A Work In Progress

Speaking of Zia`s Pakistan and its islamic push, I read a letter to Dawn today, whereby he implores Russia`s Putin to stand up against Mr Bush`s unilateralism.

What an irony? It was Pakistan which became a catalyst for the disintegration of communist Russia and Putin is the part of the old establishment who has not forgotten Pakistan`s hand.

To ask Mr Putin to stand up is like adding insult to injury?

But I am happy that Communism ended in Russia. The only country remaining is China. Ofcourse North Korea is acting like Rodney Dangerfield: is getting no respect from Bush.

The season of Jinnah-bashing is in full swing again. Now he is akin to some real -estate man rather than the statesman he was.
His Pakistan was not created with all these fantastic possibilities in mind: It was already there- the solid land-mass where muslims constituted an overwhelming majority of the population , and aspired to an independent state for - as you say- the Pursuit of Happiness according to their own ideas.

Ilyas:

-``the solid land-mass where muslims constituted an overwhelming majority of the population , and aspired to an independent state``

Don`t you mean the two solid land masses? Or was East Pakistan an afterthought?

LOL!! You don`t have to answer. It`s your country and you are welcome to build your own nation building myths. Just don`t go round announcing to Indian refugees and their descendants that a Pakistan was already there, and we Hindus and Sikhs of West Punjab were aliens.

That might tempt us to go a little further back in history then.

Politicians are supposed to play politics. It is better they fight it out in drawing rooms and assemblies than public fighting each other on their behalf. Therefore the case for the first military takeover by Iskander Mirza and Ayub Khan is as much nonsense as the one by Musharraf. Pakistani economy did not perform badly during the forst 10 years despite frequent government changes. ONly occasion where a civilain can be held responsible for messing up the economy was Z. A. Bhutto`s nationalization.

Two of the provinces NWFP and Balochistan had no history of Hindu exploitation with nominal Hindu presence. Yet they accepted creation of most unhappily. The case for falling behind Hindu population was a valid one on many places but a desire for power and dislike for Hindus contributed more for Bengali, UPite and CPite Muslims. In Sindh and Panjab, most valuable thing -land was in the hands of Muslims and Sikhs and no anti-Hindu feelings existed in the countryside.

[while the people of West Pakistan, also known as the Punjabis, were in the Unionist Party lapping at the heels of their British masters and refusing independence in the name of slavery]

This is wrong. The Unionist did not accept Gandhi, Nehru, Jinnah, Congress and Muslim League as their masters before independence. Why should anybody be forced to take sides in a democratic process? Nothing wrong for Balochis or Tamils voting for their local parties and so did Panjabis. Had Panjabis remained loyal to Unionists, the bloodbath at partition could have been averted. Unionists were best representatives to represent the interests of Panjab whereas ML and Congress did not even have a single recognizable leader from Panjab.

Musharraf was going to take over irrespective of Nawaz Sharif`s actions. That is why NS dismissed Musharraf and made history by kicking out the mastermind of coup plot disgracefully. His other choice was to wait for the over throw like Z. A. Bhutto with the same result. Z. A. Bhutto knew of Zia`s plan at least 6-8 hours in advance and did nothing because he knew it would not work. NS at least kicked Musharraf`s ass with Peshawari chappel on national TV. For that very act, at least half the Pakistani English journalists do not write General with Musharraf`s name.

One must admire today the great vision of the founder of Pakistan Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and his fellow leaders about the two-nations theory. Quaid-e-Azam understood the Hindu mentality quite long ago. In 1934, in an address, he said: ``The Hindu sentiment, the Hindu mind, the Hindu attitude led me to the conclusion that there was no hope of unity.” “We (Muslims) are a Nation`` he asserted, ``with our own distinctive culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, sense of value and proportion, legal laws and moral code, custom and calendar, history and tradition, aptitude and ambitions; in short, we have our own distinctive outlook on life and of life. By all canons of international law we are a Nation.``
Then on the resolution day, 23rd of March, while addressing to the annual Muslim League convention in Lahore, he said, ``Hindus and the Muslims belong to two different religions, philosophies, social customs and literature. They neither inter-marry nor inter-dine and, indeed they belong to two different civilizations, which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their concepts on life and of life are different. They have different epics, different heroes and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other, and likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state.``

Just like Osama started pushing the cause of kashmir to recruit pakistanis, Jinnah started embracing the concept of mulims-hindu permanant and divine divide. Those who call him farsighted, conveneinetly ignore the fact that he was campaigning for seperatist movement in the muslim minority areas, and hence endangering the lives and honour of these poor yet emotional muslims. It is like if Altaf Hussain of MQM starts his separatist movement from urdu speaking areas in Rawalpindi and Lahore.

Those who say that he was secular, also conveneinetly forget that he had two faces: one for western media and another for Indian muslims. u can not demand a country on the basis of religion and then insist that it would be secular. By that standard, Israel is perhaps more secular than what Jinnah ever dreamed of pak.

Ref hrrehman #6

[One must admire today the great vision of the founder of Pakistan Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and his fellow leaders about the two-nations theory. Quaid-e-Azam understood the Hindu mentality quite long ago..... on the resolution day, 23rd of March, while addressing to the annual Muslim League convention in Lahore, he said, ``Hindus and the Muslims belong to two different religions, philosophies, social customs and literature. They neither inter-marry nor inter-dine ...``]

Do they rape across religious boundaries? Do they?

[``....and, indeed they belong to two different civilizations, which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their concepts on life and of life are different. They have different epics, different heroes and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other, and likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state.``]

So, what do we do with the 120+ million Muslims in India? Are we in India to accept them and the consequent ``growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state``? Or do you think we should expel them to Pakistan and/or Bangladesh? Or, perhaps make them revert (hey, that is a word you guys like to use; you know, everybody is a Muslim, it is just that some of us don`t know it) to Hinduism?

KHUSHWAN SINGH`S BIOGRAPHY AND MOHAMMED ALI JINNAH

ATTN Mr. Dost Mittar,

Let me start by saying one thing : I have only one purpose for which I am communicating on this forum at this time. I have absolutely no interest in convincing you of anything since you proved to be quite obtuse and obstinate in blocking out the facts and sticking with your own perception which is rather skewed to say the least since you still view partition with the eyes of a 7 year old ....

The reason why I have temporarily come out of my retirement from the boring interactions on this website is because you unwittingly or for sinister purposes (I can`t be sure) attributed an inaccurate statement to a great man Khushwant Singh who is by all accounts a man of honesty and integrity much like the man he admires, Mr. Mohammed Ali Jinnah... You claimed that Khushwant Singh agrees with you when you say that Jinnah had envisaged no place for Non-Muslims in Pakistan .... This is absolutely and totally false ..... I am reproducing the original statement from the book `TRUTH LIES AND A LITTLE MALICE` the autobiography of Mr.Khushwant Singh:


``Evidently he (Jinnah) had neither wished nor forseen that in Pakistan there would be no place for Non-Muslims``

PAGE 116 `TRUTH LIES AND LITTLE MALICE`


Khushwant Singh has accurately concluded what any sane person would if he read the facts cool mindedly or saw them with his own eyes. Mohammed Ali Jinnah had not envisaged an exchange of populations and wanted a Pakistan where all people regardless of religion caste or creed lived as equal citizens...

I don`t want to say any further since I think in credibility Khushwant Singh ranks higher than most people especially some one who left Sialkot at the age of 7 a whole month before Jinnah even flew to Pakistan. But I do want to say one thing though... By so deliberately misquoting Khushwant Singh (You might have read that article which misquoted Khushwant Singh in that case your crime is not to read the original Source) you have shown me that you too have the same mischievious streak as apparent in the more rabid and fanatical of your countrymen on these boards.

Kindly don`t dare to patronize me in the future... I don`t need your patronizing.... Maybe you should reserve it for the Saffron brigafe you have unleashed on this unsuspecting board.


Long Live Khushwant Singh and His India (Not the saffron Brigade`s)
Long Live Jinnah`s Pakistan

Sincerely
YLH

My dear Stuka Dive Bomber,
Thanks for correcting me about Bengal. You see the piece of land in question is this part, and so my omission.
By the way, I am new to chowk, but I wonder what made you have the nom de plume of JU87D (if I remember correctly from my childhood war comics) `Stuka` dive bomber of Luftwaffe, the terror of European cities till it met its superiors, hurricane and spitfires?
And when I said overwhelming majority, I did not forget the minority communities, and neither did Mr Jinnah. His historic 11 August 1947 opening address to the constituent assembly of Pakistan guaranteed equal rights to all. And Mr Jinnah, everybody agrees, meant what he said.
I do not know why are you terrified of being a minority under muslim rule, when inspite of all the horror stories, the share of state posts in Aurangzeb`s Mughal heirarchy was 50/50. Please see Sir Jadunaath Sarkaar`s History of Aurangzeb.
As for Jinnah, he nominated the hedonistic barrister son of Sir Sobha Singh, I mean our dear old Khushwant Singh, as Justice of Lahore High Court. Prime Minister IK Gujraal`s father I forget his name was his first choice as the Law Minister, later the Honorable Joginder Naath Mandal , a lower caste member from Bengal, was selected. Gujraal senior was on the Governor General Council as Minister Without portfolio with special responsibility for inter-communal relations, till he left for India in december 47 or jan 48. I have discussed that in detail in Chowk unplugged, off the wall discussions, Happy Birthday Mr Jinnah, so no point repeating here that the Pakistan Dream was very different from what India has forced it to become. Your brother, IK

My dear Stuka Dive Bomber,
Thanks for correcting me about Bengal. You see the piece of land in question is this part, and so my omission.
By the way, I am new to chowk, but I wonder what made you have the nom de plume of JU87D (if I remember correctly from my childhood war comics) `Stuka` dive bomber of Luftwaffe, the terror of European cities till it met its superiors, hurricane and spitfires?
And when I said overwhelming majority, I did not forget the minority communities, and neither did Mr Jinnah. His historic 11 August 1947 opening address to the constituent assembly of Pakistan guaranteed equal rights to all. And Mr Jinnah, everybody agrees, meant what he said.
I do not know why are you terrified of being a minority under muslim rule, when inspite of all the horror stories, the share of state posts in Aurangzeb`s Mughal heirarchy was 50/50. Please see Sir Jadunaath Sarkaar`s History of Aurangzeb.
As for Jinnah, he nominated the hedonistic barrister son of Sir Sobha Singh, I mean our dear old Khushwant Singh, as Justice of Lahore High Court. Prime Minister IK Gujraal`s father I forget his name was his first choice as the Law Minister, later the Honorable Joginder Naath Mandal , a lower caste member from Bengal, was selected. Gujraal senior was on the Governor General Council as Minister Without portfolio with special responsibility for inter-communal relations, till he left for India in december 47 or jan 48. I have discussed that in detail in Chowk unplugged, off the wall discussions, Happy Birthday Mr Jinnah, so no point repeating here that the Pakistan Dream was very different from what India has forced it to become. Your brother, IK

COMPLETED WORK,

Pakistan is no more a work in p[rocess, it is almost there, the vision of jinnah, the frution of two nation theory is almost complete. part of pakistan with nearly 25 percent non-muslims have been made to another country, the pakistan of today that had 10 percent non-muslims have been reduced to negligible non-muslims, the blasphemy laws, hodood ordinance in line with the dictates of the sheria courts of pakistan has survived all of the constitutional changes and form the fabric of pak society ( one mans one speach as can be expected is seen as the outcome of genetic deformity of forked tongue).

The outcome of the hero worship of the ilks of gaznai, and tuglak have reincarnated as mushy. Look at his latest speach to the people of pakistan, he claimed that his threat of non-conventional attack stopped the indian army. Now this man is denying it. He is coming up with all kinds of excuses and interpretations. How come a man of such low political understanding happen to become the army chief, how come in a country of a few hundred million, no one is capable of giving the head of stste competant advice. It is simply the ultimate proof of the success of TNT, pakistan is the final proof of darwenian experiment, those who believed in TNT have been selected and sent to pakistan. Now the outcome of the selection process is there for all the world to see, a society that selects the dumbest for the top job.

Ferzok, it is work completed, finished work, or should I say pakistan is finished.

Feroz Khan:
//...Mohammad Ali Jinnah, was blessed with an acute eye for property .... Jinnah was not only successful in locating a prime piece of real estate for Pakistan, but in his lifetime, he accumulated some highly prized properties himself both in India and Pakistan...///

So you mean to say that Mr Jhinna was basically a glorified real estate agent. you may be right. The cunning lawyer that he was, he used his devious ways to carve out a nice little chunk of land to lord over - all in name of Islam for which he had no respect ( eating pork , drinking alcohol ) and muslims ( with whom he never mingled - choosing to associate with the goras ; he stayed away from the unwashed masses in the street ). While carrying out his little satanic act - he very conveniently blamed it all on the Hindu Baniya, who with his infinite expertise in cunning is going to snatch away bread from the muslim mouth.

Here is the guy who demanded a country in name of religion and as soon as he got it - he declared ``Guess what guys, I lied - our new country is actually going to be secular, because you know - I love pork and whisky which Islam forbids``.

He said hindus and muslims can`t live together , hindus are so bad people - yet he chose to leave half of the muslims back with the those cunning hindu hyenas without bothering what would happen to them.

The lies that this man was propagating was exposed when many of his own family didn`t believe what he said and actually chose to stay back with the hindu hyenas.

But then we can`t really blame Mr. Jhinna, he has done what any of us would have done in his place - exploit the willing succkers. Unfortunately - the great unwashed masses of undevided India fell for his trick.

Today his legacy lives on: the true inheritors of his legacy are using the same trick that he has used half century ago. They still claim to fight for Islam, for muslims, for pakistan and grab nice little plots of land for themselves. They still drown in whisky in army clubs and yet profess to be the true fighters for islam. And they are still afraid of the Hindu hyena.

And the great unwashed masses are still falling for the lie.

Feroz Khan:
//...Mohammad Ali Jinnah, was blessed with an acute eye for property .... Jinnah was not only successful in locating a prime piece of real estate for Pakistan, but in his lifetime, he accumulated some highly prized properties himself both in India and Pakistan...///

So you mean to say that Mr Jhinna was basically a glorified real estate agent. you may be right. The cunning lawyer that he was, he used his devious ways to carve out a nice little chunk of land to lord over - all in name of Islam for which he had no respect ( eating pork , drinking alcohol ) and muslims ( with whom he never mingled - choosing to associate with the goras ; he stayed away from the unwashed masses in the street ). While carrying out his little satanic act - he very conveniently blamed it all on the Hindu Baniya, who with his infinite expertise in cunning is going to snatch away bread from the muslim mouth.

Here is the guy who demanded a country in name of religion and as soon as he got it - he said ``Guess what guys, I lied - our new country is actually going to be secular, because you know - I love pork and whisky which Islam forbids``.

He said hindus and muslims can`t live together , hindus are just so bad people - yet he chose to leave half of the muslims back with the those cunning hindu hyenas without bothering what would happen to them.

The lies that this man was propagating was exposed when many of his own family didn`t believe what he said and actually chose to stay back with the hindu hyenas.

But then we can`t really blame Mr. Jhinna, he has done what any of us would have done in his place - exploit the willing succkers. Unfortunately - the great unwashed masses of undevided India fell for his trick.

Today his legacy lives on: the true inheritors of his legacy are using the same trick that he has used half century ago. They still claim to fight for Islam, for muslims, for pakistan and corner nice little plots of land for themselves. They still drown in whisky in army clubs and yet profess to be the true fighters for islam. They are still afraid of the Hindu hyena.

And the the great unwashed masses are still falling for the lie.

ferozk

are you the ulloo who wrote this?

Feroz,
One should not be overly critical of every Pakistani leader since the birth of the country to the present day. Taking ``pot shots`` at leaders is alright once in a while but this well written and very sad tale, smacks of a lack of national self confidence and esteem.
One can agree that few bright spots appear in Pakistani history thus far, but hope is an addiction that some of us cannot shake off. In my opinion, Pakistanis are a talented people who are still in the process of finding themselves and their place on the world map. They need some luck and hopefully more confidence.

From Mushahid Hussain`s piece in The Nation (Lahore) today January 7:

``There is a cultural problem of Pakistani leaders when they negotiate with the United States, barring Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who, having been American-educated, had a better understanding of the American culture and political system and could deal with the Americans without any inferiority complex. For example, in a 1963 meeting with President Kennedy, the American President was so impressed with Bhutto that he told him: `If you were American, you would be in my cabinet`. Bhutto replied with a tongue-in-cheek comment that most other Pakistani leaders would not dare make to an American President: `If I were American, you would be in my cabinet, Mr President`.``

Ras

churchill as by quoted by cowasjee:

``If the viceroys and governments of India in the past had given half as much attention to dealing with the social conditions of the masses of the Indian people as they have to busying themselves with negotiating with unrepresentative leaders of the political classes for constitutional changes - if they had addressed themselves to the moral and material problems which are at the root of Indian life, I think it would have been much better for the working folk of Burnely and Bombay, of Oldham and Ahmadabad.``

http://www.tehelka.com/channels/currentaffairs/2002/jun/10/ca061002poor.htm

the more things change _ _ _. what is the point of rehashing old issues? how can someone who died 54 years ago be held responsible for the current impasse? why is jinnah being blamed for accolades heaped upon the likes of advani and qadir khan? how many shujat hussains had jinnah surrounded himself with? so jinnah did not want to live in a quasi-hindu-socialist utopia dominated by three (and possibly four) generations of nehru dynasty. he gave up his comfy lifestyle in vilayat, came home and worked for a settlement which in his opinion provided the best solution. and even the most ardent jinnah haters admit that jinnah did not demand partition until very late in the process.

so if people are not happy with the settlement reached 55 years ago, why dont they do what jinnah did. why dont they get of their butts and work to create a system that will provide peace and prosperity to the region.

Sure, pakiland is in an important position these days. Its position is about exporting terrorism or threats of that nature. Look what pakis are up to ...

http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/dec/17ram.htm

Peace,
###16 by faisaluno on Janauary 7, 2003 8:20am PT
so if people are not happy with the settlement reached 55 years ago, why dont they do what jinnah did. why dont they get of their butts and work to create a system that will provide peace and prosperity to the region ##
thats exactly was the biggest mistake of these great visionaries Jinnah, Nehru, and Gandhi, all three of them had a great vision of India, they all tried to achieve their goals and at some point got at odds with each other while at certain point found themselves in the same bed. However they had a basic flaw in their vision all three of them, they thought that this vision of the future of India is shared by the people of India, that was the basic flaw of their vision. The Indians of then and today, with exception of say 10%(i know its exagerated), are the poor, lazy, non thinking, people who had no vision or sense of a life with a goal. They have always been a herd of sheep herded into doing things by the Great visionaries from Ashoka, to Bhutto...
But they all waisted their time on the assumption that these people actualy wanted to live a good life...

Peace

articles you won`t see in Pakistani newspapers

----
KASHMIR QUAGMIRE
America has no dog in the fight
By Satu P Limaye

The 50-year-old Kashmir dispute has all the attributes T S Eliot assigned to history. It has ``many cunning passages, contrived corridors`` and ``deceives with whispering ambitions, guides us by vanities``. During the past year, as India and Pakistan faced off militarily and the US searched for al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists nearby, the dispute seemed especially dangerous, US interests in the subcontinent compelling, and America`s influence and Pakistani as well as Indian receptivity to US mediation high. Many called for US mediation to resolve the dispute. These calls, however well-intentioned, are misguided.

Kashmir`s dangers and costs, US influence, and Indian and Pakistani receptivity to mediation are overstated. United States interests in Kashmir are negligible; and the value of resolving Kashmir to improving relations with India and Pakistan and achieving wider strategic objectives are debatable. Anyway, the prospect of a Kashmir compromise is remote. Most problematic is the dispute`s ``whispering ambitions``. Kashmir is not the lone or even most important cause of India-Pakistan enmity. Irreconcilable nationalisms, India`s growing power asymmetry with Pakistan, and India`s desire for regional pre-eminence and Pakistan`s determination to prevent it are the cores of discord.

Pakistan, which most seeks mediation, can least afford compromise. An option for the US is to offer Pakistan a security guarantee in exchange for a Kashmir compromise, and simultaneously move to ``transform`` relations with India. This approach has two limited merits. First, it could resolve Kashmir. Second, it would call the subcontinent`s two enduring bluffs. India`s is that it is reconciled fully to the creation of Pakistan. Pakistan`s is that it fears only Indian hegemony, but does not harbor ambitions to be equal to it - whether by pulling India down or pushing itself up. The major demerit of such a policy is the requirement for a massive US commitment of diplomacy, cash, military equipment, security guarantees - and possibly military presence. US interests in India, Pakistan, or their amity, do not justify such a profound commitment. Behind-the-scenes facilitation and episodic crisis management, though cumbersome and unsatisfying, are effective and commensurate with US interests.

Kashmir`s exaggerated dangers and costs
India and Pakistan have fought two brief, limited wars over Kashmir since their independence in 1947. Given India and Pakistan`s overt nuclearization and shared penchant for brinksmanship, today`s dangers seem greater. Divergent risk assessments exist about the possibility of nuclear war. Still, policymakers must consider its humanitarian costs and strategic implications. India and Pakistan pay for Kashmir in lives, treasure and reputations. Kashmir thwarts India`s global ambitions, as does the diplomatic and perceptual hyphenation with Pakistan it produces. Pakistan is being undermined by the Kashmir conflict`s guns, violence and radicalism. The Kashmiris bear the brunt of conflict.

Kashmir`s dangers and costs are sobering, but should not be overdrawn. Brinksmanship is used by all parties to purpose. Weaker Pakistan ratchets up tensions to gain US pressure on India to negotiate. India uses coercive diplomacy to get US pressure on Pakistan to halt the infiltration of militants. Both seek these ends without war: Pakistan because it might lose; India because it might not win. Each wants the US to hold them back, while pushing their interests forward. Militants use dramatic attacks to loosen India`s grip on Kashmir, and warn Pakistan against reducing commitment to their cause. Outsiders use acute tensions to leverage influence. Tensions employed carefully are creative. Outsiders should not be ``guided by vanities`` that they are the most important bulwark against war.

Nor should the negative implications of nuclear war in the subcontinent be exaggerated. Horrific as the humanitarian costs would be, they must be set against the staggering existing humanitarian challenges in the region. Second, many feared that India and Pakistan`s 1998 nuclear blasts would unhinge the nuclear order. They did not. Similarly, if India and Pakistan use nuclear weapons, other countries involved in disputes with their neighbors will not necessarily follow. A nuclear war in the subcontinent could give a fillip to nonproliferation efforts. Resolving Kashmir would remove a nuclear flashpoint, but not the capabilities and underlying antagonisms that make nuclear war possible.

Kashmir is not the magic formula for fixing the subcontinent`s ills or America`s difficulties there. Identifying it as such allows India and Pakistan to blame only each other and manipulate the US.

Illusory US influence and regional receptivity
A beguiling but illusory notion is that US leverage and Indian and Pakistani receptivity to it is at a peak. India`s reliance on Washington to wring and validate commitments from Pakistan to halt infiltration into Kashmir, and its desire for closer ties do not make New Delhi receptive to mediation. India is peeved at Washington`s new-found friendship with Islamabad and doubts that Washington will hold Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf to his pledge to permanently end infiltration. Pakistan suspects that the US has been complicit in India`s coercive diplomacy and is disillusioned that Kashmir is seen as a terrorism problem rather than as a freedom struggle. India and Pakistan`s grievances indicate that the US is well placed to play a mediatory role. But they also show that neither is really ready to receive it.

America has no dog in the Kashmir fight
America`s interests in Kashmir are limited. Kashmir`s future is not the target of a unified, powerful lobby within domestic politics or the subject of US domestic laws. Its intricate history rarely and fleetingly overlaps with American history. The dispute is unfamiliar to most Americans save a few academic and government specialists. Kashmir contains no resources the US, or its allies and friends, must have. Its dispensation does not involve clear ideological values that America holds dear. US allies and friends are not directly threatened by the dispute or clamoring for its resolution. The chance of another power displacing America`s centrality in the subcontinent and addressing the dispute to America`s detriment is negligible. The dispute sometimes detracts from other US priorities, but not unsustainably so. American credibility depends far more heavily on the outcome of other flashpoints. Long-standing US commitments are not at stake. The Kashmir dispute is not equivalent to the cross-strait quandary involving China and Taiwan. Kashmir`s line-of-control (LoC) is not Korea`s demilitarized zone. Simply put, the US does not have a dog in the Kashmir fight.

The dispute does complicate US relations with India and Pakistan and wider strategic objectives (eg, the war on terrorism) but not unmanageably so. During the Cold War and during a decade of Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, America relatively successfully pursued its core interests while managing rather than resolving India-Pakistan tensions or the Kashmir dispute. The global war on terrorism need not be different. Indeed, pressing for resolution of Kashmir now threatens to hamper, not ease US relations with India and Pakistan and the pursuit of wider strategic objectives.

Pakistan can least afford compromise
An irony of the Kashmir dispute is that Pakistan, which most wants mediation, can least afford compromise. First, Kashmir is central to Pakistan`s national identity in a way it is not for India. Second, any reasonable compromise would involve a tacit recognition of the current LoC, a position India already accepts but Pakistan does not. Musharraf recently reiterated that the LoC is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Third, the Kashmir dispute allows Pakistan to assert parity with India in perceptions and diplomacy - if not real power. Kashmir is the hyphen in the India-Pakistan relationship; a punctuation mark vital to Pakistan`s grammar of geopolitics. If Kashmir is resolved, Pakistan loses a way of blunting India`s ambitions for regional pre-eminence. Even Pakistan`s possession of nuclear weapons does not afford the same parity. Pakistan`s nuclear weapons especially matter when they are linked with the Kashmir conflict. Finally, the Kashmir dispute serves Pakistani leaders as a domestic pressure release valve. Musharraf, mocked at home for behaving like Busharraf (ie, too cooperative with President George W Bush in the global war on terrorism), makes like Musharrafat - hedging by supporting the Kashmir freedom struggle.

What`s so funny about behind-the-scenes facilitation and episodic crisis management? By providing Islamabad with a security guarantee and economic and military assistance, the US theoretically could make a Kashmir compromise palatable to Pakistan. US protection of Pakistan would also serve as a restraint on it. India might accept such an arrangement if US support helped Islamabad feel secure, end support for the Kashmiri militancy completely, marginalize its domestic extremists, stabilize its economy, and establish a sustainable democracy. Once Pakistan is secure, a US-India relationship to include military sales, technology transfers and economic cooperation could theoretically develop. Is it worth it? Not now. Such an approach would lock the US in a relentless and expensive engagement; more enduring and costly than trying to resolve Kashmir - much less manage it.

At a time when Washington seeks solutions to international problems rather than to manage them, behind-scenes-facilitation and episodic crisis management might seem an unsatisfying sop - even an abdication of bold leadership. But management of the Kashmir dispute saves the US from making promises it cannot keep, making commitments that outweigh benefits, and hitching itself to a region whose importance to the US must not be over-sold. Calibrating levels and types of engagement with interests is a tricky and dynamic challenge. Currently, US efforts call for management, not mediation of the Kashmir dispute.
---

Ref YLH2 #8

[..... you have shown me that you too have the same mischievious streak as apparent in the more rabid and fanatical of your countrymen on these boards.]

Yasser, dear boy, don`t tell me you have forgotten my name already. I am SOOO hurt (sniff).

Considering Mr Akram has argued for recognition of the Taleban in the past I wonder if Islamic law applies to Pakistani UN envoy.

----
U.S. Asks Pakistan to Lift U.N. Envoy`s Immunity After a Violent Quarrel
By JULIA PRESTON

UNITED NATIONS, Jan. 7 — The State Department has asked Pakistan to withdraw the diplomatic immunity of its envoy here, Munir Akram, after New York City prosecutors sought to bring misdemeanor assault charges against him as a result of a quarrel with a woman, United States and New York City officials said today.

Marjorie Tiven, the city commissioner in charge of United Nations issues, wrote to the United States Mission here on Dec. 26 requesting that the envoy`s immunity be removed, according to Edward Skyler, the mayor`s spokesman. Mr. Skyler said the Manhattan district attorney`s office had advised city officials that it was prepared to prosecute if Mr. Akram`s immunity was lifted. Pakistan has not yet informed the United States of any decision.

The legal dispute comes at a bad time for the ambassador. On Jan. 1, Pakistan took a seat on the 15-nation Security Council for a two-year term, just when the Council will be weighing whether to authorize war on Iraq.

On Dec. 10 at 1:36 a.m., the New York City police were summoned by an emergency 911 call to a residence at 47 East 92nd Street in Manhattan, police officials said.

Marijana Mihic, 35, told the 911 operator that a man whom she identified as her husband had smashed her head into a wall and that her arm hurt, according to the police dispatcher`s notes of the conversation. She said the man had hit her before.

``Female caller states husband has diplomatic immunity,`` the dispatcher noted.

When police officers arrived, Ms. Mihic said that Mr. Akram was her ``boyfriend`` and that after an argument with him she had tried to leave.

``He prevented her from leaving, he grabbed her and she fell,`` said Lt. Brian Burke, a police spokesman. The police officers at the scene reported that Ms. Mihic had a bruise on her head, he said.

Mr. Akram, who is 57, was at the residence when the police arrived and identified himself as an ambassador.

``There was nothing really that the officers could do,`` Lt. Burke said. United Nations envoys enjoy immunity from local criminal prosecution.

A spokesman for the Pakistani Mission said today that Mr. Akram and his friend had reconciled.

``The ambassador and his friend both strongly believe that there is no basis for any legal action in this matter,`` said Mansoor Suhail, the spokesman. ``And they have both communicated that belief to the concerned authorities.``

Once the police officers arrived at the residence, Ms. Mihic seemed to become less alarmed, and she refused medical attention when an ambulance from the city`s Emergency Medical Service went to the scene, city officials said.

The district attorney`s office advised Ms. Tiven that Mr. Akram could be prosecuted for a misdemeanor charge of third degree assault, a law enforcement official said. She wrote to Patrick F. Kennedy, a senior diplomat at the United States mission here, and the State Department lodged its request with Pakistan on Dec. 28.

JINNAH was a war criminal.. Direct action day itself led to death of more than 20000 people.. Equal number died in the attacks by Kabailis in Kashmir...

People worshipping Jinnah do seem wanna make their kids follow his lessons and message: Rape and kill as many non-muslims as possible..

Thats Jinnah in nutshell..

Cant believe the women worshipping Jinnah, support the message of violence by Jinnah..

The author may wish to consult the work of Ayesha Jalal titled ``The Sole Spokesman`` (CUP 1985), which may well be definitive, as well as the chapter by FPR Robinson in ``Foundations of Pakistan`s Political Economy: Towards an Agenda for the 1990s``, edited by W. E. James and myself (Hawaii MS 1989, Sage 1993, Karachi OUP 1993). If the author happens to know of these or similar works already, I would be interested in hsi response to them.

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

i am convinced it must be in the blood of us Pakistanis to be `fasad di jurh` but it didn`t occur to me that we were also geographically `fasad di jurh`

chal i suppose it adds a bit of colour on things...

baqi tussi pagal Indian Pakistani lardey rahiyo...

Peace,
#25 by drsubrotoroy on Janauary 8, 2003 0:35am PT
I have heard about Ayesha Jalal, but was unable to find her titles at Amazon, and B&N. I have heard that she and some new authors have re-written the history of our region in the light of these new official documents of British Raj, released by the Crown, recently. Have read some excrepts of Ayesha`s work referenced in another book. Also would love see your work and am open to any more recomendations if you may make about the new authors on both sides of the divide. But please make sure I hate the apologists, or people with a narrow vision who do not see things with the historic perspective and think of our region in isolation.
Peace...

Thank you for this History of Pakistan, replete with previously unknown information. I would never have guessed all this happened if I did not read your article.
So it was Jinnah who founded Pakistan!! And Pakistan is located close to Central Asia. My, my. I always thought Pakistan was a small island in the Carribean, and that jinnah was merely a panjabi word for person. And this treasure trove of information you provide about the succession of tribal rulers of this place you call Pakistan - previously unheard of names like Ayub Khan, and Bhutto, and Bibi, and Nawaz Sharif, and lately Musharaff, and the light you shed on their shenanigans - will no doubt force anthropologists and historians to re-write history books. The light you shed on the geostrategic location of Pakistan will undoubtedly become required reading in military staff colleges the world over.

[ #26 by slodhi on Janauary 8, 2003 7:57am PT
...
I have heard about Ayesha Jalal, but was unable to find her titles at Amazon, and B&N.
...]

That is surprising because I was able to find ``The Sole Spokesman`` on Amazon site. May be you mistyped the serach words. I sometimes search the British and German sister sites of Amazon for highly academic books. But mostly I had to do that only for Math and Finance books. Most other books I always managed to find in main Amazon site. Also there is a site for O/P books: www.alibris.com. HTH

Found following at: http://iref.homestead.com/Messiah.html. I have cut-and-pasted beginning which introduces auhtor and few paragraphs which I wanted highlight. Deleted parts are shown with ``***``:

Partition

The Messiah and The Promised Land

Margaret Bourke-White was a correspondent and photographer for LIFE magazine during the WW II years. In September 1947, White went to Pakistan. She met Jinnah and wrote about what she found and heard in her book Halfway to Freedom: A Report on the New India,Simon and Schuster, New York, 1949. The following are the excerpts:

***

What plans did he have for the industrial development of the country? Did he hope to enlist technical or financial assistance from America?


``America needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs America,`` was Jinnah`s reply. ``Pakistan is the pivot of the world, as we are placed`` -- he revolved his long forefinger in bony circles -- ``the frontier on which the future position of the world revolves.`` He leaned toward me, dropping his voice to a confidential note. ``Russia,`` confided Mr. Jinnah, ``is not so very far away.``


This had a familiar ring. In Jinnah`s mind this brave new nation had no other claim on American friendship than this - that across a wild tumble of roadless mountain ranges lay the land of the BoIsheviks. I wondered whether the Quaid-i-Azam considered his new state only as an armored buffer between opposing major powers. He was stressing America`s military interest in other parts of the world. ``America is now awakened,`` he said with a satisfied smile. Since the United States was now bolstering up Greece and Turkey, she should be much more interested in pouring money and arms into Pakistan. ``If Russia walks in here,`` he concluded, ``the whole world is menaced.``


In the weeks to come I was to hear the Quaid-i-Azam`s thesis echoed by government officials throughout Pakistan. ``Surely America will build up our army,`` they would say to me. ``Surely America will give us loans to keep Russia from walking in.`` But when I asked whether there were any signs of Russian infiltration, they would reply almost sadly, as though sorry not to be able to make more of the argument. ``No, Russia has shown no signs of being interested in Pakistan.``


This hope of tapping the U. S. Treasury was voiced so persistently that one wondered whether the purpose was to bolster the world against Bolshevism or to bolster Pakistan`s own uncertain position as a new political entity. Actually, I think, it was more nearly related to the even more significant bankruptcy of ideas in the new Muslim state -- a nation drawing its spurious warmth from the embers of an antique religious fanaticism, fanned into a new blaze.


Jinnah`s most frequently used technique in the struggle for his new nation had been the playing of opponent against opponent. Evidently this technique was now to be extended into foreign policy. ....


No one would have been more astonished than Jinnah if he could have foreseen thirty or forty years earlier that anyone would ever speak of him as a ``savior of Islam.`` In those days any talk of religion brought a cynical smile. He condemned those who talked in terms of religious rivalries, and in the stirring period when the crusade for freedom began sweeping the country he was hailed as ``the embodied symbol of Hindu-Muslim unity.`` The gifted Congresswoman, Mrs. Naidu, one of Jinnah`s closest friends, wrote poems extolling his role as the great unifier in the fight for independence. ``Perchance it is written in the book of the future,`` ran one of her tributes, ``that he, in some terrible crisis of our national struggle, will pass into immortality`` as the hero of ``the Indian liberation.``


In the ``terrible crisis,`` Mahomed Ali Jinnah was to pass into immortality, not as the ambassador of unity, but as the deliberate apostle of discord. What caused this spectacular renunciation of the concept of a united India, to which he had dedicated the greater part of his life? No one knows exactly. The immediate occasion for the break, in the mid-thirties, was his opposition to Gandhi`s civil disobedience program. Nehru says that Jinnah ``disliked the crowds of ill-dressed people who filled the Congress`` and was not at home with the new spirit rising among the common people under Gandhi`s magnetic leadership. Others say it was against his legal conscience to accept Gandhi`s program. One thing is certain: the break with Gandhi, Nehru, and the other Congress leaders was not caused by any Hindu-Muslim issue.


In any case, Jinnah revived the moribund Muslim League in 1936 after it had dragged through an anemic thirty years` existence, and took to the religious soapbox. He began dinning into the ears of millions of Muslims the claim that they were downtrodden solely because of Hindu domination. During the years directly preceding this move on his part, an unprecedented degree of unity had developed between Muslims and Hindus in their struggle for independence from the British Raj. The British feared this unity, and used their divide-and-rule tactics to disrupt it. Certain highly placed Indians also feared unity, dreading a popular movement which would threaten their special position. Then another decisive factor arose. Although Hindus had always been ahead of Muslims in the industrial sphere, the great Muslim feudal landlords now had aspirations toward industry. From these wealthy Muslims, who resented the well-established Hindu competition, Jinnah drew his powerful supporters. One wonders whether Jinnah was fighting to free downtrodden Muslims from domination or merely to gain an earmarked area, free from competition, for this small and wealthy clan.


The trend of events in Pakistan would support the theory that Jinnah carried the banner of the Muslim landed aristocracy, rather than that of the Muslim masses he claimed to champion. There was no hint of personal material gain in this. Jinnah was known to be personally incorruptible, a virtue which gave him a great strength with both poor and rich. The drive for personal wealth played no part in his politics. It was a drive for power. ......


Less than three months after Pakistan became a nation, Jinnah`s Olympian assurance had strangely withered. His altered condition was not made public. ``The Quaid-i-Azam has a bad cold`` was the answer given to inquiries.

***

_______________________________________________________

In olden days there used to be magazines which sometimes carried serialized detective stories in which an episode would end with a terrible scream of a lady (or a gunshot) disturbing night. And then abruptly the episode would end there, remaining story ``to be continued`` in next instalment. That way author kept interest alive and subscriptions coming in. So...

So if you want to read what happened to after Quaid-i-Azam had bad cold, read it at the link provided or buy the book. ;)

re: this article
I think, as the Americans would say, Chowk has, with this article, hit rock bottom.
Sridhar

re:#6 by hrrehman
Yes. Your Qaid-e-Azam is a genius. The Pakistan he carved out left muslims in India in an insignificant minority, at the mercy of hindus (something which he claimed he was trying to prevent). Muslims of the newly independent nation proved so united that within 25 years of its existence, the eastern wing seperated out putting an end to the 2 nation theory. The western wing today is a theocracy, ruled by a military dictator constantly at war with its bigger neighbour. I hardly think Jinnah ever envisioned such a nation for muslims of India.
Sridhar

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

AmericanExpress #27

The same non-Islamic law allows for the waiver of diplomatic immunity if the country of the diplomat (Pakistan) allows for it.

Even if USA does not get to prosecute Mr Akram will Pakistan prosecute him.
Or is Islamic law reserved for women, minorities only ?

fools. or maybe they are just muslims and thus must pay a price for belonging to a cult that produces insane, hate-filled dajjals like jinnah, malcom x, musharrif and obl. too bad cause i hear that hindu passports, like yehudi passports, come with preapproved american visas. not that hindus need it cause they have iit , infy, pota and ttfs (toilets that flush). why else would 20 m bangladeshis be living hindustan?

maybe this is just a big lie. maybe the story was planted by isi to provide ammunition to beleaguered pakis on chowk. still, what resourcefulness. if only other muslim institutions could be so effective.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/xml/comp/articleshow?artid=33745500

3 Indian immigrants found dead near Ukraine border

AFP[ WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 08, 2003 11:02:52 AM ]

BRATISLAVA: Three Indian illegal immigrants were found dead at Vysna Rybnica, near the Slovak-Ukrainian border, Slovak interior ministry spokeswoman Monika Kuhajdova has said.

The three, aged between 25 and 30, were found Monday by Soak police, dead from exhaustion after their long journey that wound up with a trek through the mountains in icy temperatures.

Seven other Indians were found alive near the border and interned in a camp in eastern Slovakia pending a decision on their fate, Kuhajdova said on Tuesday.

=== 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

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

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.

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.

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.

[ #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.

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

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

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.

````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?

=== 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

#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

[ #43 by drsubrotoroy on January 9, 2003 3:20am PT]

At the link: (http://ghazali.net/book1/body_reference1.htm), the author, Abdus Sattar Ghazali, has following to say:

17. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, in his biography, India Wins Freedom, fixes the responsibility for the partition of India, at one place on Jawaharlal Nehru, and at another place on Vallabh-bhai Patel by observing that ``it would not perhaps be unfair to say that Vallabh-dhbai Patel was the founder of Indian partition.`` H.M. Seervai, Partition of India: Legend and Reality, p-162

If you read links Google throws up on searching ``Direct action day`` (without quotes) and also searching ``G.M. Syed Jinnah`` (without quotes) you will find tones of writing which implicate Jinnah as chief mastermind of partition. So it surprises me that Maulana had different view. Obviously Maulana had no opportunity to observe Jinnah from very near. May be Maulana received his information from biased sources?

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

FINISHED WORK,

An egyptian and a yemeni, members of al quida have been arrested in karachi. A pakistani, name Hamdani arrested in the US. Pak UN ambassador to be recalled to avoid prosecution.

The used to be a YLH on chowk, he was a Hamdani and he maintains that hamdanis are direct decendents of the man.

Re: drsubrotoroy # 43

I would tend to agree with Azad`s contention. Pakistan and its creation, as a seperate response to the Hindu majority, seems to have a better economic reason than a religious one underlying its premise. If the histriography of the pre-partition history is looked at, it would suggest that Muslim political awkening was more a result of their economic complusions than it was due to their fear of a religious alienation in India.

Pakistan seems to have been created in order to give the Muslims of India an economic insularity and to protect their economic interests. Muslim Leaque started out as a response to the cancellation of the partition of Bengal, an idea that was resisted by the Muslims on economic and not religious grounds. Muslim delegation, which went to argue against the unification of Bengal was made of Muslim landlords and businessmen, who had profited from the partition and risked losing their economic advantages in a Hindu dominated province. To perserve their economic interests, they created the All India Muslim Leaque Party and did not create a political party to demand a seperate homeland on theocratic grounds.

The reality was that the Muslims of India, due to their lack of education, orthodoxy, dogmatic political believes and diminished economic status were not (and this is debatable, did not feel) confident in competing with the Hindus in an economic sense. Pakistan was never destined to happen and there is merit to the arguement that had it not been for the stubborness of the Congress party and its desire to monoployize the power in the post-British India, Pakistan would have remained as nothing more than an utopian idea; a bargaining chip to gain more concessions from the majority by moderating the Congress` position on sharing power in the post-British India.

Partition makes more sense economically than it does religiously and the tragedy in Pakistan has been that we have ignored the economic reasons and have solely concentrated on the religious reasons to show a difference between the Hindus and the Muslims. Religion was used to unify the Muslims of India under the Muslim Leaque, because it was a more powerful agrument than an economic one and this argument was suggested by leaders of the Muslim Leaque, who belonged to the urbanized land owning intelligensia of the Muslims of India. They did so to protect their own economic interests and were of the opinion that their economic interests could be better protected outside of India; outside the gambit of a Hindu majority India, which would have undermined their economic influence.

Religion was employed to give the whole excerise a cover from the accusations of greed and profit making and to legitimize the protection a few peoples` vested economic interests. The real reasons for partition and Pakistan are economic and religion is only a pretext.

The question is, if Pakistan was founded on the basis of religion then why did the Muslim religious leaders of India condemned its idea - a nation founded on the basis of Islam?

Religion, in hindsight, was used to make an acute distinction between the Hindus and the Muslims and to rationalize Pakistan as nation founded on religious grounds instead of its reality - the preservation of economic interest of the Muslim community and that too, only a selected Muslim community, which did not represent the economic interests of the entire Muslim community of India.

It is time that the Pakistanis really moved beyond religion and asked the real reasons behind the creation of Pakistan. I fear that the truth will be less noble than the lies.

Ciao

What emerges from Professor FPR Robinson`s essay commissioned in the late 1980s at the University of Hawaii by myself and W. E. James in ``Foundations of Pakistan`s Political Economy: Towards an Agenda for the 1990s``, is the interesting paradox that, by the 1937 provincial election results, there was practically no demand for Pakistan in the areas which today constitute Pakistan! The demand for Pakistan had arisen mainly in Muslim-minority areas of India which would never become Pakistan, not the Muslim-majority areas which became Pakistan!

Jinnah received from the British parity of treatment with the Congress on September 4 1939, in spite of not having anything like a democratic base to support him. That may have been because the British had panicked after Hitler`s invasion of Poland on September 1 1939 followed by the British declaration of war against Germany on September 3 1939.

In the same book mentioned above (the history of which is itself yet to be told) I coined the term ``Paradox of Kashmir``, namely, how is it that Kashmir was never mentioned or predicted to be a contentious issue for 100 years before Partititon, and then, since Partition, it has become the single-point agenda of the subcontinent, and the source of an enormous and unending drain of economic resources by the military/political elites of both India and Pakistan? (There have been 19 divisions of standing armies on each side of the India-Pak border!) The answer I gave has to do with the collapse of the political conversation between the major players under game-theory like conditions.

Azad -- whose Islamic identity and beliefs could hardly be doubted especially as compared to Jinnah -- stood as the most clear-headed and objective of all thinking political men of his time. He almost alone tried to bring all the parties to reason, but clearly failed. Solving the problems of India and Pakistan today, especially that of J&K, requires in my view a return to an understanding of something like his prescient analysis. But there are now very deep vested interests on several sides unprepared to actually solve problems reasonably. It would take genuine statesmanship on both sides, like that of De Gaulle and Adenauer or Reagan and Gorbachev, and that is obviously lacking rather sorely.

Sincerely

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

IT WAS NOT THAT JINNAH WAS NOT RIGHT IN HIS PERCEPTION OF RT.WING LURKING .IT WAS DIFFERENT ESTIMATE OF IT THAT SEPERATED AZAD FROM JINNAH.BOTH WERE HIGHLY INTELLIGENT & HONEST PERSON.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/jan/02amar.htm
Organised attempt to write historywith slanted agenda:
*******************************************

Amartya Sen



In an obvious criticism of the Sangh Parivar`s stand on the Ayodhya issue, Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen Tuesday said there was an organised attempt in India to ``write a history manoeuvred to suit a slanted agenda in contemporary politics.``

``History could easily become bunk through motivated manipulation. This is especially so if the writing of history is manoeuvred to suit a