Why is the West so angry with Dr. Mahathir?

Urstruly#217:
I am quite aware of the principle of contiguity. But I am not knowledgeable enough about the the detailed geography and demographics wrt Khulna and Chittagong hill districts (Is Chittagong and Chittagong hill districts one and the same thing?).
Mizoram, as far as I know, has been administered by India since independence. While it became a union territory in 1972, it was part of the state of Assam before then.

Linking the case of accession of Gordaspur to that of Chitagong and Khulna is not only dishonest but it is factually wrong and unjust. The accession of the then district of Chitagong to India at the time of Radcliffe was not physicaly possible. One of the core principle of Radcliffe award was that the acedeing areas should be geographically adjacent to either Pakistani Muslim Areas or Indian Hindu areas. Chitagong did not qualify, at that time to be adhjacent to India. At that time it was surrounded by princely state of Tripura and the federally administered district of Mizoram. The state of Tripura aceded to India as late as 1949 and Mizoram district was forcibly made to accede to India not until year 1972. So Radcliffe at that time had two options for district of Chitagong i.e. either to keep it as a part of province of Bengal as it was or to declare it as an autonomous unit. The second option was impractical and unacceptable. So in case of Chitagong, Radcliffe did not paly favorites with Muslims but rather he did not have a choice.

Similarly, the case of khulna which at that time was a part of province of Bengal; I am not sure if it had an overwhelming majority of Hindus at that time or not but geographically it was surrounded by Muslim majority areas. If you keep in mind the Radcliffe award principle of adjacent areas in mind it does not make sense to give its accession to India. Similar a case then could be made for Aligarh a Muslim dominated area surrounded by Hindu majority and Bhaun (district Chakwal) a Hindu dominated area surrounded by Muslim majority. But the case of Gurdaspur is clear and unquestionable injustice.

nakhok#204:
``Even if Gurdaspur had gone to India, Amritsar would still have been linked to India via Kapurthala and Firozpur districts. ``
Firozpur could also have gone either way. Kapurthala was a princely state although it could safely be presumed to opt for India.
According to Prof. Datta`s study, Mountbatten really felt bad about Sikhs not getting their earlier seat of power, Lahore, and their holy places of Nankana and Panja saheb. He wanted decisions in Panjab to be viewed favourably on the Indian side and to compensate Pakistan in the East wrt Khulna and Chittagong hill districts.

#214 sadna

Oops! I should have said late October 1947 - which was when tribal raiders entered Jammu and Kashmir.

I am familiar with the coerced accession of Kalat, i.e. a major part of Baluchistan, to Pakistan. Incidentally, prior to this event, Kalat supposedly possessed a status relative to the British Crown, similar to Nepal, i.e. it dealt directly with the India Office in London, not the Viceroy in New Delhi, as was the case with all the other princely states.

Kalat`s accession did of course precede India`s police action in Hyderabad. You`ll rarely hear any mention of this from Pakistanis, of course.

AlephNull #213
``Unfortunately, Pakistan established another precedent - that of employing armed force - in late October 1948``

The Pakistani Army moved into Kalat(Balochistan) earlier on April 1 1948 and forced the Khan of Kalat to sign the instrument of accession to Pakistan.

( The Khan had previously declared independence of Kalat on August 15 1947 and subsequently formed a bicameral assembly after holding elections for the lower house. The lower house endorsed the declaration of independence in September 1947).

#211 nakhok

Precisely. In fact Junagadh (with the added complications of the enclaves of Mangrol and Babriawad) was a poisoned bait designed to establish a legal precedent one way or another for the accession of either Hyderabad or Kashmir to Pakistan.

Unfortunately, Pakistan established another precedent - that of employing armed force - in late October 1948, when it sent tribal raiders, officered by Pakistan Army personnel, into Kashmir. All Indian military and police actions came subsequent to the establishment of that precedent by Pakistan

Pakistanis today like to complain about the alleged inconsistency of Hyderabad, Junagadh and much of J & K being in India`s possession, without examining the chronological sequence of events that led to this outcome.

Urstruly,

Sahib, please pull up your pants … you are standing butt-naked in front of a jeering crowd.

You started with the 80% claim, and constructed a (hypothetical?) dialogue between Jinnah and Zafrullah. You now admit that the 80% figure was grossly inflated. As for your sources, they have turned out to be hearsay. Apparently you talked to a few people who subscribe to your viewpoint, in order to validate your viewpoint.

I’ll ask again: 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?

You may ignore this question once again … and that’s fine. It is clear that your conscience, as well as your intellect … have decayed beyond redemption.

#209 by AlephNull on November 4, 2003 2:50pm PT

``If Urstruly wasn`t complaining about Gurdaspur and Kashmir, he would bring up `Hyderabad Deccan`, and if not that, then Junagadh. ``

It will be instructive to put the above in chronological order. The Radcliffe Award for Gurdaspur and the Nawab of Junagarh`s accession to Pakistan were the earliest. They were in place by the partition of India. Next came the invasion of Jammu & Kashmir by tribal militias in October of 1947. And finally came the police action in Hyderabad in November of 1948.

The Pakistan version of history amounts to having your cake and eating it too.

Pakistan`s regimes remember that Pakistan didn`t get Gurdaspur but very conveniently forgets that it got Chittagong Hill Tracts, Khulna and the city of Lahor.

As for Junagarh, its Nawab acceded to Pakistan on 15th August 1947. Pakistan`s then prime minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, had argued then that a ruler had the absolute right to so accede without reference to the moral or ethnic aspects of accession. (No double standard then in J&K as Pakistan would have the world believe.) In fact, in mid-September of 1947, it was Junagadh, as a part of Pakistan, that sent troops into Babariawad (a group of 51 villages) and Mangrol (a teeny princely State) -- both entities located in the heart of Junagadh and both of which had already acceded to India.

On November 8, 1947, saddled with an administration that had come to a standstill, the dewan of Junagarh (Shah Nawaz Bhutto) officially handed over the reins of Junagadh to the Government of India

And even as the Pakistan government was railing about the right of the Nawab of Junagarh to do as he pleases, it was directing tribal raids into Kashmir in October of 1947 to force the hands of the Maharaja who had signed a Standstill agreement with Pakistan!

It ill-behooves of Pakistan regimes to complain of any double standard. It had tried to gain kingdoms by hook or by crook and had come out of its efforts with less than satisfactory results (from its point of view). It was Pakistan that had adopted a double standard. It is another matter that Junagarh and about 60% of Jammu & Kashmir ended up in India in spite of the Pakistan government`s shenanigans.

As for Hyderabad, Pakistan was realistic enough to realize that it wouldn`t be able to hang on to the land-locked kingdom, surrounded on all sides by India, even if the Nizam acceded to Pakistan. But it tried to do the next best thing, namely, oppose Hyderabad`s accession to India. It wanted Hyderabad to remain independent (something the Maharaja of Kashmir had tried to do as well before the tribal raid from Pakistan forced his hand). Pakistan was driving full throttle in the ``heads I win, tails you lose`` mode.

In November of 1947, the Nizam appointed a Pakistani as president of Hyderabad State`s Executive Council, loaned Rs 20 crore (Rs 200 million) to Pakistan in the form of Government of India securities, but wrote secretly to Lord Mountbatten, Governor-General of India, to assure him that he would not accede to Pakistan. The Government of India wrote back pointing out violations of the Standstill Agreement that had just been signed; Government of India objected to the two ordinances.

The Nizam ignored India`s objections and went about doing everything to establish itself as an independent kingdom. The Nizam`s machinations caused a breakdown in the law and order situation as the hated Razakkaars (a private militia enjoying the nizam`s patronage) and Marxist groups clashed repeatedly creating communal havoc in the State, especially in the border districts of Andhra and Hyderabad.

On September 13, Indian government`s decision to take police action in Hyderabad finally put an end to the anarchy and to the Nizam`s dream of ruling an independent kingdom. On November 23, 1949, the Nizam issued a firman (edict) accepting the Constitution of India, to be formed by the Constituent Assembly of India then in session, as the constitution of Hyderabad State.

If Pakistan didn`t end up with Hyderabad, Junagarh, Jammu, Ladakh and the Kashmir Valley, it wasn`t because it didn`t try to have it all regardless of the principles, but in spite of it. Pakistan regimes carry no credibility when it blames India of adopting a double standard. Pakistan would have had no qualms about double standard if it had managed to usurp all these territories.

#207 by RationalFaith on November 4, 2003 2:01pm PT

``In Pakistan, you would be pressed hard to find one `educated` young man or woman who who can not tell you what `happened` in Gurdaspur and how Pakistan was `cheated.` ``

Curriculum objectives in Pakistan schools don`t leave much to chance. Here are excerpts from a couple of articles by the doyen of Pakistani journalists, Ardeshir Cowasjee:

---

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/cowas.htm

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
15 June 2003 Sunday 14 Rabi-us-Saani 1424

`Pakistan first`
By Ardeshir Cowasjee

..... The national curriculum objectives as set forth by the federal ministry of education in 1995 remain unchanged, eight years on. By completion of Class V, according to this curriculum in force, children are required, inter alia, to understand Hindu-Muslim differences, identify the forces working against Pakistan and India`s evil designs, and make speeches on jihad and shahadat.

They are also expected to promote an awareness of the Kashmir issue, to observe their fellow pupils and note their reaction to the wars with India, judge their spirit while they make speeches on jihad, and note their keenness and willingness to recite tarana at school functions. As commented Sami Mustafa in this newspaper on May 18 in his article on the subject:

``So much for teaching tolerance, objectivity and scholarship to the future generations of this country ... Sadly, it appears that the national curriculum is anything but about education. It is primarily a hopeless attempt to control young minds and compensate for the incompetence and inability of our policymakers to come to terms with the demands of a new world, which is the individual development of each child, not the mass development of children so that they fit into a political system that is inefficient, retrogressive and unenlightened.`` .....

---

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
11 June, 2000

Misguided zeal
By Ardeshir Cowasjee

..... Consider the impact of the national curriculum objectives on the mind of a 12-year old child in his last year at primary school. He is not taught to hope for a joyous future, a good life in a peace loving country in which goodwill towards man and the well being of its citizens prevails. The child is told that life is all about battling invisible enemies and that fear is to be feared.

The kindergarten to class v curriculum adopted by the ministry of education in 1995 is, to say the least, a bizarre piece of work. .....

..... Amongst the objectives to be achieved is the ability to - 1) understand the Hindu and Muslim differences and the resultant need for Pakistan; 2) know all about India`s evil designs against Pakistan; 3) acknowledge and identify forces that may be working against Pakistan; 4) demonstrate by actions a belief in the fear of Allah; 5) demonstrate the desire to preserve the ideology, integrity and security of Pakistan; 6) make speeches on jihad and shahadat; 7) guard against rumor mongers who spread false news and to stage dramas signifying the evils of rumors; 8) understand the Kashmir problem; 9) collect pictures of policemen, soldiers and National Guards.

How can a child be expected to preserve ideology of Pakistan? And how on earth is a 12-year old expected to understand and know all about the `Kashmir problem`? .....

..... Now to quote from a textbook entitled `Pakistan Studies` published by the government to be taught in Classes IX and X : ``After the death of Aurangzeb Alamgir in 1707 AD his successors could not control the vast Moghul Empire and as a result South Asia gradually fell prey to the forces of anarchy.`` One reason given is ``the spirit of holy struggle and war (Jihad) which was the fountainhead of power of Muslim kingdoms faded gradually. Thus the military power became weak. Ease and laziness blunted the military prowess.``

For some unknown reason, when the story of Pakistan catches up with the 20th century and the 1980s, there is a lacuna as to the departure of Zia-ul-Haq from the national scene : ``Unfortunately the Junejo government was dismissed on May 29 1988 after it remained in power for three years and two months. The National Assembly and the provincial assemblies were dissolved by the president. In November 1988, general elections were held on a party basis.``

Discussing factors that lead to the high birth rate in Pakistan, the book teaches that the primary factor is the ``hot climate of the country.`` And on the secession of East Pakistan, all that the book has to say is : ``Bangladesh was separated from Pakistan and became an independent country in 1971.``

Compulsory reading for BA, B.Com, MBBS, and B.Sc Engineering is another book entitled `Pakistan Studies` which attempts to explain the ideology of Pakistan : ``What does Pakistan mean? It means there is no God but Allah.`` Dr Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi defines it further : ``Thus the Pakistan ideology is the guiding principle of the Muslim majority regions of the South Asian subcontinent for obtaining an ideal Muslim state, Pakistan which has been chosen as a keynote for passing life, both individually and collectively, according to the Islamic conception of life and for resurgence of Muslim society.`` .....

---

#204 nakhok

Don`t confuse Urstruly with facts or context. I don`t think historical facts hold any intrinsic value for him. They are useful only as adjuncts, as pegs on which to hang his deep-seated sense of grievance against those who have supposedly denied him his birthright as a Muslim. The first thing to understand about Islamists, bearded and shaven, is that they cannot really exist without hate objects, kafirs, external figures at whom to direct their resentment and to whom they can address themselves in self-righteous tones. If Urstruly wasn`t complaining about Gurdaspur and Kashmir, he would bring up `Hyderabad Deccan`, and if not that, then Junagadh. If those were unavailable, he would still resent the fact that India, as a large and powerful country on a sounder footing than Pakistan, makes him look hopelessly inadequate by comparison.

Nakhok and Dost-Mittar

I didn`t know the details provided by Nakhok # 204.

In Pakistan, you would be pressed hard to find one `educated` young man or woman who who can not tell you what `happened` in Gurdaspur and how Pakistan was `cheated.`

That`s how assiduously Pakistani `educationists` and `intellectuals` have worked to sow the seeds of hate among their own people.

Amazing what some dedicated purveyors of hatred can do to a whole country....

#205 by dost-mittar

``Gurduspar to Pakistan would have meant that the sikh holy city of Amritsar would have been surrounded by Pakistan.``

I am not sure about that. Even if Gurdaspur had gone to India, Amritsar would still have been linked to India via Kapurthala and Firozpur districts.

#205 by dost-mittar

`` But my discussion with Urstruly was not about the Radcliffe award per se but the evidence regarding the incompetence/perfidy of Zafarullah Khan, and hence this was extraneous to the issue. ``

No, I don`t think it was extraneous. In fact I specifically concluded in post #204, ``If Zafrulla Khan is to be blamed by Pakistanis for failing to convince Radcliffe to award Gurdaspur to Pakistan, fairness dictates that he gets credit in equal measure from Pakistanis for convincing Radcliffe to award CHT, Khulna and the city of Lahore to Pakistan.``

Pakistan was indeed incensed that Gurdaspur wasn`t awarded to Pakistan. But much of it might have been an afterthought after Pakistan failed to achieve 100% success from its invasion of the kingdom of Jammu & Kashmir.

I haven`t come across anything in literature to suggest that Zafrullah was reprimanded by Jinnah for failure to competently represent Pakistan`s case on Gurdaspur. It may not be anything more than an urban legend that has morphed to kill two birds with one stone - attribute the failure to conquer Srinagar to:

(1) British-Congress conspiracy dating back to Radcliffe.
(2) Lack of competence or worse of an Ahmadiyya.

In reality, the responsibility for the failure to conquer Srinagar lay elsewhere. A lot of Pakistani writers have honestly confessed to failures elsewhere for Pakistan`s lack of 100% success from the invasion of Jammu & Kashmir. Here`s a small sample of what some Pakistani writers have been recently writing on the Kashmir Invasion of 1947:

---

Excerpt from Article in DAWN (07/27/99):

Kargil - before and after
By Zafar Iqbal

..... MILITARILY, the critical point which was supposed to have created the Kashmir problem was the hiatus in the tribesman`s march towards Srinagar when they stopped for a bit of ``rest and recreation`` (R&R) at Baramulla about a dozen miles from Srinagar airport. Their concept of recreation included a diversion into some looting and pillage and possibly a bit of rape on the side.

Anyway, whatever the truth, this window of opportunity permitted the Indians to capture Srinagar airport and bring in reinforcements; at least so the story is told. The ultimate result was the cease-fire line. .....

---

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
10 April, 2000

Kashmir: time to change tack
By Brig (retd) M. Sher Khan

..... The story of Kashmir is a long saga, which started at the very inception of the new-born nation of Pakistan. While the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir was wavering about deciding which of the two new dominions his largely Muslim state should accede to, large tribal lashkars from the NWFP region invaded the state with the aim of forcing the Maharaja`s hand in acceding to Pakistan. When these lashkars were in a position to seize Srinagar and its airport, the lust for spoils, loot and pillage got the better of them. The Maharaja panicked and sought Indian intercession, the price of which was that he should first sign an instrument of accession. .....

---

Excerpt from Article in Pakistan Link (1/28/2000):

Men and Events That Mattered in Pakistan
By Mohammad Ashraf Chaudhry

..... The Kashmir problem which brought Pakistan to the three most costly wars it fought with India with the fourth looming on the horizon, might have been solved had Liaquat
Ali Khan, the then PM, accepted Sardar Patel`s proposal to exchange Hyderabad with the Valley. As Sardar Shaukat Hayat puts it, Liaquat Ali Khan brushed aside the proposal by saying, ``Sardar Sahib, do you take me for a fool to accept a few hills in exchange for the vast plains of Deccan?`` India usurped Hyderabad anyway and forcefully occupied Kashmir too, leaving Pakistanis ruminating as to who was right, Liaquat Ali Khan or the Sardar of Wah who insisted on accepting it.

If this sounds somewhat dramatic, here is another event that let Kashmir slip away from Pakistan`s lap. In 1948 the, Tribal ``Mujahidins``, brought by Major Khurshid, had reached Srinagar which lay deserted. As they put their hands on the National Bank and came by some 3 lac rupees, it so happened that while the Major insisted on taking away that money as it belonged to the government of Pakistan, the ``Mujahidins`` on the contrary persisted in their demand to celebrate Eid-ul-Azha along with it, and in this tug of war they lost three most precious days. This lull and halt provided India enough time to rush its deployments to the area and what happened next to the rest of the story as far as Kashmir is concerned is well known to all. .....

---

dost mitter

The %age was deliberately inflated to achieve a consensus to my liking.

Nakhok:
``Chittagong Hill Tracts, for example, had only a miniscule Muslim population. Yet, Radcliffe awarded CHT to Pakistan, on the grounds that Chittogong port needed a significant buffer of Pakistani territory between itself and Pakistan`s land boundary. ``
I am aware of that. According to Prof. Datta who did an extensive study of the archival material relating to Radcliffe, this was also the argument made in case of Gurdaspur. Giving Gurduspar to Pakistan would have meant that the sikh holy city of Amritsar would have been surrounded by Pakistan. But my discussion with Urstruly was not about the Radcliffe award per se but the evidence regarding the incompetence/perfidy of Zafarullah Khan, and hence this was extraneous to the issue.

Urstruly:
Dependence on hearsay can be quite unreliable, as you could see by your assuming a 80% majority of muslims in Gurdaspur which was far from true.

#200 by Dost-mittar

``Incidentally, I picked up some census figures from a source which favours the Pakistani position on the Gurdaspur award to show that the majority was marginal. Other than that, I made no comment regarding the credibility of the source.``

Radcliffe didn`t always go by majority, even when the majority was substantial.

Chittagong Hill Tracts, for example, had only a miniscule Muslim population. Yet, Radcliffe awarded CHT to Pakistan, on the grounds that Chittogong port needed a significant buffer of Pakistani territory between itself and Pakistan`s land boundary.

Likewise, the district of Khulna (which had a marginal majority of Hindus) went to Pakistan on the grounds that East Pakistan needed a second port.

And in West Pakistan, the city of Lahore didn`t quite have 50% plus Muslims. Still it went to Pakistan! Lahore used to be Maharaja Ranjit Singh`s capital. Today it is practically a 100% Muslim city because of Radcliffe.

If Zafrulla Khan is to be blamed by Pakistanis for failing to convince Radcliffe to award Gurdaspur to Pakistan, fairness dictates that he gets credit in equal measure from Pakistanis for convincing Radcliffe to award CHT, Khulna and the city of Lahore to Pakistan.

Dost Mitter

I can name a few sources of ``facts and figures`` after going through the little library that I have if you insist.

But let me be clear that the perception of the facts and figures is purely my own. Remember that Radcliffe was not an open forrum, i.e. its daily proceedings were not presented before the general public everyday. I guess the general public was kept outside that building where Radcliffe Award held its meeting, by a board that read ``Indians and Dogs not Allowed`` and our glorious Indian police of the Raj.

As a common man that you and I are, we are effected by the end results that are decided by the powers that be. I only know one thing i.e. Zafarullah khan was my representative and he failed me.

Also there is this aura of respectibility that is cast around his personna by Quadianis. Even a slightest criticism of him is dealt with severe scorn, as if criticising a public representative if he happens to be a Quadiani is equivalent to anti-semitism. In the washed down official history of Paksitan criticising political figure that took part in the creation of Paksitan was considered a grave sin until a few years ago. As I wrote below to harimau, no public official is beyond criticism. But some people are still living in the past.