Jehad and The Curriculum

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