Kashmir: Time for a Radical Approach?

oh!Great!Expert!On!UN #196

heh, heh ! You have a child-like view of UN security resolutions with the idea that this or that step might not be allowed. Did the UN resolution also allow indians to go to the bathroom? Also, did it specify the kind of shirts the indians should wear? What about food? Did it also say that indians can only eat urad dal?

Overall, one gets the impression that you are at the level of a earnest high-school student, say 15 years old. If so, good. Otherwise, my advice to you is to grow up.

India is a sovereign country. Its actions are not governed by this or that resolution. It was invaded by a neighbor in 1947. It went to the UN and got some resolutions passed. The invader didnt respond and sat tight. The invader grabbed land and passed on some parts to another country.

Now some people want to selectively bring up some bits of history. Why stop there? Why don`t we go back to 1930`s? Why not revisit the partition with a plebiscite?

Indeed, your friends in the VHP and Shiv Sena don`t even want to stop there. They want to go back to bin Qasim`s invasion. They want a plebiscite on that as well. They want to ``send back`` the folks who got created with that invasion !

Use of selective bits of history to create grievances is a cheap tool of propagandists. In South Asia we each have a grievance we can drag out of the closet. Your approach has almost destroyed your country and is also hurting mine.

# 196

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
``The UN did not stipulate any timeframe for withdrawal of militias.``
+++

But the withdrawl was a pre-requisite for the plebiscite. And, of course, after all the ``rest and recreation`` by the militias at Baramulla, Pakistan was in no hurry to withdraw, and even less to face a plebiscite. Is it any wonder that the plebiscite became a non-starter so soon.

Much water has flown thru the Jhelum since then . It is useless to try to solve today`s problem with yesterday`s solution. The Shimla agreement and the Lahore agreement have long overtaken the UNSC Resolution. I agree with the author temporal that it is time for a ``Radical Approach``. ``a bilateral or multilateral commission that would recommend turning what is de-facto into de-jure border`` would indeed be a step in the right direction.

# 199

HisExcellency wrote of Jinnah:
+++
``A truly self-made man who believed in constitutionalism``
+++

A believer in ``constitutionalism`` doesn`t spread terror with calls for ``Direct Action``!!

Nor does he scapegoat religious minorities to defend unwise decisions of the government.

Jinnah was certainly not a religious fanatic in personal life. However, unlike Nehru, he was not above pandering to religious hatred to achieve his political objective. And he did that even after he had seen the
massive ethnic cleansing in the aftermath of the partition.

West Pakistan had been cleansed of Sikhs and Hindus within months, nay weeks, of partition. An overwhelming majority of the country`s Hindus were in East Pakistan. The rulers from West Pakistan soon realized that they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by demonizing the Hindus left in Pakistan. If nothing else, it was the means to disenfranchise a significant section in East Pakistan and turn East Pakistanis into a minority. It was this evil urge to contain the perceived threat, from Pakistan`s majority wing in any democratic setup, that led rulers in West Pakistan to talk of ``parity`` and of ``separate electorates.``

On March 21, 1948, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan and
its first Governor-General, while on his first and only visit to East Bengal, declared in Dhaka University convocation that while the language of the province can be Bengali, the ``State language of Pakistan is going to be Urdu and no other language. Any one who tries to mislead you is really an enemy of Pakistan.``

The use of the phrase ``enemy of Pakistan`` was deliberate. It was a loaded phrase, particularly mischievous in view of the massive ethnic cleansing in West Pakistan in the last seven months.

Jinnah`s demagoguery was deplorable but not surprising. He was merely repeating what Liaqat Ali Khan and his cohorts had been saying in the Constituent Assembly for the last one month. On February 23, 1948: Dhirendra Nath Dutta, a Bengali opposition member, had moved a resolution in the first session of Pakistan`s Constituent Assembly for recognizing Bengali as a state language along with Urdu and English. Non-Bengali Assembly members, led by Liaqat Ali Khan, had immediately pounded on Mr. Dutta`s religion to denounce the claim of Bengali as nothing but a Hindu conspiracy. Many a snide remark was made on the ``Hindu`` character of the language that was the mother tongue of the majority of Pakistanis.

But, fortunately, most East Pakistanis were not fooled. They realized that these non-Bengali members had deliberately chosen to forget that a language may have grammar but it has no religion. Any competent language is capable of expressing a gamut of religious beliefs. It is as easy to translate the Geeta into Arabic as it is to translate the Koran into Sanskrit. There was absolutely no basis for denouncing Bengali as a Hindu language. If anything, it was a Muslim language because a majority of the Bengalis were indeed Muslims.

But the ruling class in West Pakistan had its own agenda. And it certainly did fit that agenda to denounce Bengali as a Hindu language and to look down on East Pakistan`s majority as less than ``good Muslims.``

It is not surprising that, during the genocide in 1971, the Shaheed Minar was one of the first targets of Yahya Khan`s barbaric army. Nor was it surprising what they did to Dhirendra N. Dutta. He was an octogenarian by that time. The barbaric soldiers chose to drag this old man out of his house in Comilla and to summarily execute him in front of his neighbors and family. It was, thus, that West Pakistan`s ruling elite punished Mr. Dutta for having proposed Bengali as a national language of Pakistan some 23 years ago.

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

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

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

No radical solution of Kashmir is acceptable to Kashmiris. We want nothing but justice in Kashmir. That`s the only thing we`re sacrificing our lives for. Never ever dare to think of dividing Kashmir into pieces according your own convenience.

re: nakhok

How amusing that somehow you are trying to establish a link between a British policy initiated over 100 years ago and the Kashmir plebiscite promised by Nehru in 1949.. instead of looking right under your nose at the Machiavellian tactics that Nehru, Patel, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv, Narsimha Rao and Vajpayee used to deny the Kashmiris of a promise that India made to them.

Whether Pakistan Army is corrupt or not, this debate has nothing to do with the Kashmir plebiscite that never happened. The Pakistan Army does not hold the cards in Kashmir. It never has. It is India that has been holding the cards. Pak Army has just responded when India played a bad hand.

Once again I suggest that we should return to a radical approach. Wars and elections have been tried before but have failed to resolve this problem. Bilateral talks are a better option than war and elections, but these too have failed. The only untried approaches are plebiscite, multilateral talks and open borders policy.

# 211

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
It would be worthwhile to remember that the exclusive character of military in the areas that constitute Pakistan, was carved out by the British.
+++

It is the fauji-landlord Mafia that dealt the deathblow to Jinnah`s Pakistan. And it is this same fauji-landlord alliance that must keep the Kashmir obsession alive lest peace is given a chance to its detriment.

+++
www.jang.com.pk/thenews

The News, Karachi, Pakistan
Wednesday December 11, 2002-- Shawwal 06, 1423 A.H.

Why Jinnah`s Pakistan ended
by M B Naqvi
mbnaqvi@cyber.net.pk

``One emphasises a narrower reason for the earliest power struggle
between the Punjab and Bengal Groups in the first Constituent Assembly
in 1948-49. East Bengalis had opened their account with the
expropriation of all intermediary landed interests between the state
and the cultivator. This without compensation reform frightened the
social elites in West Pakistan, almost all of whom landlords. Bengalis
acquiring the central power seemed to them like encouraging the new
Bolsheviks to repeat that enormity here also. So they were determined
to deny the Bengalis their due share of power and entered into an open
conspiracy: they sought help from the bureaucracy and got it. With
West Pakistan`s landowning MPs help, they cornered all power``
+++

re: nakhok

[He hasn`t mentioned how Jinnah had fared in the previous election]

Jinnah lost the 1937 election but won the leadership of Muslim India during the terrible 2 year Congress government that followed. When you peruse through history books, you will realize that it was this 2 year period that finally estranged Muslims from Hindus. During this period, Nehru and Patel were more keen on insulting Jinnah than addressing the misgivings of Muslim community. Just like the Indian chowkies blame Pakistan for Kashmiri grievances, Congress leaders started blaming Jinnah for Muslims grievances.

[Had Jinnah lived and had he sought legitimacy thru elections in independent Pakistan, it is more than likely that he would have come a cropper.]

Stick to the facts that you know, not what you desperately want to believe in. Political commentary doesn`t seem to be working for you, but speculation does. You indeed have a good career on Wall Street :))

[Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan and its first Governor-General, while on his first and only visit to East Bengal, declared in Dhaka University convocation that while the language of the province can be Bengali, the ``State language of Pakistan is going to be Urdu and no other language. Any one who tries to mislead you is really an enemy of Pakistan.`` ]

That`s a valid point. This was a mistake.

Since you want a war of quotes over founding fathers, here is what Stanley Wolpert wrote about Jinnah:

``Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state. Mohammad Ali Jinnah did all the three.

MOHAMMAD ALI JINNAH FEARLESSLY championed nationalist causes from his debut in Indian politics at the turn of the century to his death in 1948. As a member of the Indian National Congress delegation to England in 1906, the barrister pleaded India`s case for constitutional advancement with its colonial rulers. His advocacy of such causes won him national acclaim and he came to be called an ``apostle of Indian self-government.

In 1913, Jinnah joined the seven-year-old All-India Muslim League. His first contribution was to write the goal of ``attainment of self-government into the League`s constitution; this was a Congress goal too. He consistently advocated communal harmony; his enduring commitment to democratic ideals earned him accolades around the country. C.R. Reddy, a Hindu leader, wrote: ``He is the pride of India and not the private possession of the Muslims.``

But Mohandas Gandhi changed the pattern of Indian politics with his emphasis on Hindu principles. He drove Jinnah, the ``ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity,`` to become the apostle of Muslim separatism. Jinnah resigned from the Congress party in 1920, and by the end of the 1930s had emerged as the supreme leader of India`s Muslims. During the fight for independence from Britain, Congress insistence on concentrating future power in the center caused deep anxiety among Muslims. The League believed that such a system of governance would reduce Muslim-majority provinces in India to ``clay in the hands of the potter.``

Jinnah`s attempts to form some kind of power-sharing arrangement with Jawaharlal Nehru`s Congress party were rebuffed. Nehru arrogantly declared that the contest was between imperialism and Congress, and that all others should line up. In such an atmosphere Jinnah galvanized the ramshackle Muslim League into a mass movement. The League needed a national policy as well as a rallying goal. Jinnah supplied both. The League demanded a separate state for Muslims and so it came to be. This was Jinnah`s monumental achievement.

Jinnah differed from most contemporary leaders in that he was committed to substance rather than symbol, reason rather than emotion, modernity rather than tradition. His was a pragmatic vision. His concept of Pakistan was predicated on the ideals of egalitarianism and social justice.``

Here is what the distinguished Mr. Wolpert wrote about Nehru:

``Nehru dressed in drag wearing his wig, made up with lipstick, powder and eye shadow, his body draped in silks and satins, Jawahar most willingly offered himself up night after night to those endless rehearsals for the Gaekwar`s At Home as a beautiful young girl, holding out her jug of wine and loaf seductively to her poet lover, Omar.

Nehru`s first attachment was with a young man called Ferdinand Brooks who was his French teacher. Brooks was a theosophist but before coming to India the `handsome` man was a disciple and lover of Charles Webster Leadbeater, a renegade Anglican curate who was accused of child molestation and pederasty on several continents. Leadbeater openly advocated mutual masturbation among young boys.``

Wolpert also suggests Nehru may have had a gay relationship in Harrow and makes much of Panditji`s admiration for Oscar Wilde.

Nehru`s homosexual tendencies explain why he wasn`t man enough to face a plebiscite in his own ancestral state (Kashmir).

# 198

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
``Jinnah`s popularity among Muslims is evident from the fact that in 1945 elections Muslim League won 95% of Muslim seats.``
+++

HisExcellency wants Chowk readers to judge Jinnah on the basis of a single election (of 1945). He hasn`t mentioned how Jinnah had fared in the previous election (1937). He hasn`t even mentioned how Jinnah fared in NWFP or the Punjab in the 1945 elections.

And more pertinently, HisExcellency hasn`t expressed his thoughts on how Jinnah might have fared in the next election in Pakistan had he lived and had allowed it to be held.

But we do know what Jinnah said the one and only time he visited East Pakistan. On March 21, 1948, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan and its first Governor-General, while on his first and only visit to East Bengal, declared in Dhaka University convocation that while the language of the province can be Bengali, the ``State language of Pakistan is going to be Urdu and no other language. Any one who tries to mislead you is really an enemy of Pakistan.``

We do know that Jinnah`s party was wiped out in the elections to East Pakistan`s Legislature at the earliest opportunity (1954). And we do know that East Pakistan would part company with Jinnah`s Pakistan in just another 17 years.

Jinnah kindled the fire of East Pakistan`s alienation with his mindless demagoguery during his one and only visit to the east wing where the majority of the Pakistanis lived. Had Jinnah lived and had he sought legitimacy thru elections in independent Pakistan, it is more than likely that he would have come a cropper.

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

re: #206

Nighat Yasmeen`s questions are valid. But unfortunately this does not qualify as corruption or land-grabbing in Pakistan. There is nothing illegal about allocation of land to military officers. Allocation of assets to different sectors of society is a political, not administrative issue.

The first 6 questions are directed against the military in general.

It would be worthwhile to remember that the exclusive character of military in the areas that constitute Pakistan, was carved out by the British. In Ranjeet Singh`s Punjabi/Pathan/Kashmiri/Sikh army, they found their toughest opponent. British had conquered rest of India quite easily through intrigue and superior troops, but in Punjab they had their biggest challenge.

After the death of Ranjeet Singh, the British managed to conquer Punjab with great difficulty. Based on this experience, Lord Macaulay described the people living in Indian Punjab and most of Pakistan as the ``martial races``.

Thereafter, British made it a policy to recruit their elite divisions from either Gurkha belt or Punjab/Frontier. To win the loyalties of soldiers in Punjab, British awarded lands to Punjabi/Pathan majors. Although most Punjabi/Pathan/Sikh soldiers never rose above the rank of Major, they were always the Chaudhries and Sardars of their villages. Thus a landed-military aristocracy was raised, which was loyal to the British.

During the 1857 uprising, the Bengali regiments revolted against the British. But the Punjabi regiment fought for the British. The British had succeeded in dividing the Indians along ethnic lines. After 1857, the predominance of martial races in British Indian Army became greater.

British magristrates in most districts would treat the average citizen with scorn but the Punjabi/Pathan army officers were given respect. Their complaints were given top priority. As a result of this exclusive treatment, the military became a power broker in the agriculturist Punjabi and Pathan society.

After independence, the same military took over Pakistan because of its land-holdings and defense needs arising from confrontation with India. The politicians needed the Army and gave it a major chunk of power. General Ayub was made Defence Minister while he was serving in the Army.

Why am I giving you this history lesson? To illustrate the point that neither Musharraf nor Pakistan Army is the architect of this century old policy. It will take a political decision taken by a political party to change this tradition. That will require more than just a letter from one lady. Perhaps the PPP, PML, MMA and MQM should include it in their agenda for next election.

re: #206

Nighat Yasmeen`s questions are valid. But unfortunately this does not qualify as corruption or land-grabbing in Pakistan. There is nothing illegal about allocation of land to military officers. Allocation of assets to different sectors of society is a political, not administrative issue.

The first 6 questions are directed against the military in general.

It would be worthwhile to remember that the exclusive character of military in the areas that constitute Pakistan, was carved out by the British. In Ranjeet Singh`s Punjabi/Pathan/Kashmiri/Sikh army, they found their toughest opponent. British had conquered rest of India quite easily through intrigue and superior troops, but in Punjab they had their biggest challenge.

After the death of Ranjeet Singh, the British managed to conquer Punjab with great difficulty. Based on this experience, Lord Macaulay described the people living in Indian Punjab and most of Pakistan as the ``martial races``.

Thereafter, British made it a policy to recruit their elite divisions from either Gurkha belt or Punjab/Frontier. To win the loyalties of soldiers in Punjab, British awarded lands to Punjabi/Pathan majors. Although most Punjabi/Pathan/Sikh soldiers never rose above the rank of Major, they were always the Chaudhries and Sardars of their villages. Thus a landed-military aristocracy was raised, which was loyal to the British.

During the 1857 uprising, the Bengali regiments revolted against the British. But the Punjabi regiment fought for the British. The British had succeeded in dividing the Indians along ethnic lines. After 1857, the predominance of martial races in British Indian Army became greater.

British magristrates in most districts would treat the average citizen with scorn but the Punjabi/Pathan army officers were given respect. Their complaints were given top priority. As a result of this exclusive treatment, the military became a power broker in the agriculturist Punjabi and Pathan society.

After independence, the same military took over Pakistan because of its land-holdings and defense needs arising from confrontation with India. The politicians needed the Army and gave it a major chunk of power. General Ayub was made Defence Minister while he was serving in the Army.

Why am I giving you this history lesson? To illustrate the point that neither Musharraf nor Pakistan Army is the architect of this century old policy. It will take a political decision taken by a political party to change this tradition. That will require more than just a letter from one lady. Perhaps the PPP, PML, MMA and MQM should discuss this in Parliament and include it in the next election campaign.

But until then, this will not qualify as land-grabbing or corruption.

# 198

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
``Unlike Gandhi and Nehru, Jinnah was one of the top 3 lawyers of British India.``
+++

What exactly is HisExcellency`s point? That Jinnah was a better lawyer? Yes, he made tons of money especially in probatory law. But how is that releveant to public life?

Here`s what TIME magazine said in its obituary to Jinnah some 50 years ago. In a write up titled, ``Mohammad Ali Jinnah created Pakistan out of oratory and blood`` TIME wrote in September of 1948:

``Out of the travail of 400 million in the Indian subcontinent,`` TIME
wrote in September 1948, ``have come two symbols---a man of love and
a man of hate. Last winter the man of nonviolence, Gandhi, died
violently at the hands of an assassin. Last week, the man of hate,
Mohammad Ali Jinnah, at 71, died a natural death in Karachi,
capital of state he had founded.``

We all know of the great carnage of 1947. We know how many lost not just their hearth and home, but their near and dear ones as well. Even one man person forced into exile from his ancestral land in the aftermath of the partition would have been one too many, even one person killed
would have been one too many.

Historians will attest that far too many were exiled & killed in 1947. But historians will also attest that leadders like Gandhi and Nehru were
not only appalled by the carnage, but in fact had risked their lives to stop the carnage. Both had denounced religious riots in no uncertain
terms, both had risked their lives to stop them. In fact, Gandhi lost his life for his efforts.

In Pakistan, unfortunately, the top leadership had other ideas. Prime Minister of Pakistan (Liaqat Ali Khan), for example, had encouraged expulsion (and worse) of people belonging to the ``wrong`` religion for the purpose of creating a support base for himself in Karachi and rewarding his supporters suitably.

All said and done, the carnage in 1947 stopped only when Pakistan`s religious minorities were reduced to insignificance thru mayhem and expulsion. India, on the other hand, continues to this day to have more
Muslims than Pakistan.

In newly independent India, Nehru envisioned a secular India. Jinnah, on the other hand, remained ready to take it out on the religious minorities even after West Pakistan had been suitably ``cleansed.`` Thus, when East Pakistanis proteseted the imposition of Urdu on the nation, both Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan promptly blamed the Hindus for this ``impertinence`` of the East Pakistanis. Hindus were threatened with dire consequences and Bengali was denounced as a ``Hindu language`` These leaders forgot that a language doesn`t have a religion other than grammar. The Koran can be translated into Bengali as easily as the Geeta can be translated into Arabic. Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan were quite willing to precipitate a Punjab-style carnage in East Pakistan for the purpose of Punjab-style ethnic cleansing.

Even after the shocking carnage that had taken a mind-boggling toll on Punjab in 1947, Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan were both willing and eager
to have a repeat performance in East Pakistan by scapegoating the Hindus. Fortunately, East Pakistanis were able to see thru the intention of
these leaders, and prevailed in their determination to gain Bengali the recognition as one of Pakistan`s national language.