The Meaning of Pakistan

PM

(perhaps a good transistory measure)

That is exactly what I want.

The two reforms that should be made are,

1)Minorities should be allowed to vote and contest in General elections again...They could vote in the general elections until 1997 I believe. So we havent lost much ground, only one election has this discrimination taken place in. Pakistan had joint electorates uptill 1997 with the exception of the positions of President, Prime Minister etc.

2)Reserved Minority seats should be kept, as a ``transitory`` measure till the Minorities` have a position in the society that they no longer require that measure.

3)A Ministry of Minority affairs should be created which should deal with, and for the betterment of

Minorities in Pakistan. A representative of all minorities plus one from the majority community should look after this.

4) Minority members should be allowed to obtain whatever position they like. They should also have as a ``transitory`` measure, reserved quota.

5) An appeal to the Majority community`s attachment to the majority religion should be made, it should be impressed upon the people, that these traditions of equality, harmony, and helping others is not of recent origin but is part of the glorious traditions set by Islam.

Till such a time, that one can fairly say, that the rights of the Minority are finally protected, Minority community should be held in sacred trust, a compact that we make not only to the state of PAKISTAN, to QAID E AZAM, but also to our own individual consciences....

Our final and foremost ideal should be

``You are free- You are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or anyother place of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion caste or creed- that has nothing to do with the business of the state

In time these angularities of the majority community and the minority community will vanish and we shall all become equal citizens of one state`` (Jinnah)

Interestingly enough, the need for a quota system was also pressed upon by Gandhi, who wrote a letter to Jinnah in this regard. Jinnah as mentioned earlier abhorred the idea of seperate electorates, apartheid as Sigalph calls it, but accepted this idea as the necessity of the time.

We should work towards making Pakistan a Non Communal, Democracy. That should be our ultimate goal.

Yasser Latif Hamdani

correction,

In #835, I wrote: ``...but if you have your eyes on a modern democratic state, ...``

Should have been ``....but if you have your sights set on a modern democratic state, ...``

Urstruly #136:

``These heart warming annecdotes work best when you practice before preaching them.``

Either you missed the point, or your paranoia has you believing that I engage in the kind of group-bashing (to put it mildly) that you do.

Good day!

Truth,

``I`m not an idiot.``

On the contrary my dear fellow you are the only idiot here, just like your hero ``Veersavarkar`` the true Hinduvtist!

-YLH

Truth,

I think Sigalph was making a comparison between Rajyasabha and the US senate, and not of the Muslim League`s demands.

As any idiot can tell, Muslim League`s demands were realistic and genuine as according to the situation. People were not divided on racial and ethnic lines as they were divided on the lines of Muslims and Hindus which in turn formed ethnicities.

Let us atleast agree, that the way out of the mess is to adopt wholely solely, Jinnah`s speech of 11th August 1947 as the ideal not only for Pakistan, but India and Bangladesh as well.

Sigalph,

I highly doubt that your usage of the word apartheid in the first post was correct. It is an ugly word which you misused in the context of the Pakistan Movement.

Jinnah himself was opposed to seperate electorates in principle as is evident in his speeches in 1928 ... but said, that it was unrealistic for the Muslim community not insist on it, because that was the only way they could safeguard their rights.

When the Majority community wishes to seperate itself from the minority community with self styled notions of superiority, that is apartheid.

When the Minority community, through constitutional safeguards, and with consensus decides to make a case for seperate electorates, it is ``affirmative action``.

Kindly make a note of that.

Hence to avoid a Lebanon like situation in India, it was only fair to make Pakistan.

-Pakistan Zindabad

Dear Bilal

Thank you very much for this post I will consider re-inventing my tactics. Appreciate your advice.

Gupta # 831

When did you get your ``a`` circumcised from in front of your name. PM has done that before. She actually changed her whole name. I hope you are also not a Shouqeen.

In response to Urstruly (Reply # 829)
Dear Urstruly:

I am aware of some literature on media and discourse analysis – particularly the contributions of Edward Said, Michael Foucault, and Raymond Williams, and Stuart Hall.

Media is, and can be, used for both constructive and destructive purposes. I have no doubt in my mind that a lot of Indians are currently engaged in a media war against both Muslims and Pakistanis. The efforts of such forces need to be nullified by good sense, knowledge, intelligence, truthfulness, and responsibility. As long as we are internally weak (I repeat), they will tend to exploit it and take advantage. Why? Because of our (both Indian and Pakistani) historical baggage.

False and misplaced propaganda cannot, and should not, be responded by false and misplaced propaganda. And, those who engage in such acts actually dig their own graves, though inadvertently. Please consider.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

PM # 833

These heart warming annecdotes work best when you practice before preaching them.

YLH

He understands and knows that I mean well. But advice about gym and sleep are good advice. I practice them also.

Gupta:

Note to self again?

re. YLH #824

``, you have no right to insult the minorities of Pakistan. They are our sacred trust. ``

Yasser, although your intentions are no doubt pure, I think that this sort of paternalistic, protective attitude towards Minorites is not consistent with true democratic principles. Sure, the law needs to protect the rights of all, esp. the minorities (not just religious), but what we don`t need is a stuation in which the Majority are seen as `carekeepers` of the rest. The `sacred trust` idea may have been noble in a different age and cirsumstance, but if you have your eyes on a modern democratic state, it may not be the highest ideal (though perhaps a good transistory measure).

``We made Pakistan to be free of religious subjugation not to oppress other minorities. I am afraid [Urstruly`s] actions are derogatory to the ideal of Pakistan.``

I hope yo uare not referring to Urstruly`s jabs towards me. I would be a lot more concerned about what his attitude towards Pak Hindus might be.

rgds,

PM

sigalph:

please do not bother to explain to me the differences between the senators of America and checks and balnces required by the Muslim League. I am well aware of them. I am not the one who raised that analogy. Please address such posts solely to ylh and his supporters. I`m not an idiot.

To UrsTrulyParanoid,

Heard this story in Church yesterday (Gay Church, of course).. you might want to read it....

A man, fed up with what he perceives as the cheating, debasing nature of his town`s inhabitants, packs up his belongs and get on a train. A few hours later, the train stops at another little town. The approaches a bystander and asks ``Ma`am, I`m looking to move to a new town. I wonder if you could tell me what kinda of folks live here``, to which the woman asks, ``Well, what were the people like in your own hometown?``

``Well, y`know, they were mean and selfish and corrupt``.

``sir,`` said the woman, ``You`l find the folks in this town pretty much the same.`` So the man got back on the train, headed for the next town.

At the next town, he put the same question to a station guard. The guard responded with the same question as did the woman. The man, for some reasons unbeknownst to himself, replied ``Well, the folks back home were helpful and friendly, and always cheerful``.

To which the guard replied, ``Well, sir, you`ll find them to pretty much the same in this town too``

I was talking with respect to ``Pervert`` Masih post.

Yasser

Since blessed Allah has not rescinded reincarnation for Hindus, it is possible to back, in a manner of speaking. Daal-eating is probably an essential ingredient, and being bahmin-bania helps.

In this janm, though, I must abandon the niceties of conduct, and not evade issues. Rather than being polite, and calling a spade a spade, I must call it by its true name -- ``an instrument used to dig the graves of Kafirs``.

Urstruly, in his Farangi cloak of Jekyll-Hyde speaks correctly : derision is out. Vituperation is in.

I got this janm after swearing the oath : I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never dispute the right of a Pakistani to blame his problems on a Hindu. I will do everything in my power to make him feel justified.

I will request everyone to help hold this nanhaa jaan to that oath.

re ylh

``In the US, the majority does not necessarily identify itself as Protestant christian, instead the problem in the US is racial. ``

There is a reason that that majority does not identify itself as Protestant: it is not. By their own admission no more than 50 per cent of Americans are Protestants(Gallup Survey of Religion in America 1998). Of the rest, 25 % are Roman Catholics and 25 % consist of atheists, non-believers, Jews, Muslims etc ctc.

The problem is America is hardly racial. The real problem is the belief of self procalimed liberals who think that racial politics can reap benefits. Nowhere in the world (I have visited 23 countries) are people of African and Arab descent better treated than in the USA. You are a bright fellow: don`t get suckered into the liberal nonsense that the Democrats espouse on college campuses everywhere. Ultimately, all the Kennedy-type liberals want to do is to create a socialist state where the very notion of breathing will be subject to state permission.

Dear Bilal

I fully agree with your second paragraph and that is the point I have been trying to make since last ten posts. My question still is: How can it be achieved? I can proudly present you as a voice of reason and knowledge among 10 others from our side but can they present one single honorable soul matching your qualities. THere is not one single interactor on their side who hasnt taken cheap shots at our ideals. Bilal sometimes generalizations are true.

You must keep in mind that the media is also a weapon and media wars are fought with the rules of media wars, that includes Internet too. For the time being the best tactic that our adversaries have against us is to turn the whole cacaphony into a incomprehensible noise. It works best when you have nothing material or worth respect to share as compared to your opponent. So we are currently in that phase. How would you get out of that phase-how can you teach your opponent to at least respect himself (not necessarily others) no matter what?

In response to Urstruly (Reply #: 827)
Dear Urstruly:

I am not convinced that you read my posts carefully and sympathetically. I have never maintained that the World around us is simple and easy to deal with. I am simply calling for a wiser course of action that entails minimum harm to “us” and “them”. Let me remind you once again that “us” and “them” are also “us” at the supranational level.
I think, as long as you and your adversaries keep on treating human beings as “weeds”, “rodent”, or “insects”, you and they are not likely to create an environment for happy, peaceful, and progressive existence/coexistence.
If you are still not moved by my writings, let us leave this discussion and wait for the time to teach us a few additional lessons.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad