The Real Jehad

hobbyty #344: Kamal Matinuddin or perhaps you also do not realize what it means to divide Punjab to please smaller provinces. I said earlier in response to Romair`s post, that breaking up of Punjab does not solve anything. It does not guarentee the change of mind of regionalist leaders. Do you realize that crying wolf is their bread and butter. They are really playing a game of cheap popularity. All it will do is to change blaming Punjab to blaming Punjab and Saraikistan or whatever. Punjab and Saraikistan will still be sitting upstream with respect to water resources. DO you understand what does it mean? Dividing Punjab is the first concrete step towards pulverizing federation. Actually Punjab has already paid the real price for keeping the federation together. You may go whole nine yards talking about Punjabi domination of bureaucracy and military and disproportionate spending, yet Punjab is poor off than Indian Punjab who went through turmoil during eighties. Punjab has sacrified their identity more than any other ethnic group for Pakistan. Where else in the world a population of 60-70 million people is denied education in their own language? How many books have been published in Punjabi since 1947? How many daily newspaper are there in Punjab? They are even criticized fir having a small scale world Punjabi congress for the promotion of Punjabi language. Where else an official comission headed by Jamil Jalibi will recommend president of Pakistan against the use of Punjabi language in education-because it will create ``India friendly feeling``.

Now where do you or Kamal Matinudding would like to draw a line dividing Punjab and Saraikistan? Do you know the demography of Saraikistan? Who is in majority in Rahimyar Khan, Bahawalnagar, Bahawalpur, Khanewal, Kot Addu, Muzaffargarh, Vehari? They are migrants from east and central Punjab, moving there for the last 150 years. Do you know who won the Nazin seat in Bahawalpur beating the PML (LM) candidate who happened to be a family member of Nawab of Bahawalpur, prince Salahudding Abbasi)? His name is Cheema and he won on the basis of tribal identities/ biradris of central and east Punjabis.

Who is going to divide Punjab? Musharraf and Naqvi and Qureshi and Usmani? You got to be kidding. They are currently tolerated; does not mean they can get away with any stupidity. Anybody supporting the division of Punjab can not win in Punjab, no matter what ISI plans.

Lovely AAmir 343

Since you are so dumb, I have taken upon my big shoulders the task of looking after your interests.

My research has established that 91% of all those people unfortunate to be born in that absurdity called Pakistan will be better off if Pakistan did not exist anymore. The major break up from my research is as follows:

Major Group % who will gain

Punjabis 2.6

Sindhis 100.00

Mohajjirs 100 - Hobbyty

Baloochis 100

Citizens of Pakhoonwa 100

Sunnis 2.6

Shias 100 % - ylh`s fake relative

Ahmedis 100

Other groups 100

This research has been reported in Advanced Journal of Cybernetics published by Kabul University under the scholarship of Maulvi Ab Al Bab Al Uloo Pulloo Kwhat Pwat Azeehundeen Sala Gala Bewakoof. Please look up.

Romair, Fuzair, Sameer JB

It seems that the idea of creation of more provinces is now going to get some national exposure:

The News International Aug 31, 2001

``Case for more provinces

Kamal Matinuddin

Now that the military government has taken the bold step of devolving power to elected nazims and naib nazims at the district and tehsil level why not go a step further and create more provinces to complete the process of the devolution of authority. Given the determination General Musharraf has shown in achieving his objectives and the plan to amend the constitution, wherever necessary, it should not be difficult for him and his corps commanders to take another major and a much- needed initiative.

An area, which also needs the attention of the present decision-maker is the eradication of provincial disharmony. This cancer in our body politic has spread into the vitals. It has contributed to a large extent in the breaking up of our country in 1971. It continues to retard economic progress, today, as sub-nationalism is gaining ever more adherents.

The late General Fazl-e-Haq, when he was the governor of the NWFP, once threatened to move the chain at Torkhum to the Attock bridge. Nawaz Sharif, as the chief minister of Punjab, was determined not to accept the central leadership of Benazir Bhutto. He did so because he was intoxicated with the power he possessed by having the mandate to rule over the largest province of the country. Altaf Hussain, sitting cosily in England, blames Punjab for all the ills in Pakistan. The Baloches and the Pashtuns living side by side in Balochistan keep quarrelling about who owns the province.

The main cause for the friction between the provinces is the dissimilarity both in geographic terms, in the size and ethnic composition of their population and in their uneven economic development. They are unwilling to give up their perceived rights for the common good. The inability to construct the much-needed Kalabagh dam is one such example. Economic progress has suffered because of the frequent wrangling on provincial quotas; on the division of financial resources, on the allocation of water from the rivers flowing from one province to the other; on the royalty on natural assets found within the provinces; on projects funded by outside agencies.

The frequent demand for greater autonomy to the provinces is another issue, which is often raised. Nearly all the participants in the TV programme Mukalima emphasised the need for giving maximum autonomy to the federating units. Some even recalled the Lahore Resolution, which said that the `states were to be autonomous and sovereign.` Giving maximum autonomy to smaller political units would not be that `frightening` as giving maximum autonomy to the provinces as they exist today.

The creation of more states and provinces is not very uncommon in sovereign countries. The United States began with only thirteen colonies, today it has 51 states. India during the British Raj had only twelve provinces, including those, which presently are in Pakistan. They now have 26 provinces. Uttar Pradesh, the largest state, has recently been broken up due to the demand of certain ethnic groups but also to reduce its domination over others. Turkey, a model which General Musharraf some times thinks of copying, though smaller in size compared to Pakistan has a large number of provinces each with an elected governor England has several counties. Even tiny Switzerland has more cantons than Pakistan, which is ten times its size. Afghanistan has 29 provinces, each headed by a governor.

To avoid re-drawing political boundaries within the country the present administrative divisions could be re-named provinces. Thus Rawalpindi Division, Lahore Division, Peshawar Division would become provinces with elected governors as their heads but no provincial assemblies. Maximum autonomy would be given to these provinces so that matters pertaining to law and order, education, health, legal issues and finance are all handled by the new set up. The governor would have a consultative body comprising departmental head

The governors of these smaller political units would be able to give greater attention to the needs of their domains because they will have less real state to govern. Unlike yester-years, when governors were appointed from areas different to the one he was required to control, the new incumbent will be a `son of the soil` being from the same, province from which he will be elected. He will be fully aware of the demands of his people. Having to depend on the electorate for his continuation of office he will respond to their needs much better than a nominated governor.

The law and order would also improve as the local police of that province would have a smaller area to cover. They would feel more responsible as they would be dealing with people with whom they have been living. They would be familiar with the names of the criminals and their activities. Movement of outsiders in their area would be more easily detected by the law enforcing agencies of the smaller province. A data base of that province would be more manageable.

Quick and speedy justice would be ensured. Presently a man from Fathejang has to go to all the way to Lahore to attend sessions at the high court. Unnecessary expenses and discomfort can be avoided if justice is available to him closer at home. This could be made possible if each of these smaller provinces have their own higher courts. People would not have to travel long distances to seek redress of their grievances, as the high courts of the province would not be too far away.

The nation would save the money spent on provincial elections and the

salaries and perks of the provincial ministers. The palatial government houses, a legacy of the British empire, on the maintenance of which lakhs of rupees are spent each month, will and should be done away with (even if the scheme of more provinces is not found feasible). Compulsory borrowing of money from the IMF and from friendly countries for economic development and wasteful expenditure on these monstrosities do not go hand in hand. Governors of the newly created small political units would be required to live in their own houses or at best on modest government accommodation. The best building in town should be that of a university or hospital and not a government house. The best lawns should in the national parks not in the residences of provincial heads.

By breaking up the current provinces and creating a number of smaller ones the occasional voices raised for secession will be eliminated as none of the smaller units would be able to stand on their own. Those who glibly talk about Azad Balochistan or Jinnahpur would have no legs to stand on, as they are unlikely to get the support of a group larger than one newly created small province.

The VIP culture presently surrounding the office of the provincial governors would be done away with. No flags on their house. No fleet of cars escorting them when they move within their area. No ADCs. No military secretaries will be needed.

The distinct ethnic identities of Punjabis, Pashtuns, Baloches, Sindhis and the Urdu speaking community will of course not disappear by breaking up the provinces, and why should that happen as Pakistan will remain a multi-ethnic and a poly-lingual country. We have to convert that into our strength and not let it harm our fabric. But by splitting the ethnic provinces into smaller administrative units it will surely remove the attachment people have to their respective province.

Having done away with the centuries old colonial legacy of management by the bureaucrats would it be too much to expect the regime to examine the possibility of breaking up the British created provinces and replacing them with smaller self-governing political units. Instead of the harmful ethnic rivalry between the existing provinces there would be a healthy competitive spirit between them. Case of having more provinces is, therefore, worth examining.

The writer is a retired Lt-General``

-30-01 4:36:58 EST Reply #: 336

shammi

Great article:

Rich China, poor Subcontinent

``The conflict between India and Pakistan in the subcontinent and the tension between China and Taiwan are widely seen as two of the world`s most dangerous flashpoints today. But see how differently the two adversaries handle their economic relations. China and Taiwan are pushing faster and faster towards economic integration. India and Pakistan seem to find it impossible to trade.``

(http://www.hinduonnet.com/stories/05302523.htm)



SHammi,asansol

The author has totally mischaracterised the relationship between China and Taiwan.

China refuses to recognise the existence of Taiwan and uses its clout to make sure that others do the same, with the result that countries like the US and India have not officially recognised Taiwan, nor has the UN given it a seat. Taiwan cannot, in its own economic interest, afford to ignore a neighbour 60 times as large and arguably the fastest growing country in the world. So most of the impetus for trade relations comes from Taiwan businessmen.

On Pakistan-India trade, Pakistanis would be the bigger recipients of any benefits of improved trade simply because extenal trade forms a larger part of their GDP and trade with India would form a larger part of their overall trade than India`s would be with Pakistan. Thus if you look at it from a pure economic viewpoint, the greater push for more trade should come from the Pakistrans side. But then this would be a repudiation of their Kashmir First policy.

And the politicos too probably have this nightmarish vision of being swamped by Indian goods, when the reality is that the benefits of their access to the large Indian market would outweigh any loss in domestic market share to Indian imports. For Pakistan, open trade with India would mean domination by Hindu businessmen, and that could never be allowed to happen to an Islamic Republic.

The problem between Pakistan and India is enmeshed in the clash of religious civilizations, Islam vs Hinduism. It is not ``politics`` like the author makes this out to be. For Pakistan, open trade with India would mean domination by Hindu businessmen, and that could never be allowed to happen to an Islamic Republic.

The same is true for Bangladesh. With Sri Lanka, there might have been the possibility of a China/Taiwan-like economic opening if the Tamil separatist movement were solved peacefully and amicably. However, there is little chance for this under the present circumstances.

Harimau #337

Sure, some ``relief`` may be provided. ;)

Re: Dost-Mittar

You are right. I was being too conservative in my analysis of Fuzair`s rationale, and had assumed that even if accession to India had been secured by `bribing` the maharaja in the form of giving some sort of legitimacy to his rule post-accession, the maharaja`s rule would have been shortlived. Of course, the reality was that his rule would have ended the moment he signed the Instrument, which is in fact what happened.

WOMEN’S GROUP PUSH SPARKS BURQA RUSH



FROM MUKHTAR AHMAD



Srinagar, Aug. 29:

With only two days to go before the Lashkar-e-Jabbar’s burqa deadline expires, a separatist women’s organisation has come out in support of the Islamic dress code.

“I thank all those who initiated the purdah campaign in Kashmir,” Asiya Andrabi, the chief of the only women’s separatist organisation in Kashmir, Dukhtaran-e-Milat, said in a statement in Urdu.

“We should even boycott those families which live an un-Islamic life in Kashmir,” Andrabi added.

However, frontline outfits like the Lashkar-e-Toiba and Hizb-ul-Mujahideen had opposed the imposition of the dress code.

But Dukhtaran-e-Milat’s support to the burqa diktat has spread fear among women in Kashmir who had been assured by the stance of the frontline outfits.

“After the Dukhtaran-e-Milat’s support to the veil campaign, we cannot take any chances,” said Amina Khan, a school teacher, while shopping for a veil along with her female colleagues in Srinagar. “The threat now sounds genuine. That’s why I am buying an abiyah (veil).”

There’s a great rush here as women are busy buying burqa. There was also a burqa sale on Monday. “We have been flooded with orders,” said Ghulam Mohammad, a tailor. “We are working overtime to meet the demand for burqas. I am working day and night along with my helpers to beat the deadline.”

Many Muslim women in Srinagar also supported the veil campaign. “A veil is good thing for Muslim women, but acid attacks have no logic. Let them (militants) convey their message to women through religious preachers,” said a veiled Nighat Yasmeen.

“By adopting the Islamic dress code, Kashmiri women have silenced the opposition voices ... (and people) who tried to sabotage the massive dress code campaign in Kashmir,” Andrabi said.

Ref Stuka #: 325

[LOL, therin I agree. Though I think the Indian government should be more generous and provide airconditioned buses with video phillum.]

``Dharmic`` videos?

Great article:

Rich China, poor Subcontinent

``The conflict between India and Pakistan in the subcontinent and the tension between China and Taiwan are widely seen as two of the world`s most dangerous flashpoints today. But see how differently the two adversaries handle their economic relations. China and Taiwan are pushing faster and faster towards economic integration. India and Pakistan seem to find it impossible to trade.``

(http://www.hinduonnet.com/stories/05302523.htm)

Fuzair

``...current situation in Kashmir is no more a genuine uprising of the Kashmiris and it is Pakistan that is keeping it alive``

The reality appears to be more complex than we would like to imagine. For example check out the following site that points out that the proportion of foreign militants amongst the total number of ``active militants`` has crossed 50% mark at present.

``

http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/290801/dtlnat64.asp

Summary:As against 0.2 per cent of the 844 militants killed in 1991, the number of foreign mercenaires who fell to the bullets of security forces till middle of this month stood at 57.2 per cent this year, the sources told PTI here.

``

There are two very distinct phases of evolution of the Kashmir problem. The first phase that stretches from 1989 to 1994-95 was primarily indigenous in nature with support from Pakistan. There is a period of relative lull between 1995 to 1997. Elections were hold in this phase during 1996 and it appeared Pakistan is finding it difficult to keep the pot boiling. The second phase beginning from 1997 to present is characterised by a marked increase in the number of foreign militants. It is also more distinct for its ferocity and jihadi like fervour with which suicide squads were used to inflict damage to public places and army camps. The pro-independence groups like JKLF were marginalised and the whole thing was given a predominantly religious colour by introduction of ``jihadi ideology`` imported from Afganistan. For example, read the recent acid attacks on Kashmiri girls by the Mujahideens for wearing jeans, not wearing hijab etc. A group called Lashkar-e-jabbar has even issued a deadline by which every woman not covered in hijab shall be attacked.This present crop of jihadis is more inspired by the puratanical version of Islam that Talibans have established in Afganistan and has little to do with the political ``freedom`` of Kashmir.

``...Stem cell research in India would imply voluntary abortions...``

Stem cell research at the institute`s identified can only be done on those stem cells for which NO further abortions can take place. Please read the article in detail, and understand the rationale behind President Bush`s decision to include Indian firms.

Re: Fuzair

``...current situation in Kashmir is no more a genuine uprising of the Kashmiris and it is Pakistan that is keeping it alive, but do you seriously think that the average Kashmiri wants to remain Indian ...Similarly, I`m not sure that too many of them want to join Pakistan either...``

Your conclusions above, along with your earlier observation that `independence is not realistic`, is the clearest rationale for maintaing the status quo. The costs to both India and Pakistan to change it are enormous, which many do not seem to realize.

Fuzair, ROmair:

Do you guys agree that Jinnah was a stubborn man? He actually could have prevented the whole fiasco. Why did he become the governor general of Pakistan? Why didnt he let Mountbatten be the GG of both countries? Do you think this situation of Kashmir would have aroze if the GG of both the countries was the same? After all diplomacy has its fringe benefits which Jinnah due to his arrogance did not consider.

Shammi :

You positive view of stem cell research in India without realizing the socialogical consequences (which the americans are debating over) is not very perceptive. Stem cell research in India would imply voluntary abortions, which obviously occur even now.... but then it will become a trade, ``bare babies to earn money?`` I am sure indians can come up with a better way of reducing poverty than that. Unless you think human life is expendable.

Re: Fuzair #306

``...how long do you think Hari Singh would have sat on the gaddi of Kashmir if Kashmir was Pakistani?...``

Half a second! But even if he acceeded to India, his tenure would have been shortlived (under the Indian Constitution, no kings/hereditary offices are allowed. OK - he could have taken the route that many erstwhile princes did in both India and Pakistan -- constitutional office as MP, governor, minister, etc., but that does not result in hereditary office) His only option to lengthen self-preservation was independence, but even that was doubtful. How long could he have survived a rebellion? I am sure that he saw the writing on the wall. In any event, his actions were not perhaps guided by the `will of the people`. To the extent that the `will of the people` could have been determined, it was expressed by the jailed civilian popular leader Sheikh Abduallah, who was decidedly AGAINST accession to Pakistan, if not for accession to India.

``...The ONLY way that Hari Singh had a hope of keeping his throne was if he joined India...``

I touched on this earlier -- India abolished all hereditary offices, and Mrs. Gandhi delivered the ultimate ignominy be abolishing privy purses as well in 1972, thus reducing the kings/princes to becoming hoteliers.

``...I still maintain that the Pakistani embargo and then the armed incursion was to forestall the inevitable accession to India...``

But, it was clearly illegal, and also against the `wishes of the people` as expressed through the popular Abdullah.

BTW, I hope that YLH is not reading this board, otherwise he will tear you apart for your remarks on Jinnah.

Re: Tibet

India DOES recognize Tibet to be a part of China (1954 Panchsheel Agreement).

I beg your pardon on behalf of other Indian interactors who have made uncharitable remarks in the last 30-odd posts

Re: Romair

Having run away from logic and reasoning, are you reduced to parachuting in with occasional blurbs that have nothing at all to do with the subject under consideration?

Stuka

What you say is partly true. The Pakistan problem in Kashmir started 1947. That is true. However, Pakistan problem in Kashmir became stronger in late not because India started behaving differently than it had earlier. It became stronger because then Pakistan was able to redirect its thugs from Afganistan to Kashmir.

There is very simple relationship between what Pakistani military did in Kabul and what they are doing in Kashmir. It is the same people, same techniques.

Everybody in India has their problems. Kashmiris had the least of them. They complained and cribbed. Everyone does that India. What makes Kashmir different is that you have outsiders barging in hoping they can get a piece of the cake.

About Euthanasia, I was not saying without thinking. People in Baloochistan, Sindh, Pakhtoonwa will be happier (after initial shock) if Pakistan broke up. Independently they can revive their cultures and their languages. They can establish better relations with other countries. They can take pride in being who they are. The will have many friends. They will improve economically, culturally and morally. I dont see why you want me to apologize for wishing people well. It is the duty of every Indian to help these suffering people realize their dreams.

Fuzair 320

I agree with your post entirely. There are problems with moral claims by everyone here. Neither Pakistan nor India is about to give up what they have. The best solution will be if Kashmiris like everyone else get their equal rights in both parts of kashmir. There are so many people who want independence in this world. Not all of them have it and ever will get it. Tibbet is a very good example.

Kashmiris who think India is difficult in dealing with them are wrong. Pakistan will be even less willing to really part with what it has got. There are strategic issues here that go beyond kashmir.