussions on Chowk (everything from computers to interior decorating, somehow or the other, ends up on Kashmir). This problem has to be highlighted and tackled, and not shoved into the background. It seems like almost all Indians are convinced of two things: i) if the Kashmiris get a chance to vote for their future, they will vote to separate from India ii) the Kashmiris should never get a chance to decide their future, regardless of how much violence is committed there.

The Pakistanis and Indians seem to have completely opposing views of what is going on in Kashmir. Are the Pakistani based militants causing the problem, or is it the Indian military, or is the Kashimiris themselves? Because of the above, I don`t see any immediate solution. However, everyone needs to get a clearer and unbiased picture of what exactly is going on in Kashmir. So at the very least, it should be agreed that international human rights organizations like Amnesty International, HR Watch etc. should be given free access to Pakistani Kashmir (they already have free access there) and Indian Kashmir. They should then explain to the rest of the world (including Indians and Pakistanis) exactly what is going on there, so that the general population of the two countries is on the same page. This way there will be no biases. And even if a solution is not reached, at least everyone will know the exact situation. Once the world knows the exact situation, perhaps some progress might be made, since everyone will be looking at the same picture, and not at the biased pictures presented by their repective medias (if a Pakistani or an Indian does not agree to even human rights organizations entering Kashmir, then I am afraid I have no respect for his/her opinions on Kashmir, and would consider them the cause of the problems in Kashmir, and not part of the solution).

Once the above is done, perhaps the relations between Pakistan and India will thaw, somewhat. At that point if it makes economic sense for South Asia to become some kind of an economic federation, then that can be done under SAARC, or some similar organization. If it does not make economic sense to do so, then the South Asian countries can go their own separate ways. The nostalgiac individuals amongst them can visit across the border, as and when they please. I might even get a chance to visit my ancestoral home in Srinigar (if it is still there).

If the author`s concerns and desires are genuine, then they should be appreciated; regardless of being overly-idealistic. However, one piece of advice; in my opinion, it is a bit rude and arrogant to make assumptions about what the Pakistanis want for their future, without asking them first. A more practical approach would be to attack the current problems (some of which I mentioned above), and not to run away from them. Once these problems are solved, everything else will fall into place.

krashid,

Your burkha on a little too tight or something? When I said far away and out of sight I am talking about the physical world and the geographic juxtaposition of India and Pakistan, not this message board! Inshallah one day these grads of Jehad Univ. will learn to think.

Hi,
I`d like to point attention to an article that appeared in 1997 on Chowk, outlining a future for the sub-continent. The authors arguments and logic were compelling in his usual style:

http://www.chowk.com/bin/showa.cgi?sohail_oct2497

it is interesting that many pakistanis have taken it upon themselves to claim that NO pakistani would ever dream of such a reunification....WHY NOT? ...i know several pakistanis (including myself) who would have no objection to such a scheme...i cant figure out how we might get to such a civilized agreement peacefully...the current rulers on both sides are hardly in the mood for peace..and the so called ideology of pakistan that has become firmyly established in our educational system and in the ranks of our army and civil service seems an insurmountable obstactle at this time....on the other hand, times do change....i have seen very rabid india-haters and pakistani nationalists reverse themselves....so it cannot be ruled out...anyway, the confrontation does not exist with this intensity in the minds of sindhis, baluchis, even pathans...its mostly a punjabi (and semi-educated punjabi) phenomenon....so i would say to mr. uday kumar, keep on writing...who knows, eventually you may change enough minds!

Umairr,

Get it through your head. Neither I nor anyone I have ever come across in India wants Pakistan to have anything to do with India! If one Udaykumar wants to write an article doesn`t mean the country wants it! Reunification is far out of the question; I don`t even want economic cooperation or proximity or contact! Geography has cruelly placed us next to each other. I would have been happier with an India in the middle of South America or any place else far away from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Middle East. We are different people with nothing of substance in common between us! I feel more comfortable with African Americans and Fins and Israelis than I do with Pakistanis.

And stop your hue and cry over the Muslims of India. If they were in the position you claim and wish them to be, they would have left for your wide open arms in Pakistan. They are wide open aren`t they? But they have not and will not b.c. even today they have more hope and faith in India than they do in Jehad central called Pakistan.

Re: Satish

I never said you were a communal fundamentalist. Since you were suggesting (wrongly in my view ) that we (Indians) have nothing in common politically, philosophically, …. with Pakistanis therefore we should never talk of friendship or unification with Pakistan, I was trying to point out that many of us do not have any such thing common with many outfits in India as well. Does it mean that we should ask for separate countries for different sets of people. You seem to suggest so.

Your last point that we should be thinking of India and not waste time on Pakistan. Unfortunately some of us think that trying to ease tension with Pakistan which is the cause of the most wasteful drain on Indian/Pakistani economy and human resources is thinking about India. You seem to disagree that is your right.

Re:others

There is no harm in dreaming about unification of India and Pakistan as a utopian goal although I personally feel it is not achieve-able in near/medium future. I also happen to think that the creation of a country on the basis of religion was wrong and the consequences we are facing are natural in such a creation. At the same time I believe that we should accept that Pakistan is a reality and we should try to live like good neighbours and friends. If TN can benefit from trading with Vietnam surely W.Punjab can benefit in trading with E Punjab.

To my Pakistani friends all I will say is that when some people dream of this unification they only dream in circumstances when vast majority of people on both sides wish for it. Surely there is nothing wrong with that.