The Meaning of Pakistan

Dear Tantralogician

I used to kick myself that there must be something wrong with me. How could it be that it is so hard to find a single Hindu soul who wouldnt take cheap shots at every ideal that we hold dear. They did not even hesitate a slight bit when I become face to face with them even when I tell them that I am a Muslim and Pakistani and you could just imagine when I present myself to them as a non-Muslim or a Quadani or a liberal. Sometimes I wonder, how could He the almighty be so cruel to waste 1 billion of humanity in such a way. Is the documentry evidence at Chowk is not enough for you. Just role back last 800 posts and find that out yourself. And you dont even need to put yourself in our shoes. Do it by being honest for just next half an hour.

Urstruly writes:

``When I used to live in Pakistan and had no interaction whatsoever with Hindus and Indians I was the biggest supporter of peaceful co-existence even at the cost of Pakistan going a step ahead to resolve issues with Indians. But when I met these people in real life and explored their opinions about us it changed my stance 180 degrees out. I have never ever met a decent Hindu in my whole life after so many years of interaction with them.``

tantralogician says: It is indeed possible, in principle, that what you say is true - that there is no decent Hindu. But why ignore the obverse possibility - the more probable situation - that the Hindus you met were decent and the cachet of indecency is all yours to keep?

tantralogician

Reply to #770

ahmadb:

``SHOULD ONE BARK AT THE BARKING DOGS? I am unable to understand why (even) educated Pakistanis and Indians cannot communicate as civilized human beings. Why we have to downgrade ``others`` to feel

good and/or to reproduce a sense of superiority (or whatever reason)? I am getting fed up, and about to work on an exit strategy and say good-bye to the Chowk. I know, my exit from the Chowk will make some people very happy...Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad``

tantralogician suggests the following thought for your consideration:

The general filth, slush, and mush in which the lotus flower is mired does not deter it from drawing the attentions of the good. It is not besmirched by the sordid ambience in which it is enveloped. It not only sustains itself but nourishes the impulse of all those who have an eye for Beauty and Truth.

tantralogician

Dear Bilal Sahib,

Though it would be unforunate to not have your voice of reason and your here, you must do whatever brings you peace.

I would plesad with you to stay on, but that would be a little selfishly motivated.

So whatever you choose to do, please count me among those who`d like think they`ve have learnt something of value from the great integrity and humanity you have displayed here.

All the best...

PM

P.S IF you decide to stay away from the chowk, it would be nice to know you could still be contacted by email.

The stipulations and demands of Muslim Majority areas pre-Lahore resolution, were not in anyway different from the 2 senators per state rule of the US.

Truth,

How is your ``secularism`` any different from what

VeerSavarkar espoused? He said the same thing.

Secondly, do you seriously think that by changing names the entire character of the state changes?

Just because Republic of India doesnot call itself

Hindu Republic it isnt? Proclamations and names, do not ensure true secularism.

What about the National will? The one to make a temple in Ayodhya... your secular Prime Minister of your secular state, stated that it was the

``National`` Will.

I agree with your definition of secularism, but I still dont understand your motivations to bring Bangladesh under the suzerainty of your state.. surely the frontiers you espouse have nothing to do with Modern Indian Nationalism, but the ancient

emotional bond you feel because of your religion.

As for our renaming those areas, kindly read more about the naming procedure. Nevertheless, dont point fingers at us, the truth is well known. Allahabad`s name is not being changed for any other reason but simply that Allah`s name is not pure enough for a holy Hindu City.

As for us, we would have had no objection to the name India being applied to Pakistan, but it was because your Prime Minister wanted to claim the name ``India`` for Hindustan or Bharat (ironically Indus river passes through Pakistan). Because your Nehru was such a cry baby, we couldnt sacrifice our National Identity or sovereignty just because of one name hence we let go of any claims on that ancient name (thankyou so much Mr Nehru).

Pakistan is not a religious name. Pak though signifies pure, but in reality Pakistan is mnemonic device....

P = Punjab

A = Afghania (NWFP)

K = Kashmir

S = Sindh

TAN= Baluchistan

So have we renamed or just applied a mnemonic device...

is liye Kehta hoon beta, read more.

-YLH

ylh:

Despite my best intentions, I`m back. My definitions of secularism:

1. Every resident is an equal citizen of the land.

2. Every resident can rise to the highest positions in the land.

An official designation of Ram Rajya which I interpret to mean that India defines itself as the Hindu Republic of India is a violation of secularism because it will make one citizen different from the other in the eyes of the law. Renaming of towns does not violate rule #1 or #2. The prevention of the tyranny of the majority is to protect individual rights, not to prevent everybody from whining. You did rename ``North West India`` ``Pakistan``, didnt you? There are always checks and balances in every society, the type of checks and balances required by the two nation theory were unacceptable then and they are unacceptable now (to me).

Bangladesh is sovereign. What they do with their sovereignity is their business. This can include forming deeper relations with India. Or are you going to keep jumping up and saying, ``dont do it!``.

I am sovereign too. They are sovereign too. We can agree. We can disagree.

Dear Prof Bilal,

I would like to second Fuzair`s post and request you to stay. I know that I am not in your good books but I have learnt a lot from you. I think if you want to stay at Chowk you have to live with the people here. When I used to live in Pakistan and had no interaction whatsoever with Hindus and Indians I was the biggest supporter of peaceful co-existence even at the cost of Pakistan going a step ahead to resolve issues with Indians. But when I met these people in real life and explored their opinions about us it changed my stance 180 degrees out. I have never ever met a decent Hindu in my whole life after so many years of interaction with them. Prof. Bilal you and I have to live with this fact and I regret how naieve I was in Pakistan.

Farangi_Kush

This is something I hate to do the most but they then leave us with no option.

Gupta
Take a hike.

Truth`s ``Secular`` argument

`` I would have voted to maintain Allahabad but since no individual right has been trampled, I have to accept the will of the majority.``

Oh so you are telling me that if the Hindu Majority decides to create ``Ram Raj`` (the bogus phrase is taken from your bapu`s speech) then its ok.So what is your problem with a Majority population in Pakistan enacting Islam.. So you see the Hypocrisy?

This is what Qaid e Azam fought against, a majority`s right to ``tyrannize`` the minority ..

No it is wrong for a tyrannical Majority to exist... hence you have to have safe guards... to have true secularism. Hence you have proved my argument but you will not realize this because you are far too self righteous and delusional to do so.

So much for Indian Secularism, and Indian Democracy....

Once again ponder on this my friend...

``Tyranny of the Majority is Not Democracy``.

Hence two senators per state rule in the US! Hence

for true secularism, and true democracy, one man one vote is not the real solution. Such solutions were supported by Hinduvtists like Veersavarkar, and they are supported by you ...

-YLH

(UN)Truth #787:

You didnot answer my questions, because you dont have the answers. Your post is reflective of your hinduvtistic ambitions.

Why I ask you, can you not let Bangladeshis have their sovereignty? Why do you want them to be a part of your country?

Indian Nationalism, atleast your variety, is not a 20th century phenomenon, ... it draws its inspiration from Hindu Mythology, especially that centered around ``Maha-Bharat``.

If you were a truly Modern ``Indian Nationalist`` you would accept the Modern Frontiers of India.

I am not out to prove you negative... I extended an invitation, to embrace true secularism, not the fake secularism in name. Your argument, and your

Hinduvtistic Thought process has restricted you from doing that.

I am glad you referred to your secularism as your secularism alone, because from the definition of true secularism, its an illusion, a false dream.

-YLH

Dear Prof. Bilal,

I would ask you to reconsider your decision. I too understand how you feel since I often feel that way myself after trying to reason with certain mindless cretins (some more mindless than others, if I may coin a new oxymoron) who revel in their ignorance. This is why I have greatly reduced my level of participation and confined myself to the odd one or two line response. I am aware that I too may have ``barked`` more than once and cluttered up the discussion with unnecessary violence/noise and for that I do apologize. But, your leaving will greatly reduce the overall intellectual level of the discource and, in effect, give the ungodly a victory. I have learnt a great deal from you, as I am sure have others. Without mentioning names, I can think of at lease some whose posts have shown improvement after sustained interaction with you. So, again, I ask you to reconsider your decision. However, I do understand why you grow tired of hitting your head against a brick wall.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

I would say, essentially, the same to Arun Gupta, one of the few on this site with whom one can carry on an intelligent discussion.

Regards to all.

Urstruly:

Good Firepower!

Good show.Stoke the fire a bit more.The clinker intellectualese needs to be turned into slag & thet needs thermonuclear purgatory.

Where else the worms run except back into reference material to urge,plead,and supplicate for a dialogue.A dialogue?

When their children are raped,they urge to wait for clinical analysis?When their women are held hostage they call 911 instead of acting on an impulse of honour & dignity?When their Prophets & Book is desecrated they weigh the consequences & believe in lodging police reports.

No wonder such kind lost the empire & left their lands,disgraced & desecrated only to seek refuge behind the euphemism of ``culture`` and ``tolerance``.

``Magar yeh raaz aakhir khul gayaa,saray zamanay pur

Kay ghairat naam thHaa jis kaa,gayee Taimoor kay ghurr sey``.

To retain & live with dignity & honour,nations must purge itself of veinal blood and receive clean un-enslaved transfusion.

USA is free today because of its big stick policy and not because of Bill of Rights.The phD types and job-seeking types have to be taught some nursery-rhymes so that they stay pliable & prostrating forever in gratitude.

All the mumbo-jumbo of sufis and pirs is a fairy-tale unless the thunder of a Ghaznavi is clearly audible from beyond the Hindu-Kush.

Urstruly:A lot of things in life MUST remain beyond discussion & debate.

The inimitable Shafique-ur-Rehman writes:

I saw a man at the Chauraha(Chowk) who was weilding an axe to hit at his foot.

(apnay paooN per kulharee maar raha tha)

I tried to dissuade him to do so.He delivered one on my foot as well.

I exercised my freedom of expression.He the freedom of action.;)-------:-)

__________________________________________________

wassalaam

ylh:

Here is my last response to you. You may have the last word. I dont intend to go over the history of partition for the 100th time on Chowk. Nor do I intend to respond to your smears about my secularism. Your whole premise rests on my proving a negative. Indian nationalism is a twentieth century phenomena and your stretching it to three milleniums of caste discrimination just shows how far out you are. You ask me to responsible for everything that has ever been said or done in India. I am not and dont intend to be.

Let me just point out a few home truths: there is no ban on cow slaughter, there is no Ram Raj, there will never be a ban on cow slaughter, there will never be Ram Raj (in any case it was a complete bogus phrase - it has no implication for what the laws of the state should be)- other than one or two towns, beef is available in every Indian city. Renaming of towns is a legitimate use of majority will. New Amsterdam became New York, Peking became Beijing, Calcutta Kolkatta etc. etc. I would have voted to maintain Allahabad but since no individual right has been trampled, I have to accept the will of the majority.

If willing people come together and form a country, thats beautiful. That is why I threw the ball in Sigalph`s court. That was the begining and end of my Bangladesh/India comments. The rest is your projection of your internal hatreds.

Oy, Urstruly :

Following Sadna and Bilal Ahmad, I think I too shall depart, leaving you to preside over the graveyard.

Good-bye, all ! Ekalavya, if you open a Ghosh-Chakraborty-like discussion forum, please inform me at suvidya@worldnet.att.net

-Arun Gupta, the Infidelator

Macgupta,

Your answer is that the Cabinet Mission plan did not alleviate the problem of the tyranny of the majority... uh huh, but then the people with the grievance were agreeing to it... why then did Mr Nehru not take the plan? Your answer is pathetically unsatisfactory.

Nehru`s words were to the effect that Congress is not bound by any arrangement. This is even criticized by Azad... he calls it Nehru`s bombshell... Kindly dont distort History.

So there were two possible reasons Qaid accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan

1) Either Ayesha Jalaal`s version is correct that

his real objective was parity for Muslims at the center and not a complete partition.

or

2) He was a master politician, who knew that Nehru and the Congress, being intoxicated with their majority party status, will reject the plan adding

insult to injury.

Hence you see, the fault lies with imagined visions of greatness that Nehru, Congress and the Hindu Community at large had. Hence another striking critique of the Hinduvtist Politics...

Have a nice Day

YLH

Urstruly # 772 and ylh # 774

Dear Urstruly:

What is hypocritical and why? And, it is never too late!

Dear Yasser:

I am replying your post because you have written it in a style that I appreciate.

My post was general. I didn’t identify anyone by name.

I have no difficulty with a healthy competition between India/Indians and Pakistan/Pakistanis. I also have no difficulty dealing, in a civilized manner, with those interactors who transgress, get carried away, or have malice toward “others”. Education equips us, or must equip us, to learn necessary and creative ways to fight “badness” (our internal Shaitan) such that others realize their own “badness” and mend their ways. Hence, we cannot (effectively) fight badness with badness, vulgarity with vulgarity, transgression with transgression, hatred with hatred, and so on. But, we can fights all these with good (and human) education and/or human development.

Now, please try to understand my frustration.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad