Open Letter To Dina Wadia

nakhok #48/49: I agree with your points. As well as the point you made in #54:

Jinnah was indeed a Constitutional dictator. Albeit a good one. And perhaps one that was needed at the time. It is quite possible, he would have eased off, as Pakistan stabilized furthur. Even if he hadn`t, he would have been an excellent leader.

Pakistan`s political sphere, has no doubt, been dominated by the minority of the Army Generals and the feudals, over the majority of the people. Ironically, the only parties, that do have leaderships from the majority are some of the religious parties. As well as the Muhajir MQM.

There infact, never was a democratic system, other than in theory. It is hard for democracy to be established in a country, which has yet to establish the pre-requisites of democracy. As long as feudalism is around, the, ``elected`` feudal leaders will ensure that the minority rules over the majority. It will remain a merry go round between feudals and army-men. Both are against institutional politics.

As for Dina Jinnah. I think she made a personal choice. Not one that was anti-Pakistan. She was married to an Indian, so she stayed in India. Obviously, she could not leave her husband and move. I don`t see any kind of anti-Pakistanism in that. After divorce, she moved to USA. Is there any kind of anti-Indianism in that?

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

rsidhar #10:``What strong institutions does China have? Legal system sucks. Banking sucks. There is no constitution worth the name.``

The easiest way to find out which country has the strongest institutions is to find out where money and people are flowing. Generally, they flow towards the Western systems, specifically towards Europe and North America.

So to answer a question. Give a company 1 billion dollars, and ask them whether their choice of spending it, and investing it will be China, Malaysia, Singapore, or India. That will tell you who has the best institutions......

China is growing and gaining world dominance, in all areas, like nobody`s business. The gap between India and China is actually daily increasing, not decreasing. The two countries are not in the same league. They were actually closer together when they were both poor. Not any more.

India is no doubt economically growing. It is no longer at its traditional 3.5% growth rates. But you cannot compare that with what is happening in China......Unless, of course, you have issues against Pakistan, or China, itself.....

Most of the interacts are missing simple and riduculously obvious things.

1. Dina and Nusli were there as a part of the ``peace process``. There was no chance of their visit otherwise.
2. It does not matter what their passports and personal faith is. The visit was symbolic, and they visited as Indians (ok NRIs) as percieved by the masses.

And can the interactors call Jinnah Mr jinnah, or Shree Mohammed or something? Stop calling him as Qaid-the-Bakait, its riduculous. For a long time I assumed that he is called Qaid-e-Azam because he was jailed (like in Umar-Qaid) by the British like most other freedom fighters, and thats why the title. But then Jay pointed out the reality.

Romair wrote:

``If you cannot understand what I am saying, then please ask. I think a liberal democratic set-up is the best way to go. Much like what the West has achieved. However, if that is not possible, due to things like feudalism, poverty, lack of education, in a society, then the next best option is a efficient Constitutional dictatorship (if available), similar to the ones in Malaysia and Singapore, grew under . Rather then trying to get juice from a rock of feudalistic, ``democracy.`` The worse thing is an inefficient dictatorship. ``


This is PRECISELY my point of contention with your views in which you find JUSTIFICATION on SUCH FLIMSY basis for dictatorships. And in my last post, I let you in on the unique differences in circumstances that allow China, Malaysia and Singapore to ARISE from their miserable status through constitutional dictatorships. HOWEVER, HISTORY has shown that Pakistan has never and will never attain that unique status of being granted the treasures China, Malaysia and Singapore were given so that they could develop economically- a developement that gave their hard-headed leaders the image of being visionaries- which they were- but they had the western stars favoring them and pointing the way. Furthermore, Malaysia was still a democracy. Chinese Communists arose out of populist appeal.

Pakistani Fauj has neither POPULIST appeal NOR has been blessed with an economic free hand from the West. BOTH (or at least one of) those CRITERIA existed with China, Malaysia, Singapore, Korea etc. (in addition the West doesn`t see terrorism as nearly worse a threat than communism). You are always blabbering with those East Asian examples to justify dictatorial rule. But like any highly incompetent and pretensious economist or social scientist, you conveniently run away from such analysis that are the real reasons for the success of those countries. Why? I can only assume because you are a fauji-lover. NEXT TIME YOU USE MALAYSIA, CHINA ETC AS ANY FORM OF EXAMPLE FOR PAKISTAN, SHOW THAT YOU CAN THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX.

Secondly, you state: I think a liberal democratic set-up is the best way to go. Much like what the West has achieved.

Achieved is the keyword. Democracy didn`t fall into the lap of the west. It arrived there through a long, arduous, fuedal infested, poverty stricken miserable process! If they can do it, so can we.


Finally, your comment and justification for not finding democracy desirable in Pakistan:

However, if that is not possible, due to things like feudalism, poverty, lack of education, in a society, then the next best option is a efficient Constitutional dictatorship

is COMPLETELY CONTRADICTORY to what you then go on to say:

One needs to have some faith in one`s own capabilities, one`s own countrymen, and one`s own Urdu-medium local education graduates (instead of putting them down). Have some self-esteem.

Which is it? Should we have faith in our people despite they being under the thumbs of feudals, despite they being dirt poor, despite being uneducated blah blah blah blah (typical fauji arguments) ?? Should we or should we not have self-esteem?


As for Dina Wadia, I have to tell you again that it`s all based on emotions and nothing more. There is no rationale to it. So really your rationale though apt, fails to convince.

Cheers!

Mantolives #60: Kindly validate the false statements I pointed out, from within your replies, or accept them as lies, before attempting to interact. As usual, you have conveniently ignored your own lies, and have once again opted for personal attack. I will highlight your lies again, with the hope that now you will now own up to them. Or present a counter-argument to them, pointing out where I made the statements you attributed to me. I will highlight your remaining lies, in a later reply:

``Lie No. 1: ``... `Jinnah`s daughter is the enemy of Pakistan``

Lie No. 2: ....Romair is the product of the local educational system...

Lie No. 3: ``he has been taught such brilliant lies``

Lie No. 4: why are people like Romair and my colleague afraid of Dina Wadia``

Lie No. 5: ``they are afraid that she will tell the truth and shatter the myth of the `Islamic` ideology and `Islamism` that they want to weave around Pakistan``

Arguments based on lies, rarely succeed......

Romair

This is quite shameless. You are trying to give moral credence to your premise that since Quaid-e-Azam was a constitutional dictator therefore constitutional dictatorship is `the next best thing`. People are objecting to your basic premise that ``Quaid was a despot of any sort`` here, the issue whether it is good or bad, comes after that. Your contention is quite contrary to the facts and it is a shameless slander against our Quaid.

First of all Quaid did not attack TV stations and National institutions, and residents of any elected leaders with guns and tanks to become the leader of the country. He was an elected leader, elected by his constituency and then re-elected by the legislative assembly of Paksitan as well as the head of the state and Governor General. He did not suspend Government of India Act, the existing constitution in any sense of the word; neither did he forced an LFO into the existing constitution with a gun point and threats of sending elected members of assembly to guantanamo bay or kala paani for that matter if they did not agree with his LFO. Yes he took over the position of Governor General for himself as opposed to giving it Mountbaten as the Indians did because it fails the purpose of being independent. He was the Mujahid, the leader, the great leader because in the face of all adversity he did not bow down to the first threat he got. When Paksitan was broken, wounded with migrants, poverty striken; when Hindus refused to give us our fair share of treasury; when Hindus used to bet every day as to when Paksitan would collapse he ordered the Jihad in Kashmir. He was the leader who has won us the only war among all that we have faught. Today because of his courage half of Kashmir is free from murderous oppression of Hindus. Today, because of him a Kashmiri in Azad Kashmir sleeps worry free that his woman will not be raped by Hindu army under cover of darkness. Pakistan was poor and broken yet he did not violate the rights of any citizen; no one was arrested; he did not hand over its citizens to colonial powers with utter disregard for constitutional guarantees and human rights. For he was The Great Leader - My Quaid-e-Azam.

gujjubania/PM : You are correct about some statitistics. However incorrect about others. This tends to happen, when people mix statistics with nationalism.

Ahmadzai does have somewhat of a point about wealth distribution, while gujjubania has a point about HDI. Pakistan has traditionally been ahead of India in economic and HDI issues. Until the 90s. That decade was terrible for Pakistan and great for India, economically. So Pakistan has fallen behind.

The difference between annual growth rates of the two countries, has, however, only once been 3-4% . And that was in favor of Pakistan, during the 60s, when Pakistan averaged 6.7% and India was around 3.5%. Even now, Pakistan will be around 5.8%, this year, while I doubt India will be around 8.8-9.8%, annually. So the gap is closing again, after the 90s.

There is still better wealth distribution in Pakistan, according to the UN Gini Index:

``Inequality measures - Gini index
Measures the extent to which the distribution of income (or consumption) among individuals or households within a country deviates from a perfectly equal distribution. A Lorenz curve plots the cumulative percentages of total income received against the cumulative number of recipients, starting with the poorest individual or household. The Gini index measures the area between the Lorenz curve and a hypothetical line of absolute equality, expressed as a percentage of the maximum area under the line. A value of 0 represents perfect equality, a value of 100 perfect inequality.`` (http://www.undp.org/hdr2003/indicator/indic_126_1_1.html)

Gini coefficient for Pakistan (33)
Gini coefficient for India (37.8)

Rsidhar,

a very simplistic view indeed as is expected!

Dina Wadia was never opposed to Pakistan or her father as so,

Here is a repost of the earlier post.

1) Jinnah never disowned his daughter. Even the ideologically motivated Islamist author Akbar S Ahmed accepts this.. Jinnah`s last will and testament is evidence enough.

2) Dina Wadia is not a citizen of Pakistan OR India. She is a British citizen and is living in the US. She has never opposed Pakistan as some have put up here. In fact she went on the record congratulating her father on the acceptance of the Pakistan principle. Even in the game (5th One Day International) when asked she responded that she was sad that Pakistan was losing.

3) Nusli Wadia s/o Neville Wadia is the heir to the Wadia`s fortune which was big even before partition. Even though he is very close to people like Jaswant Singh, and was in the past a close friend of Sanjay Gandhi... Nusli Wadia remains a British citizen like his mother.

4) Nusli Wadia is not a Muslim... he is a PARSI... as for Dina Jinnah ... she is very private about her personal faith so we don`t know.

5) Both Dina`s and Nusli`s complaint against Pakistan has been that it has not fulfilled the promise that it held ... of a modern secular Democratic state that Jinnah wanted it to be. It is therefore that they opposed Musharraf`s attempt at the acquistion of Jinnah house.




Romair


Sir I am afraid the only liar here is you and I think it goes without saying that you have been exposed here repeatedly! Ofcourse it doesnt matter to you.... like any typical Muslim you are always in denial....

As for being a lawyer .... how does that go to my discredit? had it not been for lawyers there would be no independence movement and certainly no Pakistan.

Whatever ideology I have today (secular fanaticism as you call it ) is because of Jinnah. It is after I read about his life that I came to the simple conclusion that state should be completely impartial to religion. I dont know why that upsets you so much.

You are the typical product of a PAF College education. I am convinced that the best thing I did was to leave that ziaist institution ..... thankfuly other than those horrible 2 years of Islamic ideology I didnt suffer through any local system.... my total schooling in american and british school systems and universities is 15 years..... please feel free to prove your claim about your education! Given the kind of blatantly ignorant points you make i dont consider you much of judge of whose points are good or bad.

You claim that you as a normal pakistani citizen (which you are not btw) you dont want to be dictated what to do ..... that is what the so called secular fanatic also want but as is obvious from your posts you dont .... by defending bigots and by attacking people who talk of equal rights freedom of expression and religion as secular fanatics you have proved yourself to be the enemy of that very ideal. People like you are complicit in the theocratization of pakistan.... you fail to recognize the damage done to this country by the organized parties like ji zwho have turned muslim against muslim.


I have never claimed myself to be more pakistani than anyone but now allow me to inform you that i am more so... I wake every morning in Lahore go to work pay my taxes and abide by the law of this country.... I live as an ordinary citizen of pakistan, vote like an ordinary citizen in all elections and dont earn exorbitant amounts of money.... Yes I went to College in the US, but like many Pakistanis I brought my education back to my country and put my talents at my nations disposal.

In short .... I am not an airforce ka bhagora illegal immigrant to Canada ... do you understand?

This thread has expanded and unravelled too fast!!

I have not read all the comments but glanced enough to get the above impression!!!
How many people know that Dina Wadia had completely forsaken her father`s ideology and politics, may be even morality.

This is indicated by the fact that she rebelled through her marriage to a Non-Muslim and declined to go to hell that Pakistan was immediately after partition. This is corroborated by the Wadias to continue their operations in India and they are respected citizens of India.

The truth of the matter is that inspite of the brilliance and great personality that Jinnah possessed, he could not overcome his personal ambition even at the cost of knowingly hurting his people and the United India. He simply became an agent of the colonial powers and did their bidding as it is hinted in Last Viceroy produced by the BBC.

It is the same kind of failure that Nehru suffered from. Nehru accepted the division of India that Gandhi ji was against. But the crucial differences between Jinnah and Nehru were:
1. Nehru was in his own land.
2. Nehru was a leader of people who were law abiding.
3. Nehru was fifteen years younger.
4. Nehru had the wisdom of retaining Mountbatten.
5. Nehru was able to enroll support of Sardar Patel.
6. Nehru was a rational Hindu and was a leader of Hindus who were Indians first and communalist tenth.
7. Hindus of that ilk constituted 75 % of all Hindus.
8. Finally, for today, Nehru had the capability of separating implementable elements of Gandhi ji`s enlightened, fair and demanding philosophy from what ordinary Indians and India could not assimilate.

As a proof of all this one fact suffices. India`s first cabinet under Nehru included three Ministers who were not even Congress members and countless decent Indians, of all persuasions, were allowed to make constructive contributions towards rational and fair India.

Rozaiba #57: You are seeing things where none exist. Please stick to the topic under discussion, and do not let your imagination get the better of you. Everytime I make a point, you go off on a tangent, which has nothing to do with the original point. I never mentioned faujiz and military, nor anything else in any of my posts. Yet, invariably, you are bent upon trying to put words in my mouth. Perhaps it is because you cannot debate the point at hand.

``The stretch you make to WANT constitutional dictators is on false premise.``

If you cannot understand what I am saying, then please ask. I think a liberal democratic set-up is the best way to go. Much like what the West has achieved. However, if that is not possible, due to things like feudalism, poverty, lack of education, in a society, then the next best option is a efficient Constitutional dictatorship (if available), similar to the ones in Malaysia and Singapore, grew under. Rather then trying to get juice from a rock of feudalistic, ``democracy.`` The worse thing is an inefficient dictatorship.

Infact I stated the following: ``This does not mean that dictatorships are good - even constitutional ones. It just means that certain individuals, through Constitutional dictatorships, have been able to achieve a lot of progress, or have fulfilled great tasks, in third world countries. While others have not.``

So, if you would be willing to get beyond bedlinens and Musharraf, and debate the point at hand, I would appreciate it i.e.

- Should the off-springs of prominent people be State guests, and should we be looking towards them to find out whether we have met out dreams or not, even if they themselves did not want much to do with us.

- Was Jinnah a Constitutional dictator?

``I do worship him as a hero``

Good for you. So do a lot of other people. But you do not need to declare yourself to be his moral bodyguard. You do not own him. Nor does anyone need to worship the floor his daughter steps on. Nor do you need to decide the future of your country, based on comments his grandson makes in a guest book.

One needs to have some faith in one`s own capabilities, one`s own countrymen, and one`s own Urdu-medium local education graduates (instead of putting them down). Have some self-esteem. And understand the fact that Jinnah is dead. He, ``did`` achieve his dream, unlike what his next generation wrote in guest books. He led the creation of a country. I actually find it quite rude, that someone should have the audacity to go into someone else`s house and tell them that they will come back, when the, ``dream`` is achieved. It is like saying, I think your house is dirty, I will come back when you clean it up.

re. gujjubania #55:
good, informative post! Thanks for pointing out the obvious. Sometimes one needs to!

# 44 by Romair

+++++
The Muslim League was bound to collapse.....
+++++

The roots of its collapse are rooted in the history of the Muslim League establishment.

Separate electorates and the Pakistan Movement were all predicated on the argument that one-man-one-vote democracy is unsuitable for a pluralistic society like pre-partition India.

Shrill complaints against the ``tyranny of the majority`` was the foundation of the
Pakistan Movement. But it is as ironic as it is apt, that in post-partition era, Jinnah`s Pakistan continued to be plagued by the very same premises that gave it birth, namely, that one-man-one-vote democracy is unsuitable for a pluralistic society.

West Pakistan`s ruling elite which had once inveighed against the Hindu majority in
pre-partition India, found themselves inveighing against the Hindu-tainted majority
of East Pakistan. ``Separate Electorates`` and ``Parity`` were the neo-shibboleths to neutralize the majority voters in East Pakistan from having a significant say in Pakistan`s affairs.

Pakistan`s ruling elite could not live under the ``tyranny of the majority``. So even in
independent Pakistan it took to insisting on living under ``tyranny of the minority``!!!

Today, it is Pakistan`s military that has emerged as the crown jewel of Pakistan`s ruling minority. And that`s because it is the nation`s only Mafia capable of imposing the ``tyranny of the minority``. Forgetting the lessons of the East Pakistan debacle,the military remains determined to retain its iron grip on the people of what is left of Pakistan. And in doing so, it is acting in the best traditions of the Muslim League.

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

romair,

......... it seems like you have a lot of time on your hands ............ don`t you have to work in canada?

romair:

we are very happy to hear that you do not want to make an exception even for Dina Wadia. your point is made.

I`ve already said that one of Qaid-e-Azam`s biggest failures was not leaving a constitution behind. Yet despite those many failures, I do worship him as a hero.

The stretch you make to WANT constitutional dictators is on false premise. Pakistan has already tested `consitutional dictators` like Ayub Khan and Zia ul Haq and they both lead to gross failure. China`s ability to have an autocratic set-up resulted after Mao`s POPULIST revolution- why do you fail to point this out? Is it because Pakistan`s autocratic Faujiz have NEVER been able to appeal to the masses? Do you feel embarrased to point this out? It was sustained by Deng`s socialist-capitalism because American markets were readily made available to Chinese products to help thwart the Russian threat. Similarly, Malaysian and ASEAN economies took off as result of `easy` credit by international lenders (thus part of the reason for 1997 collapse) and opening of western markets to their products again to thwart communist threat.

Despite all the bro-ha-ha, the war on terrorism is no where near the threat that communism was. Thus Pakistan has received next to nothing for its services. Pakistan`s Faujiz neither have any populist basis nor do they have the benefit of full western market access to enable them to show something progressive. They are at the complete mercy of western powers. EU just slapped tarriffs on Pakistani bed-linen exports. EU may take further measures. This is a recipe for disaster once American use of Mushraf is over. And since fauji-lovers refuse to realize the significance of institutional power and favor the expulsion of the populist leaders and instead fantasize about `consitutional dictators` and accept Musharaf`s messianic tactics, once the puppet is gone, the internal structure being already mutilated by Faujiz, Pakistan will be back to square one. This is nothing surprising as it`s happened before.

They are inefficient, they are bureaucratic nightmares, they are loaded with nepotism and corruption, but nothing can provide a more reliable foundation for progress of society as independent institutions.

Anyhow, we always regurgitate the old arguments again and again.

Mohar: The argument was not whether activism is good or bad. It was on how Qaid-e-Azam approached the issue. Bhagat Singh was an activist hero. He had a different approach.

Cheers!