The Place of Debate

Dost Mittar

Point taken.. but now you have opened a Pandora`s Box... now when I will call people bigots who were in right royal Ossam Bin Laden fashion calling Jinnah the `devil` and `idiot` on the other board ... they too will hide behind the same excuse.

Sincerely

YLH

dost-mittar #151
There aren`t many countries with sizeable minority populations to compare India with, surely. How about the cultural ethos of equal respect for all religions in countries like say Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Indonesia(admittedly, these countries have gone through political turmoil which may have skewed the picture)

Further on `THESE IDIOTS` Issue

I am frustrated by the kind of nonsensical arguments that Romair, Ali and others keep putting up within Pakistan. For example I explained very clearly that `secularism` simply means something else, but still Ali1 having not read my post even once comes in and starts taking

shots at me because I want secularism.

I have no choice but to call them idiots, for its not a matter of simple `disagreement` but the fact that they are not even ready to acknowledge that my argument is different. For example Romair could have said `I understand how you are defining secularism but that is not what it means` but instead they continually attack me for wanting to allegedly `westernize` Pakistan which is not what I am saying nor do I have the power to do, nor would I do even if I did have the power to do.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: YLH

``...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...``

Older brothers will often go to fight fight for their younger brothers, rather than add fuel to the fire (by supplying arms) and back out when the going gets tough. Has Turkey gone to bat for Pakistan by providing troops (like it did for UN forces in Korea?). If not, then I would seriously reconsider the proposition whether they are a fair-weather friend providing lip service and token supplies. Pakistan`s brother should be India (not distant Turkey).

Further, the current PM of Turkey made a point of visiting Shantiniketan (Tagore`s University and home of Zafar`s favorite music genre:) ), but snubbed Musharraf by not stopping in Pakistan immediately after the coup. Do you know that?

Re:SameerJB#134

[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,]

Jinnah was a politician and that a pragmatic one… If you just look at Jinnah’s first cabinet –I t will give you a beetr idea of the man ….

He retained Liaquat for hi s loyaltly – not particularly for his political acumen – and Liaquat was also an efficient organizer for the league and no threat to Jinnah personally. -

His Foreign Minister was Zafarulla Khan – certainly a capable one – and one that represented the Punjabi educated class- the Ahmediyya’s being one of the few educted communities in Punjab….

His inclusion of Ghulam Mohammed - a s Foreign Minister ( depite his personal dislike for the man - both Adm Ahsan’s biography and Gul Hasan mention this ) was there to appease the Unionist stronghold in the feudal heartland of Punjab…

The choice of Khwaja Nazimudin – a weak but highly respected Bengali politician was to balance the various factions in the Bengal from the populist Fazlul Haq to the factitious and brilliant Suhrawardy… Actually Jinnah had invited Suhrwardy to join his cabinet – bet the latter declined citing political differences…

Ismail chundrigar - Commerce minister – to attract the mercantile- Bohri, Gujrati and Memon a dn Bonmbay mercantile and industrial houses…to he nascent state of Pakistan ..


[ 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 had few allies in the indigenious heartland of West or East Pakistan – the indomitable Abdur Rab Nishtar – the railway Minister, Qazi Isa and Qazi Musa in Baluchistan, and Sir Mohd Hidqayatullah and the Haroons in Sindh.( and the the latter two were Shiite and Shiite memon espectively), Khwaja Nazimuddin in Bengal …. …

After Jinnah’s death and Liaquats assassination - most of Jinnah’s clos e associates like Raja of mahmudabad and Nawab Chhatri disassociated themselves from politics - hounded as muhajirs or panaghirs with no local constituency …...


.. By 1955 … Nishtar had lost the elections… Qazi Isa and Musa were sidelined by the Baluch feudals and Hidayatullah and the Haroons held margibnal positions in Sindh.. Zafarulla Khan was hounded out as an Ahmedi etc etc …….

The former can be accused of lack of political acumen - but they had a fairly liberal mindset - but corrupt they were not ……

and soon the old Unionists were in power ( ie Feroze Khan Noon , The mamdots, . Kalabaghs and etc etc, or Punjabi chauvinists like Mushtaq Ahmed Gurmani ( who incidentally was implicated in the assassination of Liaquat) These were not just backward but notoriously corrupt personally and they played the Islamic card deftly destroyinhg all that was left of Jinnah’s legacy /….

In the Bengal – Fazlul Haq’s populist ministry with parochial Bengali nationalism held sway along with corrupt beaurocrats like Iskander Mirza….– by the late 50’s Suhrawardy had become ineffective….

In the Frontier saw the rise of the Khan brothers with Dr Khan Sahib and the Pakhtoon card ….

Pray tell – who the 2nd tier “SECULAR” or for that matter “HONEST” Leadership was in the Muslim League.




[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 consciousness of most Pakistanis at any given stage in time.]

Jinnah would have ended up like or Mujeeb - assassinated or worse branded as a “ gujrati speaking baniya “ or like Liaquat - who was labeled as a “ muhajir sympathizer” and later assasinated . trying to exert personal authority over a a parochial and divided Pakistan. In retrospect he was lucky that he died with his dignity and self respect intact. [ incidentally Jinnah himself had commented in a pejorative manner on the politics of the 2 large muslim majority provinces - where parochialism and corruption ran rampant - he had clashed with MIan Mohd Shafi and the fragmentation of the Punjab mUslim League in the early 30`s - when even Iqbal opposed Jinnah, and later on in the Bengal in the 40`s - when Fazlul Haq and Suhrawrady temporarity shifted loyalty towards the league to assure Pakistan ]






Or worse ended up like Fatima Jinnah - who was derided by the Islamic lobby for being a woman and a shiite at that and cheated out of an election by the basic democracy of Ayub Khan with active connivance of the feudals..

The only person to have the effective authority and personally credibility to lead Pakistan after Liaquat’s assaisination was Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy - but he was a Bengali and the wrong ethnicity and too independent minded to succeed Liaquat. He did serve as a PM for a brief stint under the psychopath Ghulam Muhammad.

Parochialism and ethnic provincialism existed from day one in Pakistan – only Jinnah’s deft handling of the situation resulted in the creation of that country. Islam was just used as convenient excuse to grab power by destroying the disproportionately strong influences of the Ahmediyyas in Punjab, and the Shiites amongst the Muhajirs, Sindhis and punjabis..[ being the educated sub classes] – Liaquat instead of trying to buy a local constituency by befriending the feudals should have done what Nehru did in India – destroy the feudal order by the redistribution of land But would that have prevented the rise of psychopaths like Bhutto – a fact that Ayub Khan alluded to in his resignation in the late 60’s …..

Shammi,

I knew one of you wouldn`t be restrain himself/herself (due to force of habit as an Indian I suppose) from mentioning one time in many years that a Turkish Prime Minister came to India.. amazingly that `snubbing` story was only mentioned in the Indian press. No where else in the world was that story published particularly not Turkey. What the Prime Minister of Turkey said to Pervez Musharraf was simple : `the worst democracy is better than the best dictatorship`.

We all know Prime Minister Ecevet`s History. In 1981 the same Prime Minister was removed by a Turkish General in a coup for giving rise to Islamic elements. Musharraf`s coup was welcomed by the Turkish Military and Turkish National Security Council and that is why Ecevet being the ever politician sought to balance out the whole deal with giving that piece of advice to Musharraf and refusing to visit Islamabad while visiting its neighboring country. This happened in 1999. Turkish Foreign Minister Ismail Cem has been a routine visitor to Islamabad. Right now, the Turkish Defence Minister is on a 4 day visit to Pakistan. There is a major Turkish Expo in Karachi right now. Before that it was the agriculture minister and the education minister.

By the way, Suleiman Demirel, the former President of Turkey, celebrated Pakistan`s 50th Independence Day in grand celebration in which all the OIC Countries were invited in Ankara. Remind me if the same was done for India.. oh no I forgot, prime minister Ecevet visited Shantiniketan as if that is such a big deal.

Pakistan and Turkey have a special bond which has been time tested and survived some serious conflicts such as the first time Turkey and Pakistan exchanged blows in public in 1998 on the topic of the Taliban.

Sincerely

Yasser Latif Hamdani

chohtay logon ki chohti khushian... for eg: ArjunM.

Can you show me where it mentions Pakistan?

Re: YLH

``...I have no choice but to call them idiots...``

You DO have a choice -- and that is to not regard disagreement as a sign of disrespect. YOU crossed the line, not they.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Kashmir: Lessons in history

Asma Khan

Pakistan once again finds itself at a crucial juncture. It may be another of the many false dawns of the past or else it may prove its moment of truth. All depends upon the conviction and ability of the General to implement. He has envisioned a prosperous, moderate and forward looking Pakistan -- providing the nation with a pause to introspect -- and forayed into territory no Pakistani leader had dared before. Where most of his predecessors have had to recourse to the ``religious card``, General Musharraf took a diametrical turn and took on the extremists, banning their militant outfits, placing curbs on their activity and counteracting their centres of action.

A reversal of a longstanding strategy was undertaken even if it did not necessarily mean that of the policy. The review however was overdue. The strategy far from earning dividends was boomeranging and had retrograded into an internal security dilemma. On the ground where it was to deliver, its excesses had set the wrong forces into motion. The indigenous character of the Kashmir movement was tarnished and its legitimacy and credibility eroded. It no longer stood for the legitimate right of self-determination, but became tainted as a proxy war conducted by one state against another. The vision behind the struggle and its spirit were lost. The movement spiralled into a war of the believers against the infidels. Against growing Western sensitivities, this was a turn of events that found few sympathisers. The pendulum swung to the other side. There were certain aspects to the Kashmir issue which both Pakistan and India respectively failed to discern. This further entangled the issue.

Pakistan on its part made certain miscalculations. First and foremost it failed to gauge the potency of the Kashmiriyat identity and the liberal nature of the Kashmiri people juxtaposed to their Islamic values. Even during the partition days Kashmir had maintained its Kashmiri identity as distinguished to Muslim identity. No doubt it held in great sanctity its Islamic identity and philosophy but years of interaction with other communities had imbued in it a pluralism and acceptability that formed the basis of Kashmiriyat -- the diversity on which its civilisation flourished. The freedom struggle upheld this aspect. By injecting a communal colour to the movement and propounding an extremist brand of Islam the ``new`` movement lost its appeal. It appears to be more at cross-purposes than as a reflection of the Kashmiri aspiration. The result -- diminishing of mass support and its international standing as the rightful freedom struggle of the people.

Further, lack of insight was evinced by superimposing its own choice of select leadership irrespective of their mass following and standing. This resulted in the marginalising of the more moderate and independent elements. In due course it proved a tactical mistake. As the movement proceeded this leadership lost touch with the ground aspirations and became more of an instrument of diktat. Unhappy with the course of events, certain moderate and rational elements voiced their concern. They too were meted out the same treatment as their earlier counterparts. With time, the perceived clash in the objectives of the leaders and that of the masses became more pronounced and their standing plummeted both politically and morally. Pakistan however remained adamant on supporting its own coterie. As despise for these leaders mounted so did it in extension for Pakistan. More the leaders were unable to deliver more Pakistan was seen as the culprit. India was always looked upon with contempt and suspicion, now misgivings for Pakistan also started to creep in. As in Afghanistan here too Pakistan had backed the wrong horses.

The gravest misjudgement came in the form of taking over the course of the movement and hampering its natural path. This produced a counter effect. With it came inherent contradictions. Right in the beginning when the movement was still in its initial phase, the more popular yet unrelenting party was liquidated. This was the party that rallied undisputed mass support. With its demise the support divided and the earlier euphoria gradually settled. The movement was not allowed to take root and entrench itself.

A motley of leaders was thrust upon the horizon, some of them unheard of or with negligible following. Their strongest merit was their acquiescence with Pakistan. As the Pakistani terms became more stringent, and shaping of events more removed from ground realities, smaller became the motley group and ultimately reduced to a closed die-hard few. These few however aligned with Pakistan less out of conviction and more out of material gain, hence a cosmetic bonhomie. This bonhomie all too obviously lacked in credo, morality and legitimacy to deliver either according to ground realities or per Pakistani perceptions.

Pakistan`s choice of leaders was also flawed. The leadership included political non-entities, notorious expedients or extremists running counter to public sentiment. Their overnight rise in fortunes also became a cause of intrigue. Had this fortune been barter for loyalty and deliverance? The blind eye turned towards them by the government. These irksome queries impugned the credentials of these leaders.

Want in far sight was also displayed by the induction of foreign fighters. True they had been spawned by the West and conveniently discarded after the fall of the evil empire but their diversion towards Kashmir was an unwise move. Pakistan, partly because of its incongruous policies and partly due to the barbaric state terrorism unleashed by the Indian security forces, became dependent on employing these elements. Their war-hardened, deadlier and more daring attributes were an added factor. The calculation: to inflict greater losses -- faster. The strategy backfired.

These fighters soon charted their own course. In the field they followed their own agenda and at home they assumed horrific power on the basis of their ``indispensability`` on the ground and enormous funds. They started to meddle with the national decision-making process. Pakistan`s baby got out of its hands. The movement acquired a more fundamentalist and pan-Islamic character, its actual vision becoming beyond the pale. Not only did the movement get out of hands but its credibility and acceptability also got undermined. In times of West`s growing threat perception for Islam and its aversion to freedom movements (Quebec-Canada, N Ireland-Britain) this was a sorry development.

Certain events may have precipitated the faltering of the strategy in Kashmir but it had inbuilt inconsistencies. Pakistan sought to completely take over the movement rather than regulate it in consonance with prevailing realities. Pakistan`s manoeuvrings at time ran contrary to ground realities or aspirations. By introducing a communal element, the non-Muslim regions, which were as much a part of the state eg Jammu, got alienated. It is a pity that today we are as far, if not farther, from azadi as we were when the movement started.

If Pakistan had failed to appreciate the Kashmir issue in its entirety, India also betrayed a lack of understanding. The issue was as much ill construed by India as it was by Pakistan. The Kashmir issue had two dimensions. The external dimension dealt with the issue as a territorial dispute and its corresponding issues and the internal dimension constituted the political powers and expression, aspirations and rights of the people. India failed to gather the delicacy of the internal dimension. Soon after partition Kashmir was given special status and promise of a plebiscite. With time the special status wore down and the promise never fulfilled. Before partition Nehru wooed Sheikh Abdullah as an instrument of strategy to counter the stubborn independence tendencies of the Dogra Maharaja and rally the public support enjoyed by the Sheikh. Once Sheikh started seeking internal sovereignty or independence his services were forgotten and he was ditched. This came as a shock to the Kashmiris, a breach of trust and faith. Their leader was disgraced and their legitimate and promised right of self-determination thwarted and in danger. Feelings of betrayal and oppression manifested. The steady erosion of special status, rigging of elections and suppression of expression and rights ultimately erupted into a violent uprising.

India failed to view the situation in its true perspective and saw it solely through the external prism. Had it justified both the dimensions in a proportional equilibrium and handled it with more subtlety and humaneness, reaching out to the people rather than resorting to suppression, which still persists in the form of security forces, maybe such a painful catastrophe could have been averted.

Erroneous conclusions, myopic mistakes. Kashmir remains a saga of squandered opportunities and misplaced esteems. It is time, flexibility and innovation is displayed. If Pakistan needs to wage Jihad against poverty, illiteracy so does India, if it requires strength from within, so does India, if it is losing out economically and internationally so is India. It is a lose-lose scenario; there are no winners. It is time India showed compassion towards the aspirations of the people and Pakistan proved true to its words.

The writer is daughter of Amanullah Khan, JKLF chairman and daughter-in-law of senior APHC leader Abdul Gani Lone. She now resides in Srinagar

asma_lone@hotmail.com

http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/feb2002-daily/08-02-2002/oped/o3.htm

The MEANING OF SECULAR Part 3:

From Websters:

Main Entry: 1sec·u·lar

Etymology: Middle English, from Old French seculer, from Late Latin saecularis, from saeculum the present world, from Latin, generation, age, century, world; akin to Welsh hoedl lifetime

Date: 14th century

1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal secular concerns b : not overtly or specifically religious secular music c : not ecclesiastical or clerical secular courts secular landowners

2 : not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation a secular priest

3 a : occurring once in an age or a century b : existing or continuing through ages or centuries c : of or relating to a long term of indefinite duration



So which one applies to the `state`. Part 1 C : not ecclesiastical or clerical secular courts

A Reminder:

In any event Pakistan shall not be a theocratic to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. (Quaid e Azam jinnah)

YLH - a few daus ago you had outrightly rejected the idea of a SAARC-U on the basis of diluting Pakistan`s sovereignty. I wonder how you feel about this:

``...The US is asking Pakistan - which has already kept at its disposal four air bases to ferret out Osama bin Laden , dead or alive- to lease it 20,000 acres of land in north-west Baluchistan, for establishing military bases, plus a no-flying zone and related facilities for its ground troops...``

Is this not dilution of sovereignty?

YLH

Please do not be frustrated - You are right in the way you are describing ``secularism`` - but so are Romair and Ali.

This is the difference between Objective and subjective secularism.

You are pointing towards the objective - whereas Romair and Ali are also correct in pointing out that ``secularism`` can also be the separation of religion from culture and conscience.

You will notice, hariharan has objected to Mr. Musharraf beginning his addresses with Bismillah -indeed it is precisely this aspect of secularism that must be avoided at all costs - as this is not acceptable not only to peoples of Pakistan but all clear headed persons - actually it is this subjective secularism that is the path to communism.

Syed Ahmed:

`Just look at his cabinet`

Yes indeed, so can you tell me why Jinnah appointed Jogindranath Mandal, a Hindu, as the first law minister? Is that allowed in the all power theocratic Islamic state?

ylh #118: From your reply, I am concluding that you do not know of any of Jinnah`s speeches where he specifically used the word, ``secular.``

What he wanted Pakistan to be or not to be is a separate debate. Why he did or did not use this term is a separate debate also.

But can we agree that he did not use this term publicly?

Remember when you discuss and debate an issue, you need to go into it with an open mind, ready to accept all aspects. If you are already convinced of what Jinnah wanted, then anything you look at you will tend to fit into your own defintion. The best way to approach this issue is like approaching a research project. You are trying to discover an answer, not trying to come up with an answer first and then attempting to interpret the researches.

So far in this debate, I have pointed out two things: 1) Jinnah himself was secular, and probably hoped Pakistan would be secular. 2) Jinnah never (at least you haven`t been to point me to any source) openly used the term, ``secular`` in his speeches. Why not? And that according to Wolpert, Jinnah carried out a, ``remarkable reversal`` in his famous speech.

It is pointless for you to try to become the pole bearer of secularism or any other ism. No one really cares what you define secularism to be. That is just for your personal consumption. This is no differnce than people who claim ownership of Islam and attempt to protect and define it. They should limit this to themselves.

Open your mind, and look at things without any pre-conceived biases, and let the chips fall where they may. Jinnah was faced with a contradiction in his demand for Pakistan, in my opinion, i.e. demanding the partition of India on non-secular grounds, while attempting to form a secular nation as a result. Let`s try to figure out how he handled this contradiction.