The Mullah and the Munir Report
Yasser Latif Hamdani July 11, 2004
#34 Posted by MantoLives on July 12, 2004 9:54:53 am
ardeshir haider...
Yaar you suffer from a very simplistic understanding from history... but good for you anyway...
Yaar you suffer from a very simplistic understanding from history... but good for you anyway...
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#33 Posted by MantoLives on July 12, 2004 9:54:53 am
Stuka...
Please read my post addressed to Nazar Hayat Khan... It was a power play ... Mullahs couldn`t care less about the bifurcation of the Muslim community.
-YLH
Please read my post addressed to Nazar Hayat Khan... It was a power play ... Mullahs couldn`t care less about the bifurcation of the Muslim community.
-YLH
#32 Posted by rozaiba on July 12, 2004 9:54:53 am
On Mullah the Menace.
The non-Mullah leadership has let everyone down time and again with corrupt and selfish policies. But why is it that we are so much more infuriated at the menace of the Mullah?
Alot of people ask this question- on chowk and elsewhere. Why are liberals so against Mullahs when they have never been in power?
I would like to offer an explanation. Apart from the obvious destructive force the Mullah is, there is the issue of what the `association` of the Mullah with religion.
Recall the recent controversy of the Catholic church priests in America. The whole country was disgusted at finding out the extent to which the priests were involved in sexually molesting children. Many renounced their faiths. People were utterly disgusted. They would probably have not been half as disgusted at the crime had it been the `average` criminal. But it was a holy PRIEST.
Similarly, we get infuriated at the Mullah`s actions more than if it was an average politician doing this.
Anyway, Mullah the Menace is a real and growing threat. And it needs to be tackled head on with ideas and by supporting democracy. In a country where the overwhelming majority of Muslims think that only their religious view is right and that their religion is a sacred cow, it offers the Mullah lots of room to manipulate. Non-manipulative democracy is important because the Mullah lives off of slogans. A continious process of democracy pronounces those slogans dead. All one needs to do is look at the consistent decline Mullah parties have faced in the democratic processes of Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Malaysia.
The non-Mullah leadership has let everyone down time and again with corrupt and selfish policies. But why is it that we are so much more infuriated at the menace of the Mullah?
Alot of people ask this question- on chowk and elsewhere. Why are liberals so against Mullahs when they have never been in power?
I would like to offer an explanation. Apart from the obvious destructive force the Mullah is, there is the issue of what the `association` of the Mullah with religion.
Recall the recent controversy of the Catholic church priests in America. The whole country was disgusted at finding out the extent to which the priests were involved in sexually molesting children. Many renounced their faiths. People were utterly disgusted. They would probably have not been half as disgusted at the crime had it been the `average` criminal. But it was a holy PRIEST.
Similarly, we get infuriated at the Mullah`s actions more than if it was an average politician doing this.
Anyway, Mullah the Menace is a real and growing threat. And it needs to be tackled head on with ideas and by supporting democracy. In a country where the overwhelming majority of Muslims think that only their religious view is right and that their religion is a sacred cow, it offers the Mullah lots of room to manipulate. Non-manipulative democracy is important because the Mullah lives off of slogans. A continious process of democracy pronounces those slogans dead. All one needs to do is look at the consistent decline Mullah parties have faced in the democratic processes of Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Malaysia.
#31 Posted by Ralph on July 12, 2004 9:54:53 am
stuka #27
We aren`t taught any of those reasons.
The first one makes no sense because the British weren`t dividing Muslims Qaum into two; they were dividing the people living in the area into a Muslim Qaum and a Hindu Qaum. So if the Mullahs were concerned about the weakening of the Muslims Qaum, the formation of Pakistan was their best bet. They could collect all their Muslim Qaum in one area and completely purge the powers of other Qaums.
The second reason that they saw themselves as the rightful heirs to the Mughals and ruling over/converting the the whole of India runs very foul of the `Romilla history` we are taught. You may find it unrealistic but in the history of mankind, tiny and forceful minorities have always ruled over larger less aggressive majorities. However in `Romilla history` very many things are simply are not said.
Manto
Man, your persistence amazes me. When you were returning to Pakistan, in my mind I didn`t give you more than four or five years before you would give up. But you may still surprise all of us. My sincerest best wishes. Don`t let anything I or other Indians, or even Pakistanis write get you down.
We aren`t taught any of those reasons.
The first one makes no sense because the British weren`t dividing Muslims Qaum into two; they were dividing the people living in the area into a Muslim Qaum and a Hindu Qaum. So if the Mullahs were concerned about the weakening of the Muslims Qaum, the formation of Pakistan was their best bet. They could collect all their Muslim Qaum in one area and completely purge the powers of other Qaums.
The second reason that they saw themselves as the rightful heirs to the Mughals and ruling over/converting the the whole of India runs very foul of the `Romilla history` we are taught. You may find it unrealistic but in the history of mankind, tiny and forceful minorities have always ruled over larger less aggressive majorities. However in `Romilla history` very many things are simply are not said.
Manto
Man, your persistence amazes me. When you were returning to Pakistan, in my mind I didn`t give you more than four or five years before you would give up. But you may still surprise all of us. My sincerest best wishes. Don`t let anything I or other Indians, or even Pakistanis write get you down.
#30 Posted by tahmed32 on July 12, 2004 9:54:53 am
ardeshir: why does every new indian coming to chowk come in with sarcastic remarks like the one you started with? are you people really suffering from such poor personalities that you consider this to be the normal form of introducing yourself? as i said before, the smart ones among you learn soon enough the big difference between pakistanis and indians (Pakistanis dont carry chips on their shoulders like most indians i have seen on chowk) and start to behave like normal people. the stupid ones continue their routine ``pakis are this, pakis are that`` tune year after year - thus providing evidence that snide remarks and petty insults are considered the normal form of social interaction in many indian cultures (not the panjabi culture though, since so far only panjabi indians like dost mittar and stuka have been exceptions to the above rule).
What we need is an anthropological study to understand why you people are like this.
What we need is an anthropological study to understand why you people are like this.
#29 Posted by PaagalInsaan! on July 12, 2004 9:54:53 am
Point of Information:
Re: In India we were taught that Mullahs were against Pakistan because it would bifurcate the Muslim population of India.
After the Khilafat Movement (the primordial opportunity of Mullahs to enter politics) Molana Abul Kalaam Azad issued a Fatwa supported by Molana Abdul Baari, urging the Muslims to leave the British Governed India and migrate to Afghanistan, playing havoc with the lives of tens of thousands of Muslims, supporting their point of view with the example of the migration of Prophet Mohammad. In 1947, when the issue came under debate again, the same Ulema proved their loyalty to congress by opposing the idea of Pakistan, bringing in the bifurcation argument, and resorting to emotional rhetoric.
#28 Posted by ardeshir_haider on July 12, 2004 8:09:14 am
Amazing chaps these Pakistani Muslims are!!
First, they carve a state on the basis of Islam. Then, they decide what the definition of Islam is (and declare some of their sects as Kafir in the process)? Next, they decide to keep out Islam from political process, confine Mullahs to Mosques and so on.
As if this is not enough, they also start a movement to declare Pakistan a secular state; off course, after driving out all the Hindus and Sikhs and forcing the others to convert. Even ethno-nationalism is on the rise. So, Sindhis and Punjabis now want to learn their own language. There was a time when they dumped all these languages for an Urdu Muslim identity. Now they`ve realized that Urdu is not their mother tongue.
You guys are a terrible box of contradictions.
First, they carve a state on the basis of Islam. Then, they decide what the definition of Islam is (and declare some of their sects as Kafir in the process)? Next, they decide to keep out Islam from political process, confine Mullahs to Mosques and so on.
As if this is not enough, they also start a movement to declare Pakistan a secular state; off course, after driving out all the Hindus and Sikhs and forcing the others to convert. Even ethno-nationalism is on the rise. So, Sindhis and Punjabis now want to learn their own language. There was a time when they dumped all these languages for an Urdu Muslim identity. Now they`ve realized that Urdu is not their mother tongue.
You guys are a terrible box of contradictions.
#27 Posted by stuka on July 12, 2004 7:57:52 am
Manto:
Well, In India we were taught that Mullahs were against Pakistan because it would bifurcate the Muslim population of India. They were not against Pakistan in principle but felt that all Muslims of India are one Qaum and to divide the qaum would be to weaken it.
Since that is what happened, it is easier to understand their objection and it should be held against them.
Also, it is said that they had a dream of all of India becoming a Muslim nation. Not realistic maybe but again understandable from their persective.
Well, In India we were taught that Mullahs were against Pakistan because it would bifurcate the Muslim population of India. They were not against Pakistan in principle but felt that all Muslims of India are one Qaum and to divide the qaum would be to weaken it.
Since that is what happened, it is easier to understand their objection and it should be held against them.
Also, it is said that they had a dream of all of India becoming a Muslim nation. Not realistic maybe but again understandable from their persective.
#26 Posted by MantoLives on July 12, 2004 7:13:57 am
Stuka...
The Mullahs were just like anyone else... not a homogenous group... it was more about a complex power struggle than any real ideology...
Ahrar Party had infact tried to join the League provided League agreed to an Islamic state... Jinnah refused in 1944 and Ahrar went back to being a congress ally...
Maudoodi was critical of the Pakistan idea because he felt that the league leadership was too secular...
JUH had been built up as an opposition to the League within the Muslim community by Nehru and Azad... they didn`t have a political future with League firmly in saddle of the Muslim comunity. The so called nationalist Ulema were hardly secular protagonists of Indian nationalism... a closer view will reveal that they were basically after their own goals of political power and had their own power play interests...
I think enough has been written on it by some very credible Indian Historians and writers... including A G Noorani and Kuldip Nayyar.
Do you have an alternative explanation?
#25 Posted by stuka on July 12, 2004 6:48:08 am
Manto:
You keep on bringing up the point about Mullahs being against Pakistan. But are you aware of WHY they were against Pakistan?
You keep on bringing up the point about Mullahs being against Pakistan. But are you aware of WHY they were against Pakistan?
#24 Posted by MantoLives on July 12, 2004 6:35:36 am
Post 21 was addressed to Maudoodilives...
Maudoodilives...
You continue to blurt lies... please back up your allegations with some sources. Maudoodi was a liar and a fanatic... he was also the enemy of Pakistan. He admitted it on a number of occasions.
If you think `Qadianis` were oppressing Muslims by joining with the British then you must also agree with conspiracy theory that British made Pakistan since the Lahore Resolution was also drafted by a Qadiani....
bajwabilal,
Thankyou for support and kind words.
You are absolutely right about not engaging the irrelevant nonsense being blurted out by some of these so called Islam-pasands...
Sincerely
YLH
Maudoodilives...
You continue to blurt lies... please back up your allegations with some sources. Maudoodi was a liar and a fanatic... he was also the enemy of Pakistan. He admitted it on a number of occasions.
If you think `Qadianis` were oppressing Muslims by joining with the British then you must also agree with conspiracy theory that British made Pakistan since the Lahore Resolution was also drafted by a Qadiani....
bajwabilal,
Thankyou for support and kind words.
You are absolutely right about not engaging the irrelevant nonsense being blurted out by some of these so called Islam-pasands...
Sincerely
YLH
#23 Posted by bajwabilal on July 12, 2004 5:59:35 am
Dear YLH
Just wanted to buck up in taking up this so-called intellectual combat against these `true` Pakistanis. I can see you`re doing a great job although I`ve reservations when it comes to any impact on these (I don`t seem to find a suitable word that actually describes all the qualities possessed by these ppl). My heart does shed tears when I look at my country`s half-a-century history and the brutality of most rulers and then, of course, the Mullahs in tearing apart the actual concept of non-theocratic state laid down by the Jinnah. But don`t you think this ought to happen they way we have been inscribing hatred among various vertical divisions of the society...especially the relgious? And then these `supporters` of the Pakistan movement have been brought to front who so often used to called this idea a pros#$%^&* of somebody`s thinking (and of course I hate to recall these words against my country, just like any sane patriot would do), and the way actual supporters have been sent to back quaters of the country...not to miss the only religious sect that supported Pakistan movement. But then, this Allah has made this world very fair. The way Pakistanis and Muslims` identities have shaken over the past decade due to various scenes happening at the international level, I think this is enough for any wise man to start questioning the major policies we as a society/country have been proliferating. But I don`t see any positive change in the foreseeable future...so the condition will probably further detoriarate. For that, personally, I do only submit to and look towards Allah for peace in this world of beasts lurking everywhere.
Kind regards
Bilal
p.s. I have no mood to indulge into the useless points bring sent forth about by ahmedmadani, MaududiLives blah blah....I wonder, haven`t ppl got tired of repeating the same issues for ever and ever and ever, with no gain. Give me a break yar.
YLH, keep it up!
Just wanted to buck up in taking up this so-called intellectual combat against these `true` Pakistanis. I can see you`re doing a great job although I`ve reservations when it comes to any impact on these (I don`t seem to find a suitable word that actually describes all the qualities possessed by these ppl). My heart does shed tears when I look at my country`s half-a-century history and the brutality of most rulers and then, of course, the Mullahs in tearing apart the actual concept of non-theocratic state laid down by the Jinnah. But don`t you think this ought to happen they way we have been inscribing hatred among various vertical divisions of the society...especially the relgious? And then these `supporters` of the Pakistan movement have been brought to front who so often used to called this idea a pros#$%^&* of somebody`s thinking (and of course I hate to recall these words against my country, just like any sane patriot would do), and the way actual supporters have been sent to back quaters of the country...not to miss the only religious sect that supported Pakistan movement. But then, this Allah has made this world very fair. The way Pakistanis and Muslims` identities have shaken over the past decade due to various scenes happening at the international level, I think this is enough for any wise man to start questioning the major policies we as a society/country have been proliferating. But I don`t see any positive change in the foreseeable future...so the condition will probably further detoriarate. For that, personally, I do only submit to and look towards Allah for peace in this world of beasts lurking everywhere.
Kind regards
Bilal
p.s. I have no mood to indulge into the useless points bring sent forth about by ahmedmadani, MaududiLives blah blah....I wonder, haven`t ppl got tired of repeating the same issues for ever and ever and ever, with no gain. Give me a break yar.
YLH, keep it up!
#22 Posted by MantoLives on July 12, 2004 5:59:35 am
Since 11th September 1948... the power has never been in the hands of any enlightened secularists... there were ofcourse secular machiavellians who made alliances with the Mullahs and they are despicable...
But ultimately it is the Mullah that is to be blamed... Since all of your pathetic little arguments were completely destroyed on the Hotel Mohenjodaro board... I suggest you stay away from this board. You have nothing new to offer... nor does your brigade of fanatical losers. I certainly don`t wish to talk to hypocrites like you who rant about Islam being non-theocratic, but when asked if they would work for their own `Non-theocratic Islamic democratic state`... they have no answer.
So why continue.. your kind has been discredited enough....
-YLH
#21 Posted by PM on July 12, 2004 5:59:35 am
Excellent debate going on here! Always so much to learn on chowk.
Thanks, YLH, Madani sahib and MaududiLives!
Thanks, YLH, Madani sahib and MaududiLives!
#20 Posted by MantoLives on July 12, 2004 5:59:35 am
Ladies and gentlemen...
The figures are staggering....
From 1947-1979 (32 years)... there were only 6 of blasphemy cases registered under the British made 295 A ... all 6 were acquitted ... and the petitioners were laughed out of the court.
From 1979-2004 (25 years) ... there have been more 600 cases... most of them sentenced... though only a few have been sentenced to death.
It turns out that whosoever wants revenge abuses the blasphemy law.
The figures are staggering....
From 1947-1979 (32 years)... there were only 6 of blasphemy cases registered under the British made 295 A ... all 6 were acquitted ... and the petitioners were laughed out of the court.
From 1979-2004 (25 years) ... there have been more 600 cases... most of them sentenced... though only a few have been sentenced to death.
It turns out that whosoever wants revenge abuses the blasphemy law.
#19 Posted by MantoLives on July 12, 2004 5:58:09 am
NHK...
Quite correct...
The two nation theory was clearly not valid in an independent Pakistan ... as Ayesha Jalal puts it succinctly : ``Two Nation theory could only exist on an all India level.`` This is true because ``nation`` as per Benedict Anderson is an imagined idea.
Under the Independence of India Act... two geographical nations replaced the two warring religious communities. Even before 1947 it was more of a banner... but the complex demand for Pakistan itself was not as easy or simple as the TNT... TNT definitely did not mean Pakistan, and Pakistan definitely does not mean TNT... And TNT never stated at any point that Muslims and Hindus could not live together in one mighty multinational state of India... infact quite the contrary the TNT was emphatic in saying that Hindus and Muslims are two eyes of a beautiful bride... if one eye is smaller than the other ... the bride will look ugly.
In the post 1947 scenario, when League itself had failed to secure its real purpose i.e. safeguards at an all India center, and the reality being that India had still had a significant Muslim minority ... Pakistan as a Muslim-Majority state could not afford to be anything but strictly secular. This is why Jinnah repeatedly and consistently said that Pakistanis are one nation regardless of religion, caste or creed, a remarkable reversal from the position taken in United India... but a logical one nevertheless.
In any event the irony is that those who were opposed to Pakistan, and were supposedly the champions of `composite nationalism`.... came to Pakistan and starting agitating for an Islamic state. The truth is that the complex game of power struggle within South Asia, the Hindu-Muslim conflict, and the clashing ideas of modernity and tradition, had little to do with `ideologies` and `theories` whether it be Muslim Nationalism, Islamism, Multi-nationalism, Composite Nationalism or Hindu nationalism... but more to do with practical politics. The more I delve into Jinnah papers, I realize that the traditional view of history as being Congress vs Muslim League ... United India vs Independent Pakistan ... is not true. It is quite clear that the `Pakistan` was a vague idea, and at most it meant a great confederacy of India ... to satisfy Muslim League`s base in Punjab... it seems to me that the League leadership ... starting with Jinnah were unprepared for the separate state...
Look at some of the leaders who had rallied around Jinnah... Iftikharuddin, Barkat Ali, Abul Hashim, Jahanara Shahnawaz and even Faiz Ahmed Faiz who chose to become the editor of Pakistan times before Pakistan`s actual creation.
Could we imagine them to be strict TNT theorists?
Quite correct...
The two nation theory was clearly not valid in an independent Pakistan ... as Ayesha Jalal puts it succinctly : ``Two Nation theory could only exist on an all India level.`` This is true because ``nation`` as per Benedict Anderson is an imagined idea.
Under the Independence of India Act... two geographical nations replaced the two warring religious communities. Even before 1947 it was more of a banner... but the complex demand for Pakistan itself was not as easy or simple as the TNT... TNT definitely did not mean Pakistan, and Pakistan definitely does not mean TNT... And TNT never stated at any point that Muslims and Hindus could not live together in one mighty multinational state of India... infact quite the contrary the TNT was emphatic in saying that Hindus and Muslims are two eyes of a beautiful bride... if one eye is smaller than the other ... the bride will look ugly.
In the post 1947 scenario, when League itself had failed to secure its real purpose i.e. safeguards at an all India center, and the reality being that India had still had a significant Muslim minority ... Pakistan as a Muslim-Majority state could not afford to be anything but strictly secular. This is why Jinnah repeatedly and consistently said that Pakistanis are one nation regardless of religion, caste or creed, a remarkable reversal from the position taken in United India... but a logical one nevertheless.
In any event the irony is that those who were opposed to Pakistan, and were supposedly the champions of `composite nationalism`.... came to Pakistan and starting agitating for an Islamic state. The truth is that the complex game of power struggle within South Asia, the Hindu-Muslim conflict, and the clashing ideas of modernity and tradition, had little to do with `ideologies` and `theories` whether it be Muslim Nationalism, Islamism, Multi-nationalism, Composite Nationalism or Hindu nationalism... but more to do with practical politics. The more I delve into Jinnah papers, I realize that the traditional view of history as being Congress vs Muslim League ... United India vs Independent Pakistan ... is not true. It is quite clear that the `Pakistan` was a vague idea, and at most it meant a great confederacy of India ... to satisfy Muslim League`s base in Punjab... it seems to me that the League leadership ... starting with Jinnah were unprepared for the separate state...
Look at some of the leaders who had rallied around Jinnah... Iftikharuddin, Barkat Ali, Abul Hashim, Jahanara Shahnawaz and even Faiz Ahmed Faiz who chose to become the editor of Pakistan times before Pakistan`s actual creation.
Could we imagine them to be strict TNT theorists?
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- anil: Massaddi Mian: Please show me... Why is Karachi Turning
- Ajeet: Now that Romair has... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
- anil: Re: # 111 Kaal: "...they call... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
- quin: Re: # 52 thanks... Translation of a (Love)
- quin: I would like to... Translation of a (Love)
- Naqshbandi: The hadith are the... Translation of a (Love)
- dost_mittar: Eklavya#118: "The other option is... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
- guru: Vedas(knoweldge of manifest) and... Dhokha and Being a
