The Place of Debate

Ali1 #122: I hope you don`t mind me agreeing with the gist of your post. I have been thinking for a while about the resons of reading Jinnah`s mind through his pre-parrtition speeches much more often than post independence ones. One of the reason is that pre independence stuff works better in debates with Indians and comparison with Nehru and Gandhi because the speeches meant to gain Muslims support or create a dislikeness for Congress among Muslims (same thing basically but preferred by some Indians). Once Pakistan was created, same mantra about insecurity in Hindu dominated united India lost its majic as well as meaning. From there on, it was all about looking ahead except for the history books and mullahs.

Naturally, the question comes to mind is not just about Jinnah visions for Pakistan but also his plans for implementing his visions. The visions can not be implemented without power and therefore it is absolutely necessary to extrapolate, as objectively as possible; what and how he would have acted, had he lived few more years?

With Nehru ruling India and Jinnah ruling Pakistan, I am positively certain that Jinnah would have opted for elections much like Nehru and unlike Jinnah followers who kept using the representatives elected in 1946 elections in the legislative assembly as true representative of people of Pakistan.

The automatic question arises: what would be ML agenda if Jinnah had lived and called fresh elections? All the speeches you mentioned in Sibi and elsewhere clearly point to creating a winning platform. The strong leftovers of Unionist party in Punjab, strong support for Ghaffar Khan in NWFP and Bengali uneasiness with imposition of Urdu would have certainly worked against ML. Jinnah and ML would have certainly lost election to regional parties due unpopular strong centric policies. He knew it very well and was working on agenda that would keep ML in Power. He had to talk about the ``beauty``, ``wholeness`` and other blah-blah of Islam and that only-Islam-can-unite-us type stuff. Although we credit or blame it on Liaquat Ali Khan for introducing Islam in politics of Pakistan, Jinnah had no choice either but to introduce Islam unless he backed off from earlier stands about Urdu and strong center. So come election time, Jinnah and ML would have raised islamic slogans to win over Bengalis, Punjabis and Pathans or lose. However, after winning (if), he would have changed policies substantially, getting rid of whole Ist tier leadership of ML and replaced them with the second tier, more sincere, leadership and worked towards secularism, more provincial autonomy and no more one-of-everything-national such as national tree, national flower, national language, national game etc.

Jinnah would not have liked losing as no politician likes losing. He would have listened to Pakistanis rather than imposing something on Pakistan. It is nonsense for rulers to keep telling Pakistanis that they are serious about Jinnah visions without considering that Jinnah`s visions would have been no different than majority Pakistanis visions. We must consider the word Jinnah as the collective consiousness of most Pakistanis at any given stage in time.

I am getting bored of repeated listening to ``what Jinnah wanted``. Damn it, he wanted to win (elections and support of Pakistanis) before implementing anything.

Reply YLH # 116

“Sir, you apologized for `unintentional` offense on the other board, yet you seem to be doing that again.”

Habit, not malice, I assure you.

“Was Ataturk a dictator ? Certainly. But did he save the Sick man of Europe from annihilation.. most certainly.”

S M O E was the Ottoman Empire. That didn’t survive the birth of Turkey.

“Did he resuscitate the Turkish nation... indeed he did.”

What Turkish nation? Before the break up of the SMOE they were Muslims and Ottomans. Linguistic nationalism was a new thing for Islamiyya.

Your point about it being impossible to defintively answer the “what if”s of history is taken. That doesn’t mean that speculating about them is in itself offensively meant.

zafarsaab

re: ozturk

…i like, i like…

ylh, harimau, and others,

Ok guys, this discussion on Jinnah (and Gandhi) has gone on and on and on. Time to move on (and spare other Chowkies).

I am also following with interest the debate in the Pak media on what kind of Pakistan Jinnah wanted, triggered by Musharraf`s `secularism` speech. With due respect, who cares what kind of Pakistan Jinnah wanted? What is relevant today is what is the kind of Pakistan Pakistanis want. If Jinnah wanted a secular Pakistan and most Pakistanis today want an Islamic one, then Islamic is the way to go.

Re Zafar 133

``I you say Chitto Park I will suspect Divine Hand.``

Vaise to Chitto Park humare South Delhi may hi ata hai but apna ilaka alag hai.

``Annapurna or Bengali Market or both?``

Sadly Bengali Market reh gaya (is not the same anymore - pizzas bechta hai) but made up in Sundar Nagar (still the one) and the various chaatwalas in apna area.

Humto vaise bhi Al-Kauser kay fan hai - Vasant Lok market - much recommended. Actually I could go on a detailed list but it would take up too much space and having had only salad for lunch.....

``I ransacked brisvaani bheb shayit, bhut khud nhaaat phaind Shubrotoda`s shubhnam...``

Thats becos I did not put it there, was toying with the idea of having a ``?`` put in place of the picture but too lazy. I go in as ``Mehmanjee`` so nobody knows my name (damn! the secret is out..), in fact for a long time listeners thought that it was my co-presenter changing his voice - so did a show in which we alternated speaking ``yeh meri aawaz hai``. The thing about Masti is that it lets me do what I like doing - changing accents and sprouting nonsense (do I see the boys in white coats yet?)

Actually other chowkies are bhelcome to listen - this Sunday 18:00 Brisbane time (+10 hr GMT) - the site is www.brisvaani.com

-

Subroto

PS

re: ylh

please seek psychiatric help...your obsession with dead men is unhealthy...to the point that you are willing to go to an anonymous message board and hound strangers - getting your own knickers in a knot in the process - until they agree with your assessment of dead men...

- just looking out for your well-being

Here`s a great South Asian/S.A.-American progressive website link for SAMAR Magazine; affiliated with the Asian-Pacific forum in NYC.

www. samarmagazine.org

www.asianpacific.org

An interview with Zia Ahmed Awan, President of Lawyers for Human Rights and Legal Action:

Chandana: We would like to know about your organization and how it was started.

Zia Awan: Lawyers for Human Rights was started in 1989, but before that I was very active in the university days as a student leader. I was working in a mainly left group, the Progressive Front in Karachi University, and we were quite strong because of the struggle. The last election of the student union was held in 1979. At that time there were 56 colleges in Karachi University. We made alliance with liberal students at that time against the martial law-supported Islami Jamiat-i-Taleba which was a component of Jamat-e-Islami, the religious fundamentalist group and we won in 52 of the 56 colleges. In only 4 colleges did the martial law-supported union win. So the martial law government banned the elections. And even now, even after Nawaz Sharif, and then Benazir, the student union ban is still there. There is no change from the martial law government policies as far as the student union is concerned.

Shankar: How did you make the transition from student politics to human rights work?

Zia Awan: There were a lot of struggles on at that time. The first thing that the martial law administration did was pull all the progressive journalists out of the trust newspapers, that is, the few very big news groups, like the Pakistan Times, having government money. So there was a big campaign made by the journalists. They called on student leaders, peasant and labor leaders for support. We made a committee called Awami Jiddojehad Committee, the People`s Struggle Committee with all of the organizations. In solidarity, my organization decided, and I volunteered, to court arrest. So I was arrested. This was the first time in my life. That was in 1978. Zia ul-Haq had just come to power and it was a really very dark time for people struggling against martial law. My case was received by the military court.

The colonel who was in the position to give a sentence did not do so because every day three persons, one journalist, one student leader and one labor leader, were courting arrest. And it went on for two months, every day. Although I was very politically active before, that was the first time I went in jail and saw the situation inside.

Shankar: How long were you in jail?

Zia Awan: I think 3 1/2 months. We started a hunger strike inside the prison and I was on it for 19 days. I came out on a stretcher. At that time we had the inspiration of Bobby Sands of the Irish movement. He survived 63 days of a hunger strike and so we thought that we could survive.

Shankar: Were political prisoners kept separate from other prisoners?

Zia Awan: Some of the time, yes. They did not want us to meet ordinary prisoners because they felt that we can create more awareness among them about their rights. But we were meeting with them. This was my first intervention in the real political arena. Soon after this, Jamat-e-Islami tried to kill many students. We were in a procession. I got a bullet in my leg and other students, even a girl student got shot. In the hospital, Benazir and other leaders came to see me because we were very popular in the student field. When she came to see me, a case was registered against me that I had tried to injure some of the Jamat-e-Islami students. So I went to prison for a second time and remained almost 6 1/2 months in a false case although I was the one who got the bullet.

I became a lawyer in 1981. In 1982 the struggle was still on. Lawyers were very united in fighting martial law. Again we brought out a procession and 10 lawyers were arrested. I was one of them. We faced a military court and trial and I remained in prison 3/12 months. With this long struggle, I was quite mature by the end of student life, with our political background and due to the jail when I read a lot of Marxism. I learned about political systems and learned languages. I can talk fluently in all Pakistani languages, Pashto, Punjabi, Sindhi, Baluchi. I did not want to go into politics. All the feudal and tribal leaders are involved in politics and you just have to go and work for them. You cannot even think that they are going to bring any change.

I was thinking of building up an independent forum, a platform, somewhere between politics and student leadership. But there were no resources. I belong to a lower middle class family. Livelihood was a real problem. My family felt that I was a spoiled child because I was going to jail all the time and the police was coming home all the time. People had been killed during the struggle; the families had a reason to be frightened. So I decided that I would establish myself first in my profession and then do something.

Shankar: As a lawyer?

Zia Awan: Yes. For 3-4 years I didn`t know what to do because I was very new in politics and survival was very difficult. In 1985 I fought and won the election to become secretary of the bar association in Karachi, the biggest in Pakistan. This was the first proper entry into the legal profession. Initially, my perception was that I should support the political workers who remain in prison because the political parties don`t really bother about them or give them support. But gradually I began to feel that there are ordinary people who need us more and we should support them. The political parties always have their legal cells in which there are so many lawyers who want to have a ticket and to serve the political party. So in 1989 we established our organization, Lawyers for Human Rights and Legal Aid. We were a big group of 50 lawyers, all previous friends, some from the struggle. Initially, we didn`t know any NGO politics. We didn`t know from where the funds come or who is going to support us.

For the first 3 years, Sattar Edhi, a very well-known social worker in Pakistan supported the organization. Then we decided not to go for government funding or for international donors. We thought that we should be a people oriented organization instead of a project oriented organization. We are still fighting that battle.

Shankar: So where do the resources come from?

Zia Awan: From ordinary people. We are not a membership organization, we try to get public donations. I also don`t want to get support from one or two people and become their puppet. So, every year we do the fundraising campaign, write thousands of letters. A lot of people in Pakistan can support this kind of work... they need to trust that you are not politically affiliated to anybody, or serving your own personal ends.

Sattar Edhi picked up on this. And his support means that you`ve got a good name in the society. By now we are quite known in the country. Even the Pakistan television has brought out 12 plays on our work. It was very popular. Then I was doing a TV program on social issues. It was very popular because I was confronting ministers and all the big officials and big shots on several issues.

Shankar: You have been talking about your work and what you do and how you came to this work. Could you tell us about the framework for human rights in Pakistan?

Zia Awan: Well I think the most important thing is that institutions like the judiciary should be independent. And we need a free press.

Chandana: Do you see any improvement in the situation?

Zia Awan: Well, sometimes yes and sometimes no. We still need to have a right direction and we need a very strongly committed political leader to lead the nation. The leaders we have now, whether Benazir or Nawaz Sharif, have feudal mentalities and they don`t bother about the poor of the country. They are just making agreements which are colonizing us. We are controlled now by the IMF and the World Bank. Unfortunately, there is no real third force in the political arena. Not in the shape of Imran Khan who was saying that he`s a third force but now he has joined Nawaz Sharif and Jamat-e-Islami. We need a political party not a personality. In Pakistan we don`t have parties with people in different cells working on things like economics, law, journalism and wanting to bring some reform. We just have personalities. Whatever they decide, that is the aim and object of the political party.

The other problem we have is influence and money from outside. A lot of money came in, for example when the Iran-Iraq War was going on. The Pakistani political leaders divided the people into Shia and Sunni and encouraged riots because Iran is Shia and Iraq is Sunni. A lot of money came to support the fundamentalist groups. Later on when Libya was in trouble they sent some money into Pakistan, and again then when Iraq and Kuwait war started again money came in. The worst was during the Afghan war. Because the Americans and Europeans wanted to fight with the Russians, they were using my country as a playground. They brought a lot of money, supported the Afghan refugee organizations and the religious organizations in my country and because of that a lot of fundamentalism has grown in our country. Previously it was not like that.

Chandana: I suppose the stakes have gone up because of foreign money.

Zia Awan: Yes, because of the money they have become so organized. They have land and big religious institutions where they give arms training. So the Shias are armed and the Sunnis have their own arms and a lot of arms came during the Afghan War. This heroin culture and Kalishnikov culture came because of the Afghan War. The fault is from the outside world, the Americans and Europeans which has brought this problem to us.

Shankar: Is there any coordination between any human rights organizations and the government of Pakistan? Zia Awan: Yes, within the Benazir government, there is a little consultation with the overall NGOs. But consultation does not necessarily mean the NGOs suggestions are taken. The last time Benazir came into power, she put all of the NGO leaders into different committees. But she did nothing with the decisions of the committees. And now it is the same. It is a big problem working under this regime because she poses as a liberal leader but she`s not. If Nawaz Sharif is in the government, it is very easy, I can straight away say he`s a reactionary. But if you say this against Benazir, people will not believe you because she always portrays herself as a progressive.

Like she said that she has brought about separate police stations. It is having no effect in the society because the women police have the same attitude as men. They are also abusive and biased. Like when a wife goes to the police station with bruises and says that I have been beaten by my husband. Although it is a penal offense, instead of taking it up in this manner, the women police always say go and compromise with your husband. There should be some links with the women police, women`s groups, and the rehabilitation center. There is nothing like that. It is just a smoke screen.

The government has recently announced, maybe 1 or 2 months ago, a human rights minister and a whole ministry. I have to see how this is going to work because I hope for the best. But in his first press conference the minister said that if some policeman violates some fundamental right of a person it is a provincial subject and not in the area of the federal ministry. So what the hell is he doing there being the minister? The constitution provides that if someone`s fundamental rights are violated, like being detained illegally, it is a federal question. I was shocked after seeing his press conference. Because the human rights groups in Pakistan have become stronger and have become a nuisance, the government has decided to have this parallel kind of working...just to confuse people or to target us. They just want to paralyze us.

Chandana: What do you think are the most important areas of human rights violations?

Zia Awan: Well one big problem is that the present government has almost wound up public interest litigation in which poor people can go to the high court and the supreme court without a lawyer. It has almost been stopped by the new chief justices who are brought in by this government as political appointments and don`t want to follow up that public interest litigation. Another important thing for the betterment of human rights is the compulsory education for children, as a way of ending child labour. The government should do something about this. Then, the women and children`s situation overall. Again, jails are horrible now. There is no system that the prisoner can get a government lawyer. If they cannot afford to engage a lawyer there is no system at all. We need that.

Chandana: I know your work focuses on women and children`s issues. Could you talk about the specific pieces of legislation you most often run up against?

Zia Awan: The Hudood Ordinance was introduced in 1979 by the martial law regime (see box above). It is a so-called law brought in without consulting community leaders or religious leaders and at a time when there was no parliament. It is a ridiculous law, and it was brought abruptly by the will of the government just to have the sympathy of the religious parties. After the introduction of this law the jail population in the women`s wards increased 100%. And this law has mostly been used against the poor people and not for the upper class, upper-middle class, or lower-middle class.

There are 3 or 4 kinds of cases that have been registered under this law. One is in the villages when the husband gives verbal divorce. The people are uneducated so they don`t know there should be some written divorce, people are not familiar with the law. When a woman is divorced she has to go through the iddat period for 90 days, sit at home. After that she is formally free from the clutches of that man. If somebody else is interested she can go for marriage. Because of the feudal mentality the first husband may go into the police station and say that I`m not divorced (he can do that because there is no proof, it was verbal) and he says that she is committing adultery. And the sentence is stoning to death.

Chandana: Has it been carried out?

Zia Awan: This sentence is in the statute book. 3 or 4 times the court has announced the sentences but later on in the federal sharia court the appeal was accepted. No execution has happened, but the law is there and any mad person can use this. The second kind of case we have recieved is rape.

Under the Hudood laws, she has to prove that she has been raped by producing four male adult Muslim witnesses, otherwise the charges can be reversed and she is accused of adultery. Previously under the common law if she reported a rape she did not have to fear that she will be involved in this case. And there was no need of four male adult Muslim witnesses, circumstantial evidence was accepted. Lots of women went to prison because of this Ordinance.

This law is not only against women but we always say this law against the men also. When a girl, even an 18 year old, marries of her own free will but against her parents wishes. After that the family goes to the police and with their connivance make the false statement that she is 14 years old, a minor, kidnapped by the boy. When she is recovered the police, the family compel her to make a statement that she was kidnapped by the boy. Otherwise, if she does not agree, they involve her in a case saying that they both were committing adultery. So this is one kind of allegation in which the boy is innocent, because under law and under the religious perception, they can marry when they are both adults.

It`s my organization`s - and my personal - point of view that this law should be repealed. We don`t want any amendment in this law.

Chandana: What are the prospects for that happening?

Zia Awan: We are advocating people, NGO`s... We are advocating Parliament members and also to the international NGO`s to bring pressure on them. Many groups support us. Women`s groups, child right groups and human rights groups. And the professors at the colleges. And the journalists, media, especially English newspapers, they are supporting us. There are a lot of organizations. Maybe they are small but there are a lot. Now we have a community.

Chandana: What kind of pressure is there to keep those laws in place?

Zia Awan: Well in both the governments they did not want to move on unpopular issues. And Benazir Bhutto showed signs herself sometimes that she wanted to do something. But because of the nuisance value of the religious fundamentalist political parties, she doesn`t want to go into that. She would be in trouble. So we need some daring leader to come out with all of his or her views.

Chandana: I`ve heard about women`s organizations within Pakistan who deal largely with this issue. Is your organization working with them?

Zia Awan: My organization realized that NGO leaders should be equipped with the legal issues and how to fight their battles. To strengthen the women`s rights and child right movements and the organizations working in the health sector and education, we collected all the leaders and gave paralegal training to them. This has been a very good thing. Now they can fight their own battles instead of always waiting for Zia Awan or X, Y, or Z. So we have started this network where we have a liaison with each other and we support each other. Most of the NGOs in the country have relations with us and they come to us for legal support.

We have a lot of liaisons-not just in Pakistan. On the issue of trafficking we have very good networking with Bangladeshi NGOs, Indian NGOs, Nepali NGOs and Sri Lankan NGOs. My organization has worked on creating this network. One coalition is South Asian People`s Coalition for Human Rights which we initiated in Colombo. The office is in Colombo.

Chandana: At an NGO level there is a fair amount of work on trafficking in the different South Asian countries. Is there any government effort to parallel this?

Zia Awan: No. They are not even listening to us. We raised our voice against the traffickig of camel kids which are brought from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh to the Gulf to use for the camel race. The camel race is a very popular sport in the Gulf countries. Traffickers take children from the poor areas from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka. They put the child on the camel in a kind of a cage, and then the camel starts racing. The children are from 4 to 9 years in age. Because the child is crying the camel goes fast. Some of the children die during the race because they fall down, sometimes their legs are broken. When we were raising this question, BBC made a film and there were a lot of reports.

Due to our pressure, the U.A.E. government has introduced a law that there should not be children brought from outside. Although it is still being practiced, the law came in due to our pressure. Just to hide from the international media. But the Pakistani government, Indian government and Bangladeshi they were totally oblivious to this issue. They did not do anything for the children. They don`t even bother about the children in their countries. No compulsory education. No health activity. They are giving only 2% of their total budget to the health sector.

Chandana: What kind of a political philosophy have you been bringing to your work?

Zia Awan: Well we are not so strong, frankly speaking, that we can bring any drastic change in society. What we are trying to do is to educate people to think about and build up the democratic institutions in the country. We are advocating the cause that if the institutions are there, no person, whether political leader or head of the state should be above the law. The rule of law should prevail.

THE ZINA HUDOOD ORDINANCE (1979)

The Hudood Ordinance criminalizes Zina, which is defined as extra-marital sex including adultery and fornication. It also criminalizes Zina-bil-jabr, which is defined as rape outside of marriage. The Hudood Ordinance further defines Zina and Zina-bil-jabr on the basis of the assigned criminal punishment. Hence, there is Zina and Zina-bil-jabr liable to hadd (punishment ordained by the Holy Quran or Sunnah), and there is Zina and Zina-bil-jabr liable to tazir (any punishment other than hadd). The hadd punishment is stoning to death, and the tazir punishment for Zina is up to ten years of imprisonment and whipping up to 30 stripes and/or a fine. The tazir punishment for Zina-bil-jabr is up to 25 years imprisonment and whipping up to 30 stripes. The level of proof for Zina and Zina-bil-jabr liable to hadd requires either a confession, or at least four Muslim male witnesses.

Though abetting is a sin, the Hudood Ordinance requires the witnesses to be truthful and pious persons who abstain from major sins. According to the Hudood Ordinance, if this high evidentiary requirement for hadd cannot be satisfied, then the crime of Zina or Zina-bil-jabr is liable to tazir, which, unlike hadd, does not require four Muslim male witnesses to the crimes of rape, adultery or fornication. Invariably, the cases of rape, if at all registered by the police, are under the hadd category, which has the higher evidentiary burden. If unable to prove rape, the court takes the rape victim`s statement as a confession of adultery which results in the punishment of the rape victim. In the cases of Zina and Zina-bil-jabr, tazir punishments are the norm and courts rarely, if ever, mete out the hadd punishment. Though given more lenient punishments, even young children between the ages of six and ten years can be, and are, charged under this law.

Source: Trafficking of Women and Children. The Flesh Trade Report 1995-1996. Lawyers for Human Rights and Legal Action, Karachi

Samar Online

RE: Reply #: 141 dost-mittar

``In a country where the overwhelming majority of the population is Muslim and which had been created in the name of muslim nationalism, any system of governance would have to be based on Islamic ethos and values; this is all what Jinnah was saying and this was not necessarily against a secular state. This is equally true of India whose secular system is inevitably influenced by the Hindu ethos ....``

This is incorrect. The Indian state is based on the Constitution and there is nothing in the Constitution that supports Hinduism over any other religion. On the other hand Pakistan`s Constitution explicitly identifies it as an Islamic state. Big Difference.

Ali1

Its sad to see that now you have started attacking me. Well let me tell you something... The quotes of I have put up here... None of them are from 11th August speech, precisely because I want to counter people like you at home and people like Harimau in India who declare that we only use one speech. So first read the whole thing before attacking.

Also, I don`t see why there is so much nervousness with the word `secular`. Secular as I use means `Equal rights for all` and `non-theocratic` system... then what am I saying which so different? Why do you people keep equating secularism with `anti-Islam` or `anti-religion`?

Should people not have the freedom of conscience and religion? Should non Muslim Pakistani not have equal rights in Pakistan? Should people be persecuted for saying `Muhammad was not circumcized`? Didn`t Jinnah guarantee all these rights? If the answer is yes, then that is `secularism` pure and simple. Why can`t a secular (non communal non theocracy) state derive its inspiration from a just political system like that of `Mussawat`?

Secularism as stated earlier means Equal rights for all, impartiality of the state, and sovereignty resting in the people. This is secularism, and these are the exact principles that Jinnah wanted implemented in Pakistan... I have not said anything else...

I am rather disheartened by our brilliant Pakistanis like Romair, and Ali1 who keep equating `secularism` with `secular Humanism`, `secular nationalism` or even westernization... which are very different concepts... But THESE IDIOTS are not going to read what I am writing and keep harping on their own nonsense. In this respect these two brilliant Pakistanis are even worse than the confused lot of Indians we have on these boards.

TO THE BRILLIANT PAKISTANI MINDS IE ROMAIR AND ALI1:

Do you disagree that Quaid e Azam wanted Pakistan to be an Impartial, progressive, egalitarian, democratic, and pluralistic welfare state?

If you disagree well and good. You are wrong.

If you agree, then can you please tell me why I should use 5 adjectives instead of using one `secular` ?

Dost Mittar

Thankyou sir for your post 141 ... You have said so eloquently what I was unable to convey in so many words. Maybe this will someday make sense to my over emotional, over sensitive, over exploited countrymen too.

Sincerely

Yasser Hamdani

Re: Dost-Mittar

``...India whose secular system is inevitably INFLUENCED by the Hindu ETHOS...``

Dost, you use ill-defined and vague terms that are are hard to understand. How is the secular system in India INFLUENCED, and by what ETHOS? On another board, you had speculated that the expulsion of minorities from Pakistan in `47 has resulted in the majority community being better off economically. How? Any cost/benefit analysis to support your hypothesis? Any scientific evidence to back you up? Or is it heresay and anecdotal evidence only?

Rsaxena

I hardly need any good will from people who believe that they are god`s gift to man kind. Furthermore, I have no reason to convince anyone of my assessment, except the Pakistanis for the logical end, a Secular Progressive Pakistan as envisaged by Jinnah`s speeches and statements as the Governor General of that Country... why? Because Pakistan is my country. Your countrymen including yourself are so utterly obsessed with Pakistan that everytime we mention Jinnah`s 50 odd statements about a pluralistic secular Pakistan, they jump in with their own assessments of Jinnah which are completely irrelevant.

Maybe the entire Indian nation should see a psychiatrist, for all of you seem perpetually obsessed with Pakistan - note: YLH is not on an Indian site trying to convince Indians of anything. On the contrary, the situation is the exact opposite.

Get a life.

-YLH

tvarad,

I believe Dost Mittar`s comparison is not between what Pakistan is today under its current constitution of 1973 and India, but what Jinnah had envisaged Pakistan to be and India. I think he has hit the nail on the head. Secular States always have `civic` religions... western states have judaeo-christian civic values and judaeo christian world view, India`s civic values undoubtedly are rooted in 3000 years of Hinduism, and Pakistan whether it becomes secular or remains a pseudo-thoecratic pseudo-secular mish mash will have Islamic values as its civic religion.

Sincerely

YLH

ylh,

{{Maybe this will someday make sense to my over emotional, over sensitive, over exploited countrymen too.}}

Hopefully, starting with YOU!!!

In response to Bharatwasi`s comment on Khaled Ahmed`s article:

That is absolutely true. I am sick of this Pan-Islamic nonsense... amazingly its the Arabs who hate us the most ... and lean towards India and look at the Arabs, fascist Dictators and theocratic Monarchies... and yet it is the scourge of the so called `Arab` nationalism which makes them treat Non-Arab nations inequitably.

Amazingly the only Muslim Country which has remained our closest friend and ally is Secular Turkey with which we have three defence pacts and which has stood by us as an advisor and an elder brother of sorts in all our conflicts giving us supplies and even planes in our wars.

Sincerely

YLH