Jehad and The Curriculum

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

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

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

Jahad : As it seems the wastage of lives and blood of civilians, is not as it looks. Jahad is one of the main critarian to judge a Muslim. But the Muslim is one who knows exactly what Jahad means. The innocent youth of Pakistan becomes passionate after listening the Maulanas and Religious Personalities, when they talk about cutting the heads of enemies. They doesn`t mean to kill the enemies without any reason. If you see a non-Muslim and he is not speaking harsh about Islam, you have no right to punish him.

Jahad means ``Fight to establish peace`` or ``Fight for the rights``. If every Muslim will keep this definition of Jahad in mind, he will never be deviated from the ``Sirat-e-mustaqeem`` or the straight path. Pakistani government has taken an appreciable step to stop the groups of people who has wasted many lives only to get money for their benifit.

I have closely seen these groups and ``Jamats`` and Insha-Allah i shall write an Article in this topic, if accepted by Chowk.

re: harimau # 177

That is one point of interpretation.

Ciao

Ref ferozk #156

[Jinnah did set a bad precedent when he assumed the majority of sovereign authority if not sovereign power within his person after 1947. Pakistan`s legacy was the British parliamentary system and in such a system, the prime is the head of the government and the governor-general is the head of the state. At the time of partition, there was no politican in Pakistan who could stand up to Jinnah in terms of competence and persona need to lead Pakistan and even his prime minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, felt politically inferior to Jinnah.

Why Jinnah assumed and gave such an over arching role to the ceremonial position of governor-general is open to speculation. One reason might be that even though Pakistan in 1947 did have a constituent assembly, it did not have any sense of political institutionalism. Therefore, Jinnah might have felt a need to arrogate more powers to the office of governor-general to create the political institutions of Pakistan along the lines of the British parliamentary tradition of politics based on constitutionalism and rule of law.]

Excuse me for piping up but I think this is a fallacious argument. There were functioning legislative assemblies in East Bengal, Sindh, Punjab and NWFP; executive power was with the Premieres (Chief Ministers) of these provinces with the governor having over-ride powers, exactly like what we had in the presidencies of Madras, Bombay and (West) Bengal or in the provinces of Orissa, Assam, Bihar, Central Provinces, Northern Provinces or East Punjab in India. All of these provinces had inherited the British-Indian Constitution of 1935 and if they could function in India with Nehru as the Prime Minister, I really can`t see why it couldn`t have functioned in Pakistan with Jinnah as the Prime Minister. I think Jinnah was loathe to permit himself to bow ceremonially before a governor-general and chose to become an executive governor-general. He could very well have accepted the offer of Mountbatten to be the joint governor-general of both dominions (in which case, he couldn`t have pulled off the shenanigans in Hyderabad, Kashmir and Junagadh but then Pakistanis wouldn`t be able to accuse Mountbatten of partisanship either).

[The Government of India Act 1935, which was being used as Pakistan`s interim constitution, did give the governor-general the right to dismiss the parliament. Jinnah might not have opted for the position of the head of the government, that is of a prime minister, because he might not have wished his policies to be held hostage to a governor-general, with whom he might have developed political difference and chose the office of the governor-general to ensure that he held the ultimate power over the evolution of Pakistan`s political infrastructure.]

That fact didn`t prevent Nehru from being the Prime Minister under two governors-general, Mountbatten and Rajagopalachari, nor did it prevent him from functioning under the presidencies of Rajendra Prasad -- who actually attempted to test the limits of his powers and was firmly told by his constitutional advisors not to provoke a confrontation -- and Radhakrishnan. Even Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad as President meekly signed Indira Gandhi`s Internal Emergency proclamation rather than force a confrontation. It is all a question of people willing to put the law against their personal preferences. To this day, the powers of the President of India remain vague and untested. For instance, can the President dismiss the Prime Minister when the Prime Minister loses the majority in Parliament (due to changes in MPs` political affiliations but before a formal vote of no-confidence is taken) or can the President refuse to accept the Prime Minister`s advice that the Parliament be dissolved when the Prime Minister loses a vote of confidence on the basis that he no longer reflects the will of the majority of the Parliament and should the President then try to find an alternate Prime Minister from the current Parliament?

Ferzok,

Thanks for the response, chowk is a market place of ideas, and I have no intention to make friends or enemies here. Jay exists only on chowk, bashing a few pakis in the hsutle bustle and confusion of any chowk any where.

Regards

Jayaprakash.

re: Jay # 173

Contact me at ferozrafik@yahoo.com

Ciao

technology and shehdad,

There are several areas pakistan as a so called technologically advanced country according to tahmed can contribute to the ummah.
A jihadi seeks martyrdom, he wants to be killed in the process of killing others. Pakistanis with their computer prowess can develop a locator for the call of ``jihad``. When ever that word is uttered, the program should be able to identify the number of people shouting that from the voice pattern, assign an approp[riate weapon. It could be a daisy cutter for large crowds dropped from a UAV, or a precisely targetted gun mounted in the street corners.

This automated system can deliver shehdad to the millions of pakistanisscattered in the far corners of teh country.

Shehdad at the door step, nothing could be more appealing to the jihadis. Pakistan has to develop products to meet its own needs.

Ferzok, 171

It It is unhelpful, detrimental and for people like me utterly sickening to see the educated like you to talk about how poor pakistan was at the time of creation. Well the police service did not have a table to work on, so what did they do, they became corrupt, incompetant and became accomplices is crime. Is that what you are telling, is that the moral of the story.

This reminds me of my own child hood, at least the pak police had a wooden crate, we sat on the floor, walked for an hour to go to primary school,did not encounter electricity till I went to engineering college hostel, saved monety from the scholarship to help out my parents,....no the poverty and depravation did not create a pakistani being of today, 50 yeras later went on to become the head of propulsion system of the regulator of the third largest aviation country in the world.

Or you can take the case of my childhood friend and fellow sufferer who is one of the senior vicepresidents of the largest refinery in the world, Reliance.

Ferzok, it is people like you that extinguish the spark of hope in the poor and under previlaged of pakistan. It is people like you who look for excuses to pass on the buck and strifle self improvement. It is people like you who support the jihadis of pakistan by blaming it on poverty and the US actions in afghanistan. It is peole like you who prescribe what aothers shopuld do to improve pakistan rather making a small step in that direction.

Ferzok, be defiant, take a risk, make a small step, start a campaingn to rename the ``university avenuse`` on chowk as Salam avenue. No Ferzok no pakistani will ever dare to do that, that would be taking a smal action to state your beliefs in public, taht is exposing and affirming your true values, well your true values are no different from taht of Bhutto who introduced discrimination against the ahmadias, and hence you will not do that.

americans have well rounded educational curriculum.. as a result even the stripper at the health club can apreciated and use yoga to her advancement

re: rsridhar # 164

You are entirely welcome! :)

As your question, I cannot give you an answer simply, because I think that the real reasons are now buried with Jinnah and we can only speculate on his motives.

My own understanding is that Jinnah had a very low opinion of the capabilities of his fellow politicans and leaders of Pakistan and thought of them as mired in provincialism and not capable of rising out of their petty interest based politics. After partition, Jinnah lived for an additional eleven months and that is simply not enough time in politics to create a new political infrastructure for a new nation out of nothing. Pakistan of 1947 was a Pakistan, which most Pakistanis cannot even imagine.

Let me, as a way of illustrating my point, share what my late father used to tell me. My father joined the Police Service of Pakistan in 1949; two years after independence. He used to say that his office had no tables or chairs and for tables, he would use a wooden crate of mangoes and for chair, another crate. There was no paper to write reports or send instructions on, so he would use any scrap of paper he could find and there were no paper clips to use, so to bind papers and files he would use thorns.

The moral of the story is that Pakistan as an independent state existed only on paper. I think, and I fully realize that most people scoff at this suggestion, but Jinnah was too pre-occupied to ensure that Pakistan was able to survive the partition than worry about constitutionalism. In many ways, Pakistan was able to truly ``stand on its feet`` after it benefitted financially from the Korean War in the early 1950s by supplying jute (from East Pakistan) to the United Nations` forces in Korea. It is for this reason that the majority of the Pakistanis may detest the rule of Ayub Khan, but they always look back on the 1960s with nostalgia, because Ayub really provided them with the wherewithal of a national infrastructure.

I hope, this answer helps.

Ciao

re:#168 by jay
I agree with your view that criticism in the American press sometimes has a salutary effect on Indians. I had posted the case of an Indian who, stung by the criticism about Indian toilets by Jay Leno in his show, has helped build public toilets with modern facilities and has ushered in a kind of mini-revolution. I only wish that India`s image were not kilpinsque but that the American media showed some good aspects of India too. For eg: America borrows liberally from Indian spiritualism: its yoga, meditation etc and there are umpteen number of spiritual teachers coming here and teaching the ``spiritual wisdom of the East`` but few in the media acknowledge this aspect of India. There is a kind of arrogance here that comes out of being a rich and prosperous country. Perhaps thing will change as India grows in economic and political stature.
Sridhar

sridhar 165,

I am not worried about the so called negative images of india, they are truthful and publicuty in the west has a sobering effect on the indian elite. Many of the social changes in india have been hastned by the publicity in the west, and the Opra show on dowry is the best that has happened in recent years for the women to shun the dowry.

I have lived through the colonial mindset years in india where it was necessary to get the accolades abroad before any recognition is conferred in india. I have seen that a lot have changed in India in recent years. There was a time when any degree from any US university was considereed superior to anything indian, now it has to be ivy league, otherwise indian ones are considered better and suited to the local conditions.

All of the above is in stark contrast to what one sees in pakistan. A simple lass who refused marriage because of dowry, the indian elites made her into a heroine and was on Opers show. We value the principle of reinforcing the positive, while the ilks of tahmed and YLHs are bent on white washing of pakistan. For years the above two have maintained that honourkilling is not legal in pakistan, it is all due to corruption. When an article was on chowk regarding the legal sancity of honour killing, the two were notable absent as interacors.

I rather find it amazing that a few indians find some commonality with the pakistanis, as far I can see the educayed of pakistan are very very different from the indians in their values and approaches to social issues.

Sridhar,

As far as I know most of the indians are aware of the social situation in the US. If I remeber correctly, 1.5 percent of the population is in prisons. A total of 5 percent of the population is in the effective control of the criminal justice system, that is on parole, on good behaviour bonds, on the way to prison etc.

I remeber a few years ago listening to an economist from the US, citing the low un-employment rate in the US, may be it was 6 percent, I asked him about the 1 percent in prison, who are mostly of employabvle age. If you take this into account, the real unemployment in the US is more likely to be above 8 percent, assuming 40 percent of the population are potentially active job seekers..

re:#166 by Mantolives
Thanks for your post. I will surely try and get hold of the book you have suggested.
Sridhar

Rsidhar,

The Jinnah Papers show that Jinnah was very closely involved in the constitution-making and took part in the deliberations that took place early on. After December when Jinnah had resigned as the President of AIML, most of his time was spent away from Karachi in Lahore, Ziyarat etc.

I do hope you will read a book on the man ... I suggest Secular and Nationalist Jinnah by Dr. Ajeet Javed of Jawaharlal Nehru University, though like with most books I don`t agree with all that she says.

-YLH

re:#161 by jay
India`s image in USA is still very bad. There is a lot of ignorance about India and media distorts the image all the time. Why, i sometimes wonder?
The ignorance is so stark that one of my American colleagues at work wanted to know if as a Hindu, i went to a mosque!
I was about to return home from work when i just switched on the TV and was shocked to see the news of stampede and deaths in Lucknow. People apparently had gathered for gifts (sarees etc) promised on an election eve and some confusion led to the stampede. What was the necessity of projecting this news on CNN i thought.
India never learns about the uglier part of USA, which is its social structure. I see teenage pregnancies, broken homes, drugs very prevalent whereever i had worked, especially in big cities but India never gets to hear these things. It is as if the US news channels have an unwritten agenda to malign India. Even this latest BPO controversy is giving India a bad name.
Sridhar

re:#156 by ferozk
Thanks for an insightful post.
One is however intrigued by the turn of events in 1947. Jinnah knew he was dying (so much i gather from reading ``Freedom at midnight`` though i must confess i have not read a book on Jinnah) and that he had very little time. Why did he not go about the task of delegating power, framing constitution etc?
Sridhar

Hindoo-Fundoo Conspiracy (With apologies to my nicer Indian Hindu friends...)

Echoboom... #160

Adversity makes strange bedfellows...

The collaboration of the Islamist Mullah with the Indian Jingoistic fanatic is nothing new... we witnessed a fair share of it during the Independence Movement and the Pakistan Movement where bigots like you stood hand in glove with anti-Pakistan elements... calling Pakistan kafiristan and Jinnah, Kafiriazam...

If you have the gutts fight on facts... Answer my posts instead of hiding behind your long lost finally reunited ally and blood brother.



Jay,

I see you hiding behind more lies instead of answering with proper arguments. Like I pointed out... I didn`t write the book `Secular and Nationalist Jinnah` an Indian did... Perhaps for you history of 55 years is be all end all, but in the life of nations it is nothing. Jinnah`s vision has been communicated by those like KK Aziz, Cowasjee and Ayesha Jalal who have stood up against all the lies.

As for you... You have serious misgivings about Pakistan.... I suggest you ask those who have just come back... Pakistan is far from the Jehadic country of your wet dreams... and your own countrymen are castigating liars like you for lying about Pakistan. Still there are many faults in Pakistan and we will correct them. You really should be more concerned about your own country... unlike you I don`t have the time to start obsessing about your country and whats happening there.


Dr Abdus Salam is an honored Pakistani scientist... the Physics department of the Government College holds an annuall seminar and function on his achievements . He was a legend even in his own life time. A number of halls and buildings are named after him... and if you come to Pakistan I promise you I will show you the road named after him. Ofcourse I don`t want to meet a sicko like you is another issue... but I will even bear you or anyone else who wants to see the monuments and roads named after Abdus Salam.


Dr. Salam was a patriot of Pakistan .... who must be spinning in his grave to be used in such a cynical fashion by a bigoted enemy of Pakistan.


-YLH

YLH,

You keep quoting all and sundry and keep asserting that jinnah had a great vision, but how come he failed so misserabley in communicating it, in fact if you go by the path taken by pakistan in the last 50 years, he communicated the exact opposite.
Research in history is merely a reinterpretation of the past events, through selective emphasis one can create any portrait of jinnah. The proof is in the pudding, the reality of pakistan.

How come there are no freedom fighters in pakistan, who shared the vision of jinnah. Howcome none of the so called jinnah deciples are honoured, like the vinoba and JP of india.

YLH, there are times one has to look at the reality of today, go back and reread what jinnaha said. Pakistan has progressively, through military and democratic rulers have become a jihadic country, and major reason of which is the likes of you, who talk of a mirage, a non-existant pak ideology.

Take it from me, jinnah is dead and the pakistan of today represent the will of the pak people. There is no room for the dreams of a dead man. Accepot the reality and try to change it in a direction you want it.

Why cant you make a beginning by telling that there are no roads in pakistan named after abdus salam and you posted lies.

India visits now part of B-school curriculum
N VIDYASAGAR

TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ MONDAY, APRIL 12, 2004 01:53:00 AM ]

NEW DELHI : The old, exotic image of India continues to flood their minds. For a majority of 55 MIT Sloan MBA students who had a brief India sojourn recently — Infosys campus to Bollywood studios and R&D centres to people on the move — India has been a

pleasant shock.



Visiting India is common not only for CEOs but for B-school students from the US . It doesn`t matter that India still carries an image of being a land of snakecharmers, or, for that matter, of cows squatting on roads.



Even India-bashing by US politicians over outsourcing notwithstanding, passage to India seems to be the buzz in the world`s most developed economy. For instance, over 24 US professors were here recently, trying to study and understand India . Another 80 Harvard Business School students had come on a two-week Bharat yatra.

YLH, this is what I am talking about. You keep posting that jinnah views were no different from that of indian leaders, and how come this large gulf has developed in 50 years. Jihadis from all over the world are visiting pakistan, even the second generation ones in the UK are on the jihadic path.

Essential values of a society die hard, the only way you can explain the jihadic mind set of pakistan is through the darwenian selection, the ilk of mushy who masterminded the kargill invasion is the typical pakistani. For kargill invasion he had the support of the military and the jihadists, all united by the same pak ideology of TNT, kill the kafirs.

Assuming that the following is addressed to me. Reproduced for everyones convenience in its entirety:
#155 by Mantolives on April 11, 2004 6:12am PT

So you are saying that `secular` countries have shariat courts... but that doesn`t affect their secularism ... again you`ve lost me here... are you saying an Islamic state is a theocracy or is an Islamic state secular?

---

My Reply:
Jay has already said it impeccably, yet not so pedantically, thus:

#154 by jay on April 11, 2004 6:12am PT
What YLH is trying to do is simply to push $hit uphill and the outcome is there for all to see.

---

Jay,


My dear dear friend.... I didn`t write the book Secular and Nationalist Jinnah ... an Indian did... she is a PhD... and her book was published by Jawaharlal Nehru University Press


There is no end to your ignorance. Thank God I sleep at night knowing that I am not a liar like you. That dream was communicated repeatedly throughout Jinnah`s career and especially after the creation of Pakistan... The Two Nation Theory predated Jinnah... and Jinnah is the Only politician to be called the best Ambassador of Hindu muslim unity in the entire subcontinent... only in the minds of people like you does Jinnah become the sole embodiment of the two nation theory.



Warning the Mullahs (who had been allied with the Congress previously.. irony) he thundered:

`Make No Mistake about it. Pakistan shall not be a theocracy to be run by priests with a divine mission.`

He repeated this statement on a number of occasions.


The new state would be a modern democratic state with sovereignty resting in the people and the members of the new nation having equal rights of citizenship regardless of their religion, caste or creed. --Jinnah to Doon Campbell 21st May 1947


Again he said:

Minorities DO NOT cease to be citizens. Minorities living in Pakistan or Hindustan do not cease to be citizens of their respective states by virtue of their belonging to particular faith, religion or race. I have repeatedly made it clear, especially in my opening speech to the constituent Assembley, that the minorities in Pakistan would be treated as our citizens and will enjoy all the rights as any other community. Pakistan SHALL pursue this policy and do all it can to create a sense of security and confidence in the Non-Muslim minorities of Pakistan. We do not prescribe any school boy tests for their loyalty. We shall not say to any Hindu citizen of Pakistan `if there was war would you shoot a Hindu?` (Quaid e Azam`s interview 25th October 1947: with Reuters` Duncan Hooper note)


On 11th August he said:

If you will work in co-operation, forgetting the past, burying the hatchet, you are bound to succeed. If you change your past and work together in a spirit that everyone of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what is his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this State with equal rights, privileges, and obligations, there will be on end to the progress you will make. I cannot emphasize it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community, because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish. Indeed if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free people long long ago. No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for this. Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this. You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State. As you know, history shows that in England, conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the Nation. Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State. Well, gentlemen, I do not wish to take up any more of your time and thank you again for the honour you have done to me. I shall always be guided by the principles of justice and fairplay without any, as is put in the political language, prejudice or ill-will, in other words, partiality or favouritism. My guiding principle will be justice and complete impartiality

---

The question that why a country for muslims is a stupid one... and is asked by either people like you or the Islamists like echoboom... the issue of the creation of a state for a minority, whether buddhist, muslim, christian or hindu has nothing to do with the issue of the secularism. Secularism : Separation of Church and State ... is a totally different concept.

That question has been answered by many scholars on the issue, including a number of Indian authors ...
-YLH

Ferozk,

You are accurate in your understanding of the Government of India Act.

For the reasons I have enumerated before... Jinnah hardly used his powers that were vested in him by the constitution let alone abused it. I wish he had been dictatorial like Kemal Ataturk in imposing his will on the people... but he didn`t.

re: Echoboom

You have changed your tune again. Now you wish me to perform social service; and your entire post was devoted to that act as a sign of my patriotism. You keep changing your arguments. :)

Sir, you have no arguments and all the arguments, you have made ended up conterdicting your basic hypothesis, which was to prove my igorance as a western educated westernized slave of limited mental capabilities. All your name calling and personal taunts have failed to prove your points, as you kept changing your line of arguments. First you argued that Jinnah was an Islamist and when I disproved that, you chose to argue that Pakistan should adopt the political model of the historic Islam of the past. When I disproved that such an option would not be suitable for Pakistan, you are appealing to my sense of civic duty, as a penance for getting rid of, or mitigating, my westernized background.

For your information, I support many charitable organizations, but I do not wear my charity work on my sleeve as some sign of social validation and I do it not for acknowledgement, but in gratitude of what I have been blessed with and which, must be shared with others less blessed than myself. Sir, with all due respect, you have chosen to personally attack me and personalize this debate by calling me ``jahail``, but I have still replied to your posts with respect and dignity despite the provocations you have hurled at me.

However, I must tell you that you do not know me as person and such, are not capable of judging me just as I have no wish to judge you. I must simply tell you that I do not need a validation or your approval to justify my life; past, present and future and in future, you can insult me all you wish and like, but it will only prove your limitations, as a person, and not mine.

Still, I thank you for a very interesting series of interacts, which have clarified many things for me and I have learned much, for which I thank you.

Ciao

re: rsridhar # 146

You have raised a key point.

Jinnah did set a bad precedent when he assumed the majority of sovereign authority if not sovereign power within his person after 1947. Pakistan`s legacy was the British parliamentary system and in such a system, the prime is the head of the government and the governor-general is the head of the state. At the time of partition, there was no politican in Pakistan who could stand up to Jinnah in terms of competence and persona need to lead Pakistan and even his prime minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, felt politically inferior to Jinnah.

Why Jinnah assumed and gave such an over arching role to the ceremonial position of governor-general is open to speculation. One reason might be that even though Pakistan in 1947 did have a constituent assembly, it did not have any sense of political institutionalism. Therefore, Jinnah might have felt a need to arrogate more powers to the office of governor-general to create the political institutions of Pakistan along the lines of the British parliamentary tradition of politics based on constitutionalism and rule of law. Mantolives can correct me on this, since his depth of knowledge on these issues is much more detailed than mine. The Government of India Act 1935, which was being used as Pakistan`s interim constitution, did give the governor-general the right to dismiss the parliament. Jinnah might not have opted for the position of the head of the government, that is of a prime minister, because he might not have wished his policies to be held hostage to a governor-general, with whom he might have developed political difference and chose the office of the governor-general to ensure that he held the ultimate power over the evolution of Pakistan`s political infrastructure.

This is pure speculation on my behalf, based on my understanding of the early years of Pakistan`s political development and you are more than welcome to disagree with me.

The bad precedent of Jinnah lies in the fact that after his death, all those who followed him sought to incorporate all of the political power within one office and as a result of this, Pakistan`s political development has been a struggle between the offices of the president (which replaced the office of the governor-general in 1956, when Pakistan became a republic) and the prime minister to monopolize the political power in the nation.

For example, from 1947 to 1948 the office of the governor-general was supereme and from 1948 to 1958, the office of prime minister assumed more powers, but was resisted by the office of governor-general. This tussle led to the coup d` etat of 1958 and from 1958 to 1970, Pakistan existed under a presidental form of government. After the end of the military rule in 1971, from 1973 to 1977 the power lay with the prime minister and after the coup d` etat of 1977, the power shited back to the presidency. When Zia-ul-Haq died in 1988, it reverted back to the prime minister`s office from 1988 to 1999, when coup d`etat of 1999 occured. Since 1999, the political power in Pakistan lies with the presidency. In all of this, it has never been shared equally between the prime minister and the president, but has been a victim of monopolization.

Ciao

Jinnahs dream,

It is pathetic to see the YLHs talking about jinnahs dream. It should always be limited to say that no one else shared or cared for this dream. In fact it was really a dream of jinnah which was never communicated to any one. No one is going to believe that a man who symbolised TNT and created a country in the name of islam really wanted a secular country where hindus and muslims could live together. In that case why a country for the muslims.

What YLH is trying to do is simply to push $hit uphill and the outcome is there for all to see.

So you are saying that `secular` countries have shariat courts... but that doesn`t affect their secularism ... again you`ve lost me here... are you saying an Islamic state is a theocracy or is an Islamic state secular?

M/O:151

READ AGAIN for the nth & last time:

Islami Law or Sharia incorporates DEEN and DUNYAA, spiritual and secular. There is no need to USE labels like SECULAR [this label reflects a certain westernised mindset and gives an impression that suddenly something better is there. NOTHING better has yet been invented , and never will, for muslims and non-muslims alike! other than the SHARIA] .

Your enquiry is like that about a person who is a father but he is also someones son and someones brother etc etc..all rolled into one. Inseparable. If you keep on hankering to declare that he could be only one you have a fallacious logic. The subject is boolean not linear. It is not ``scientific`` it is ``philosophical``. Sorry to tell you but you do not have a trained mind for it.

Why do you not clean-up the neighborhood streets for a change. Work with Maulana Sattar Edhi and get your hands dirty and thus get the cobwebs of your mind cleaned. Ditto for Fk. Now THAT is something very western which the amreeka-palats disdain and sneer at when in Paki-land. That is an Islami aspect which muslims abandoned and the west adopted. We regressed because we took all that was evil from the people we conquered and were conquered by. In Pakistan`s case it is the worst aspects of Casteism and other practices AND the class-system of the Baboons ( which incidentally was/is worse than the hindu practices). This class system has resulted in the residential colonies where STATUS is advertised. Before that it was 100% mixed rich/pauper neighborhoods as the walled-city would testify.


There are already shariat courts even in non-muslim ( or ``Secular`` countries). Wherever there is more than one muslim there will be the need of a shariat court. In India it is the Muslim Personal Law within the Indian constituition ( because of numbers & historicity). It is headed by a hindu judge, which is fine because he is well conversant with the law & various fiqhhs. Even in the Hindu states under the Rajahs there was the office of Quazi ( even during years of the Baboons). Mirza Ghalib was tried by Mufti SadruuDin Azurdaa (Mufti--the one who has the right to issue fatwaas). His title was Sadrul-Sudoor, Chief Justice.

If this could not be done away with during Baboon-years what gives you the impression that some folks would be allowed the will-o-the-wisp existense now ( am muslim now/ am not now--am muslim now/am not now). The whole idea is to REGISTER and not waffle with as-It-suits-me denizenships.

http://www.dawn.com/2004/04/09/op.htm#3

What happened to Quaid`s dream?


By M.H. Askari


Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah`s daughter, Ms Dina Wadia, on her first visit to Pakistan since her father`s death, recorded a somewhat intriguing observation in the visitors book at his mausoleum: ``This has been very sad and wonderful for me. May his dream for Pakistan come true.``

What her son, the successful Indian industrialist, Nusli Wadia, had to say made her observation sound even more poignant. He wrote in the visitors` book: ``My dream to come here has been fulfilled; I will come back to see his dream come true.``

Both used the future tense in the context of the Quaid`s dream. Their observations had a touch of scepticism, almost as if the Quaid`s dream of Pakistan had yet to materialize. Of course, both also expressed the hope that there will be a day when the Quaid`s dream would actually come true.

Could it be that like the American scholar and academician, Professor Robert Laporte, writing on the occasion of Pakistan`s 50th anniversary, they too felt that Pakistan after five decades ``is still in the making, still striving to find a stable and effective form of government``?

Most western observers are deeply impressed by India`s ancient civilization and by the mystique of the Hindu religion, but they tend to look upon Pakistan as something of an upstart state, with an identity not easy to define.

In any case, it is also only realistic to assume that an extremely short visit amid all the excitement of the resumption of cricketing ties between India and Pakistan could hardly be an occasion for a visitor to properly comprehend Pakistan`s identity and ethos.

The sad fact that Ms Dina Wadia had little personal exposure to her father`s hopes and aspirations and may not have been able to form a realistic perception of his vision can also not be altogether ruled out.

However, there is also the fact that Pakistan over the past 56 years has moved farther and farther away from the Quaid-i-Azam`s dreams. With the feudals dominating the affairs of Pakistan and an elite class arrogating to itself the right to be the rulers, what Mr Jinnah said at the Delhi session of the All-India Muslim League in April 1943 seems to have been forgotten, even though this contained one of his earliest enunciations of the raison d`etre of Pakistan.

The Quaid in his presidential address had said: ``Here I should like to give a warning to the landlords and capitalists who have flourished at our expense by a system which is so vicious that it is difficult to reason with them; the exploitation of the masses has gone into their blood.

They have forgotten the lessons of Islam. Greed and selfishness have made these people subordinate to the interests of others to fatten themselves. Do you realize that millions have been exploited and cannot get one meal a day? If that is the idea of Pakistan I would not have it...``

In the course of a talk to Muslim League workers in Calcutta in March 1946, he again expressed the same sentiments, and said: ``I am an old man and God has given me enough to live comfortably at this age. Why should I run about and take so much trouble... Not for the capitalists surely... In 1936 (during the Bengal famine) I saw the abject poverty of the people.... In Pakistan, we will do all in our power to see that everybody can get a decent living...``

Unfortunately, when Pakistan came into being it had no economic programme, mainly because in the years preceding it the Quaid was too busy fighting a political battle and obviously had no time to draw up a blueprint for the future economic system of Pakistan. The situation has become only progressively worse since then.

There has also been a similar apathy towards the need to provide Pakistan with a democratic system. To this day, the prerogative to rule over the destiny of the people continues to be exercised by an exclusive elite class, comprising mainly of the landlords and capitalists whom the Quaid, years before Pakistan came into existence, had totally rejected. Landlords and capitalists are well entrenched at the helm and the situation does not seem likely to change in the foreseeable future.

Even though the intelligentsia, particularly those among them who are influenced by western ideas, tend to be critical of the ``narrow religious base`` on which Pakistan was founded, there is amongst them a consensus that the Quaid himself had a broad, deeply secular, and liberal outlook.

He expected that Pakistan would not develop into a parochial, chauvinistic state. He even hoped that with the achievement of Pakistan, Muslims would cease to be Muslims and Hindus would cease to be Hindus, not in the matter of their religious faith but in their role as citizens of the same state, and that ``religion would have nothing to do with the business of the state.`` However, in Pakistan society has evolved in exactly the reverse direction.

It is not altogether improbable that even during the short time that she spent in Pakistan, Ms Dina Wadia might have noticed the conspicuous place that religion has come to occupy in the day-to-day life of the people and its dominating part in the running of the people`s life and the affairs of the state.

Mr Jinnah`s ``pluralistic view of Pakistani society`` virtually no more features in the people`s thinking. General Ziaul Haq provided a constitutional basis for this change. In the words of Professor Anita M. Weiss of the Oregon State University, ``the pluralistic perspective was definitely discarded in 1979 when President Mohammad Ziaul Haq`s administration left no question that some interpretations of Islam were to wield unprecedented influence in the state.``

Ms Dina Wadia could not but have noticed the innumerable banners and profuse wall-chalkings as evidence of this phenomenon even when she made her brief journey from the airport to the Quaid`s mausoleum and that perhaps may have prompted the thought in her mind which was expressed in her observations at the Quaid`s tomb.

She may also have noticed the media debate over the inclusion or deletion of some verses of the Holy Quran in or from school textbooks even for subjects like biology.

Tribal traditions too have been a strong influence in the conduct of the daily life of the people. For quite a large section of the people living under the tribal system, even abominable and criminal traditions such as karo kari have come to be sanctified.

The only redeeming factor is that quite a substantial section of the younger people in many parts of Pakistan is beginning to question all this. It has been pointed out that the question of declaration of one`s religious beliefs, for instance, should have nothing to do with the issuance of national identity cards.

What is extremely deplorable and totally contrary to the Quaid`s thoughts on the ethos of Pakistan are the painfully sharp ethnic and cultural differences that which one encounters almost at every step.

It has been said that ethnic crises and regional divisions have perpetually threatened the unity and security of Pakistan. The breaking away of East Pakistan in 1971 may have been an extreme phenomenon but there are deep feelings of deprivation and of being exploited in provinces such as Sindh and Balochistan.

The North-West Frontier has always had an ``uneasy relationship`` with the centre. In parts of the Frontier, Islamist parties have managed to virtually sideline the law of the land. The Baloch have fought regular wars with the security forces of the centre.

If Ms Wadia felt like a stranger in Pakistan as she found it, in contrast to what may have been her impressions of how her father visualized the state of Pakistan, her prayer that her father`s dream may ultimately come true may have been a genuine and spontaneous reaction.

What she saw, even if she did not stay here long enough to see a great deal, could not have been anything like the Muslim homeland of her father`s dreams. Even if she grew up in a broken home, she could not have been a stranger to her father`s liberal, secular, progressive and broadminded view of life and society.

rsidhar,

Thankyou for bringing up interesting points... I will not describe your knowledge as superfluous about anything.... You certainly have an above average knowledge of everything Pakistani, except that sometimes it is felt that you are trying to belittle us though I admit that you are amongst the most cordial people I have come across on Chowk despite my provocations.

Perhaps... but I am not sure what the legacy of a person whose entire life was spent in environs of parliament and constitutional debate can be. For the points I gave in my previous post... I believe that Jinnah left a legacy which was both constitutional and democratic. You have a point that for the father of the nation to choose the position of the Head of the state instead of the Head of Government was perhaps vesting too much authority in GG or the president... however 1) his position was constitutional and his name was nominated by the successor party i.e. Muslim League`s working commitee.. according to Suhrawardy at least Jinnah had decided to retire from Politics in 1947 and live out his days in Bombay (another reminder of how he didn`t envisage the carnage) but was convinced otherwise by Liaqat Ali Khan... Democracy can be of many forms, and in essence the Government of India Act made the Viceroy/Governor General the executive head for the obvious reasons. So thats like saying that since President of the US has more powers, the constitution of US is not democratic. 2) What powers did Jinnah use that were extraordinary or out of the scope of the Government of India act. (Please read my post 136 once again). Jinnah really didn`t exercise those `absolute powers` that you talk about. I have already pointed out why not in 136... One reference is made to the dismissal of the Khan Sahib coalition ministry in NWFP... which happened in the early days of Pakistan on the recommendation of the Governor of NWFP... it was constitutional and within the powers of the GG.

``1) So Jinnah did not chair the cabinet meetings as claimed by Romair

2) He did not impose his constitution on the PCA

3) He did not make Pakistan a one party state

4) The ministers reported to the Prime Minister and not to Jinnah

5) None of Jinnah`s actions were in violation of Government of India Act 1935


(For reference please read B>Alan Mcgrath`s book `Destruction of Pakistan`s Democracy` in which he rubbishes this argument. Also read Ayesha Jalal`s `The state of Martial rule` in which she hits back against this view that Jinnah`s assumption of GGship was wrong. Read K B Sayeed`s `Pakistan the formative Phase`, I also refer to `Jinnah Papers` Volume VI `Pakistan Battling against all odds` especially the letters by Mandal, Chundrigar, Rab Nishtar, Francis Mudie and others. ) ``


In America Washington and Lincoln were strongmen and atleast Lincoln went much farther than Jinnah in bending the constitution of the US to invest more executive authority in the Presidential office. FDR ruled very personally and broke even the convention of two time election. He too bent the constitution to extract more executive authority. Kemal Ataturk as the founder of Turkey handpicked and dismissed the Prime Minister and even the opposition. He was actually called a dictator time and again. All of these leaders used their powers much more so than Jinnah either as founders of their nations or under exceptional circumstances such as war or the great depression ... Closer to our region... Nehru`s rule was highly personalized as well... similarly Nehru`s invasions of Kashmir, Junagadh, Hyderabad, and finally Goa are not viewed favorably... and those were international issues, eliciting world wide criticism, and atleast on the last one a sharp rebuke from President Kennedy. The Nehru-Gandhi dynasty seems to have firm hold on the Congress Party and right up to the 1990s over India as well... yet one would not question their democratic credentials because hardly anyone can argue their political legitimacy. Gandhiji, though not even a member of the Congress, but as its spiritual leader handpicked and replaced Congress Presidents... by passing the Congress`s intra-party election. Nehru and Gandhi could do it because they had the confidence of the people at large... so popular leaders are never dictatorial in the sense of being unelected etc. They are the embodiment of the will of the people... and sometimes their guide as well.

-YLH

rsidhar,

Thankyou for bringing up interesting points... I will not describe your knowledge as superfluous about anything.... You certainly have an above average knowledge of everything Pakistani, except that sometimes it is felt that you are trying to belittle us though I admit that you are amongst the most cordial people I have come across on Chowk despite my provocations.

Perhaps... but I am not sure what the legacy of a person whose entire life was spent in environs of parliament and constitutional debate can be. For the points I gave in my previous post... I believe that Jinnah left a legacy which was both constitutional and democratic. You have a point that for the father of the nation to choose the position of the Head of the state instead of the Head of Government was perhaps vesting too much authority in GG or the president... however 1) his position was constitutional and his name was nominated by the successor party i.e. Muslim League`s working commitee.. according to Suhrawardy at least Jinnah had decided to retire from Politics in 1947 and live out his days in Bombay (another reminder of how he didn`t envisage the carnage) but was convinced otherwise by Liaqat Ali Khan... Democracy can be of many forms, and in essence the Government of India Act made the Viceroy/Governor General the executive head for the obvious reasons. So thats like saying that since President of the US has more powers, the constitution of US is not democratic. 2) What powers did Jinnah use that were extraordinary or out of the scope of the Government of India act. (Please read my post 136 once again). Jinnah really didn`t exercise those `absolute powers` that you talk about. I have already pointed out why not in 136... One reference is made to the dismissal of the Khan Sahib coalition ministry in NWFP... which happened in the early days of Pakistan on the recommendation of the Governor of NWFP... it was constitutional and within the powers of the GG.

``1) So Jinnah did not chair the cabinet meetings as claimed by Romair

2) He did not impose his constitution on the PCA

3) He did not make Pakistan a one party state

4) The ministers reported to the Prime Minister and not to Jinnah

5) None of Jinnah`s actions were in violation of Government of India Act 1935


(For reference please read B>Alan Mcgrath`s book `Destruction of Pakistan`s Democracy` in which he rubbishes this argument. Also read Ayesha Jalal`s `The state of Martial rule` in which she hits back against this view that Jinnah`s assumption of GGship was wrong. Read K B Sayeed`s `Pakistan the formative Phase`, I also refer to `Jinnah Papers` Volume VI `Pakistan Battling against all odds` especially the letters by Mandal, Chundrigar, Rab Nishtar, Francis Mudie and others. ) ``


In America Washington and Lincoln were strongmen and atleast Lincoln went much farther than Jinnah in bending the constitution of the US to invest more executive authority in the Presidential office. FDR ruled very personally and broke even the convention of two time election. He too bent the constitution to extract more executive authority. Kemal Ataturk as the founder of Turkey handpicked and dismissed the Prime Minister and even the opposition. He was actually called a dictator time and again. All of these leaders used their powers much more so than Jinnah either as founders of their nations or under exceptional circumstances such as war or the great depression ... Closer to our region... Nehru`s rule was highly personalized as well... similarly Nehru`s invasions of Kashmir, Junagadh, Hyderabad, and finally Goa are not viewed favorably... and those were international issues, eliciting world wide criticism, and atleast on the last one a sharp rebuke from President Kennedy. The Nehru-Gandhi dynasty seems to have firm hold on the Congress Party and right up to the 1990s over India as well... yet one would not question their democratic credentials because hardly anyone can argue their political legitimacy. Gandhiji, though not even a member of the Congress, but as its spiritual leader handpicked and replaced Congress Presidents... by passing the Congress`s intra-party election. Nehru and Gandhi could do it because they had the confidence of the people at large... so popular leaders are never dictatorial in the sense of being unelected etc. They are the embodiment of the will of the people... and sometimes their guide as well.

-YLH

Echoboom ...

``This version generally seeks to equate an “Islamic state” with theocracy, which it is not.``

So in essence you are saying that an `Islamic` state is a secular state? ... Because any thing that is not a theocracy is secular... and where law of the land will be based on a selectve interpretation of one religion it would be characterized as a theocracy...
So which one is it? Is an `Islamic` state `secular` or is it a `theocracy`?

re: Jehadi mind
There are jehadis and there are those with jehadi minds. My bet is the latter are much more numerous than the former. The guy who wrote the following article looks like one with a jehadi mind:
http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=331652
A jehadi mind speaks of indoctrination and set of values forced upon someone from chiildhood. So they hold on to these values despite evidence to the contrary.
Read the following from that article:
1. ``The machinations of Pandit Nehru, Lord Mountbatten, and the role of the latter’s wife, Edwina Mountbatten, in the one-sided Partition of India are a matter of record and do not merit repetition. Suffice to say that every effort was made to ensure that Jinnah’s Pakistan was as truncated as possible so that Nehru’s prediction that ‘it will not last six months’ would come true``
My comments:
The above para suggests that in someway Mountbattens plotted with Nehru to deprive Pak of its fair share. This is what is being taught in Pak schools and colleges and is far from the truth. The only message to Mountbatten on his assuming office in India from Whitehall was: to set the stage for India`s independence ASAP. Even he did not know what went on in Cyrille Radcliffe`s mind. You can blame the British (Radcliffe to be specific) for being unfair but you cannot blame them for being cheats. This nexus between the Mountbattens and Nehru (throwing in a romantic angle between Mrs M and Nehru) is a creation of Paki Jehadi mind.
2. ``The Khalistan movement for an independent homeland for the Sikhs existed before Partition. They too raised their demand before the British government but London was not inclined to further divide India. Thus when Punjab was partitioned, the Sikhs were forced to choose between the two countries.

It is somewhat perplexing why the Sikhs showed such hatred for the Muslims during, and in the wake of, Partition – especially, because they normally got along better with Muslims. But perhaps it was owed to the fact that while the Muslims got a country for themselves they could not. In addition, the Muslims also got a share of the province of Punjab, forcing the Sikhs to choose between the two portions and they (the Sikhs) held the Muslims responsible for the division of their land. This also led to hatred. The sentiment did not last too long, but while it did, it took its toll.``
My comments:
I am amazed that such morons even get to write an OP-Ed piece. Did Khalistan movement exist before 1947? You bet it did not. There is no evidence that Sikhs wanted a seperate homeland as they were well integrated with the hindu majority community and freely intermarried.
The author of this excremental piece is perplexed that Sikhs had so much hatred for muslims. It seems no one taught this moron sikh history. Sikhs took the brunt of attack from muslim rulers and made tremendous sacrifice to save the hindu community. The author of course would not be aware that Sikhism is an offshoot of hinduism. Such things are not taught in the ``land of the pure``.
I can go on and on but i think i made a point, which is: education in Pakistan sucks and sucks big time and it shows in highest places. It is not enough to clean up the madrassas. One needs to clean up the minds of many pseudointellectuals who write Op-Ed pieces in Paki newspapers.
Sridhar

M/O & F/k:

b By all the standards that matter in the modern world—economic development and job creation, literacy, educational and scientific achievement, political freedom and respect for human rights—what was once a mighty civilization has indeed fallen low.

Bernard Lewis [the known racist & islam basher; just can`t help to write this to maintain his crediblity]..atlantic monthly, jan. 2000 [2 BBB--before big bang]

Bringing western technology , management skills, elevation of blue-collar class, Demeaning of ``Officer`` [elite] class be it military, civil or feudal, Discouraging alien expensive ``culture`` in a country where avaam scrape for food, Putting some shame in the minds of those dressing-up alien-like and walking amid the avaam they claim to care about, Making available SAME kind of training facilities available to EVERYONE (even if it is ENGLISH only)
[Language and script never deIslamise anyone as Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, England, USA and any lingo-group would testify. In fact it enriches them, because Arabic will always be there]

The country needs to be repaired, phsically. Why don`t you guys fight to make the plumber, electrician, mechanic, and any skilled-tradesman & artisan) earn more than & live in better neighborhoods than this ``officer`` class. Until the tradesman is at par with Doctors , engineers, and this ``officer`` class, nothing would work. The country needs more trade-schools than universities. Needs more for ``workers`` than for these Brahmin-beggar class known as ``officers``..That is ALL of US who are reading & writing HERE.

We are the scum, we are the exploiters, we are the ones belonging to this plexus of the military-management-money-marriage-mullah.

[Incidentally the word mullah has no antecedent with Islam. It is NOT an arabic word. It is a Farsi/pehalvi word. It was the zardashtee mullahs who were ridiculed and THEN the term was applied to a muslim preacher (not scholar..but preacher).Just like Brahmanism and Pundit is used in english now. It is for this reason you will find mullah as a last name among parsis only..never among muslims. Annand Naarain mullah, chief justice of Indian high court, is the only ``hindu`` I am aware of who gave himself this honorific because of his highlyly scholarly farsi. Mullah Vahidi is other in Pakistan. Both great men indeed]

Do something that strikes at the heels of YOUR own feet. Anything that brings discomfort in your lifestyle. Ask you capable of earning outside a ``job``. Can you run a small business. Can you, if need be, operate a khokaa a chhabRRi? If not you will never ever be free.
Only a self-made businessman can afford to be free. It is such kind who can afford to walk, talk, and dress as THEY want and not what their employer or instituitional ``culture`` dictates.
Try to make the arguments you make here in a dhotee & bunyaan in Panjaabi to those who do not know you and discover your own IQ..if they allow you to come near them.

re:#136 by Mantolives
Thanks for your post. I respect your knowledge about Jinnah. It is evident that you have studied him in great detail. My knowledge, alas, is only superfluous.
I am not suggesting that Jinnah is a dictator. It is possible that Jinnah felt that Pak needed a strong person with absolute powers to guide the nation in its formative years. All i am saying is that he elected himself as the Governor General. Rajaji also became the second and the last Governor General of free India but he did not have (at least i am not aware) the powers of former Governor Generals (as bestowed upon by the GOI ACT 1935).
In doing so, i think he set a bad precedent for lesser mortals who followed him. I think he lived too short a time to foresee the problems that Pak was getting into. Today, nobody can stand up and say that Pak needs democracy because Jinnah said so. He unfortunately did not leave such a legacy.
Sridhar

re: echoboom # 131

The book may be indeed all you claim, but it is also an interpretation of history. I noticed that it was written in 1981, when Zia-ul-Haq`s Islamization of education was at its height and there were attempts to portray everything Jinnah did as Islamic-centric. That in itself casts a pale of doubt on its veracity as a credible source of history.

The quotes you have provided to support your viewpoint only support the contention that Jinnah wanted religion to have no influence in the affairs of the state. All those quotes and analysis, which you have provided suggest that none of those ideas were followed up and Pakistan of today is a far cry from what was envisaged of it as a nation state. Pakistan is not a welfare state nor is it a Islamic democracy, but Pakistan is dangerously flirting with the idea of a theocratic state. The preamble of the 1973 consitution leaves no doubts as to which laws can exist in Pakistan or how they be created and it states clearly that sovereignity does not reside with the government, but with Allah and that is a theocratic declaration of the state`s political intentions. In theoretical terms, Pakistan has all the Islamic rights for its citizens and minorities and makes no distinctions upon them, but in practical terms the minorities of Pakistan are denied their basic constitutional rights and the issue of seperate electorates clearly proved this hypocricy between the state`s claims and its practices.

One more point. Pakistan as a nation state has to exist according to paradigms of the twenty first century and not the seventh century. Pakistan cannot regress into the historic past in order to define its future and articulate its present existence. Pakistan can look to its past to seek an answer to its present problems, but its historic experience is not in Arabia but it lies within the Indian history. The Arabs were not natives to India and they were an alien conquering army from outside of the collective Indian historic memory, which easily pre-dates the advent of Islam and its political development by thousands of years. Islam was assmiliated within the India`s social mores but it never erased or dominated the Indian social or cultural development; it fused into the Indian experience - Islam was more influenced by the Indian experience than it influened the Indian cultural development. Indians may have agreed to Muslim rule and adapted to its realities of power, but they never accepted the Muslims as a natives of India and in that sense, Muslims in India are were seen as recent immigrants who civilizational presence in India was only 1000 years old. Indian civilization is many times older than the Muslim civilization in India.

Muslims in India did not all migrate to India with the arrival of Islam in the eight century from Arabia, but were most likely converts from the low caste Hindus, who converted to Islam to escape their social caste based limitations. Pakistanis and Pakistan have a historic affinity with Indian history as their historic antecedent and they have to seek inspiration from the Indian political experience and not the Islamic Arabic political experience. Pakistan and its idea of Islam developed in relation to the role of Islam within the Indian sub-contient and its political developments and thus, it would be foolhardy to use an example of Islamic Arabia as a role model for developing Pakistan along Islamic ideals. Akbar`s tolerance of minorities was based on the Islam`s political experience in dealing with the Hindu majority and it stemmed from the political realities of ruling a pluristic empire and not due to any tolerant interpretation of Islam and its role vis-a-vis the minorities.

Consequently, Pakistan has to rationalize a political role for itself based on its own historic experience and not in seeking an imported historic role from another country, with whom it has no common identifying characteristics other sharing a religion and that too, a religion with a different interpretation of Islam. Just like an American style democracy or a British style parliamentary system, which is imposed on Pakistan will not work and so too, a religious model of goverance which is imposed on Pakistan will not work either. If Pakistan is develop into an idea of Islamic democracy and a Muslim welfare state, with equal rights and representations for the minorities, it will have to develope a political system, which is peculiar to Pakistan`s own historic experience and that, once again, lies within the Indian historic experience and not within the historic experience of Islamic Arabia.

Ciao

Mantolives:

Read THIS again. In your hatred against the Mulla, try not to lose your mental balance.

Sharia Law governs muslims, with or without state sanctions. It governs even a single muslim in a heathen land. There has not been yet a power which can undo that. Not that it is not attempted like the commies in recent history or by some ``civilised`` countries recently.

What muslims are trying is to bring back the highest level of civilisation the world has ever seen in human history. Even the muslims` worst enemy`s admit that.


This version generally seeks to equate an “Islamic state” with theocracy, which it is not. In his speech on the Objectives Resolution, Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani (1885-1949), the foremost alim of the day, who should know Islam much better than the half-baked, self-appointed clergy, declared categorically that “an Islamic state does not mean the ‘Government of the Ordained Priests’. How could Islam”, he asked, “countenance the false idea which the Quran so emphatically repudiated in the following words”: “They (The Jews and the Christians) took their priests/and their anchorites to be their lords besides Allah to (the) derogation to God (al-Quran, al-Ta’uba, 9:31)

[ summary : No Papacy(chritian), Punditcy(Hindu), Rabbicy(Jew) or Kaafircy(secularcy)]
Precisely because Islam does not have a separation of: spiritual and temporal, religious and secular, and mosque and state.]]


Articles 1 and 2 of the Misaq describe the Quraishite and Medinite (Yathrib) Muslims as “a political unit (ummah) as distinct from all the people (of the world)”, and Article 25 lays down that “verily the Jews of the Banu’ Awf shall be considered as a community (ummah) along with the Believers, for the Jews being their religion and for the Muslims their religion…” (Muhammad Hamidullah, The First Written Constitution in the World; Lahore: Ashraf, 1968, pp. 41, 48). Articles 26-35 accord the same status to other Jewish tribes, which were also placed within the ummah canopy.

Islami Law or Sharia incorporates DEEN and DUNYAA, spiritual and secular. There is no need to USE labels like SECULAR [this label reflects a certain westernised mindset and gives an impression that suddenly something better is there. NOTHING better has yet been invented , and never will, for muslims and non-muslimsl other than the SHARIA]

re: Mantolives and bong-dongs

Thanks for correcting my mistake. I appreciate it. I was aware that during the Khailfat Movement, the Muslims and Hindus used to sing the song together, when there was a great deal of Hindu-Muslim unity specially after the Lucknow Pact of 1916. It was that reference, which made me make that statement and again, thanks for correcting my mistake.

Ciao

PS: On second thought to ascribe the idea of one party state especially to the leftists in the league is perhaps not accurate, since the greatest leftist of them all Iftikharuddin was then associated with two other parties ... 1) Azad Pakistan Party 2) Pakistan Peoples` Party (not the Bhutto one founded in 1967, but the party formed in early 1948 which was also joined by G M Syed and Abdul Ghaffar Khan).


Please ignore the part `especially the leftist leaguers (irony)` ...

PS: Echoboom.... Your quotes prove that Islam is completely and totally compatible with the working of a modern secular state... and that a Muslim majority state should not be a sharia honking theocracy but a modern secular democracy...

Am I right in my interpretation of your position?

Dear Echo...

`` If you are not an illiterate goraagoochaater you will be able to read this ``

Given that I was a high achieving student in GCE A levels Urdu, I can read all the nonsense from the Urdu press that you are posting up here...


However we are well aware that Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah couldn`t speak Urdu very well nor read it. The only other script that he knew well other than English was the Gujurati script ... the script that is also there on his grave in Karachi.


Are you then suggesting that he too was an illiterate ``Goraagoochaater``?

-YLH

#137 by Mantolives on April 9, 2004 11:39pm PT
echoboom...


Ata ul Haq Qasmi is the one the most illiterate people I have come across... I have heard him speak at places and he doesn`t even have a real argument ever, except appealing to the populist sentiments... he is not a writer... he is a rabble rouser and a liar.

His claims against the compilers of the SDPI report are based on lies. SDPI`s authors are greater patriots than he is ... they have spoken out more on Kashmir and Palestine than he can give them credit for... and his claim that sectarian conflict in Pakistan is a conspiracy of America and Israel just proves his narrow minded vision.

The SDPI report doesn`t say anywhere to make a hero out of Raja Dahir and condemn Muhammed bin Qasim... it says teach the kids real history instead of lies. No one is a hero or a villian as such... all are actors with their own interests subject to their own times.

If you ask me why we are in the pits today.. its because of people like AtaulHaq Qasmi and Dushka Syed.

---

REPLY to above:(*****) fill in your favourite writers. Also, the words in Caps are mine

---

(*****) is the one the most illiterate people I have come across... I have heard him speak at places and he doesn`t even have a real argument ever, except appealing to the ELITIST sentiments... he is not a writer... he/SHE is an INTELLECTUALISER and a liar.

His/HER claims FOR the compilers of the SDPI report are based on lies. SDPI`s authors are greater GORAAGOOS than he/she is ... they have NEVER spoken out on Kashmir and Palestine than he/she can give them credit for... and his/her claim that sectarian conflict in Pakistan is NOT a conspiracy of America and Israel just proves his/her narrow minded vision.

The SDPI report says somewhere to make a hero out of Raja Dahir and condemn Muhammed bin Qasim... it DOESN``T says teach the kids real history instead of lies. No one is a hero or a villian as such... all are actors with their own interests subject to their own times.

If you ask me why we are in the pits today.. its because of people like (*****).


P.S: (*****) fill in your favourite writers. Also, only the words in Caps are mine.

---

Either no one told you or it has not dawned upon you as yet:
You are already a genius!-- they acknowledge this behind your back; just out of politeness.

A word about Sharifulmujahid... he admitted much to the shame of the entire `Quaid-e-Azam academy` that during his tenure as the director, he had ordered/created distortions in Fatima Jinnah`s `My Brother` book....

---

On 15th March this year the British Council held a meeting of all the schools affiliated with Cambridge International Examinations. I was representing the International School of Choueifat... there at the Cambridge meeting, the other reps started protesting the syllabus for Cambridge A Level Urdu which according to them was insensitive to the Pakistani people....

Sick of the nonsense, I finally spoke out... I told Dr. Fred Burke there was nothing wrong with the syllabus and that people should open their minds. After that the voices that were quiet started speaking out in agreement... and none of the people who were vocally protesting against the syllabus spoke after that.


If the extremists scream... You have to scream louder.

-YLH

echoboom...


Ata ul Haq Qasmi is the one the most illiterate people I have come across... I have heard him speak at places and he doesn`t even have a real argument ever, except appealing to the populist sentiments... he is not a writer... he is a rabble rouser and a liar.

His claims against the compilers of the SDPI report are based on lies. SDPI`s authors are greater patriots than he is ... they have spoken out more on Kashmir and Palestine than he can give them credit for... and his claim that sectarian conflict in Pakistan is a conspiracy of America and Israel just proves his narrow minded vision.

The SDPI report doesn`t say anywhere to make a hero out of Raja Dahir and condemn Muhammed bin Qasim... it says teach the kids real history instead of lies. No one is a hero or a villian as such... all are actors with their own interests subject to their own times.

If you ask me why we are in the pits today.. its because of people like AtaulHaq Qasmi and Dushka Syed.

Rsidhar,

Your understanding is incorrect. Don`t quote Romair on it... he usually bases his argument on nothing but his own interpretation... and in this case he is simply echoing an earlier piece of writing which frankly doesn`t make sense.

I am not entirely sure what you mean by dictatorial powers... if it means that Jinnah towered above all the rest in Muslim League, that was natural. If it means that as the Governor General of Pakistan, he exercised executive authority... Jinnah`s powers were those of the Governor General as given by the Government of India Act 1935. Infact Jinnah`s usage of these powers was less than what he was allowed to do. Infact if you read history you will realize that Jinnah was unable even to rein in Punjab Muslim League and its leadership of Daultana and Mamdot... and he was living only a few miles away in the `Jinnah House` near the new Lahore Airport... and remember not only was the constitutional Governor General but also the founder of the nation who could stamp his will more authoritatively. He didn`t even impose a constitution of his choice.... Nehru as the Prime Minister of India under the constitution of India framed in 1949 exercised more authority than Jinnah... Nehru was the statesman who towered above all others... does that mean he became dictatorial?


There was clamour from the leaguers especially leftist leaguers (irony) to make Pakistan a one party state (ofcourse after transforming Muslim league to Pakistan League and opening up the membership to all people ).... yet Jinnah did not ban all the other parties, but infact protected them against such propaganda... included in these parties was the `Pakistan National Congress` a sister association of the Indian National Congress. Jinnah`s idea of the Pakistan League also couldn`t be implemented because of public opinion against it.
So what was so dictatorial...? By December Jinnah was in Lahore... and the Government was operating in Karachi.... the claim that he presided over Cabinet sessions is based on the meeting for the solutions to the communal trouble and the rehabilitation of refugees. I read the official correspondence between the Cabinet ministers, and they are always addressed to the Prime Minister and never to Jinnah...


1) So Jinnah did not chair the cabinet meetings as claimed by Romair

2) He did not impose his constitution on the PCA

3) He did not make Pakistan a one party state

4) The ministers reported to the Prime Minister and not to Jinnah

5) None of Jinnah`s actions were in violation of Government of India Act 1935


(For reference please read B>Alan Mcgrath`s book `Destruction of Pakistan`s Democracy` in which he rubbishes this argument. Also read Ayesha Jalal`s `The state of Martial rule` in which she hits back against this view that Jinnah`s assumption of GGship was wrong. Read K B Sayeed`s `Pakistan the formative Phase`, I also refer to `Jinnah Papers` Volume VI `Pakistan Battling against all odds` especially the letters by Mandal, Chundrigar, Rab Nishtar, Francis Mudie and others. )


These are the facts ... now I know people will hide behind `you are a Jinnah worshipper` and not address these facts and not answer questions... My responsibility was to apprise you of the facts and nothing more. Sometimes I wish Jinnah would have been more dictatorial and behaved more like a founder of the nation instead of a constitutional head... but he was too fine an individual, too constitutional minded to use his authority as the undisputed father of the nation... he could have forced the Constituent assembly to submit to his will and imposed a constitution based on the guidelines he had given in his 11th August speech... but he didn`t. In this he didn`t understand the utter stupidity of his people... maybe we needed a tough military man like Ataturk as the father of the nation who had spent ordering people instead of a liberal democrat who had spent his life debating constitutionally within the four walls of the parliament and the courhouse.

-YLH

re:#130 by haroonellahi
``If the demographics of the situation had been different and muslims had been in majority and hindu`s in minority then I`m sure congress would have denounced democracy and push for a seperate hindu state.``
Of all the countries in the world with a muslim majority, how many are democratic? I can think of only Indonesia but even that is fragile.
If prepartition India had a muslim majority, Jinnah would have assumed dictatorial powers (as he did anyway in a free pakistan). Hindu minority headed by Gandhi would have then fought for a sepeate democratic hindu state.
Get the picture now?
Sridhar

If you are not an illiterate in Pakistan, you should have no problem in reading this.
A slap on the face of goaagoochaater NGOs and intellectuals.

Bande (or Vande) Mataram comes from the book ``Ananda Math`` by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee.
#127 by bongdongs on April 9, 2004 8:57am PT

---

Thanks bongdongs for teaching someting to the ``teacher``. I wanted someone else to show this mirror to the jahil.

There is much more but as I said earlier the Parrot-mynahs who mistake inglo-culture for having acquired learning are the curse on Pakistan. No wonder he is trying to gain converts to his creed of slavism. He has to find safety in numbers. Who else would employ him?

The reality in Aitchison is different. Other than the name, it is still somewhat better than the
money-for-education-for-money factories. No matter how hard the secularist/atheist might try, it is from such schools that most maulvi-look-alikes emerge once they realise how they have been cheated and robbed. Such record is there for all to see and that is why the ``teacher`` gets the goosebumps.

Haroon:

Egypt and Libya were against Pakistan precisely because they were secular & socialist under Nasser and Qaddafi..allies of USSR , just as India was then. The Shah supported Pakistan not as a muslim but as a slave of USA, just as Pakistan was.

Iran never claimed or blamed Pakistan for the centrifuges. They did, and said so, that it obtained the parts on the open market. In fact Musharraf is now ready for a blackmail by the US thugs and it won`t be long before he will be sitting in the company of Saddam, Noriega, Marcos, Shah, Aristedis, Soekarno, Cao Ky, Pinochet and many many others. Anyone who ever made any democracy-deals and freedom-trades with these thugs has been trounced and trashed at payout time.

You are proud of your Islami heritage . That is really what matters. Rest is detail.

---

Just to reiterate and set the record straight: emphasis are mine

An excerpt from: Shariful Mujahid

The writer was Founder-Director of the Quaid-I-Azam Academy (1976-89), and authored Jinnah: Studies in Interpretation (1981), the only work to qualify for the President’s Award for Best Books on Quaid-I-Azam.
(Courtesy DAWN Tuesday December 25, 2001)

---

But should equal citizenship for one and all, with equal rights, equal privileges and equal obligations, necessarily mean a secular state? Does Islam nullify this concept? Jinnah did not think so; (nor did Iqbal). This is evident from his July 17, 1947 press conference and his reply to Mountabatten at the transfer-of-power ceremony on August 14. Consider the following extracts from his press conference:

Question: “Will Pakistan be a secular or theocratic state?”
Mr. M. A. Jinnah: “You are asking me a question that is absurd. I do not know what a theocratic state means.”

A correspondent suggested that a theocratic State meant a State where only people of a particular religion, for example, Muslims, could be full citizens and non-Muslims would not be full citizens.

Mr. M. A. Jinnah: “Then it seems to me that what I have already said is like throwing water on duck’s back (laughter). When you talk of democracy, I am afraid you have not studied Islam. We learned democracy thirteen centuries ago.”

And when Mountbatten commended Akbar’s model in dealing with non-Muslims, Jinnah invoked the Medinite model:

The tolerance and goodwill that great Emperor Akbar showed to all the non-Muslims (he said) is not of recent origin. It dates back thirteen centuries ago when our Prophet (Peace be upon him) not only by words but by deeds treated the Jews and Christians, after he had conquered them, with the utmost tolerance and regard and respect for their faith and beliefs. The whole history of Muslims, wherever they ruled, is replete with those humane and great principles, which should be followed and practised.

Remember, this response was really off-the-cuff since Jinnah was not provided with an advance copy of Mountbatten’s address and, hence, had no time to deliberate, mull over it, and formulate a suitable response. In other words, he had to depend on the quickness of his mind and his basic convictions to come up with a ready response. This means that Jinnah regarded equal citizenship for one and all as an integral part of Islam’s legacy.

Indeed, in all of Jinnah’s multitudinous pronouncements during 1934-1948, which I have pored over, time and again, the word, “secular”, does not occur even once. Then, how could he have conceived the indivisible Pakistani nationhood concept in a “secular” context, and not in the Islamic one, especially when Islam was his constant refrain and the counter piece of his rhetoric all through the momentous 1937-47 decade.

And because, as Dr Fazlur Rahman has pointed out, those who understand modernity do not know Islam and those who understand Islam do not know modernity, and because we are, alas! not a research-oriented society and not even a “reading society” such as Iran, Syria and Egypt, we have failed to establish linkages between Jinnah’s and classical (not traditional) Islam’s view-points. More critical and grievous is the spectacular failure of our West-oriented elites and cultural affiliates whose ignorance of Islam is matched, if at all, by their playing hostage to the professional clergy’s distorted version (or interpretation) of Islam, motivated as it is by their personal, sectarian and political agendas.

Though Jinnah might not have been aware of it, his “national” framework, comprising both Muslims and non-Muslims as equal citizens of a political unit, has a hallowed Islamic precedent. And that precedent is the Misaq-i-Madina (622/623), which Dr Muhammad Hamidullah, the renowned Islamic scholar, describes as “the first written constitution of the world”.
Articles 1 and 2 of the Misaq describe the Quraishite and Medinite (Yathrib) Muslims as “a political unit (ummah) as distinct from all the people (of the world)”, and Article 25 lays down that “verily the Jews of the Banu’ Awf shall be considered as a community (ummah) along with the Believers, for the Jews being their religion and for the Muslims their religion…” (Muhammad Hamidullah, The First Written Constitution in the World; Lahore: Ashraf, 1968, pp. 41, 48). Articles 26-35 accord the same status to other Jewish tribes, which were also placed within the ummah canopy.

Thus, the Quraishites, the Medinites and the Jews, who together constituted a “political unit” or political community in multi-religious, multi-lingual, multi-cultural and multi-racial Medina, were accorded equal rights, equal privileges and equal responsibilities. For one thing, without such rights, such privileges and such responsibilities, these constituent sub-units could never have become integral parts of a political unit or community (ummah), nor delineated as such in the Misaq.

True: unreserved equality in terms of rights, privileges and responsibilities in a polity is today considered a “secular” value, but long before this principle was discovered as a “secular” value, it was enshrined as an Islamic value in the Misaq, and that by the Prophet (Peace be upon him) himself. If this assertion jolts West-oriented intellectual elites and “cultural affiliates” they have none but themselves to blame. For sure, they have found it convenient aquitable and tolerant one i.e., a society which is absolutely free from the cantankerous evils of creeping prejudice and invidious discrimination, and which does not debar any one from his entitlement to a fair deal on the basis of his race, language, and religion. Thus, fourteen hundred years ago, Islam set its face against the extermination of minorities through ethnic cleansing as witnessed in the blood-drenched twentieth century in Bosnia, Kosovo, Kashmir and Palestine.

Pluralism means co-existence of various groups on the basis of equality and mutual respect. Clubbing together the Quraishites, the Medinites and the Jews under an all-embracing ummah canopy means equal rights, equal privileges and equal obligations for all members of the constituent sub-units, Moreover, Islam puts a premium on meritocracy and the principle of equality in legal terms. Then how can Muslims have an edge over non-Muslims in the political sense? And this is what Jinnah laid down: “Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims… in the political sense as citizens of the state”.

Religion intrudes into the business of the state only to the extent as the people, either directly or through their representatives, wish it to. It may become the fountainhead of the cluster of overarching values that constitute the ideology of the nation, that become the source of public morality, that shape and determine its social philosophy and ethos. In the case of Pakistan all that has been ensured through the objectives Resolution (1949), which is an integral part of the constitution. This Resolution envisages an “Islamic democracy”, and incorporates the core Islamic aspirations behind the Pakistan movement. If we had only implemented the Resolution in Pakistan’s public life, Pakistan could have become an