Open Letter To Dina Wadia

Yes, you are correct Romair with respect to NS`s storming of Supreme Court. Experience of Pakistan`s political history has shown that there is absolutely no alternative to PROCESS ORIENTED INSTITUTIONALIZATION. All my arugments are based upon this. There is nothing worse than a non-elected ruler. Anyone who is elected and abides by the electoral process is cool. The institutional conflicts are a sure sign that they are coming into being. Whereas it itches you (and it should) that NS would storm the Supreme Court, you find it a viable acceptable alternative to have the whole country stormed by fauji freaks. I guess this is fauji logic.

no doubt that an unelected ruler is the worst ``thing`` one nation could have but then again, the ``demoCRAZILY`` elected people like NS couldnt be allowed to roam free. frankly, i see army as the root cause of the weak democratic institutions in pakistan but frankly again, the people of this country have played an equal role to not let democracy flourish by supporting the ``undemocratic`` steps by the ``democratic rulers`` and silly faujis. the political process in pakistan is like running in a circle...uselessly.

i personally dont see any chances of betterment until the education level goes up. a soceity where people could think, speak and act freely per politics.

see when it happens here...may be in year 3520...!

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

Rozaiba,

You are arguing with someone who has based every thing on one book... By reading one book he thinks he is the expert... Note... he deliberately did not respond to my very direct questions... a slippery fella no doubt this Romair... but he stands exposed for everyone to see....





Mohar 11,

Like I said... I can`t change a mind set on bias... ofcourse had you read more you would change your mind about a lot of things, but then exposure always has a myth shattering quality to it. Neither your comparison nor your final conclusion can stand the test of facts.
Jinnah, the best ambassador of hindu muslim unity, whose politics was hijacked by the Khilafatists and their Hindu allies...

I suggest you read Ambedkar`s book `Pakistan or Partition of India` especially the part where he deals with the issue of Jinnah`s transformation from the best ambassador of Hindu muslim unity to apostle of muslim nationalism... he attests to the fact that Jinnah`s transformation was neither motivated by malice, nor by personal gain but rather by a genuine fear for the future of his community which he felt was threatened by the more extreme of the majority ... he did not feel nor trust Nehru or Gandhi to overcome the extreme element... though his own trust in his leadership might actually be misplaced as his Pakistan couldn`t keep the fanatics at bay either... this much I admit.

Similarly you claim that the quotes I put up only attest to Jinnah`s honesty and integrity. Then you claim Jinnah went to communal politics for self seeking ... please refer to the `H V Hodson` quote and also the M C Rajah quote...

And while you are at it ... try reading a rather enjoyable work by Dr. Ajeet Javed of JNU Dehli which is called Secular and Nationalist Jinnah ... though I don`t agree completely with that book either.


Romair,

Stanley Wolpert`s book while a great book no doubt , is not the only book written on Jinnah. I attest to his neutrality ... but perhaps quoting him would shut some one else up who hasn`t read much... but I am sorry what is wrong is wrong. Stanley Wolpert did not claim to be the gospel. He accepts in the introduction of the book that he did not visit Jinnah`s family ... basically what he says is based on what he was told here in Pakistan.
Sadly people like you who base every thing on one book will continue to be shamelessly exposed in the manner that you have been. Jinnah`s close relationship with his daughter continued even after Jinnah`s disapproval of her choice of marriage... Akbar S Ahmed, who propounds an Islamic view of Jinnah in my opinion, accepts that Jinnah continued to behave as an affectionate father towards her daughter. Ah... poor Jinnah... a khota sika is denouncing his daughter in his name... after all this is the `parampara` of Muslims isn`t it? Yazid read Quranic verses after spilling the blood of Hussain.


I don`t blame you... a purely pakistani education has taught you only to think in very narrow boxes... you continue to parrot the same old same old. Secularism in political terms means simply State`s impartiality towards faith. It is this principle of complete impartiality towards religion, caste, or creed, the principle of equality of all people, and the principle of sovereignty lying unconditionally with the people alone that reigns supreme in Jinnah papers ... in no less than 50 speeches in 1947 and 1948 Jinnah mentions the issue of equal rights for minorities... in many of those speeches he speaks of undoing the distinction between muslim and non-muslim... in many of them he declares unequivocally that Religion is the personal faith of the individuals ... in one of them he declares clearly that Pakistan shall not be a theocracy run by priests with a divine mission... this was Jinnah`s primary concern after partition.... if he himself fought for these things, why are we some how hijacking him?

I might be a religious person in private life.. I might not be... but the principle of Equality, fraternity, justice, regardless of religion caste and creed, ... the right to practise and live as we please, as equal citizens of Pakistan, was PROMISED to us by the Quaid-e-Azam... you don`t want to call it `secularism`... Don`t call it secularism... but we want what he promised us.... Instead you Romair are the shameless apologist for those who have made this country into an exclusivist theocracy... you claim all the things you claim, and yet you selectively attack people who only stand for equality...


The issues are very much alive... Jinnah fought against the tyranny of a permanent religious majority... now the minorities of Pakistan are fighting the tyranny of another permanent religious majority.... poor Jinnah meanwhile is sidelined by people like you who frankly don`t understand History very well... don`t have the moral courage to speak the truth and who are so vindictive as to openly lie about the man. I have said it before... I will say it again... I accepted the idea of secularism after reading Jinnah`s life... it is my agenda because I believe that the dream of a liberal democratic non-theocratic secular Pakistan where church and state are separate was Jinnah`s dream.. No jewish agency has paid me to impart my irreligous agenda on the muslims of Pakistan...


-YLH

Romair at 112:

``People should study Jinnah, for historical purposes, in a completely impartial manner, without relying on lies to push their own agenda. ``

``The future of Pakistan should be decided by Pakistanis who are alive, at the moment. ``

I agree with the gist of the matter in your post. But I believe that we should read Jinnah for historical purposes as a source of inspiration and to build character and not to create controversies. And we should study Jinnah`s speeches and sayings for determining what he wanted us to do and what can we do about it.

For example, I am saying, and I guess you are endorsing it, that we should forget about Jinnah`s liking or disliking for his daughter because that has no bearing on todays or future events. And I am saying that let us focus on his statement about building Pakistan as a democratic, progressive and tolerant Islamic country at peace with itself and with others.

PS:

Ataturk is important because Jinnah and Iqbal (accepted by many as Pakistan`s founding fathers) both mentioned him as their inspiration. (For Iqbal`s admiration of republican Turkey, please read the lecture `Movement in Islam` from the reconstruction of religious thought in Islam... there are letters in which Iqbal describes Ataturk and Jinnah as the ideal muslim heroes ) Ataturk created Modern Turkey, the first republic in the Islamic world, and the only truly secular state. Even the right wing self professed muslim democrats of Turkey swear by Ataturk and his great achievements, remaining true to the principle of secularism and republicanism. Muslim League used to celebrate Kemal Day in November of every year despite the protestations of the mullahs. The mullahs from Deoband denounced the league leadership as `Kemalists` on more than one occasion.

Perhaps not very clear to Romair... but Zia-ul-Haq`s admiration of Ghazali is inconsequential because the military dictator had nothing to do with the creation of Pakistan. Common sense isn`t very common after all.


On another note: Sadly Romair on this board due to his own lack of knowledge is determined to caricature Jinnah as he has been presented by the Indians and Paki-bashers like Mountbatten .... the emotionless and stiff constitutional dictator (whatever that means)... nothing could be the farthest from the truth... the picture that emerges if one looks the entire picture borrowing from various different books on Jinnah including Jalal`s, Wolpert`s, Bolitho`s , Akbar S Ahmed`s , Ajeet Javed`s, Sarojini Naidu`s, Kanji Dvarkadas`s, H V Hodson`s MC Chagla`s, G Allana`s, A G Noorani`s and through Manto`s fine piece `Mera Sahab`, and through Jinnah papers , is that of a very sensitive but reserved man, a great tactician but with a poor hand, a well intentioned politician humbled by forces greater than him, an honest man of great integrity and honesty, a loving father, a very loving husband though a failure at it, a liberal democrat, a steadfast idealist and a believer in supremacy of law and order, and a tenacious fighter, a man of tremendous will power.

Each of these, and not just few, go a long way explaining what Jinnah stood for...

Manto
//..Like I said... I can`t change a mind set on bias... //

Well ... I can`t change your mindset either - your worship-jinnah-at-all-costs mindset.

See - We can both play this ``my-mindset-is-better-than-yours`` game. So Let`s just focus on the points - not on assumed ``mindsets``.

I have read as much as possible on Jinnah. Like I said .... there was no overwhelming evidence that muslims would be overrun by the majority community(they were 35% of the population - that`s a big ``minority``). Gandhi was the undisputed leader ... Nehru was secular to his bootstrap ... congress party was secular down to grassroots and had no rivals worth the name. The RSS fanatics were at the fringe and had no mass following worht the name. They remained so atleast 40 years after independence.

Jinnah`s fear of the majority was NOT founded on logic and the ground situation. His distrust of Gandhi and Nehru was unjustified.

Anycase - as I said - you should also look at the outcome and decide what is what. you can`t second-guess what was on Jinnah`s mind - nobody can.

Jinnah was a divider, his policy was communal.

#119 by mohar11

This topic really does not interest me, still you’r saying “The RSS fanatics were at the fringe and had no mass following worth the name. They remained so at least 40 years after independence.” is in accurate.

Savarker was already on the scene and there were strong anti-Muslim currents within the body politics of the central provinces in India in the late 20s and early 30s.

An emerging Muslims middle class had gotten some education in the central provinces. (Central provinces-UP, CP, MP, and Bihar) They needed economic securities. Apparently, it was perceived by the Muslim middle class that somehow Hindus have become a hurdle in Muslims progress.

It were not Jinnah’s fears, it was the fear of the Muslims Middle class that that they are being marginalized that created the backbone of the Pakistan movement. Jinnah as you said was just another politician who took advantage of the growing sentiments. Jinnah always was more popular in the central India then he ever was in the eastern or western provinces of India. Incidentally, those provinces were Muslim dominated.

Manto’s contention is not wrong either. Jinnah did provide hope to many Muslims in India so dismissing him as just another opportunist is not accurate also. Every politician is an opportunist by nature. If a politician is not an opportunist, he/she would never climb the corridors of power and that is the single dream that drive politicians. How many saints have ever ruled a country?

The reason that Muslims demand got out hand from Congress was that Congress had to cater to the majority and sometimes the balancing act is not so successful. Had Congress acted on Muslim apprehensions or congress Muslims had paid more attention to what was going in the Muslim mind and communicated that to the congress leadership, things might have been different. But then…..who knows……

You and Manto can debate this all life long, still, the reality is that Pakistan is in existence and Jinnah got that for Muslims. For Lots of Muslims and Pakistanis, he will always remain a hero. Nothing can change that.

Harimau writes:
Aren`t you the guy who was willing to let a cum-bucket like Sonia become prime minister of India

The amount of misogyny in this statement is staggering. I really, truly hope you`re not around any little girls where you can do physical, psychological damage to them. Aren`t you the same guy who was sucking up to certain interactors on the Vagina Monologues thread, pretending to be enlightened?
There`s a reason why you aren`t married. Let`s hope it stays that way lest an innocent female should come to harm...

HP
//Jinnah as you said was just another politician who took advantage of the growing sentiments...If a politician is not an opportunist, he/she would never climb the corridors of power and .... How many saints have ever ruled a country? ... For Lots of Muslims and Pakistanis, he will always remain a hero. //

Exactly - That`s all I am saying. Jinnah is just another politician who took advantage of the situation .... and pandered to the general paranoia ... incited mob violence ( direct action day ) ... and played communal politics to perfection to get to power. There was no noble cause ... no ``fighting for underdogs``. There is no point white-washing his policies and second-guessing his motives and his compulsions or whatever.

Of course - Jinnah would be a hero for Pakistanis - just like Advani is a hero to Hindutva-vadis and others who are sick of what they feel is minority appeasement.

But that doesn`t change the basic fact - Both are demagogues of highest order. Both had clear choices - They could either pander to paranoia or they could try to bridge the divide. And they made their choices. And they should be acknowledged for that.

++++

//...the reality is that Pakistan is in existence and Jinnah got that for Muslims..//

Yep - Pakistan is in existence - it should continue to exist. Nobody in India wants it back. Because - you guys have your own belief system - that muslims are separate from everybody else. That is Jinnah`s legacy for you. So you guys have the right to practice your belief system and live it to the fullest glory of islamic civilization.

As logn as you really live and let live.

ahmadzai #117: ``For example, I am saying, and I guess you are endorsing it, that we should forget about Jinnah`s liking or disliking for his daughter because that has no bearing on todays or future events.``

Kind of.

I don`t think we should forget about Jinnah`s liking and disliking for his daughter. I think we should study it objectively, as we should study other aspects of his life. However, we should not be beholden to his dislike or like for his daughter, nor for anything else he disliked or liked. We should not turn him into a prophet or a pir. And we should not run the country, now, based on his ahadith of fifty years ago. There is no way he could have predicted where Pakistan would be fifty years from his death. Did he even imagine, it would be two different countries?

We should consider him a man who did his job, against great odds. A hero. With all the shortcomings that other heroes have. We should study him, and ensure that no one is allowed to claim ownership of him, to extend their own political and social agendas (of secularism of Islamism). Much like people claim ownership of Islam, and use it to push their own agendas.

However, we should realize that he is dead now. And that his siblings and off-springs are normal human beings. Who may (Fatima Jinna) or may not be heroes and heroines. Most of them (Dina Wadia) are just normal human beings, living a life. One cannot consider their statements to be the barometers of what Pakistan should and should not do.

It is very dangerous to give VIP and hero status to individuals, who have done nothing to earn it. Even if they are the children of the country`s founders.

Rozaiba #113: ````Whereas it itches you (and it should) that NS would storm the Supreme Court, you find it a viable acceptable alternative to have the whole country stormed by fauji freaks.``

You are hypothesizing again. This is always an indication to me that you are out of arguments. But I will reply anyways....

Yes, it itches me that Nawaz Sharif stormed the Supreme Court. It also itches me that Jinnah centralized power. It itches me that Ayub Khan took over power. It itches me that Z.A. Bhutto did not allow Mujeeb to be the Prime Minister. It itches me that Bhutto declared Martial Law. It itches me that Zia took over power. It itches me that BB brought in her jiyala judges. And that she is the lifetime Chairperson of one of the two largest parties in power. And it itches me that Musharraf took over power and hasn`t left after three years.

I hope you now get the point. I apply the same principle to everyone. I don`t look at dictatorships, on the basis of people I like, or dislike, or whether they are civilian or military. A dictator is a dictator. And throughout my life I have seen nothing but dictators, in Pakistan. All political parties, (except religious parties) are run by unelected dictators. Hence, I have come to accept the fact that Pakistan will have dictators, until it achieves the pre-requisites of democracy, i..e economic growth, eduacation, lack of feudalism, etc. This stage will not be reached through the basketcase political system we currently have. That will only result in military, feudals or maulvis running the country. History has proven it. So if these are the only historical options we have, then, instead of living in a fairyland (like you do), I have accepted reality.

If election after election, under the current system, were the best way to get rid of feudal politics in Pakistan (I hope we both agree that feudalism is a major problem in Pakistani politics), then feudals themselves would not be the biggest supporters of elections under the current system. They would, obviously not support a system that would eventually get rid of them. They only support elections, under the current system, because they know it keeps them in power.

This does not, however, mean that the military or the maulvis are the answer. They are not.

It just means that one has to change ones criteria. So I use financial integrity, high economic growth, human rights etc. as my criteria for deciding between the dictatorial govts. who will be running us. I could care less if Musharraf was from the Army or not (I fail to understand why you keep bringing this up). He could be a maulvi or a labor leader for all I care. A Hindu, a parsi, a leftist. Or even from the Navy. I am just looking at his govts.` performance, vis-a-vis that of BB and NS and other electable options.

In my opinion, a govt. run by him, is a better option, than one run by BB, NS or maulvis. But not a better option than one run by people like Imran Khan. But the later has on chance in hell in forming a govt. I know since my family runs one or two of his campaigns. If there was even an iota of chance of poeple like him coming to power, I would not support Musharraf. However, I will do anything I can to ensure that we don`t suffer from BB and NS again.

Hopefully, the above will put an end to your broken-record yapping, about what I support and do not support......If you still feel, for some unknown reason, that I just support military rule, come hell or high-water, then I would like to ask you the following questions (hopefully, you will not take five replies to answer):

- Why do I then oppose Zia`s rule?
- What do I have to gain from supporting the Army? Are the paying my salary? Am I getting a pension? Am I in the Army?

Could it be, that I just support Musharraf`s govt., just because I consider it a better option than other possible govts., and that I am happy to see, for once, a progressive honest person at the helm. And that this has nothing to do with him being in the Army. Could it be that, according to a Pew Research people, the guy has an 86% popularity rating amongst Pakistanis.

It could be. If you only open up your mind, and stop relying on pre-conceived views about people.

Rozaiba #113: I was expecting a list of questions, from you, that you wanted me to answer. Since you had stated, that I did not answer your questions. You have instead, continued with your childish name-calling.

You contradict yourself in your replies. You are willing to accept the centralization by Jinnah, of political powers, against ``PROCESS ORIENTED INSTITUTIONALIZATION.`` Yet you state that, ``no alternative to PROCESS ORIENTED INSTITUTIONALIZATION.`` It seems to me like your definition of PROCESS ORIENTED INSTITUTIONALIZATION, is just elections. As long as a person is a product of elections, they can do whatever they want, according to your definition. You had earlier stated, ``One who is a popular leader cannot be a dictator.``

Yet you then go on to state, ``you are correct Romair with respect to NS`s storming of Supreme Court.`` How can I be correct with respect to NS, when he was a popular leader. His govt. won an unprecendented, ``ahvy mundat`` in Pakistani politics. He was more popular than Bhutto, in terms of electoral power. Regardless of what he did to centralize power, he could not be a, ``constitutional dictator`` according to your definition. So why shouldn`t he be allowed to play with the Constitution. He was about to pass a Shariah Bill, centralizing authority, that would have given him Constitutional powers, similar to those that Jinnah held. According to your defintion, that should be allowed also, since he is popularly elected, and was only centralizing authority, like Jinnah did.

This is the contradiction in your argument. The contradiction exists because you are following different principles for Jinnah, and different ones for NS. If you open up your mind, you will realize that both were very popularly elected, yet both were Constitutional dictators. Since they wanted very centralized power. The only difference being that Jinnah was an honest and good one, and NS was a corrupt and useless one. One wanted control for the right reasons, and one wanted control for the wrong reasons.

``Anyone who is elected and abides by the electoral process is cool.``

Even if he storms the Supreme Court like Jinnah. Or centralizes power like Jinnah or NS? There is more to the political process than just the electoral process. What if tomorrow the assembly passes a law that Jamali is the Prime Minister for life? Would you support that? Do you support BB being the head of PPP for life? She has, after all, gotten that through an electoral process.

correction #125: ``Even if he storms the Supreme Court like Jinnah`` should read,

``Even if he storms the Supreme Court like NS``

Rozaiba: With the hope that you will open your mind, and develop realistic view of the world. And realize that one could support someone, for reasons other than Army, religion, ethincity etc. Maybe peeple just support someone, because they think they are the best option in comparison with the other options.

According to your logic, the survey indicates that, ``everyone in Pakistan loves faujiz,`` in politics. Or maybe they just support a better govt. from a worse one, regardless of where it originated from.

Following is from Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/570208.cms)

``86 percent Pakistanis like Musharraf: Survey

WASHINGTON: At least 86 per cent of Pakistan`s citizens rate President Pervez Musharraf favorably, according to a survey carried out by the Washington-based Pew Research Center.

``Pakistanis expressed highly favorable opinions of their president,`` the director of the poll, Andrew Kohut, was quoted by the Dawn, as saying.

The survey further went on to say that most Europeans have no views about Musharraf and a third or more in each of the nine countries except Pakistan gave no opinion.

Views of Musharraf were more positive than negative in Turkey and were about evenly divided in Britain, the United States, Russia, and Jordan.

Negative opinion of Musharraf was strong in France, Germany and Morocco.

The Pew Research Center is a non-profit and non-governmental organization, which specializes in opinion surveys. Its reports are widely respected in Washington`s academic circles.

Majorities in every country surveyed except the United States viewed President George W. Bush unfavorably. The negative ratings ranged from 57 per cent in Britain to 85 per cent in both France and Germany.

Outside the United States, the support for Bush is the highest in Britain, 39 per cent. Six-in-ten had an unfavorable view of Bush in Russia and 67 per cent felt the same way in Turkey.``

Rozaiba #:

Following is a site which details this detailed Pew Survey in detail. It was a very detailed survey, covering many countries. Please read it in detail. Detail being a word, you need to concentrate on :-)

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=796

After reading it, I hope you will be satisified, that your views are in a huge minority in Pakistan, and should thus, stop your yapping, and learn to respect the views of others. And not consider yourself to be the only patriotic Jinnah-loving-democracy-supporting-honest Pakistani in the world:

``Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf ... Pakistanis expressed highly favorable opinions of their president; 86% rate him favorably, and 60% view him very favorably, by far the highest rating of any leader in the survey.``

I quote again, ``by far the highest of any leader in the survey.`` Everyone from anti-establishment Cowasjee, to Ayaz Amir, to Najam Sethi, to Indian women etc. likes the guy. Their only complain being that he could do more. And that he should now let BB and Shahbaz Sharif back. They all agree he is scruplously honest, and has improved the economy, given more rights to women and minorities than any other leader. And apparently the rest of Pakistan agrees.

To quote a guy, who never likes any leader, including the head of his own party (Nawaz Sharif):

``Gen Musharraf has so much going for him. He has his qualities and, as has been noted time and again, he has presided over a remarkably tolerant dispensation.

No military figure, not even a political figure, has taken criticism the way he has, which is a great thing. He`s a smart man but someone who is refusing to rise above his circumstances. And refusing to take the risks which alone can give him true leadership status.``(Ayaz Amir, Dawn)

The only group that dislikes him are the mullahs and the PPP feudals (and you), i.e. the status quo powers (excluding the Army). Even the PPP feudals are more than happy to join him, however their illustrious leader BB, will not let them, until all her corruption is forgiven.

So please stop doubting other people`s integrity and patriotism. It is like a mullah doubting other people`s piety and faith. Its too self-righteous. So either provide me with some surveys and fact-based counter-arguments, or kindly stop your yapping.

P.S To ensure that you don`t think that the Pew Research Center has also been bought out by the faujiz, following is an intro to them:

``The Center is an independent opinion research group that studies attitudes toward the press, politics and public policy issues. We are best known for regular national surveys that measure public attentiveness to major news stories, and for our polling that charts trends in values and fundamental political and social attitudes. Formerly, the Times Mirror Center for the People & the Press (1990-1995), we are now sponsored by The Pew Charitable Trusts.`` (http://people-press.org/about/)