Religion in Politics

Great article Umer!
Keep it up brother :)

Zara Hafeez

what is all this fuss about? avenger says ``one chance``..to do what? maybe he ought to join the army? I can understand our parents who went through partition might have a problem with Pakistan but this generation can see that most of this anti-pak-india sentiments are/were generated by POLITICIANS and fundamentalists from BOTH sides. How many Pakistanis does one really meet in delhi, bombay etc? The few I`ve met in London couldn`t have been more affectionate, more friendly! There is an instant rapport--we know that culturally we are the same, that we have the same roots, speak the same language, have similar rituals. What bugs me no end is this unthinking emotional response to the hype of an `enemy`. Our lives are complicated and difficult enough without external enemies, or is this why we need one? to deflect from our own personal problems?


Amit says it better...``As Indians, our response to all this should be to undercut this ideology in every possible way for obvious reasons. It is also very important for our own psychology as well. We Indians often fall into the trap of actually validating the Pakistani establishment`s ideology by accepting Pakistanis as the proxy for the muslim invaders of the past. ...

Pratibha

amit...

I have read the book... its a great read... It lays down a comprehensive basis for a secular Pakistan... and as you pointed out, it gives a historical context to Jinnah`s utterances in the constituent assembly. Barrister Aitzaz is a great politician... also..

I think this article formed the original thesis and the book grew out of it.

Re:Mantolives#25

That is a very interesting article. In fact, Aitzaz Ahsan later on wrote a book called the Indus Saga where he expounded his concepts further. If I recollect correctly, he mentions that traditionally there has always been Sindh and Hind geo-political entities with shared cultural values that have coexisted peacefully. There is no history of warfare or atrocities between Sindh and Hind either before or after Islam. Hence the current political contours are a manifestation of the historical boundaries, but the current religious-political animosity does not have any historical basis.

Intellectuals like Aitzaz Ahsan are trying to creatively change Pakistani nationalism so that it is bound to the land of Pakistan, rather than being a permanent ideological construct which is primarily anti-India. This is long overdue and it is a reflection of reality. It is also the normal, healthy formulation of nationalism for any mature nation state. Virtually all countries have nationalism that is bound to their own land. I believe Jinnah had the same thing in his mind, when he exhorted Pakistanis to establish a secular system in his first speech.

From an Indian perspective, we would love to see Pakistani nationalism being formulated along these lines. Heck, every Indian visitor to Pakistan notices that ordinary Pakistanis are quite patriotic but they willingly hug the Indian visitors and refuse to take their money!! We come back to India scratching our heads about what ideologues like Hameed Gul, Javed Nasir, Majeed Nizami, Naseem Zehra etc. keep screaming about all the time!!

Somehow the Indians on the forum thinks what they say is `fact and a reality` and what the people of Pakistan
says is `myth and bull*hit` .

Amit....

Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan wrote a wonderful piece in the Dawn Newspaper in 1984... here is a complete transcript of it for you ...

---

MYTHS
AUGUST 14, 1947

AITZAZ AHSAN

When the rationalist abdicates his function and the obscurantist holds the field unchallenged, dogma is born. Its scope is narrow; its potential nil; its utility ``non est``. Yet it is not a nullity. Dogma is negatory of growth, and recusant of progress. It is another name for stagnation.
To take and maintain its hold upon upon the minds of men, the dogmatist creates a mythological system. Myths become his vehicle. The common denominator between myths and dogma is an absence of reason and logic. Both complement each other.
The origins of Pakistan, the impelling and historical circumstances that brought it into being, and the political necessity of its creation have also been subjected to the onslaught of dogma. The rationalist has stood by and allowed the very obscurantist who opposed the Movement, to dictate, by what is called the Ideology of Pakistan. Of necessity, the mythological support-system of this dogmatic frameword is tailor-made to serve an elite tied up, through their Saudi partons, to the interests of the western world. Being bereft of historica truth these myths tend to distort the national identity, stulting growth and thereby, under the cover of a `myth of independence` keeping us the captives of international imperialism.

The Arab Myth:

By this myth the rationale for Muslim separation is attributed predominantly to the Middle-Eastern Arab Influence upon the peoples of North-Western India. Barring a few fleeting and coincidental contacts with each, the story of the Pakistan - Peoples shares little commonality with either the Indian or the Arab. Basically, ethnically, linguestically, and above all culturally the peoples of Pakistan are far closely linked to the peoples of central Asia and Iran than with the tribes of Arabia. Politically the Indus Basin region (alongwith the area of its tributaries, the Punjabi rivers) has been a part of the Central Asian region and Iran. The peoples of the Indus Basin have shared little, if anything, with the peoples of Gangetic plain and even less with the peoples of Central of Southern India.
In the past 5000 years since the advent of the Aryans Sind alone has had a direct political contact with the Arabs and that, too, for a short period of the 144 years from 711 AD to 854 AD. Contacts with Islam there have been through the conquerers, the empire-builers, and the ascetics of the Soofi order, Islam became the dominant religion of the Indus Basin. Barring the young Mohammad Bin Qasim these invaders, soldier-kings and priests were almost entirely of Central Asian and Iranian origin, be they Persians, Mongols, Afghans or Turks.


The Deviation Myth:

By this myth Pakistan was almost a `deviation` in so far as it was a rare and historically unprecedented break-away from the primordial unity of the Indian Sub-Continent.
The concept of India`s geo-political ``oneness`` given currency by the secure and unified hold of the Raj was adopted eagerly by the Hindu, and unquestioningly by the Muslim historians. They always tied up the history of Pakistan exclusively with the history of the Indian Sub-Continent prefering to co-relate it to the politics of the Deccan and the South rather than the more influential developments in Parthia, Bactria, on the coasts of the Aral Sea of in Persia. We continue to style our history as ``Indian History`` paying more heed to the Guptas than to the Safavids.
It is true that the mightiest of the Indian rivers, flowing in the north-west, had given to the entire Indian Sub-contient its name. It is also true that it was in the region of this river that the mystic dialogue between those two most colourful of dieties, Krishna, and the Warrior-king Arjun inspired the celestial song of Hinduism`s sacred hym, the Bhagvad Gita.
What has to be perceived is that more than the giant Himalayas and the vast Suleman range, that indiscernible and gentle hump connecting Kashmir to the Central Plateau of Madhya Pradesh through the twin states of Himachal Pradesh and Haryana (along 750 longitude) has proved to be the critical dividing line, the vital watershed. It is this inobstrusive strip of land that alongwith the Rajasthan desert separates the Indus Basin of the north-west from the rest of India, Gangetic as well as penninsular. It is this imperceptible rise in the plains that has proved to be the plapable divide between two lands, two peoples, two civilizations the Central Asian and the Indian (or Indic).
From the age of the Aryans the Indus Basin region has been far closer to areas of the Oxus (Amy Darya) and the Jaxartes (Syr Darya) than to any other plains, river basins, penninsular or desert regions, Indian or Arab.
In the almost 5000 years since the advent of the Aryans, the regions of the Indo-Pakistan Sub-continent now comprising Pakistan, have been parts of the Arab empire for a mere 144 years (711 AD to 854 AD). And that, too, only the southern province of Sind. The Indus Basin has been a part of empires covering the whole of India, and thus being unified to the rest, for little over 600 years under the vast conquests of the Mauryans (321 to 187 BC), the Moghals (1526 effectively the mid-eighteenth century AD) and the British (1849-1947 AD). For most of the remaining 5000 years, these areas have effectively, and inseparably been a part for consecutive centuries, of Central Asia, with strong and lasting links with the Iranians and the Greeks. Since ancient times the Indus Basin has been incorporated in empires with their centres beyond the Suleman Range and the Hindu Kush for a total period almost six to seven times as long as the period that it remained a part of the empire with their centres to its east or its south.
This historical and ever-present characteristic of the Indus Basin region is verified also by an examination of the development and the variety of he modes of the relations of production in this and the other regions of India. We know that relations of production in this and the other regions of India. We know that relations of production are an indispensible aspect of the mode of production, and ``afortiori``, of production itself. Man distinguishes himself from the less advanced species by the fact that he is able to produce things and artefacts beyond those for which he was biologically designed by nature i.e. the mere process of the reproduction of his own progeny. From pre-history he has been a producer of tools and utensils,developing in time, to become the most prolific manufacturer second only to nature itself. But there can be no surplus production without men uniting somehow for joint activities and mutual exchange of their product. The basis of the relations of produciton is the relation of the ownership of the means of production. Those who possess many implements and means of production may economically subordinate to themselves those who have few or no means of production. This gives rise to the perpetuation of property and ownership which have appeared in history in three main forms. Slave ownership, feudal ownership and capitalist ownership. These forms in turn correspond to the three major systems of production and social organization withnessed by the history of man.
The relations of production prevalent in the Indus Basin region have been closely identified with the relations of prodution in Central Asia and Iran, while the Ganges basin and the south have been living in historically differenct time.



The Betrayal Myth:

By this myth the march of history was determined not by any socio-economic circumstances, but by the betrayal to the native cause by certain unpartiotic adventurers. Had Jaffer not betrayed Nawab Siraj-ud-Daula, it is said and had not Qasim betrayed the valient Tippu of Masore, hisotry would have been different .
What is not realised is that in fact this was a conflict between two different systems of production, and the capitalist mode, represented by Britain, being at that time the more modern, was destined to triumph.
Europe had taken the road to capitalism in medieval times. The gradual change from the barter to the money economy had begun with the Crusades (C.110) and spread from Central and upper Italy by way of South Germany, France and the Netherlands throughout Eurupe. An aristocracy of money was born, and the pre-determined or agreed profit became the mode of man`s gainful employment.
There had already been a growth in the private Corporation, and to expand long distance trade, important merchants established their own trading companies. This was a new and enabling concept. Capital could be accumulated and dispersed without loss of the essential central control. Even the Church took to trading through its Knights Templars. Banks, first established in Genoa, Florence, Augsburg and Anwarp had grown in size and numbers. And from the sixteenth century association of merchants had developed, and were in fact to carry out the colonial policies of several States including France and England.
By the time that Vasco De Gama, in command of three ships and 150 portuguese seamen landed at Calicut on the west coast of India in 1498, a whole new world had opened up into Europe and its bursting new classes. The successfull sigeg and conquest of Constantinople by the Ottoman, Mohammad II (the Conquerer) in 1453, had the effect of scaring Byzentine Monks with their carefully cloistered libraries giving the crucial fillip to the European rennaiscance. John Gutenbarge of Mainz had already (C. 1445) started about a revolution of his own by devising a movable metallic type for double faced printing on linen paper. His first remarkable production, the 42-line Bible, came out in 1455 AD.
And then there was the Mariner`s Compass. This was to have far reaching consequences, no less in fact then the printing press. Shipping was at once emancipated. Coastal sailing matured into confident seagoing shipping. By the time the East India Company was to set up its headquarters at Surat, near Bombay, Ferdinend Megellan`s fleet had circumnavigated the earth 1519-1521. The Aristotalian concept of the World, the rigid idea forms, the authro-centric universe (having become Vatico-centric in ecclestical teachings) had begun to be questioned and in 1543 Nicholas Copernieus of Torus published his revolutionary work on the as yet unproven heliocentric solar system.
The strength of the independent and sovereign nation-State grew with the strength of the merchante. The mythof Papal overlordship had to be challenged and discarded. On 31st October, 1517 Martin Luther posted his 95 theses denying Papal primacy and protesting the infallibility of the Vatican at the castle Church of Wittenburg.
Europe, thus, had a printing press, advanced forms of gunpowder, well organized navies and merchant fleets guided by teh mariner`s compass and had made its first tentative arrival at the coasts of India, before Babar won the Battle of Panipat in 1526. By the time of the death of Aurangzeb in 1707, the bourgeousie had obtained definite ascendency in Europe and had put the latest scientific discoveries and innovations at the use of its imperialistic designs.
And then there were advances in scientific knowledge and concepts. Galelio`s kinematics (the motion of falling bodies), and Kepler`s telescope, Newton`s calculus, laws of gravitation and the reflecting telescope facilitated the formulation of the laws of planetary motion. Alongwith Torricelli`s mercury barometer all these advances aided the bourgeoise merchants fleets on the high sea.
The eighteenth century was to further widen the technological gap between India and Europe, the growing capitalist demands promoting further discoveries and inventions. Cast Steel (1735) roller loom for spinning (1738) sheet iron mill (1754) the spinning jenny (Hargreaves 1767), the all important steam engine (Watt, 1969), the mechanical power loom (Cartwright, 1785), the hydraulic press (Bramah, 1795), Paper Manufacture (Robert, 1799). Large scale mechanical production became both possible and expendient and the industrial giants of Europe began to devour the cottage industries of Asia and Africa. It was this armeda of technological advances more than its armies that ensured Europe`s inevitable triumph over the Indian peoples.
India was static. The dynamic quality which was becoming evident in Europe was almost wholly absent in India. A contemporary description of the administration of the State and the working of the Auarangzeb`s court gives no doubt an account of the emperor`s energetic interest in the minutest affairs of the realm, but what is significant is that the description could equally have been a picture of Qutb-ub Din Aibek or Alla-ud-Din Khilji or, barring the differences of certain applied presepts, some rituals and of the court languages, of the court of Asoka. India had changed but little. The rustic centralisation, the all pervading authority of the King, the all embracing sovereignty of the imperial will, an India ruled and administered by princely feudatories, and an India that remained static and quiescent over the centuries.
The Mughal emperors at teh height of their glory and power had failed to perceive the use of such obvious vehicles to progress and intercourse as the printing press or the navy. In 1582 Akbar had been presented, at Fatehpur Sikri, a copy of a Polyglot Bible in no less than four languages by a team of Portuguese missionaries. Akbar is said to have kissed the images of Jesus and Mary, and placed the Book on his head to the great delight of the donors. He questioned them about the printing. But he was not impelled not even by curiosity, to undertake the process in India itself.
In the seventeenth and eithteenth centuries Europe had developed a trade and manufacturing bourgeousie which had a tangible economic stake in governmental stability as well as in the certainty and predictability of succession and transfer of power maintaining at the same time the strength and continuity of bourgeois governmental institutions (such as a Parliament). India`s failure to develop such a class was to cost it dearly. Without the stabilising influence of Parliamentary and judicial institutions, India continued to be convulsed, even at the height of Mughal imperialism, by wars of succession and usurpation and by inter-necine struggles.

The Ethnic Myth:

By this myth the Hindu-Muslim divide is perceived as a mere difference of rituals, religious practices and dogmatic forms. What is completely overlooked is that there were certain other inherent differences the differences of socio-economic development which made co-existence impossible. These were the differences between the bourgeois and the feudal.
The differences between the Hindus and Muslims of India were evident in many ways, and these have often been highlighted. Hindu idolatory is pitched against Muslim iconoclasm. The original Hindu polytheism has been contrasted with Muslim monotheism. The Hindu practice of ``Suttee`` and the strait-jacket of caste offend Muslim conscience, though the Muslim rulers of India did little ot eradicate the first and, in fact profited (in revenue and the maintenance of peace) by a clever employment of the latter.
Yet over the centuries the two communities had co-existed. Hindu ministers had served in Muslim courts and vice versa. Often Hindu and Muslim feudatories had formed alliances. At least at the level of the ruling elite the Mughals had practised, inter-marriages and Allau-ud-Din Khilji, Akbar and Jahangir had all taken Hindu rajput princesses for wives and queens.
The armies of the Muslim empire, and earlier Muslim States including the Delhi Sultanat, drew their strength from recruits marshalled by feudatories. Even lesser dynasties frequently entered into inter-communal alliance, as we see in the case of Nawab Wazir Safdar Jang, of Oudh sacking the Muslim principality of Rohilkhand, and the entire Rohilla country with the aid of the Marhatta army of Malhar Rao Helkor and the Bharatpur troops of Raja Suraj Mal Jat in 1751. The mixing if the two communities was not confined to the imperial and feudal elite. It was equally obvious at lower levels even if prominance to this circumstance has not been allowed by historians more concerned with dynastic fortunes and palace rituals then with the common man. Since the artisans, were organized in craft-castes, the caste idstinction continued even after conversion.
In the war of 1857, both communities joined issue with the British. To start it, the greased cartridges had incensed soldiers of both communities to `rebellion` at the Meerut garrison. The population of Dehli and the oudh peasantry who rose with the patriots drew from both communities. While most of the Princes either sided with the British or maintained a significant neutrality, the name of Lakshami Bai, the sttractive 20 years old Rani of Jhansi leading her cavalry to her defeat and death, cannot be omitted from the ranks of the Indian heroes of the war. Nor can we deny the valour in the efforts of the guerilla Tantia Topi who took up arms at a time that his people, the Marhattas, were fully exhausted.
The Hindu had been taking advantage of the prospects of playing a complimentary and facilitating role to British commercial and industrial expropriation of India. They had taken to commerce and industry as well as to participation in the administration, albeit at subordinate positions, from the very day that the British set foots in Bengal. By the turn of the century they were establishing factories and mills. Twentieth century saw a widespread and truly national Hindu bourgeoisie straining to break out of unjust and uneconomical controls upon its free development and deliberately restrictive of its growth intended to preserve all manner of British monopolies.
The Muslims, by contrast, had sulked over the outcomes of Plassey and Seringapatam as they were later to resent the annexation of Oudh and the failure of the uprising of 1857. They had stayed away from the British system of trade and industrial expropriation, and where, (as they had in the Punjab) they were to collaborate with the Raj it was in the role of the lower feudatories or ``Zamindars`` collecting revenue and harvesting crops suited to the Lancashire industries and grown upon lands allotted by the imperial administration.
Large-scale, internal and external trade was thus in the hands of the Hindu community. Allied propessions like book-keeping and accounts were also filled up by Hindus. Large scale manufactures and the large factories were owned by the Hindu Vaishyas, although th majority of the artisans were, by now, converts to Islam.
The distinction was to remain, and was ultimately to become the prime-mover impelling the Pakistan Movement of the mid-Twentieth Century. The predominantly feudal and agrarian society of north-western India was repelled by the prospect of becoming subject to the predominantly bourgeois areas of the Gangetic plain and penninsular coast. (The predominant trends were so powerful, in fact, that the latter-day, West Pakistan East Pakistan rift was, also, in part, a result of it. Bengal, with its bourgeois relations of production had always been a part of the Gengetic India the world of maritime trade and commerce distinct from teh land-locked and landowning elite of the north-west.)
That there may had been such conversions as are refferred to is possible. The bourgeois Hindu class was, economically, on the ascendency while the Muslim feudal system stood static and immobile. An attraction of economic betterment has frequently determined tbe choise of belief. In practical politics the Arya Samaj thinking was best represented in the energetic but highly provocative perosn of Bal Gangadhar Tilak to arouse Hindu sentiment Tilak revived the Sivaji cult; and the worship of the heroes of ancient scriptures.
While the Hindu marchaed on into the twentieth century witha confidence bordering upon the militant, the Muslim elite stood by and sulked. He wept upon the passing of the old glories of Delhi and Lucknow. He resented the new system and its values that seemed alien to him. He was the fallen hero unable to rise, having spent himself in the nostalgia for his past. He was fixated to the days of his forefathers glory and this fixation had immobilized him completely.
At the beginning of the present century the Muslims were compelled by the fears of the Hindu revivalism to seek protection of the British and to that effect to manifest their loyalty to the Crown at every possible occasion. To some extent, therefore, the success of the Moderator like Gokhale (who was President of the Congress in 1905) and of less fearsome reformists like Mrs. Anie Besent (President in 1917) in isolating and suppressing the extremists contributed in weaning the India Muslims from the British. The Government had kept the Muslims on its side by providing for separate electorates in the Act of 1909, thus ensuring the minority`s representation in all events. The Hindu bourgeoisie was also keen to win them over, ultimately as a passive agratian appendix. A mutual amity prevailed from the Lucknow Pat 1916 whereby the Congress recognized the Muslim right to separate Electorates, through the Rowlett Act agitation and the massacre in the Punjab at Amritsar. It was at its height in the khilafat Movement, the reaction of a Muslim community shocked by the unjust terms imposed upon Turkey by the Treaty of Sevres. In the meantime, as we have seen, India had been bled white by the First War and the Montague-Chelmsford Act of 1919 had not obtained much attention.
The Hindu Muslim amity was, however, not to last. On both sides there had been significant developments and a substantial gain of self-confidence. The Khilafat Movement though it ended in a fiasco with the Khilafat itself being discarded by the hero Ata-turk, had evidenced the Muslim potential to generate mass rallies. Moreover a growing Muslim bourgeoisie was now keen to make its own compacts with the feudals of the Muslim majority areas rather than let the Hindus make further inroads into these provinces and to take over from the British Commercial, banking and industrial interests.
The Muslim bourgeoisie was weaker. First it needed leadership. This it had the fortune to get in the shape of Jinnah. Second, and also vital, its character remained predominantly as yet of an agrarian bourgeoisie based on the economy of market (mandi) towns and mufassil cities. To come into its own it had to obtain the support of the feudal gentry commanding the rural hinterland of the Muslim majority areas, keeping the peace in these areas and thereby aiding the skimming and appropriation of the surplus. In a short term separatist struggle the support of the land-owners was crucial, as this alone would open up the larger parts of the Punjab and Sind to the crusading and zealous Aligarh Students.
But the land-owner was not willing to chip in with the Pakistan Movement unless the League first established its popular base and demonstrated mass strength. This was apparently a viscious circle. It was finally broken not by the land-owners, but by the dtermined and single-minded pursuit by the League Leadership, and particcularly Mr. Jinnah, of the cause that the League had espoused. The land-owners then fell into Mr. Jinnah`s lap in the 1940`s and the stage for the final act was thus prepared.

Re:avenger#22

I am not denying that Pakistan has been our enemy since 1947. The first step in any conflict is to analyze the enemy and the strategy it is employing against us. Ever since 1947, the establishment in Pakistan has carefully constructed an amazing mythology that is based on a denial of their pre-Islamic history. Pakistani textbooks start their history at Mohenjodaro and then skip to Mohamad Bin Qasim`s expeditions. The exploits of Ghaznavi and Ghauri are lionized to the extent that they name their missiles after them. The public is constantly bombarded with the message that muslims conquered hindus, muslims are superior and one muslim is equal to ten hindus in combat etc. The pre-Islamic cultural practices are frowned upon as unIslamic and people are encouraged to believe that Islamic values will get diluted if there is too much interaction with hindus.

Now all of this ideology totally conflicts with the ground realities since people cannot change their genes. The Pakistani people are native people of the Indus valley and hence have a composite culture of both pre-Islamic and Islamic values. They have always shared the Indian subcontinent with us and it shows in all walks of life. Their instinct is to enjoy desi culture, movies, music etc. They instinctively bond with Indians at a person to person level. Their values are very similar to ours. Their country looks and feels pretty much like ours. Their military prowess is at the same level as ours.

So why does the Pakistani establishment continue to propagate the above unrealistic charade? Because that is the only way they can motivate the people to fight for their pet cause, which is to defeat India and grab Kashmir. The jihadi fodder for the proxy war was the ordinary guy in Punjab or Karachi who was brainwashed into thinking that he was the successor to the illustrious traditions of Ghaznavi and would get brilliant victory in Kashmir. The ground reality was that in a short while the Indian army would take his life. Yet the establishment continues this myth building almost as a representation of Pakistani nationalism.

As Indians, our response to all this should be to undercut this ideology in every possible way for obvious reasons. It is also very important for our own psychology as well. We Indians often fall into the trap of actually validating the Pakistani establishment`s ideology by accepting Pakistanis as the proxy for the muslim invaders of the past. That undermines our own confidence and emotional stability to deal with Pakistan and gives them an upper hand for no reason. Notice how even in sporting events like cricket (except for the last series) and hockey, the Indian team would be nervous and collapse while facing Pakistan, while the Pakistanis would perform with extra confidence. In military matters and negotiations, we would needlessly operate with an inferiority complex stemming from past humiliations of hindus. Notice how we took the Kashmir issue to the UN in 1947 and later on we were not able to capitalize on our victory in 1971 to settle this matter once and for all.

Bottom line is that we should treat Pakistan as nothing more than a neighboring country of fellow desis who are muslims and push them towards holding similar feelings towards us. It has to be a relationship based on mutual respect and a realistic assessment of each other`s capabilities. Once the myths are shattered, it is much easier to sit down and negotiate contentious issues. In fact, I think the Indian government is doing a great job increasing people to people contacts as it is slowly undermining the entire ideological apparatus setup by the Pakistani establishment.

Romair #9

When the Muslims of UP supported the idea of Pakistan I can guarantee you that they had no idea to what they were asking. It is obvious the poor Muslims did not care much about Pakistan. Otherwise they would have emigrated. They were apprehensive about the Congress Party. They obviously supported the Muslim League.

`` If Muslims wanted a separate state just for Islam, they would be demanding a state everywhere, e.g. USA, Canada, Europe etc.``

Muslims in Europe have no moral right to ask for a separate state. You will politely told to get lost to the sewer hole you came from.

`` Keeping this in mind, any group in Pakistan that can provide the highest economics and personal security, to the most people, will eventually win out. It won`t matter if it is religious or secular. I really don`t think, in today`s Pakistan, any group can gain a huge following just by pushing religion or secularism as philosophies.``

Tell me exactly what the MMA has to offer in this regard.

`` The ideologies of politics, in Pakistan, is thus different from India, where things are at two extremes: One group, the BJP, is as a philosophy pushing Hinduvta and religion, including its violent form. And another group, the Congress has completely non-Hindu leadership. Pakistan has neither the equivalent of BJP from the religious side, nor the equivalent of Congress from the secular side. Everyone is in between the two.``

When someone says the BJP is more extreme than the MMA it speaks for their ideology.
Sonia and Manmohan aside the Congress does not have a non-Hindu leadership.

amit...you didn`t get the message I was trying to convey. Ghori was just an analogy. It doesn`t matter where he was from. It was Romair who tried to equate what Ghori and the other muslim marauders did to the hindu kafeers to what India does to Kashmiris....

Basically I equated Romair`s sweet talk , all the crap about `appealing to our inner humanity` to the Ghori-Prithviraj story. My hatred for Pakistan is for very recent reasons. The post 1989-Kashmir scenario. I couldn`t care less about the hindu-muslim equation , partition etc.

Fact 1. : Pakistanis eye Indian territory .

Fact 2 : Pakistan is fighting a low intensity proxy war against India.

So what are we Indians gonna do about it ? They dont like us too much , so to please them , should we cut off one of our hands and gift it to them ? Or should we fight back , be equally brutal and ruthless , if not more.....What do you suggest ? (Just a rhetorical question. Please dont bother to answer. Your suggestion is not required.)

---

Pakistanis hold steadfast to the view that the Kashmiris dont like us and want freedon from us. Now if they dont like us , then why the hell do you think we should care about their aspirations ? If anything thats another solid reason to do everything we can to hold on to Kashmir. Nothing makes a man happier than to see his enemies and ill-wishers unhappy and discontent.

Re:labyrinth1#16

You seem to be a totally confused person with all kinds of contradictory positions. You claim to be a liberal yet you support the Taliban. You want an Islamic state but don`t want Hudood laws. Make up your mind, will you? You sound like John Kerry!!

Also, it seems like you do not want to accept that we Indians accept Pakistan!! Every Indian (even BJP) says that we accept Pakistan, yet you keep repeating that we don`t. Vajpayee went and paid respect at the Minar in Lahore. Every Indian government reiterates that it wants a stable, secure Pakistan. What more do you want us to do?

Re:avenger#19

You are directing your anger at the wrong people. You want revenge against Ghauri and Ghaznavi, go after Afghanistan, Iran or beyond. What does Pakistan have to do with it? Most people (99%) in Pakistan are Rajputs, Jats, Punjabis, Sindhis etc., in other words descendents of hindus who converted to Islam. Even the pathans on this side of the Durand Line never occupied Delhi, and in fact, under Badshah Khan they supported Gandhi in 1947. Prithviraj Chauhan`s descendent, who is a muslim with last name Chauhan, lives in Pakistan. Pakistan`s ideological guru Iqbal was a Kashmiri Pandit.

If you look at the rulers of Pakistan, what do you see? Jinnah was a third generation gujju muslim. The Bhuttos are Rajputs. Zia-ul-Haq was a Punjabi, most likely a Jat or Rajput. Musharraf is a Muhajir, most likely a north Indian Bhaiyya. Now just because some Pakistanis wrongly worship Ghaznavi and Ghauri, does not mean that we should wrongly give them the same status. No Pakistani ever occupied Delhi, ruled anyone in India or committed atrocities. So why should we hate them for no reason?

Romair..

lets cut the chase , shall we. I dont blame the muslim kings or condemn them for invading India , killing and torturing million kafeer people , raping millions of kafeer women. It was only in their nature.One cannot hold a rabies affected mad dog responsible for its actions , right ? However one should rightly blame the city authorities for not shooting the mad dog , killing it and saving the lives of so many.

So I blame my hindu ancestors for not fighting back and not fighting hard enough - for losing the war , their lives and the honor of their women folk. I blame them for being so weak.

The mistake however will not be repeated again. The hindus of today take no crap from anybody. The rajput king , the brave and chivalrous Pritviraj Chauhan defeated Mohammad Ghori the first time when Ghori attacked. Ghori was chained and brought to Chauhan. Ghori spoke beautifully prasing Prithviraj and begged for mercy and promised everlasting friendship. Being the sentimental fool that he was, the rajput king let Ghori go back and even gave his kingdom back to him. What happened ? Ghori came back the very next year , with a stronger army. Defeated Prithviraj , captured him alive , plucked his eyes out with a heated iron rod , tortured him mercilessly for months and raped Prithviraj`s beloved wife Queen Sanyukta.....

We know your lot well Romair. When cornered ,(in this case knowing that Pakistan is in no position to dictate terms to India as India is far superior militarily and economically) you talk sooo very sweetly , appealing to our `goodness , humanity , conscience and what not...But understand this , Romair . We Indians of today have learnt a lot from our past mistakes. We know your lot very well. Ghori wouldn`t get away so cheaply if he fell into the grasp of the Indians of today , to say the least....One chance my man...one chance is all we want...

Re:Romair#7 and #9

I agree with most of what you are saying. The only difference is that you believe that muslims will always get a raw deal in India, hence they should either reconcile to their fate or in the case of Kashmiris, separate from India. I believe that India is headed to the path of real secularism where people`s religious origin will cease to matter at all. The recent elections where BJP got routed was not a flash in the pan due to some slogan. In the following assembly elections in Maharashtra and elsewhere, the BJP continued to lose.

The reality is that Indian people are becoming savvy and practical. They are hungry for rapid economic progress at all levels and know that communalism is basically BS - a huge distraction and a recipe for failure. If you cannot pull all sections of your society forward, you just do not make progress. Twenty years earlier no one imagined that a Sikh would become the PM of India but it happened and today Sikhs are no longer feeling disenchanted. Today Kashmiris are disenchanted but that does not mean that it will always be that way. I can safely say that in the not too distant future, especially in the context of improving Indo-Pak relations and stronger secular bearings in India, a muslim could become the PM of India and who knows, it might be a Kashmiri muslim.

avenger #11: ``We only want the land.... ``

Would this mean that you consider the subjugation of India by the Muslim kings and the British to be justifiable. They only wanted the land, also. What about Saddam`s actions against the Kurds.

At some point, everyone has to realize, be they secular or religious, that, ``land`` only belongs to the people who live on it. And those who use religion or secularism to justify their hold over the people and the land, are violating the basic human rights of people.

As I said, secularism without humanism is facism.

At the same time, I must admit I admire your honesty and straightforwardness. It is good to see, at least a few people, admit that they just, ``want the land,`` rather than giving all kinds of double-speak arguments on why they have to have land to sustain secularism and this and that..........

Religion in Pakistani Politics is a reality - and Muallah`s has a role to play
in Pakistani politics until our country is a Islamic Country. We have a nation
where there`s more then 95% of people muslims - moderate muslims , whatever the `liberal chowk english class` thinks , those Islamic Parties
are here to stay in Pakistan - theres this class inside Pakistan who wants to
make Pakistan , ` Europe` for all the wrong reasons - they want to make Pakistan , Paris - this won`t happen . If they want to adopt anything from
West adopt social justice and respect of law thats what we need in todays
Pakistan.
Pakistan won`t ever be a secular country let me be very clear , whats secularism ? , Islam gives everyone equal rights , thats what Quaid ( rah )
said , Quaid wanted a Islamic State where everyone is equal not a secualr state . Yes I agree are not perfect , but who is ? we are trying to be better
at things .. I don`t agree with Hudood Laws at all if someone is thinking I respect those laws..
Indians in the end of the day are creatures who would never accept Pakistan from there hearts - whatever they say the reality is they will not respect our nation . Why is the word `Sind` still part of Indian National Anthem? its been more then 5o years

---

Captain Clueless : ``I long to see the day, where everyone in South Asia is living in a country, or countries, voluntarily, of their own choice. And they do not face any subjugation to satisfy the desires of people who live hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away. This is the humane way to live...........``

Exactly...and that is why The Land Of The Pure was created , remember ? Those South Asians who are not satisfied being ruled over by kafeers living a million miles away are welcome to migrate to The Land Of The Pure and live happily ever after. They are not wanted here anyway. We only want the land....