1971 in 2000

#: 55

Umairr #55

You raised very good points on the HRC report (supplementary). It is sad that people who did suffer genocide turned around and did exactly the same issue. Your point about hypocrisy is also valid. While saying that, given a realistic appraisal of the self-determination business, there are 2 points to be considered.

(1) there is a limit to which self determination can be carried out, you did mention groups and communities have a right to self determination, logically speaking, it ends up at the individual. An individual does not a state / nation make.

(2) the question of groups / communities is a difficult one, because there are always sub-groups within groups. For example, consider the following geographical entities, South Asia, India, Pakistan, Kashmir, POK, IOK, Kashmir Valley, Jammu, Leh etc. etc. Usually, within the ambit of self determination, a line has to be drawn as to where do we stop at self determination. As soon as you draw the line, the sub-groups set up a racket for self determination. Not to mention the fact that the super group will try to keep its boundaries intact. There are sufficient historical examples to prove this issue. As an aside, the Indian experience with internal state foundation is an interesting one, with the creation of new states, Darjeeling, etc. etc., some of the states were formed after long agitations, some were accepted in a straight forward manner and some rejected. Another fascinating off-shoot of the recent National Conference Autonomy attempt was the attempt to piggy back by certain other states. The other example was the loud protests against the recent proposal to rejig the internal state boundaries of Pakistan.

I am not sure whether your comment, ``West Pakistan has accepted the fact that it was at fault for 1971``, is really accurate, introspection of that issue has not permeated the national consciousness, in my opinion. If that was to be true, then the repercussions of the same would have been far more drastic than evidenced. For example, if it was at fault, then the spontaneous expressions of joy at the 2 previous army take-overs would not have occurred. There are other issues as well, but that is for another debate and I stress, this is just my opinion. :)

I wouldn`t actually blame Indians coming into Bangladesh when it did, there was a situation and it was taken by the Indians, same in Kashmir, Pakistan misjudged 1965 but the judgement was fine post 1989. When we ourselves create situation where an opposing party can take advantage of, it behoves us to look inside rather than blaming others, but I guess that is too idealistic.

As I mentioned in one of my previous replies, I would be extremely surprised if the full report is released by the GoP. You are correct, Umairr, we are our own worst enemies.

Sincerely

bd

Why did yahya decide to proceed with the elections in the first place ? He would definitely have known beforehand that with 162 seats for the east as against the 138 for the west, the outcome of the elections would heavily be in favor of the awami league... considering mujib`s not so secret ambition of creating an independent bangladesh and his unrelenting position on his six point plan, a victory for the league was bound to spell doom on the unity of pakistan.

Take the time period immediately preceding the elections. a severe cyclone had just devastated the east and already bitterness was running high about yahya`s (read west`s) handling of the calamity... with the disinclination of ppp to field candidates in the east, the elections wud be cake walk for the league... and there`s no way yahya (and bhutto for that matter) would have been ignorant of the would be outcome of the elections and its disastrous consequences for pakistan...

instead of putting off the national assembly after the elections, why didn`t he try to put off the election itself ?

w.r.t. sac #54 and Rajanjua

``The children of secularism are tripping all over themselves demanding solid proof of the indiscretions of Durga.Unlike rjanjua I don`t have the slightest clue exactly where and on what occasion Indira actually uttered those infamous words``

I will not write on behalf of all children of secularism. However, I will ask for a reference because I have earlier seen many such unsubstantiated accusations coming from you.

Earlier, people were quoting Nehru saying that ``I don`t change dhoti as often as ...``. When told that Nehru used to wear a Churidar and not dhoti, no one came back with a reference.

It is not that I am fond of Indira Gandhi. She was a dictator. However, getting a reference to her statement and reading it in detail will certaily allow me to put your feelings in perspective.

In case statement attributed to Indira is found to be false, it may help you understanding and controlling your anger towards India.

If you give even month and year of statement, it can be traced from the records of parliament. These records are in public domain.

Remembering the political skills of Indira, my gut feel is that she would never utter these words (atleast not on record i.e. joint session of parliament, where every word is recorded).

sac #58

``I seem to have stirred quite a hornet`s nest here.``



Yes you have. Passing off fantasies as reality always invites strong reactions.

``The children of secularism are tripping all over themselves demanding solid proof of the indiscretions of Durga.Unlike rjanjua I don`t have the slightest clue exactly where and on what occasion`

or even whether. Be honest. It can only do you good.

`Indira actually uttered those infamous words except that they have passed into the popular lexicon of Pakistani attitudes toward India.`

This is precisely the point. It is an attitude (1000 years of Glorious Muslim Rule (GMR)) invented and prepetuated by Pakistanis. Indians read about the GMR in text books with almost dispassionate interest except for Aurangazeb who is universally vilified. Since the GMR is never a matter of shame or unshame, avenging for it is never a concern - either for the ordinary citizen or for the brahmins in power. Even the rabid ones are agitated only over what they see as individual transgressions of the muslim rulers (a temple burned here, a village destroyed there).

`I find it highly amusing though that they are considered a concoction of the rabid ``doctored`` Pakistani mind.Is it possible that the ``secular`` establishment in India devised an elaborate coverup to get rid of this nonsensical statement? I guess not. Too much Ludlum can do strange things to ones reasoning ability!!`

BZZZ. Wrong! Occam`s razor. If you have the temerity to make the ugliest accusation, be prepared show some evidence. Don`t just say, as the other guy did, ``look it up!``

`Just like the sight of a woman in jeans in Pakistan causes the Mullah to lose his marbles and declare `Islam is in danger` never mind his friends happily killing adherents of the opposite sect the proud proponents of secularism go red in the face when told of some off-the-cuff remark by their erstwhile leader never mind the killing of christian nuns and priests and burning of their places of worship.Symbolism over substance. So what`s new?`

Add one more: Like you, going red in the face when caught lying. At least be honest to admit that you COULD be wrong. That what you read in Pakistani papers (NOT The Hindu) could be a lie. I don`t mind - and actually welcome - criticism (not off the cuff as in the last para) of real problems in India. But that`s a separate issue. Let go of the straw and drown peacefully.

``My point in the post was to point out the obvious. There was a WAR in 1971 and there was an external enemy too. 93000 men did not surrender to Hanuman. And yes there were terrible atrocities. But can anyone name one war that was fought according to the Geneva convention(whatever that is)? Name one uprising even now(Ireland,Basque,Mindinao and yes Kashmir) where the state apparatus is not being used to crush the ``insurgents``?Wasn`t the golden temple desecrated? Didn`t the Pakistani army crush the BNM supporters in the 70s or the MQM in the 80s? Haven`t those movements died out? I wonder how many accounts of pain and suffering we would have gotten to read had there been a Khalistan and an independent Baluchistan.Tendering apologies will not do away with war.``

You have a peculiar style of argumentation. A is sort of B. B is sort of C. So A is C. How is Golden Temple - where armed men were holed up shooting at people outside - equivalent to B`desh where specific communities (Hindus and intellectuals) were targetted? B`desh was more like the Cultural Revolution and Pol Pot`s Cambodia. It was clear from your first post that you think anything critical of your mighty military is a conspiracy of sorts. It is attitude like yours that has kept B`desh from being honestly discussed in Pakistan. It is still seen as a conspiracy of the hindus and a political failure, not a military one. Perhaps the first step to salvation is honesty (both public and private)?

Rajanjua:

I admit to finger-pointing but sweeping generalizations about ``mentality of your leaders`` puts me off.

I did do a quick search for Indira`s statement on the internet but came back empty. In the interests of fair play, the burden of proof must be on the accuser. So, the ball is really in your court to substantiate the charge. Just because it is conventional wisdom does not mean its true. Almost no Indian on this forum has supported the alleged statement and that too is a story in itself.

Non-Brahmins are a clear majority in India`s parliament. You have 20% seats reserved for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and then you add parties like Samjwadi Party, Rashtriya Janta Dal, Bahujan Samaj Party, Anna DMK, DMK, Akali Dal, Muslim League plus a large number of non-Brahmin MPs in both BJP and Congress. For whatever its worth, I myself am a non-Brahmin but then again, I am a non-everything since I dont believe in all this caste garbage.

I have a reason for calling Musharraf a coward. Jihad, as I understand it, requires a properly determined Islamic state (or authority) to validate the jihad. This is to prevent the anarchy of having any motley group of people declaring a jihad and killing people. By endorsing jihad in his capacity as Chief Executive of Pakistan, Musharraf is actually declaring war using the language of Islam but he refrains from declaring war on India using the language of the Geneva Convention. He is a coward hiding behind jihadis, running with the hare and hunting with the hound.

Re #61 krashid

Bhai krashid jara tum bhi to post karne se pahle parha karo. Muhammad Bin Quasim never entered India. He stopped after Sindh. Mahmud Ghazanvi raided India from 1000AD to 1026 AD but never established an empire beyond Punjab. Muhammad Ghori is actually credited with first Muslim empire building in India and that was from 1192 onwards. Even if we take Muslim rule to start from Mahmud Ghazanvi(which if not accurate) it will be less than a thousand year till 1857 AD. (Actually British were in control of most of the India by 1805 after second Maratha war.)



``If we take Mahmud of Ghazni to 1857, it still doesn`t make a thousand years.

A few centuries before Ghazni, Muhammad bin Qasim did arrive, but didn`t get further than Sindh.

Some basic arithmetic is a useful skill.

concerned #56

Pithy and devastating. I love it!

krashid

You are an honest man. Wish your compatriots * were at least half as honest.



*(Me & mine too sometimes)

``I would have preferred Ashoka. Would have been more appropriate. I believe this brave son of Punjab was the first one to invade the Gangetic valley and establish permanent rule at Patliputra (Patna?). Where have the days of Sapta-Sindhu gone?``

If Ashoka was a ``brave son of Punjab`` then Buddha was born in Bahawalpur.

What do we have coming next, Mr. rjanjua? Just asking, so that we dont get bowled over, like we were with the ``Ashoka- brave son of Punjab`` one.

Satyavadi

rjanjua::

``what`s the % of non-Brahmin MPs in your parliament?``

Parliament:

Total 545:

Brahmin MPs: 76 (From the Akhil Bharat Brahmin Samaj sources)

% of Non-Brahmin MPS = ((545-76)/545) *100 = 86%

Satyavadi

Rajanjua:

http://www.idea.int/women/parl/studies4a.htm

Caste has been an important feature of Indian public and political life. Most of the women MPs in the Tenth Parliament were members of the higher castes. For example, there were six women from the Brahmin caste. This represents a sizeable 17.14 per cent of the women MPs, while Brahmins comprise only 5.52 per cent of the population. However, it is important to guard against making an easy correlation between caste and political representation. For example, of the six women who are Brahmins, two are MPs from the Communist Party of India. In both cases the caste factor is less important than their privileged class backgrounds. Further, both were products of political movements, the nationalist struggle and the anti-emergency movement.

I have still not been able to find a good link to corroborate my assertion that non-Brahmins, as a whole, not just women are in a significant majority.

Not directly to the point but reveals the consensus that prevailed in the drafting of the Indian constitution which still prevails.

http://www.aracnet.com/

re anamika:

I remarked a little while ago about the holier than thou attitude of some of the Indian contributors. You, sir are the king of them all and considering the presence of some others on Chowk that is a big honour indeed. So go out and celebrate with some brand new chappals.

I shall personally look into what Indira said and when(and if) I find the smoking gun I shall request you to go back to your smelly cubicle and round out that spreadsheet for Joe Sixpack to show only two decimal digits.I am sure you are more than capable of doing that.

Many regards

-sac

In reply to Umairr, #55, who believes people have an unlimited right to self-determination --

What is the minimum unit of people that can seek self-determination ? Is it the individual ? The family ?

What guides the principle of self-determination ? Is geographic contiguity count ? If the people who seek self-determination live among others what rule is to be used. Simple majority ? Two-thirds majority ? What happens to the right of a person to move around freely or live anywhere ? Wouldn`t others want to restrict that so that no demographic change occurs causing a political split ?

If you think about it hard enough you will find that rights correctly pertain to individuals, not to groups. You cannot justly have a right merely by virtue of being a member of a group. Groups of humans are not analogous to anthills. The only proper ``Group rights`` are derivative from individual rights.

Self-determination is a ``group right`` and can arise only from the violation of the rights of individuals in a group. If the individual rights of individuals in a group are not being violated in the existing political unit, the group has no just claim to self-determination, i.e., secession from that political unit.

-arun gupta

Not surprisingly, what Mrs. Gandhi is supposed to have said can be found quoted in Pakistani newspapers.

E.g., http://www.dawn.com/2000/01/21/nat15.htm

Maulana Noorani traced the history of Muslims since advent of Islam in the subcontinent with the arrival of Muhammad Bin Qasim and said since then the Muslims and Hindus had been fighting two to three wars in each century.

He quoted Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi saying with the fall of Dacca, we have taken revenge of the war spread over 1,000 years and had buried the two nation theory in the Bay of Bengal. He said this statement was a proof that India had not conceded to the creation of Pakistan.

------

Not that Pakistanis do not know the quote of ``sinking the Two Nation Theory in the Bay of Bengal``. For that, and for an analysis of how Pakistan misuses history, from an American point-of-view, read

http://www.mlists.net/sindh-intl/mail/mail_abuseofhistory.htm

-arun gupta

``I remarked a little while ago about the holier than thou attitude of

some of the Indian contributors. You, sir are the king of them all

and considering the presence of some others on Chowk that is a

big honour indeed. So go out and celebrate with some brand new

chappals.``

If holier-than-thou is telling someone not to lie, then so be it.

``I shall personally look into what Indira said and when(and if)``

Good. We will never hear from you on this again.

``the smoking gun I shall request you to go back to your smelly

cubicle and round out that spreadsheet for Joe Sixpack to show

only two decimal digits.I am sure you are more than capable of

doing that.``

Haha. This attitude is what you got you into trouble in the first place. Making wild assumptions! Indian=programmer (or ``Paki``=cabbie) - is that it? Or is it projection again? Think before you write again. It will serve you in good stead and possibly save you from getting flamed.

Some quotes from the previously mentioned article by Yvette Rosser :

Denial and erasure are the primary tools of historiography as it is officially practiced in Pakistan.

the teachers are afraid ``to corrupt their students with the truth.``

In most textbooks, any mention of Hinduism is inevitably accompanied by derogatory critiques

It can therefore be seen that Pakistani textbooks were not always estranged from their associations with South Asian history and culture. but beginning with the Bhutto years and accelerating under the Islamized tutelage of General Zia-ul Haq, not only has the history of the subcontinent been discarded, but it has been vilified and mocked and transformed into the evil other, a measure of what Pakistan is not.

Bhutto vehemently launched an anti-Indian campaign with vituperative anti-Hindu rhetoric. This legacy of his orchestrated hatred is still the basis of Pakistani historical narratives where Gandhi is now usually referred to as a ``conniving bania.``

Pakistani scholarship is defined by placing the country’s problems in a less negative light in comparison to India’s problems. This could be called the theory of self justification, but more aptly results in self negation.

... historical discourse in Pakistan is dominated by negative images of India and Hinduism.

During the 71 War, the newspapers in Pakistan told nothing of the violence of the military crack down nor did they keep the people informed of the deteriorating strategic situation. The role of the Mukti Bahini was practically unknown in Pakistan, and when defeat finally came, it came as a devastating and unexpected shock that could only be explained by Indira Gandhi’s lies and treachery.

Pakistani textbooks are particularly prone to a historical narrative manipulated by omission.

An example of this is the manner in which the Indo-Pak War of 1965 is discussed in Pakistani textbooks. In standard narrations of the 65 War manufactured for students and the general public, there is no mention of Operation Gibraltar, even thirty years after the event. In fact, many university level history professors whom I interviewed had never heard of Operation Gibraltar and the repercussions of that ill-planned military adventurism, which resulted in India’s attack on Lahore. In Pakistani textbooks the story is told that the Indian army, unprovoked and inexplicably attacked Lahore and that one Pakistani jawan equals ten Indian soldiers, who, upon seeing the fierce Pakistanis, drop their banduks and run away. Many people in Pakistan still think like this, and several mentioned this assumed cowardice of the Indian army in recent discussions regarding the war-like situation in Kargil.

As mentioned earlier, the mistakes made in Kargil are a legacy of the lack of information that citizens have about the real history of their country.

This textbook tells the young sixth class school children of Sindh that, ``The Muslims knew that the people of South Asia were infidels and they kept thousands of idols in their temples.`` The Sindhi king, Raja Dahir, is described as cruel and despotic.

``The non-Brahmans who were tired of the cruelties of Raja Dahir, joined hands with Muhammad-bin-Qasim because of his good treatment.``

According to this historical orientation, The conquest of Sindh opened a new chapter in the history of South Asia. ``Muslims had ever lasting effects on their existence in the region. . . For the first time the people of Sindh were introduced to Islam, its political system and way of the government. The people here had seen only the atrocities of the Hindus. . . . The people of Sindh were so much impressed by the benevolence of Muslims that they regarded Muhammad-bin-Qasim as their savior. . . . Muhammad-bin-Qasim stayed in Sindh for over three years. On his departure from Sindh, the localpeople were overwhelmed with grief.``

When I visited Hyderabad, Sindh in 1997, I discussed the contents of this textbook with local Sindhis, who assured me that they told their children an alternative version of this story.

They informed me that any good Sindhi knows that ``in several cities in ancient Sindh, Muhammad-bin-Qasim beheaded every male over the age of eighteen and that he sent tens of thousands of Sindhi women to the harems of the Abbassid Dynasty.`` They also explained that impact of these textbooks was minimal because, though the back of the book indicated that 20,000 copies were supposedly printed annually, that, because of corruption, ``fewer than 10,000 were ever printed and distributed.``

----

That was Yvette Rosser. All I can say is that I now understand much better a lot of what goes on Chowk, and can only say in sympathy -- ``The Truth will set you free``.

-arun gupta

Re: Satyavadi

``If Ashoka was a ``brave son of Punjab`` then Buddha was born in Bahawalpur.``

Really? I thought Buddha was born somewhere in the present day Bihar/UP. Well, well-all these facts. From history to politics to current affairs. ``The world according to the Saffron Brigade!!``.

Lets see now.. Ashoka Dehlvi? No. How about Ashoka Lukhnowi? Maybe Ashoka Bihari Babu. Well you take your pick, Satya Ji :-). You seem to know better.