Towards Greater Tolerance
Yasser Latif Hamdani January 30, 2003
#200 Posted by PM on February 3, 2003 9:39:03 am
re. #191 by Ralph:
Ralph, what is this `great strategic value for both Indai and Pakistan`?
Ralph, what is this `great strategic value for both Indai and Pakistan`?
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#199 Posted by harimau on February 3, 2003 7:51:14 am
Ref PM #193 by PM
[re. AlephNull #72
Yes, the every-village-a-nation would be the ideal. ]
Would that apply equally to Pakistan or just to India?
[re. Harimau #70
Presumptousness is a horrible thing. :) ]
When Pakistan refers to the Pakistan Criminal Procedure Code of 1935, I must agree that the presumptuousness of the Pakistan Government is boundless. (Please check Pakistan legal sources. Please, please, pretty please with sugar on top, prove me wrong!)
[re. AlephNull #72
Yes, the every-village-a-nation would be the ideal. ]
Would that apply equally to Pakistan or just to India?
[re. Harimau #70
Presumptousness is a horrible thing. :) ]
When Pakistan refers to the Pakistan Criminal Procedure Code of 1935, I must agree that the presumptuousness of the Pakistan Government is boundless. (Please check Pakistan legal sources. Please, please, pretty please with sugar on top, prove me wrong!)
#198 Posted by arjun_m on February 3, 2003 7:51:14 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#197 Posted by harimau on February 3, 2003 7:51:14 am
Ref PM #193 by PM
[re. Harimau #77
Gee, I`m really glad that India ``India is ALREADY the multi-ethnic, multi-lingual federal state that the EEC has been trying hard to become.`` No really, that`s so cool. There is a lot to be learnt from your posts.
Alas, what one could NOT learn is how you might realte any of your arguements to India`s claim on Kashmir. You cite Hindu majority being the reason for the gelling. Would you deny that at the time of partition, most of Kashmir had a Muslim minority?]
Only the Kashmir Valley and a portion of Jammu had a Muslim majority. The measure for ``most of Kashmir`` has to be land area since we are already discussing population by religion. By that measure, ``most of Kashmir`` is and continues to be Buddhist (not Hindu) over which you Pakistanis have no rightful claim, except through the tyranny of the majority that Jinnah used to rail against. Somehow, only Hindus and Muslims cannot live together, according to Jinnah and Company but Buddhists and Muslims can live together without problems. Well, I have news for you: the first thing that the raiders who penetrated into Ladakh did was to loot the Buddhist lamasseries and to destroy the centuries-old tankas and idols. You might want to read books by travellers who have travelled in these parts in the 1960s and 1970s to find out how your ``irregulars`` behaved. But then you can always read today`s headlines for their sense of gallantry in warfare.
The fact that parts of India even today have areas of concentrations of Muslims or Buddhists or animists doesn`t mean they get another partition.
As for learning a lot from my posts, I hope you read #189 that proves that Jinnah lied when he said that minorities will be suppressed by the majority in India. You could actually do the search on the Web yourself but then in the grand tradition of spoonfeeding that passes for teaching in Desh, I spoonfeed the facts to Pakistanis who will not learn even then.
[Oh, GEOGRAPHICAL unity is your point, eh? Well.. look at the map.. Notice those two states that flank India? They used to be part of what was loosely and `fluidly` called `India`. And if GEPGRAHICAL untiy is or was to be defining principle in nationhood, exactly what defines the boundaries in a scenario of princely-state under the dominion of colonists?]
That dear boy Yasser seemed to have confused political unity with the reality of geographical unity that EXISTS for the states of India. Geographical unity is a fact that cannot be wished away but political unity happens when there is a consensus among the population. Thus, 98% of Indians like India the way it is. Since Pakistanis and Bangladeshis who separated in 1947 have expressed no desire to join India, they stay outside.
What defined the borders of the princely states was the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857. At that point, the British realized that attempting to secure more land through expropriation of princely states was too costly and decided to allow the remaining princely houses to keep their fiefdoms. If that hadn`t happened and all of India had been turned into British India, you still wouldn`t have gotten Junagadh, Hyderabad or Goa (that last one is laughable... Pakistanis thinking that they have a right to Goa! Did you Fakhrs ever think of asking the French for their Indian possessions? Bet you didn`t even know the French were still hanging around in India! But you want the Portuguese to hand over Goa to you!) As for Kashmir, that would have been partitioned too like Bengal and Punjab and, yes, Pakistan would have ended up with the Kashmir Valley in addition to what you have now. The valley is the reparation Pakistan has to pay for the plunder, rape and killings of October 1947.
[re. Harimau #77
Gee, I`m really glad that India ``India is ALREADY the multi-ethnic, multi-lingual federal state that the EEC has been trying hard to become.`` No really, that`s so cool. There is a lot to be learnt from your posts.
Alas, what one could NOT learn is how you might realte any of your arguements to India`s claim on Kashmir. You cite Hindu majority being the reason for the gelling. Would you deny that at the time of partition, most of Kashmir had a Muslim minority?]
Only the Kashmir Valley and a portion of Jammu had a Muslim majority. The measure for ``most of Kashmir`` has to be land area since we are already discussing population by religion. By that measure, ``most of Kashmir`` is and continues to be Buddhist (not Hindu) over which you Pakistanis have no rightful claim, except through the tyranny of the majority that Jinnah used to rail against. Somehow, only Hindus and Muslims cannot live together, according to Jinnah and Company but Buddhists and Muslims can live together without problems. Well, I have news for you: the first thing that the raiders who penetrated into Ladakh did was to loot the Buddhist lamasseries and to destroy the centuries-old tankas and idols. You might want to read books by travellers who have travelled in these parts in the 1960s and 1970s to find out how your ``irregulars`` behaved. But then you can always read today`s headlines for their sense of gallantry in warfare.
The fact that parts of India even today have areas of concentrations of Muslims or Buddhists or animists doesn`t mean they get another partition.
As for learning a lot from my posts, I hope you read #189 that proves that Jinnah lied when he said that minorities will be suppressed by the majority in India. You could actually do the search on the Web yourself but then in the grand tradition of spoonfeeding that passes for teaching in Desh, I spoonfeed the facts to Pakistanis who will not learn even then.
[Oh, GEOGRAPHICAL unity is your point, eh? Well.. look at the map.. Notice those two states that flank India? They used to be part of what was loosely and `fluidly` called `India`. And if GEPGRAHICAL untiy is or was to be defining principle in nationhood, exactly what defines the boundaries in a scenario of princely-state under the dominion of colonists?]
That dear boy Yasser seemed to have confused political unity with the reality of geographical unity that EXISTS for the states of India. Geographical unity is a fact that cannot be wished away but political unity happens when there is a consensus among the population. Thus, 98% of Indians like India the way it is. Since Pakistanis and Bangladeshis who separated in 1947 have expressed no desire to join India, they stay outside.
What defined the borders of the princely states was the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857. At that point, the British realized that attempting to secure more land through expropriation of princely states was too costly and decided to allow the remaining princely houses to keep their fiefdoms. If that hadn`t happened and all of India had been turned into British India, you still wouldn`t have gotten Junagadh, Hyderabad or Goa (that last one is laughable... Pakistanis thinking that they have a right to Goa! Did you Fakhrs ever think of asking the French for their Indian possessions? Bet you didn`t even know the French were still hanging around in India! But you want the Portuguese to hand over Goa to you!) As for Kashmir, that would have been partitioned too like Bengal and Punjab and, yes, Pakistan would have ended up with the Kashmir Valley in addition to what you have now. The valley is the reparation Pakistan has to pay for the plunder, rape and killings of October 1947.
#196 Posted by arjun_m on February 3, 2003 6:54:55 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#195 Posted by jay on February 3, 2003 6:43:41 am
Ralph,
Your question about the truth or otherwise of YLH assertion about abdus salam has been answered by American express in 185. He wants you to skip the topic.
Hamidm, the great wordsmith in 184 ansnswers as follows
``and if yasser says there are things names after abdus salaam, then i would believe him instead of jay who, along with arjun, seems to have gone over the edge ........... ``
At least, I admire the honesty of hamidm, he did not lie like YLH, but as usual took of on a tangent.
The fact is that Abdus Salam centre for theoreticl physics is in Itlay, because Zia at that time would not allow it in pakistan. Then none of the foundations of an islamic society laid by Zia has remained untouched, including the declaration about ahmadias in passport applications.
Your question about the truth or otherwise of YLH assertion about abdus salam has been answered by American express in 185. He wants you to skip the topic.
Hamidm, the great wordsmith in 184 ansnswers as follows
``and if yasser says there are things names after abdus salaam, then i would believe him instead of jay who, along with arjun, seems to have gone over the edge ........... ``
At least, I admire the honesty of hamidm, he did not lie like YLH, but as usual took of on a tangent.
The fact is that Abdus Salam centre for theoreticl physics is in Itlay, because Zia at that time would not allow it in pakistan. Then none of the foundations of an islamic society laid by Zia has remained untouched, including the declaration about ahmadias in passport applications.
#194 Posted by PM on February 3, 2003 6:43:41 am
Holy Cow! Step away from this site one day and you could spend the better half of the next reading replies!
re. AlephNull #72
Yes, the every-village-a-nation would be the ideal. In the real world, however, consideration is to be given to defence and economic needs for which folks will sometimes, or often, subordinate claims to autonomy at the altar of pragmatic consolidation/centralization.
re. Harimau #70
Presumptousness is a horrible thing. :)
re. Harimau #77
Gee, I`m really glad that India ``India is ALREADY the multi-ethnic, multi-lingual federal state that the EEC has been trying hard to become.`` No really, that`s so cool. There is a lot to be learnt from your posts.
Alas, what one could NOT learn is how you might realte any of your arguements to India`s claim on Kashmir. You cite Hindu majority being the reason for the gelling. Would you deny that at the time of partition, most of Kashmir had a Muslim minority?
Oh, GEOGRAPHICAL unity is your point, eh? Well.. look at the map.. Notice those two states that flank India? They used to be part of what was loosely and `fluidly` called `India`. And if GEPGRAHICAL untiy is or was to be defining principle in nationhood, exactly what defines the boundaries in a scenario of princely-state under the dominion of colonists?
re. AlephNull #72
Yes, the every-village-a-nation would be the ideal. In the real world, however, consideration is to be given to defence and economic needs for which folks will sometimes, or often, subordinate claims to autonomy at the altar of pragmatic consolidation/centralization.
re. Harimau #70
Presumptousness is a horrible thing. :)
re. Harimau #77
Gee, I`m really glad that India ``India is ALREADY the multi-ethnic, multi-lingual federal state that the EEC has been trying hard to become.`` No really, that`s so cool. There is a lot to be learnt from your posts.
Alas, what one could NOT learn is how you might realte any of your arguements to India`s claim on Kashmir. You cite Hindu majority being the reason for the gelling. Would you deny that at the time of partition, most of Kashmir had a Muslim minority?
Oh, GEOGRAPHICAL unity is your point, eh? Well.. look at the map.. Notice those two states that flank India? They used to be part of what was loosely and `fluidly` called `India`. And if GEPGRAHICAL untiy is or was to be defining principle in nationhood, exactly what defines the boundaries in a scenario of princely-state under the dominion of colonists?
#193 Posted by rsaxena on February 3, 2003 6:43:41 am
...woohoo, yasser from persia and the ivy keague school rutgers is back in full steam....
#192 Posted by tahmed32 on February 3, 2003 6:43:41 am
Ralph #191 you write ``Because Kashmir cannot be solved, the two countries should go on inflicting as heavy cost on the other as they can. ``
You get the ``Most stupid and obtuse statement on chowk`` award for 2003. I bet even Arjun and Romair and YLH and jay may pool their efforts for the remainder of 2003, and they will not be able to beat your record. Hail to the champion chowk idiot!
You get the ``Most stupid and obtuse statement on chowk`` award for 2003. I bet even Arjun and Romair and YLH and jay may pool their efforts for the remainder of 2003, and they will not be able to beat your record. Hail to the champion chowk idiot!
#191 Posted by Ralph on February 2, 2003 11:25:18 pm
Kashmir is not just about egos. It has great strategic value for both Pakistan and India. India will never give it up and Pakistan will never stop trying to get India out of it. Because Kashmir cannot be solved, the two countries should go on inflicting as heavy cost on the other as they can. They are doing that.
#190 Posted by Layman on February 2, 2003 10:18:52 pm
Romair #53:
``I will take a guess that 50% of Pakistanis and probably 90% of Indians have never even visited Kashmir. Less than 10% of Pakistan`s population is Kashmiri and maybe around 1% of Indian population is Kashmiri. Yet they both seem so interested in it. It is all part of a misplaced ego and the desire of one man to rule another.``
Romair, 90% of Indians have never even visited Orissa or Goa or Andaman and Nicobar Islands or my hometown. Less than 1% of Indian population is Andamani. Yet.... it is all part of a misplaced ego and the rest of your bullsh!t. Wow, kya logic hai!
``I will take a guess that 50% of Pakistanis and probably 90% of Indians have never even visited Kashmir. Less than 10% of Pakistan`s population is Kashmiri and maybe around 1% of Indian population is Kashmiri. Yet they both seem so interested in it. It is all part of a misplaced ego and the desire of one man to rule another.``
Romair, 90% of Indians have never even visited Orissa or Goa or Andaman and Nicobar Islands or my hometown. Less than 1% of Indian population is Andamani. Yet.... it is all part of a misplaced ego and the rest of your bullsh!t. Wow, kya logic hai!
#189 Posted by harimau on February 2, 2003 9:31:08 pm
Ref YLH2 #160
[ turra yeh kay when I give the example of Justice Rana Bhagwandas, he compares that example to Bal Thackerey saying that his sweeper is a Muslim... the sheer lack of reason in that statement baffles me... ]
Yasser, dear boy, the reason we tend to ignore your repeated citing of Justice Rana Bhagwandas is because the selection of a non-Hindu to be a Justice of the Supreme Court of India is not a subject of controversy about if a Hindu can be subjected to a verdict of a non-Hindu; unfortunately, the reverse hasn`t been true in Pakistan.
In the 55 year parallel history of India and Pakistan. India has had three Muslims as Chief Justices of the Indian Supreme Court (The Hon`ble Mr. Mohammad Hidayatullah, Appointed as Chief Justice of India on 25.02.1968, Retired on 16.12.1970; The Hon`ble Mr. Justice Mirza Hameedullah Beg, Appointed as Chief Justice of India on 29.01.1977. Retired on 21.02.1978; and The Hon`ble Mr. Justice AHMADI, AZIZ MUSHABBER, Elevated as Chief Justice of India w.e.f. the forenoon of 25th October, 1994, Retired on 24.3.1997). The current Supreme Court includes Mr. Justice Quadri, Syed Shah Mohammed, Appointed as a Judge of Supreme Court of India on 4.12.1997, Due to retire on 5.4.2003; a Parsi, Mr. Justice VARIAVA, SAM NARIMAN, Appointed as Judge, Supreme Court of India from 15.3.2000, Due to retire on 8.11.2005; and (possibly a Naga - I say this from his service in Nagaland during his early career; his photo shows him to have a distinctly oriental cast to his eyes) Mr. Justice Sema, Elevated as Judge of the Supreme Court of India on 9th April, 2002 and due to retire on 01.06.2008.
By the way, the very first Indian Supreme Court inaugurated on Jan 28, 1950, had one Muslim among a total of 5 Justices.
You could check the various state High Courts and their websites to see how many other minorities, despite what Jinnah said, have attained high positions in the judiciary in India.
Jinnah was actually right. He was the one Muslim who wouldn`t have gotten any job in an independent united India except through the generosity of the Hindus. You could probably include his coterie of Liaqat Ali Khan and other Muslim League functionaries who had fastened themselves to the coat-tails of Jinnah also in that category. He made the mistake of generalizing from the particular to the general case, a no-no in mathematics. But then, no one accused Jinnah of being strong in arithmetic: after all, he demanded a 50% representation for a 30% population.
[ turra yeh kay when I give the example of Justice Rana Bhagwandas, he compares that example to Bal Thackerey saying that his sweeper is a Muslim... the sheer lack of reason in that statement baffles me... ]
Yasser, dear boy, the reason we tend to ignore your repeated citing of Justice Rana Bhagwandas is because the selection of a non-Hindu to be a Justice of the Supreme Court of India is not a subject of controversy about if a Hindu can be subjected to a verdict of a non-Hindu; unfortunately, the reverse hasn`t been true in Pakistan.
In the 55 year parallel history of India and Pakistan. India has had three Muslims as Chief Justices of the Indian Supreme Court (The Hon`ble Mr. Mohammad Hidayatullah, Appointed as Chief Justice of India on 25.02.1968, Retired on 16.12.1970; The Hon`ble Mr. Justice Mirza Hameedullah Beg, Appointed as Chief Justice of India on 29.01.1977. Retired on 21.02.1978; and The Hon`ble Mr. Justice AHMADI, AZIZ MUSHABBER, Elevated as Chief Justice of India w.e.f. the forenoon of 25th October, 1994, Retired on 24.3.1997). The current Supreme Court includes Mr. Justice Quadri, Syed Shah Mohammed, Appointed as a Judge of Supreme Court of India on 4.12.1997, Due to retire on 5.4.2003; a Parsi, Mr. Justice VARIAVA, SAM NARIMAN, Appointed as Judge, Supreme Court of India from 15.3.2000, Due to retire on 8.11.2005; and (possibly a Naga - I say this from his service in Nagaland during his early career; his photo shows him to have a distinctly oriental cast to his eyes) Mr. Justice Sema, Elevated as Judge of the Supreme Court of India on 9th April, 2002 and due to retire on 01.06.2008.
By the way, the very first Indian Supreme Court inaugurated on Jan 28, 1950, had one Muslim among a total of 5 Justices.
You could check the various state High Courts and their websites to see how many other minorities, despite what Jinnah said, have attained high positions in the judiciary in India.
Jinnah was actually right. He was the one Muslim who wouldn`t have gotten any job in an independent united India except through the generosity of the Hindus. You could probably include his coterie of Liaqat Ali Khan and other Muslim League functionaries who had fastened themselves to the coat-tails of Jinnah also in that category. He made the mistake of generalizing from the particular to the general case, a no-no in mathematics. But then, no one accused Jinnah of being strong in arithmetic: after all, he demanded a 50% representation for a 30% population.
#188 Posted by rsridhar on February 2, 2003 8:38:04 pm
re: democracy versus dictatorship
If ylh is studying law, he should ponder over the reasons why India is still a democracy while Pakistan has floundered from one dictatorship to another. There are reasons behind this fact and are well summarised in the following article by Roedad Khan:
http://www.dawn.com/2003/02/02/op.htm#3
Excerpts:
1. ``The lesson of history is that the only defence against a military coup in any country is strong political institutions and nothing else. A democratic government can be given to any people, but not every people can maintain it.``
2. ``It is now abundantly clear that Pakistan cannot survive: i) except as a democratic state based on the principle of the sovereignty of the people. There is nothing intermediate between the sway of democracy and the yoke of a single man; ii) except under a constitution which reflects the sovereign will of the people, not the whims of one individual person; iii) except under a system based on the supremacy of civilian rule; iv) except as a federation based on the willing consent of all the federating units. v) if the rule of law gives way to the rule of man because the dykes of justice and law will then break and revolution will begin.
Pakistan cannot survive under military rule, with or without a civilian facade, because military rule lacks legitimacy and is an anachronism in a world of global markets, information and media.``
Let the good men in Pakistan work towards a sustainable democracy in Pakistan, a democracy where the will of a common man prevails, where dictators do not assume the role of saviors every now and then chipping away at all remnants of democracy and institutions. Once Pak has such a democracy, frindship with India will automatically follow. Two democracies can talk to each other and foster friendship. Democracy and dictatorship are incompatible bed-fellows!
Sridhar
If ylh is studying law, he should ponder over the reasons why India is still a democracy while Pakistan has floundered from one dictatorship to another. There are reasons behind this fact and are well summarised in the following article by Roedad Khan:
http://www.dawn.com/2003/02/02/op.htm#3
Excerpts:
1. ``The lesson of history is that the only defence against a military coup in any country is strong political institutions and nothing else. A democratic government can be given to any people, but not every people can maintain it.``
2. ``It is now abundantly clear that Pakistan cannot survive: i) except as a democratic state based on the principle of the sovereignty of the people. There is nothing intermediate between the sway of democracy and the yoke of a single man; ii) except under a constitution which reflects the sovereign will of the people, not the whims of one individual person; iii) except under a system based on the supremacy of civilian rule; iv) except as a federation based on the willing consent of all the federating units. v) if the rule of law gives way to the rule of man because the dykes of justice and law will then break and revolution will begin.
Pakistan cannot survive under military rule, with or without a civilian facade, because military rule lacks legitimacy and is an anachronism in a world of global markets, information and media.``
Let the good men in Pakistan work towards a sustainable democracy in Pakistan, a democracy where the will of a common man prevails, where dictators do not assume the role of saviors every now and then chipping away at all remnants of democracy and institutions. Once Pak has such a democracy, frindship with India will automatically follow. Two democracies can talk to each other and foster friendship. Democracy and dictatorship are incompatible bed-fellows!
Sridhar
#187 Posted by arjun_m on February 2, 2003 8:22:16 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#186 Posted by arjun_m on February 2, 2003 8:22:16 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#185 Posted by no_more_a_slave on February 2, 2003 8:22:16 pm
ahmadzai
From the beginning, Bacha Khan and Pakistan were like oil and water. In a few generations, if Pakistan survives, no body will have heard of Bacha Khan. You and your children will be reading about Jinnah and following the lifestyle of Taliban. Whether it is ANP or JKLF, Pakistani strategy is the same.
May Bacha Khan rest in peace.
From the beginning, Bacha Khan and Pakistan were like oil and water. In a few generations, if Pakistan survives, no body will have heard of Bacha Khan. You and your children will be reading about Jinnah and following the lifestyle of Taliban. Whether it is ANP or JKLF, Pakistani strategy is the same.
May Bacha Khan rest in peace.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- adamkhan: mantolives: I was merely pointing... Living Gandhi and King
- gowhargeelani: Re: # 12 Dear friend,... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- gowhargeelani: Re: I respect your... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- thinkingstorm: MeiraJ08, if I may interject... Fathers and Daughters
- MantoLives: PS. And even if... Living Gandhi and King
- bulleya: d-m #:"I don't think... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- pinku: #322 Posted by dost_mittar... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- pinku: #321 Posted by tahmed32... Historian Amaresh Misra on
