A Work In Progress

#41 by arjun_m on January 8, 2003 10:52pm PT

and what else is new from the RSS chaddiwala? He feels free to gloat on the hardwork of Narayan Murty, Premji et al
He critisizes the pakistani fundus while he pretends to be a moderate.

How come he does not feel any shame in the plight of the those Indians who are die time and again while attempting to go to western countries by illegal means, some times in Slovenia, some times in cargo ships.

He feels no shame on the plight of those living Sub -Human lives in Orissa eating Mango kernels to keep away hunger.

He feels no shame in the millons in Mumbai who live equally sub- human lives.

He feels no shame in the Killing of thousands of Srilankans at the hands of Hindu LTTE which was trained by India in the jungles of Tamil Nadu and supplied with arms till Rajiv Gandhi was killed and IPKF was routed in Sri Lanka.

And why should he feel any shame. He is the one who feels that Prercived wrongs committed few centruies back need to be first corrected before he can breath. All the while he can be found with the VHP nanga Sadhus who will cheerfully claim that Life of a Cow is more sacred than of a Human.

These Chaddi walas are the one who find so much time to indulge in Pakistan/Muslim bashing be cause they feel they can take safe credit for the work of likes of Manmohan Singhs, Shiv Nadar, Premji, Murtys of India.

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

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

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

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

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

````After all, the real reason for Pakistan was that the Muslims of India, having debated the wisdom of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, were still resisting learning English and as a result, were economically and politically disadvantaged. At the turn of the century, the Hindus had adopted the ways of the British; just like a hundred years later they would take to water like ducks in adopting American mannerisms, and were politically and economically better off than the Muslims. ````

This bit I didn`t understand. From all accounts, it was the pre-partition Muslims who were able to merge with the ``British way`` with ease.

Right?

Post 48:

That is nothing compared to the high hopes that UrsTruly had for providing US with assistance. Pls note points 1, 2 and 3...talk about fond hopes...

#34 by Urstruly on September 16, 2001 11:23pm PT
THE COMING DAYS

Pakistan must brace for a wave of ethnic violence and a series of terrorist bombings all across its bazars, railway lines, and densely populated areas. The GOP must anticipate this in advance because CIA and RAW will work in unison to unleash such terror on Pakistani nation. THe Western media will of course be used to spin doctor the whole thing and blame this violence on to Talibans. The purpose of such camapagin would be to change the general public opinion about Talibans in Pakistan. The sympathizers of Talibans in Pakistan will thus also be neutralized.

In this scenario Pakistan has two choices:

1. Expedite the handing over of OBL to a neutral Europeon nation.

If that is not possible

2. Provide US army the camp sites to launch ground operations into Afghanistan. The war of course will take years to end in Afghanistan because Iran, Russia, and China will be more than happy to help Afghans with weapons and supply line because each has some scores to settle. If Russia doesnt do that the Russian mafia definitely will. Afghanistan is definitely a Vietnam in the making.

Meanwhile:

1. Pakistan must raise the case for its 40 F-16s which are already been paid for but US government has hold them for years now, shamelessly and arrogantly.

2. Paksitan should have all its debts paid off by Americans.

3. The issue of plebicite in Indian Oppressed Kashmir must be put on the priority in the United Nations agenda.

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

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

[ #38 by Ashok on January 8, 2003 5:59pm PT
...
To say Jinnah was villain judged by American or British is trying to determine how a patient feels through interpretor .What can Gora know how a 50 yr old muslim lady felt while travelling from India to Pakistan & breathed her lastr on the platform not sure whether or not she ha reached the promised land !

Right or wrong .....false or true TO SEE NOW IN HIND SIGHT EVERY ONE OF YOU CAN BE 100% RIGHT & TRUE .Thats the beuty of monday morning quater Backing !

It was a Different world 1/2 century ago....just imagine news travelled in weeks & distortions of news staggerring . ]

Thanks for your links on Ayesha Jalal and Jinnah.

You should not reject what Americans and British say when they are purely reporting. The link I had posted gave material which contained both reports as well as interpretation. Once you start rejecting Americans and British because they are Goras and Indians because they are anti-Muslims you are left with very little which may be practically nothing.

You have to see each writer and ask whether he or she is biased. Determination of biasedness should be based on reports by others. In this case you have to have reports by others which might be throwing doubt on her reports and interpretations, and then only you should reject her writings. You cannot reject summarily.

Participants in this current discussion at Chowk may find relevant ``Maulana Azad: Free India`s Tragic Hero``, at India Policy Institute http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndiaPolicy Message 1174, July 16 2002, reproduced below. Azad was the polar opposite of Jinnah.

``On Maulana Azad: Free India`s Tragic Hero

Subroto Roy, © July 16 2002

I believe that Maulana Abul Kalam Azad had the right political
analysis and solution for the problems of the subcontinent -- more so
than Jinnah, Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Bose, Golwalkar, Savarkar, Shyama
Prasad, Ambedkar or any other Indian of his time, let aside any of
the British.

Jinnah is today Pakistan`s solitary and rather improbable hero;
Golwalkar, Savarkar and Shyama Prasad are heroes of the Sangh Parivar as is Patel to an extent; Ambedkar`s name is taken by Dalit
politicians; Gandhi and Nehru are faintly remembered in today`s
Congress Party, and Bose is extolled in Bengal.

But I believe Azad`s words and actions were less part of the problem
and more part of the solution than the words and actions of any of
them.

I have personally typed in a statement of his issued on April 15
1946, which he endorsed again ten years later in his biographical
narrative India Wins Freedom.

The initial version of this book was published in 1959 by Orient
Longmans in New Delhi. Certain pages were kept confidential at
Azad`s request for a period of thirty years. In 1988, the complete
version was published, again by Orient Longmans, New Delhi.

I urge Azad`s April 15 1946 statement to be widely read and freely
distributed on the Internet today, to Indians of all faiths, to
Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, to any and all citizens and well-wishers
of the subcontinent.

The reason I urge this is not out of any piety towards a neglected
great man. Rather, I am being extremely practical.

If I am right to think Azad had the most profound analytical insight
and prescience of any political man of his time, then the resolution
of key problems on the subcontinent which have persisted since then,
e.g. that of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, may also depend on an
understanding and application of his analysis today.

Azad`s stated (India Wins Freedom p. 197):
``It must be placed on record that the man in India who first fell for
Lord Mountbatten`s idea (of Partition) was Sardar Patel. Till
perhaps the very end Pakistan was for Jinnah a bargaining counter,
but in fighting for Pakistan, he had over-reached himself. His
action had so annoyed and irritated Sardar Patel that the Sardar was
now a believer in Partition.``

This statement formed a basis for my suggesting a game-theoretic
explanation of the roots of the current and continuing Kashmir
problem in ``Foundations of Pakistan`s Political Economy: Towards an
Agenda for the 1990s``, edited by W. E. James and Subroto Roy, Sage
1992, Karachi OUP 1993. Recognising the problem to have game-
theoretic roots, itself is a first and necessary step towards a
solution. Jai Hind.``

Excerpt from India Wins Freedom by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, released
after 30 years, complete version, 1988, initial version 1959 ed. by
Humayun Kabir, pp. 150-152.

``I have considered from every possible point of view the scheme of
Pakistan as formulated by the Muslim League., As an Indian, I have
examined its implications for the future of India as a whole. As a
Muslim, I have examined its likely effects upon the fortunes of
Muslims of India.

Considering the scheme in all its aspects, I have come to the
conclusion that it is harmful not only for India as a whole but for
Muslims in particular. And in fact it creates more problems than it
solves.

I must confess that the very term Pakistan goes against my grain. It
suggests that some portions of the world are pure while others are
impure. Such a division of territories into pure and impure is un-
Islamic and is more in keeping with orthodox Brahmanism which divides
men and countries into holy and unholy -- a division which is a
repudiation of the very spirit of Islam. Islam recognizes no such
division and the prophet says ``God made the whole world a mosque for
me``.

Further, it seems that the scheme of Pakistan is a symbol of
defeatism, and has been built on the analogy of the Jewish demand for
a national home. It is a confession that Indian Muslims cannot hold
their own in India as a whole, and would be content to withdraw to a
corner specially reserved for them.

One can sympathise with the aspiration of the Jews for such a
national home, as they are scattered all over the world and cannot in
any region have any effective voice in the administration.. The
conditions of Indian Muslims is quite otherwise. Over 90 million in
number, they are in quantity and quality a sufficiently important
element in Indian life to influence decisively all questions of
administration and policy. Nature has further helped them by
concentrating them in certain areas.

In such a context, the demand for Pakistan loses all force. As a
Muslim, I for one am not prepared for a moment to give up my right to
treat the whole of India as my domain and to shape in the shaping of
its political and economic life. To me it seems a sure sign of
cowardice to give up what is my patrimony and content myself with a
mere fragment of it.

As is well known, Mr. Jinnah`s Pakistan scheme is based on his two
nation theory. His thesis is that India contains many nationalities based on religious differences, Of them the two major nations, the Hindus and Muslims, must as separate nations have separate States, When Dr Edward Thompson once pointed out to Mr. Jinnah that Hindus and Muslims live side by side in thousands of Indian towns, villages and hamlets, Mr. Jinnah replied that this is no way affected their separate nationality. Two nations, according to M Jinnah, confront one another in every hamlet, village and town, and he, therefore, desires that they should be separated into two States.

I am prepared to overlook all other aspects of the problem and judge
it from the point of view of Muslim interest alone. I shall go
still further and say that if it can be shown that the scheme of
Pakistan can in any way benefit Muslims I would be prepared to accept
it myself and also to work for its acceptance by others. But the
truth is that even if I examine the scheme from the point of view of
the communal interests of the Muslims themselves, I am forced to the
conclusion that it can in no way benefit them or allay their
legitimate fears.

Let us consider dispassionately the consequences which will follow if
we give effect to the Pakistan scheme. India will be divided into
two States, one with a majority of Muslims and the other of Hindus.
In the Hindustan State there will remain 35 million Muslims scattered
in small minorities all over the land. With 17 per cent in UP, 12
percent in Bihar and 9 percent in Madras, they will be weaker than
they are today in the Hindu majority provinces. They have had their
homelands in these regions for almost a thousand years and built up
well known centres of Muslim culture and civilization there.

They will awaken overnight and discover that they have become alien
and foreigners. Backward industrially, educationally and
economically, they will be left to the mercies to what would become
an unadulterated Hindu raj.

On the other hand, their position within the Pakistan State will be
vulnerable and weak. Nowhere in Pakistan will their majority be
comparable to the Hindu majority in the Hindustan States. ( NB Azad
could hardly imagine even at this point the actual British
Partition of Punjab and Bengal, let aside the later separation of
Bangladesh from West Pakistan, SR. )

In fact, their majority will be so slight that will be offset by the
economical, educational and political lead enjoyed by non-Muslims in
these areas. Even if this were not so and Pakistan were
overwhelmingly Muslim in population, it still could hardly solve the
problem of Muslims in Hindustan.

Two States confronting one another, offer no solution of the problem
of one another`s minorities, but only lead to retribution and
reprisals by introducing a system of mutual hostages. The scheme of
Pakistan therefore solves no problems for the Muslims. It cannot
safeguard their rights where they are in minority nor as citizens of
Pakistan secure them a position in Indian or world affairs which they
would enjoy as citizens of a major State like the Indian Union.

It may be argued that if Pakistan is so much against the interest if
the Muslims themselves, then why should such a large section of
Muslims be swept away by its lure? The answer is to be found in the
attitude of certain communal extremists among the Hindus. When the
Muslim League began to speak of Pakistan, they read into the scheme a
sinister pan-Islamic conspiracy and began to oppose it out of fear
that it foreshadowed a combination of Indian Muslim and trans-Indian
Muslim States.

The opposition acted as an incentive to the adherents of the League.
With simple though untenable logic they argued that if Hindus were so
opposed to Pakistan, surely it must be of benefit to Muslims. An
atmosphere of emotional frenzy was created which made reasonable
appraisement impossible and swept away especially the younger and
more impressionable among the Muslims. I have, however, no doubt
that when the present frenzy has died down and the question can be
considered dispassionately, those who now support Pakistan will
themselves repudiate it as harmful for Muslim interests.

The formula which I have succeeded in making the Congress accept
secures whatever merits the Pakistan scheme contains while all its
defects and drawbacks are avoided. The basis of Pakistan is the
fear of interference by the Centre in Muslim majority areas as the
Hindus will be in a majority in the Centre. The Congress meets this
fear by granting full autonomy to the provincial units and vesting
all residuary power in the provinces. It also has provided for two
lists of Central subjects, one compulsory and one optional, so that
if any provincial unit so wants, it can administer all subjects
itself except a minimum delegated to the Centre. The Congress
scheme threescore ensures that Muslim majority provinces are
internally free to develop as they will, but can at the same time
influence the Centre on all issues which affect India as a whole.

The situation in India is such that all attempts to establish a
centralized and unitary government are bound to fail. Equally,
doomed to failure is the attempt to divide India into two States.
After considering all aspects of the question, I have come to the
conclusion that the only solution can be on the lines embodied in the
Congress formula which allows room for development both to the
provinces and to India as a whole. The Congress formula meets the
fear of the Muslim majority areas to allay which the scheme of
Pakistan was formed. On the other hand, it avoids the defects of the
Pakistan scheme which would bring the Muslims where they are in a
minority under a purely Hindu government.

I am one of those who considers the present chapter of communal
bitterness and differences as a transient phase in Indian life. I
firmly hold that they will disappear when India assumes the
responsibility of her own destiny. I am reminded of a saying of
Mr. Gladstone that the best cure for a man`s fear of the water was to
throw him into it. Similarly, India must assume responsibilities
and administer her own affairs before fears and suspicious can be
fully allayed.

When India attains her destiny, she will forget the chapter of
communal suspicion and conflict and face the problems of modern life
from a modern point of view. Differences will no doubt persist, but
they will be economic, not communal. Opposition among political p
[arties will continue, but it will based, not on religion, but one
economic and political issues. Class and not community will be the
basis oaf future alignments, and policies will be shaped
accordingly. If it be argued that this is only a faith which events
may not justify, I would say that in any case the 90 million Muslims
constitute a factor which nobody can ignore and whatever the
circumstances, they are strong enough to safeguard their own destiny.``




Subroto Roy, PhD (Cantab.)
Professor, VGSOM, IIT Kharagpur
Kharagpur, India 721302.

ferozk 40

``Pakistanis should ask themselves, what they were before Islam came to India in the eight century? Did our ancestors drop from the Heavans as Muslims, like manna, or did they accept and convert to Islam from Hinduism or Buddhism? Islam is about 1400 years old. Were we Muslims before the advent of Islam? We have distorted our history and now we are confused and searching for an identity, which we seek to rationalize in extermism.``

At last my message appear to be getting through to at least one pakistani. It is time to look at Jinnah, look at the social system, the TNt. Time to rubbish all of it. It is the denial of linkage to india that has left pakistan only with the book and the social values that suit only the nomads of desert.
For the blasphemy laws, for the honour killing legalisation, for the hoodood, give credit to the man who popularised TNT, consign him to the appropriate place in history.

It is time for pakistanis to live their dreams, not that of jinnah.

Arjun 41,

It is sad to see a person, a minister in pakistan, elected by the people, who is a graduate of some pak university, beig such a fool to believe that pakistan is fighting terrorism. The world knows that most of the taliban where pakistanis, they have only with drawn to safer borders.

Products are flowing out of 200000 madrasas, of course none of them give any arms training, but only convince the young to seek out and kill kafirs to secure the highest religious reward. What the educated pakistanis do not realise is that these programmed biped killing machines will find the weapons any where, they will even kill with their bare hands to secure the heavens.

Musheraff himself has clarified, when he mentioned the non-conventional war what he meant was the letting out of these killing macjhines. Even Benazir had mentioned that a million jihadists were ready even at the time of her rule.

Re: Ras # 14

Ras, you had a very interesting comment and no, this is not about national confidence; it is about the arrogance of our leaders. There are a host of reasons for the problems of Pakistan, and one of them is fusion of the state and the personality of its leaders. Pakistani leadership seems suffer from a myth, which makes them echo Louis XIV`s statement that ``le etat est moi``. Pakistani leadership has always personalized politics and by extropolation, state policies to suit their own intentions.

We as a nation have been more than willing to subordinate national interests to the cult of personality in Pakistan`s politics. There is a pathological complex in the Pakistani political psyche, which champions the illusion of the ``man on the horse back`` theory as a solution to all our problems. Our politics is about the individual and we alwas cater to the individual in power at the expense of ignoring the political institutions of the state. Pakistan has a chronic case of suffering from ``legitimacy of regimes``, because all our politics, to date, have been about rationalizing illegal monopolizations of political power. This rot started from 1947, when Jinnnah assumed a ``devine right`` to rule Pakistan and absued his office of Governor-General. Pakistan, in 1947, adopted the Government of India Act, 1935 as it interim constitution and was a parlimentary democracy and not a presidency. Jinnah ignored the office of the prime minister and the parliament and ruled as a president - being both head of the state and the head of the government. From then onwards, the rot only got worse and it still festers our body politic.

From 1947, we have defied Jinnah and turned this mortal, with all his human weaknesses, into a demi-god with out any sins. We have raped our history in an experiement of national mythology and posioned the minds of the younger generation with a nationalistically biased history. We use history to justify our, as your said it ``national confidence``, and to legitimize corruption and arrogance of power historically.

The end result of this is that we, Pakistanis, have no history; only lies and half truths and it from this that we suffer due to a want of a national identity, which makes, mistakenly, seek identification with the Middle East / Arab world instead of with South Asia and yes, with India.

Pakistanis should ask themselves, what they were before Islam came to India in the eight century? Did our ancestors drop from the Heavans as Muslims, like manna, or did they accept and convert to Islam from Hinduism or Buddhism? Islam is about 1400 years old. Were we Muslims before the advent of Islam? We have distorted our history and now we are confused and searching for an identity, which we seek to rationalize in extermism.

We talk about ``Jinnah`s Pakistan`` and his ``vision for Pakistan``, but Jinnah`s Pakistan died in 1971 and the Pakistan that was left over, was a new Pakistan; one not created in 1947, but in 1971!

Ciao

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