Why is the West so angry with Dr. Mahathir?

urstruly, tahmed, romair:
Thank you all for your posts on Dr. Salam. [Romair, re. Zia and hindko, wasn`t Zia a Jalandhri?].

Jay:
I hope your wishes have been answered; three Pakistani chowkies representing different viewpoints have all praised and admired Salam on chowk.

Tahmed32:
Your example supports what I had said. The Hindu station master was letting others kill but was not himself participating in the killing.
You are right about nobody having been punished for those crimes. There are many people in India (including the Akali leader Gurbachan Singh Tohra) and I presume, in Pakistan too, who openly and proudly admitted to killing others during those riots. This ``tradition`` started during the British period and has unfortunately been carried to this day. Mob crimes have always been dealt differently from individual crimes - from the Calcutta riots of 1946 to the Ahmedabad killings of 2002. The psychology -as opposed to the law- seems to be that these riots are a form of tribal war in which the killing of those belonging to the enemy tribe is a legitimate act.

Humsab:
I do not know much about Bijli Pehlwaan. I have heard his name in connection with some bus company in the pre-partition days. Did he participate in a lot of killings?

Satyawadi:
I did not ``blame`` hindus for provoking the riots, if that is what you mean. In those riots, muslims were one party and hindu-sikhs another. All I said was that the sikhs did most of the killings on the hindu-sikh side. As the expression went, it was hard to find even a ``khundi chhuree`` (blunt knife) in a hindu home.

Romair # 98

Good post in support of Dr. Salam.

You seem to be a living encyclopedia. And put in lot of effort in your facts & figures.

Dost Mitter ji

Please check out the record of `Bijli Pehalwan` of Amritsar.
Regards.

#96 by sattar2

``what would happen to a person like Dr. Abdus Salam in “your Islamic state” … if from being a Muslim, he one day decided to become an Ahmadi?``

For one thing, he would be going against the tide. In general, it is the Ahmadiyya who faces violence if he doesn`t convert:

---

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_31-10-2003_pg3_7

[The cruel fact behind this conversion is that ‘khatam-e-nabuwwat’ gatherings in various parts of Pakistan constantly threaten the Qadianis with vigilante action while the National Assembly literally serves as the whistle-blower on low-level government employees who still happen to be Qadianis]

Daily Times, Pakistan
Friday, October 31, 2003

Convert Or Face Violence!
By Khaled Ahmed

While there is rampant sectarianism in evidence in Pakistan, there is also a subliminal pressure on the sects to convert to the mainstream. When members of other sects or religious communities convert under conditions of duress there is much jubilation among the orthodox, which is allowed to be expressed in the Urdu press. But are such conversions, whenever they happen, really genuine?

According to ‘Nawa-e-Waqt’ (3 October 2003) religious leaders gathered in Chiniot- Chenabnagar for ‘khatam-e-nabuwwat’ accused the government of being soft on Qadianis who were being employed in key posts (kaleedi) and even posted in the Auqaf Department. They said the Qadianis were busy conspiring against Islam and were freely violating laws enforced against them. The conference was addressed by Maulana Fazlur Rehman of JUI and Liaquat Baloch of Jama’at-e Islami in addition to dozens of other religious leaders. According to ‘Jang’, the Chenabnagar meeting warned the government that the Qadianis had become emboldened (hauslay barh gayay). They also said that behind the façade of the NGOs, the spread of Qadiani faith, Judaism and Christianity would not be tolerated and that a movement could be launched against the government on it.

There are severe disabilities imposed on the Qadianis. They were apostatised under a PPP majority in parliament and General Zia then compounded the deed by barring them from saying the ‘kalima’ and calling a mosque a mosque. There is a whole annual tome of trumped up court cases against them, which shock the outside world. There are many irrational sides to the state of Pakistan of which the persecution of the Qadianis is one. The ‘khatam-e-nabuwwat’ tradition in the country generally serves to rouse the common man and make him feel disgruntled against an erring state that “gives protection to a community that is conspiring with the Jews”. The noise made about the so-called ‘kaleedi’ jobs has gone on even after the virtual ouster of the Qadianis from important areas of state employment. The National Assembly in its October session (27 October 2003) went into the question of minority representation in the bureaucracy and was told that there were two Qadianis and nine Christians in the culture ministry in the federal government. There was also news in the press (daily ‘Insaf’) the same day that a dozen members of the Qadiani community in Punjab had converted to Islam amid much merrymaking on the part of the Sunni community. The cruel fact behind this conversion is that ‘khatam-e-nabuwwat’ gatherings in various parts of Pakistan constantly threaten the Qadianis with vigilante action while the National Assembly literally serves as the whistle-blower on low-level government employees who still happen to be Qadianis. The message is: convert or face violence.

---

DostMittar:

[I presume that you are not a Panjabi, otherwise you wouldn`t have asked this question. Until a couple of generations ago, Panjabi hindus learnt from their childhood that Guru Gobind Singh created the Khalsa Panth to protect the hindus from muslims]

Yeah I am not a Punjabi, but I had heard about this i.e. Sikh panth was formed to protect the Hindus from Moghuls/Muslims.

But that is not the point here. Here is your statement:[BTW by most accounts most of the killings during the partition was indulged by Muslims and Sikhs, Hindus were quite content to let the Sikhs die and kill for them]

You are indirectly blaming the Hindus for the Sikh participation in the Partition massacres. Why else would you say : ``Hindus were quite content to let the Sikhs DIE and KILL for THEM``. The ``for them(Hindus)`` is the key part here.

What can be logically deduced from your statement is that:
1. Sikhs killed and died for the Hindus
2. The Hindus somehow forced or convinced the Sikhs to do the dirty job for them and the Sikhs had not stake in it - they just did it FOR THE HINDUS.

Do you see the fallacy of that statement?

This is not an isolated incident. I have seen, Sikhs numerous times lamenting the fact that they laid down lives in Partition and in the subsequent wars all for Hindus who returned the favor with Bluestar and the subsequent killings...

This is what I object to.. The Sikhs joined the army out of their own volition - a tradition from British days (much like those 8 districts of West Punjab in Pakistan), more so because they were inclined that way and that was the only major source of employment other than agriculture in those days.

Though other Indians do appreciated the bravery and sacrifice of the Sikhs, they do need to get off of their moral high horse, we did you a favor, mentality...
Bluestar and Delhi riots notwithstanding...

Sorry if I hurt anyone`s feelings..

Satyavadi

tahmed321:
[i agree he has a point here. It was muslims and sikhs who did the killings on both sides, and not hindus. God knows who instigated all this, but I think it is reasonable to consider people innocent unless proven guilty. And right now the only people we know were guilty were THOSE individuals (and they were nearly all muslim or sikh) who committed the atrocities. ]

Exactly!

dost mittar #97 I am aware of one case where a hindu was involved in the 1947 riots: my mother was in a train carrying military families to Pakistan. For protection they had a handful of muslim soldiers, none armed except the lieutenant in charge who carried a service revolver. Train was stopped at a station for no apparent reason. The lieutenant stepped over to the station master to check, and overheard him talking over the phone something about ``you finish off the first train, and then we`ll send over the next``. The lieutenant shot the man dead, and at gunpoint had the train put back on the regular track. They passed the second station, and my mother told me she saw the train stopped and passengers being dragged out and killed. Their train managed to pass by safely and made it to Pakistan. Another hero was - interestingly - a sikh woman who had earlier alerted her muslim friends that her menfolk were planning to bomb the train of muslim families, and so the departure time was changed to a few hours earlier. Needless to say, the lieutenant was a big hero of the passengers.

So, no doubt the thing involved low level government officials as well at least one of whom (the station master) was a hindu.

Having said that, the fact clearly is that hindus did not participate. Perhaps they saw sikhs as the sword-arm (as you say), but nevertheless to be fair they stayed away. And many, many hindus lost their property and their lives at the hands of muslim thugs in Pakistan. It is shameful that even today no one in Pakistan (or in India either) has called for justice being done and the criminals of 1947 on their respective side being brought to justice. They are probably all dead by now anyway, having escaped man`s justice. But not God`s hopefully.

The following website gives a description of some real life blasphemy charges against Ahmadiyyas in Pakistan.

http://www.thepersecution.org/archive/pl_x295c.html

Take case against accused 30 thru 38 as an example. The accused were found guilty of writing following verses and prayers on a wedding invitation card.

i.In the name of Allah the Gracious, the Merciful,
ii.Assalamo Alaikum (peace be on you)
iii. Inshallah (If God so wills)

Allah is like a brand name with a copyright. Only those certified to be Muslims in good
standing by the Pakistan government are allowed to invoke God as Allah. Otherwise, it is a copyright infringement. In fact, worse. It is blasphemy. The delicate sensibilities of those certified to be Muslims by the Pakistan government are assumed to be hurt beyond comprehension when unauthorized people invoke Allah!!

The case against accused 161-178 is just as draconian. These men tried to defend their mosque when a mob attacked their mosque. They could not succeed and the mob severely damaged the mosque and set it on fire. Later, the opponents found that Kalima (Islamic creed) and Drud were written inside the mosque, so the authorities booked all these unsuccessful defenders under very serious charges under which they could be hanged. Most of them were arrested and their case was sent to an Anti-Terrorist Court. The attackers roam about freely, waiting for a fresh opportunity.

http://www.thepersecution.org/archive/pl_x295c.html

dost-mittar #80: ``But I am still looking for an answer to my question: Are Jay and hamidm right in saying that Dr. Salam is a persona non grata in Pakistan? And if so, why? ``

Salam isn`t a persona non grata in Pakistan. One needs to stop spreading nonsense like that. It looks good in an argument, but is non-factual. Sounds like something Rush Limbaugh would say to generate controversy.

At the same time, one has to accept that Salam has not gotten the national respect he deserved. He has gotten respect, but less that what he deserved. For the simple reason that he was an Ahmadi. He would have probably eventually faced some discrimination, due to being an Ahmedi, had he continued working for the govt. This is different than saying he was persona non grata.

On the whole, I think people in Pakistan are proud of him. For those of us in technical fields, he is a role model of sorts. The educated Pakistanis, who understand what he did, hold him in very high esteem. The majority of Pakistanis, who are uneducated, probably couldn`t care one way or the other, since they are too busy trying to make a living, and probably don`t have time for Physics. A small minority respects what he did, but due to him being an Ahmadi, will only give him his due respect as a non-Muslim. And if he tries to claim it as a Muslim, they will start disrespecting him.

Salam left Pakistan after Bhutto declared Ahamdis to be non-Muslims. It was a decision, on a principle. Not because he was hounded by the average Pakistanis. In fact, he had a successful career in Pakistan. He was a professor at the Government College Lahore and Head of Mathematics Department Punjab University from 1951-54, member, Pakistan Atomic Energy commission 1958-74, founder and chairman SUPARCO in the mid-sixties, governer from Pakistan to the IAEA 1962-63 and member board of Pakistan science Foundation 1973-77.

This is about as successful as anyone can be in Pakistan, in the field of science.

In addition, the Pakistan govt. awarded him Sitara-i-Pakistan in 1959, Pride of Performance in 1959, and the Order of Nisha-i-Imtiaz - the highest civilian award of the country, in 1979.

Sitara-i-Pakistan and Pride of Performance is something every talented Joe Schmoe can get in Pakistan. However, a civilian Nishan-i-Imtiaz is an extremely high honor. It military equivalent is given now and then. But there are only a handful of civilian Pakistanis who have the civilian version, on merit. It is usually only given ceremoniously to civilians like the Princess of Jordan and others, like Dilip Kumar (don`t know why, probalby because Zia ul Haq and him were spoke Hindko from Peshawar). Noor Jehan was given it posthumously.

Salam himself, seems to have been in love with Pakistan. He never gave up his Pakistani citizenship, from what I have read. I wonder what he would have made of individuals trying to use him, after his death, to portray his country in a negative light?

Satyawadi (& tahmed32):
I presume that you are not a Panjabi, otherwise you wouldn`t have asked this question. Until a couple of generations ago, Panjabi hindus learnt from their childhood that Guru Gobind Singh created the Khalsa Panth to protect the hindus from muslims. At that time, many sikhs also thought the same but they no longer do so. Even many muslims thought that Sikhs were the sword arm of the hindus.
I did not say that hindus were not killed during the partition. They were and some of them did participate in the killing also; there was in those days a common front between the RSS and the Akalis and they are even said to have conspired to kill Jinnah. By and large, though, Panjabi hindus lacked the killer instinct.

Dost Mittar #93 I have to admit that urstruly comes up with a great post once in a while, and then i feel sorry i cant say anything nice to him. I think he does it on purpose to confuse everyone on chowk.

As for satyavadi #94 i agree he has a point here. It was muslims and sikhs who did the killings on both sides, and not hindus. God knows who instigated all this, but I think it is reasonable to consider people innocent unless proven guilty. And right now the only people we know were guilty were THOSE individuals (and they were nearly all muslim or sikh) who committed the atrocities. I think a good deal of the blame also rests with the Brits (who were the responsible authority at the time, and so responsible for what happened during the transition period) as well as with the Indian and Pakistan governments (neither of which bothered to find the culprits and prosecute them as the common criminals that they were).

But there is certainly no call for blaming a community - hindu, muslim or sikh - for atrocities committed at the time.

Urstruly (#90):

Touching anecdote, good one.

One question I have is that … what would happen to a person like Dr. Abdus Salam in “your Islamic state” … if from being a Muslim, he one day decided to become an Ahmadi?

Dostmittar::

[BTW by most accounts most of the killings during the partition was indulged by Muslims and Sikhs, Hindus were quite content to let the Sikhs die and kill for them. ]]

Sorry I couldn`t let this pass. Can you explain what you mean by that last phrase: `` Hindus were quite content to let the Sikhs die and kill for them``?

1. Did the Hindus force the Sikhs to kill the Muslims?
2. Did the Hindus collude with the Muslims to kill the Sikhs?
3. Did the Muslims have any love lost for the Hindus and not kill the Hindus?

If the answer to all of the above questions is NO then your phrase in that statement is not at all justified. It is just another example of the unjustifiable selfrighteous indignation that is displayed by many Sikhs post -operation Bluestar. And it doesn`t matter whether you are a Sikh or not.

Urstruly#90:
Thanks for that wonderful post. I think this was the kind of post that Jay wanted to see and I am so glad that it came from you.
From time to time, you do justify my faith in your native decency:-)

Tahmed32:
Thanks. My question was not whether Dr. Salam loved Pakistan but rather whether that love was returned. I guess one could say that he couldn`t have loved Pakistan unless that love was returned.

#88 plats8
Yeah, but the program was on string theory - The Elegant Universe hosted by... Brian Greene. I guess unification was the broader theme, hence salam/weinberg/glashow.

That was an amazing clip - I had seen a black and white shot of Salam in his sherwani/pagri/pajama receiving the prize but never actual video footage. If people are interested, it`s on again on Saturday at noon.

#71 by harimau

``The Ashkenazi are the Jews of Russia, Eastern Europe and Mittel Europa.
The Sephardic are the Jews of Spain/Portugal and the Arab countries.``

Thanks harimau. That`s my understanding too. In fact I had specifically described the Ashkenazi as the Jews of Yiddish heritage.