'Constitutionally' Different Neighbours

Feroz

When I said ``friends`` I had one in particular.

Ofcourse I agree that many of them bear us no ill will as I don`t bear them any ill will.

Funny thing about quip.

re: Mantolives

Thanks for the reply and as to our ``friends`` from across the fense, do not mind them. They are not as bad as most think. Afterall, they are the only ones defending Pakistan on my interact board, when all the Pakistanis have fled from the good fight!

Listen to what our friends are saying and not to the tenor of their voices; pay attention to their words and not how they are saying them and you will realize that all they want is for us to get our act together and stop making a nusiance of ourselves.

I agree, with your idea on the evolutionary process for the 1973 document.

I hope that lawyer in you appreciates this morsel of mirth. A few days ago, a student of mine who is taking a class, came up to me with a question. The student wanted to know what was the name of the law in Pakistan, which punished a woman for the act of rape and wanted to know the law`s proper and legal name. The student was confused and wanted to know whether that particular law was called the Hudood Ordinances or the Jinnah Ordinances!?!?

Ciao

Dear Majumdar,

I agree with that restatement. It is about evolution of society... I just hope it is evolution and not degeneration.

Manto mian

(especially that the reason Jinnah`s vision never materialised was because of the grand communication gap between the leader and the followers and his inability to bridge it... )

I think the failure was more to do with social factors than just a communication gap.

Was MAJ `s (pbuh) vision of a secular country really acceptable to Pakistanis then or even now?

Was Jinnah`s vision of a democratic society really realisable in the West Pak society (unlike EPak/Bdesh) which was dominated by tribal-feudal elements where the middle class-intellegentsia was just too small in number at least in 1947. ML came to be hijacked by the worst kind of feudals like Mamdot, Kalabagh etc. within years of MAJ`s and LAK`s death and in hands of elements like this democracy would purely be a matter of form rather than spirit.

Plainly was MAJ ahead of his time/out of place in Pak society.

Would like to have your thoughts on this.

Regards

Dear Ferozk

What you have said is elementary and commonsense-

I have no disagreements with what you have written... the reason I was forced to comment on your post in the first place- despite knowing your views on these subjects - was because your initial post lent itself to a gleeful misinterpretation by our friends from across the border.

You, HP and I are on the same page on the issues enumerated - especially that the reason Jinnah`s vision never materialised was because of the grand communication gap between the leader and the followers and his inability to bridge it... As far as 1973`s consititution is concerned... I completely agree - except I would add that Objectives Resolution in its edited form became the ``substantive part`` under 2A which was undemocratic.

Sorry for the late reply- I am swamped with work.

Re: Mantolives # 114

Yasser, sorry for this delayed reply. You have raised a very insightful point and I wanted to comment on it.

First of all, I need to get the disagreements out of the way.

There is a major difference between a speech and a constitution. American constitution was a response to the failure of the Articles of Confederation, which did give the Americans a framework of how to establish the foundations of their political. The American government was not created on the basis of George Washington`s farewell address to the American troops at Valley Forge.

Besides, the preamble to the United States` constitution admits to the imperfect nature of its experiment, when it states that `` we the people, in order to form a more perfect union...`` The Pakistani constitution`s preamble gives sovereign political power to Allah and that implies that it is a perfect creation and thus, there is no need to improve upon it. Therefore, whereas the American constitution allows an evolutionary process, as you suggested, the Pakistan constitution does not and hence, your analogy to the American constitution with Jinnah`s speech seems to be a bit misplaced.

I still maintain that Jinnah`s speech of August 11, 1947 was an evocation. In fact, I admire that speech for its vision and its sense of purpose but other than these qualities, the speech offered no ground rules on how to make the polity, which Jinnah foresaw. Granted that Jinnah died before he could actualize his vision into tangible political goals did not also help the situation. It was a tragedy that Jinnah died, but that tragedy was miniscule compared to the tragedy Jinnah left behind by his failure create a viable policy framework to govern the new nation and give it direction.

You mentioned that the Jinnah Papers offer an idea for a policy for Pakistan, which Jinnah had. It does not matter what ideas Jinnah might have thought and said or wrote down, because in the end those ideas remained as ideas and he never achieved those ideas. The problem with an idea on a piece of paper, which is not realized is that it remains an idea on a piece of paper - nothing more and nothing less. In hindsight, it really does not matter a fig what Jinnah thought because the reality will always be that he left Pakistan with only dream and nothing more concrete than that and we as a nation must learn to solve our problems by grappling with the reality of our situation and not on the basis of what our founding dreamt about Pakistan.

On the agreement side of the debate, I agree with you that as flawed as it is, we must persist with the constitution of 1973.

However, as with the Articles of Confederation, we must also start to seriously think about replacing the constitution of 1973 at some future date. Afterall, it is better cut off the dead wood before it drowns you :)

Ciao

#132, naren {``That said, incidents like Gujarat are aberration at least in South India. ...As if, they are waiting to see what kind vocabulary you use to decide whether ``aberrate or not.`` I propose these hindutva types and bin laden followers be thrown in an island and let them decide among themselves. If we do that India will be a better place. ...
On an another note, judging by the content you posted on chowk, I believe You are a decent person unlike your hero Aurangzeb. ``}

Naren Bhai,
I agree with you comment. It is very heartening to note that South India negates Gujarat so well. May the rest of the subcontinent become like that. May I propose the British Isle for this island where the bin ladens and the hindutvas can have their kumbaya come to jesus hugfest? :)

Maharaja Aurangjeb is not my hero - I just defended the Rajput emperor`s right to be called an Indian.

Re: # 132
> I saw picture of a muslim man pleading for his life in Time magazine. ..
don`t worry - if ppl like u had ur way it will be hindus in india, australians in australia,
christians in france, sweden etc pleading for their lives.
At least that muslim was let off by the mob - in a role reversal, we humans will be wiped off by this species.

I can think up of a name for you in such a scenario - how does Nasir sound to you ? Like it ?

:)

Jai shri Ram

Re:bharath#130

[...Same ole same ole ``strategy``.......... ]

Lets stop blaming Pakistan for every massacare of hindus in Kashmir. The real culprits are the Kashmiri muslims - yes the ba$tards living in the Kashmir valley. We Indians are deluded into thinking that Kashmiri muslims are ok, rahter it is the big, bad Pakistanis who are fomenting terrorism. As a result, we keep giving a pass to the people who have really been waging a war against India - the Kashmiri muslims.

It was the Kashmiri muslims who started the fight in 1989 and have kept it alive. The LOC is all fenced up with hardly any cross-border movement, still the bombings and violence continues. Separatist leaders like Syed Ali Shah Geelani and Mirwaiz Umer openly preach sedition. It is time to recognize that we have a major problem with these people and it wont go away by negotiations.

What we need is a KPS Gill type character who will go and give the royal danda to Kashmiri muslims. Forget about autonomy and other BS. We need summary executions and encounters of any young man who looks sideways. That will end this nonsense once and for all.

---

while not exactly state policy in India, religious intolerance is also not as benign as a mere ``aberration`` either. State-sponsored massacres of 2000 innocent people and rape, mutilation, and cremation of hundreds of little girls and pregnant women is not exactly an ``aberration.`` Please select a more horrible-sounding terms so that right-wing Hindutva types don`t try to ``aberrate`` at will.``

Hi Salim,
I grew up in south India ( Andhra Predesh). I lived in India for 21 years. I left India in 1993. While I noticed castiesm among hindus in certain parts of my state, I did nt notice discrimination against Muslims. we had few muslim students in class. Even though, they were a minority they were harassed because of their religion. But again, all my experiences are based on my schooling. I agree Gujarat massacres are horrible. I saw picture of a muslim man pleading for his life in Time magazine. It`s heart breaking. I am sure every one of the victims, who got killed by hindu mobs, is innocent and has nothing to do with train burning incident. That said, incidents like Gujarat are aberration at least in South India. The only communal relateed incident I experienced was my town was placed under curphew for three days as a precautionary measure during Babri incident.

---

Please select a more horrible-sounding terms so that right-wing Hindutva types don`t try to ``aberrate`` at will.``


As if, they are waiting to see what kind vocabulary you use to decide whether ``aberrate or not.`` I propose these hindutva types and bin laden followers be thrown in an island and let them decide among themselves. If we do that India will be a better place.

On an another note, judging by the content you posted on chowk, I believe You are a decent person unlike your hero Aurangzeb.

Naren

HP sahib,

MAJ (pbuh) knew that he was dying when Pakistan was born. Maybe he should have done more to create set foundations of institutions or build a collective leadership.

But I do accept that MAJ was faced with a herculean task. Creating a nation is hard enough, building it is an even formidable task even for a healthy man with long years ahead of him let one a sick man who didn`t have much time.

Regards

Same ole same ole ``strategy``..........



..........................................





it doesnt matter this ``strategy`` has taken u to the s^it ole wher u are in.............................




http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006 05 02 story_2-5-2006_pg1_1

34 Hindus killed in Kashmir




:-) * PAKSHITAN CONDEMNS ‘ACT OF OF TERRORISM’ :-)





* Hurriyat chairman calls for killers to be arrested

By Iftikhar Gilani




NEW DELHI: Unidentified gunmen shot dead 22 Hindus, including a nine-year old girl, in two villages of Doda district in Jammu and Kashmir late Sunday night. In a separate incident, 12 Hindus kidnapped on Sunday were found dead.




The gunmen killed the Hindus after dragging them out of their houses. The injured included a women and her daughter.............................................
...................

Re: # 127

> ... Anything hinuds do is twisted to ``prove`` that they have not accepted pakiland ...

Mohar - that was a direct to puki groins .... check out HP`s comment :)

#127

It is okay to be an idiot but why advertise it day after day? We have known it and have known it for a long time now....With this idiot on hand, who would believe that hindus are hoshiar? What a disgrace to his own people.

Is there anything different that you can write moharsadass?

Re: # 124
[...Simple fact is that if Hindus have accepted Pakistan, they would not have been flocking this site in droves....]

60 years down the drain - pakis are still quaking in their boots ... ``hinuds have not accepted us pakis... boo hoo.... big bad hinuds are still flocking to chowk.... boo hoo...``

Anything hinuds do is twisted to ``prove`` that they have not accepted pakiland - even the simple act of participating in chowk - a site that`s be definition designed for India and pakistan - is fact enough to prove the theory - even though each and every hinud here has expressely stated that they have no intention of conquering pakiland....

So sad....

manto:
pak. army would rather take things to a meltdown than to give up power (like 1971) and this time they have nukes... that meltdown point might not come tomorrow maybe not for ten years but unless the BIG MELT comes - talking romantically like ferozek did about future of pakistan is futile. That was my point. you are welcome to indulge in urdu shairi cliches.

HP the first picture is not from kashmir, its the indian airlines bringing back body of telecom engineer ``qatled`` (in a proper priscription beheading) by the taliban. This and the kasmiri killings make pakistani position in international and bi-lateral arena weaker. e.g. this calls for a couple of divisions for special forces in helmand, bigegr base in tajikistan, and GHQ can only squirm...considering they cannot seem to ``control`` the jihadis in kashmir.

and winter is not important..no snow in dilli or bangalore..or Doda for that matter? we have many festivals up-coming..ganesh, diwali, shivaratri and so on.

#119 by majumdar
“It was very smart of MAJ (pbuh) no doubt but not very fortunate for Pakistan. Once he was gone there was no collective leadership or institution to guide Pakistan.”

Dada,
I am surprised to read this from a seasoned person like you…

Institutions are not built in one day, one week, one month or six months or even in six years.

ranjit # 112 and # 118,

As avkrishna said your thesis is just “Very interesting perspective”.

Indian history does not support it…But Hindus are berry smart and intelligent people. No one knows what they have up their sleeves churri or Ram Ram :)

Simple fact is that if Hindus have accepted Pakistan, they would not have been flocking this site in droves. It is not only this site, even on Indian sites they obsess over Pakistan. Not a healthy thing for people who helped create Pakistan…

Good luck with your thesis…wont fly very far in History classes….

123 Jang,

It is the begining of the summer in Kashmir...It is also fun time there...
Enjoy while it lasts...

the different neighbors..



and then when indian kashmir held a paceful and well-attended ELECTION (ok, no 98% madate for anyone..but a good election anyways..) the Mohammed-ali-jinnah-if-alive whiners are still supporting killers of 22 hindus.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4961464.stm

Re: # 116 YLH
[....think they can get away with firing away from other people`s shoulders...]

May be... but what are you going to do?.... you still live in an islamic state which is getting more and more talibanized each passing day .... you father still can`t call himself a muslim.... you have to declare your own father a non-muslim to get a passport.....

May be everybody tells you otherwise are wrong - may be jinnah PUBH was indeed god-incarnate - but that still doesn`t take you pakis anywhere - you still don`t have a democracy, secularism or even the right to call yourself muslim.... and never will....

ranjit # 112 and # 118,

Very interesting perspective.

Rgds,

Yaseer mian
Earlier you used to start running to your mummy whenever you ran out of arguments, now you have started hiding behind anyone on street, making them your baap!
Now you have no arguments left to contradict that MAJ screwed up Pakistani state by leaving it with no directions. And you are claiming that to be a stinging slap on my face!! I would leave you with your wet dreams about MAJ.

Manto,

(the success of 130 million Muslims in India in mobilising as a great electoral force would mean that not only Muslims managed to get their sovereign states... but continue to exercise a strong veto in areas that were left behind in India... Then ought not the Hindus try and improve the lot of their country ... which is not the most perfect in the world... and leave Pakistan to us? )

You’re right but only partially. The Muslims wield far more influence in India than Pakistan- they were able to prevent GWB from addressing India from either the Parliament or the Red Fort- in the Muslims’ own promised land the Big Poodle bombs his own territory and allows USA to do the same. I second your thought that Hindus (and IMs) ought to think about improving their own country. Reuniting Pakistan and Bdesh would be committing suicide.

HP sahib

(Jinnah was far smarter than Gandhi. Gandhi had India on a platter, Jinnah climbed a mountain to get a slice of India from Gandhi and the Congress, and after getting the slice, when he looked back he was the only one on the mountain… There were no strings for other to follow him. )

It was very smart of MAJ (pbuh) no doubt but not very fortunate for Pakistan. Once he was gone there was no collective leadership or institution to guide Pakistan.

Re:Manto#115

[.... because going by that the success of 130 million Muslims in India in mobilising as a great electoral force would mean that not only Muslims managed to get their sovereign states... but continue to exercise a strong veto in areas that were left behind in India...]

I would say that it is actually Nehru`s lust for Kashmir that saved the millions of muslims in India. By 1947-48, the communal atmosphere was so poisoned, I dont think any hindu (besides Gandhi) wanted a single muslim to stay back in India. Punjab had been completely cleansed. Bengal had been cleansed to quite an extent. The violence had started to spread to Delhi and UP as well. Just as Pakistan cleansed hindus/sikhs, India would have cleansed all muslims.

The Congress did nothing in Punjab and Gandhi made a few noises in Calcutta and Noakhali. However, the Congress did stop the violence from spreading to the same extent in Delhi and UP. That timing is very, very suspicious since it coincides with India`s getting Kashmir from the Maharaja. It would have been impossible for Nehru and India to hold on to muslim majority Kashmir if muslims from everywhere else were being forced to leave for Pakistan. How could Nehru convince Sheikh Abdullah to throw his weight behind India? How could India convince the international community? So the communal violence had to end and millions of muslims managed to stay behind. Of course, it fit in with the secular ideology but I doubt there were any genuine secular feelings in 1947.

[...Then ought not the Hindus try and improve the lot of their country ... which is not the most perfect in the world... and leave Pakistan to us?...]

Indeed!! That is exactly what hindus are doing with their focus on economy. I dont see India interfering in Pakistan all that much.

In fact, I posit that India has a much more balanced and unemotional view of the communal equation in the subcontinent than Pakistan does. India knows it is not possible for hindus and muslims to live like brothers. The maximum is lukewarm friendship. So it is futile to think of conquering Pakistan since its citizens can never be absorbed. In fact, India has never made any serious military attempt at undoing partition, irrespective of all the romantic notions in Pakistani minds that Indians are coming in tanks. The maximum attempt has been to weaken Pakistan just enough so that it can never be a serious rival as in 1971. This realization of ground reality has freed India to pursue non-Pakistan centric interests which has paid rich dividends.

Pakistanis on the other hand are too emotional about the communal equation. Its entire foreign policy and even domestic policy is driven by paranoia of Indian invasion. It has suffered decades of military rule due to this paranoia. Its aggressive postures is to do jehad in India to harm hindus. We have all seen the price Pakistan has paid for this situation.

Re: # 104

``History does not offer Pakistan any meaningful guide on how to solve our problems, because we have to deal with the very real and serious limitation of our present situation and we have to find an answer to our problems from within the constraints of our limited choices. ``

It is not good enough to say that Jinnah wanted this and Jinnah wanted that............Pakistani citizens have enough brains to pursue their own good and learn from the painful history of the humanity...........Pakistanis need to decide whether they want their nation to be a modern democracy or not and then work for it...............reform the constitution to a secular nationhood and insist on free and fair elections ............

HP 106-

Thanks for that stinging slap on friend mian`s face. The problem with our ``friend`` and his shutar-be-``mohar`` is that they think they can get away with firing away from other people`s shoulders.

PS to Ranjit,

I`d add that you`ve left out the Junagadh issue. Hyderabad if you recall was taken later on 13th September 1948... Also I don`t think your compatriots understand the full implications of what you are suggestng... because going by that the success of 130 million Muslims in India in mobilising as a great electoral force would mean that not only Muslims managed to get their sovereign states... but continue to exercise a strong veto in areas that were left behind in India... This is just another way of looking at it. In any event don`t you think it is only fair then that the historical recombination- the Congress Masterstroke as you put it- was a justified solution for it gave all parties what they wanted? Then ought not the Hindus try and improve the lot of their country ... which is not the most perfect in the world... and leave Pakistan to us?

Raw mian,

Hazaron khawishin aisi... or what was that? bahut niklay ``teray`` arman phir bhee kam niklay? If Pakistan was a state held together by the army it would have disintegrated much earlier. It is not in anyone`s interest to see Pakistan disintegrate, nor does a common Pakistani, even in Balochistan, want this disintegration. Baqi rahe gay tum- so the world is full of dreamers. Dream on. But first I`d say you put a thousand miles between every province and then put a hostile country in the middle and maybe you`ll have a chance.


Dear Ferozk,

``In many ways, Jinnah`s speech of August 11, 1947 was an evocation of a dream but we never created the right tools to build that dream into a reality. I am not denying the importance of that speech, but I am stating that it has no bearing on our future. Speeches motivate the people and it is the people, who them craft a future on the basis of those speeches but a people who do not believe in a future will not be motivated by any speech; no matter how inspiring. ``

I don`t see it this way. If indeed we are to accept that speech as an evocation of a dream (which is not necessary- we may not if we wish) The Constitution of the United States of America as passed in 1789 provided for a democratic republic for all people. Yet ... we saw that many of those glorious ideals remained unrealised for many decades ... and even after the emancipation proclamation, we saw cases like Plessey Vs Ferguson. My point is that dreams are not realised right away. Furthermore beyond the constitutional discrimination which is what I am concerned with, there is nothing uniquely wrong with Pakistanis as a people and a nation... there is a future, and beyond our ``class`` there are hardly any doomsday soothsayers.


Ranjit #112,

That is a thoughtprovoking analysis... and events of 1946-1947 show that indeed partition was pushed on Jinnah and not the other way around. I don`t think it was a matter of stupidity but rather it was a matter of cards that were dealt to him. He played or rather overplayed them very well till 1946... but 1946-1947 was a clear triumph for the Congress.


Friend, Mohar11,

Gentlemen, I am not inclined to get into a dead end discussion with you which we have indulged in for many years. Both of you have tried really hard for many years now and your persistence must be applauded despite your failure... Nonetheless I shall make two points...

1- I merely quoted a point of view as expressed by Hodson who knew personally all the major actors of the partition drama - it does not follow that I agree with it... My own views are closer to HP`s - except that I feel when push came to shove, Jinnah did outline an economic and political policy... and I mentioned those policies in my #81.

2- Jinnah had announced his retirement from politics in June 1947. He was forced to come back when Nawab of Bhopal was unavailable and fear was that Mountbatten would push his own governor generaliship...

Just watched Tom Brokaw`s documentary on Pakiland..The taliban are using Pakiland for strategic depth..

Indians are enjoying their schadenfreude moment as the army of the bastion of Islam dukes it out with those of it`s citizens who chose to practise it`s most austere form..the video of the taliban beheading people in Pakiland was reminiscent of the RAWA videos from Afghanistan..

What jinnah wanted for Pakiland is irrelevant..Pakis like manto should worry more about what Mullah Omar and the other islamic jihadis wants for Pakiland..their vision of Pakiland is closer to reality than jinnah`s vision..

Re:HP #92

[...Jinnah was far smarter than Gandhi. Gandhi had India on a platter, Jinnah climbed a mountain to get a slice of India from Gandhi and the Congress, and after getting the slice, when he looked back he was the only one on the mountain… There were no strings for other to follow him....]

You are grossly overestimating Jinnah`s capabilities. The fact is that hindus never really wanted to offer concessions and share power equitably with muslims. Why is that? Hindus knew that they were badly divided along caste/region/language basis and were temporarily united under the Congress umbrella. If there was any real power sharing with muslims, who were far more homogenous, muslims would take advantage of these divisions, play divide and conquer games and take over Delhi, just like the Brits did. Also, there were real chances of a civil war as well, which could lead to muslim military victory over entire India, especially if aided by Islamic countries to the west.

Just think about it. If hindus did not want partition, would it ever have occured? Congress would have rejected all plans and let the status quo continue. In fact, pragmatic hindus like Sardar Patel had agreed to partition a long time back. The question was what price would hindus have to pay to get the India of their dreams? That is where Jinnah came in.

Jinnah`s first mistake was to settle for the muslim majority provinces which meant the northwest and Bengal. That immediately freed up the rest of India to hindus including Delhi, the entire Gangetic plains and South India. Jinnah`s second mistake was to agree to a partition of Punjab and Bengal. This was a master stroke of genius from Congress. With 50% Punjab and 50% Bengal in its pockets, Congress reduced Pakistan to a moth-eaten state, as Jinnah himself realized. Jinnah`s third mistake was to try and get Hyderabad into Pakistan, even though there were no contigous borders. Congress was willing to give Kashmir in exchange for Hyderabad. Jinnah balked and India simply sent its army to take over Hyderabad. In the meanwhile it managed to get Kashmir too. It was way, way more than hindus could ever imagine but it happened due to Jinnah`s stupidity.

Basically it is Jinnah`s stupidity that now there is so much asymmetry between hindus and muslims in the subcontinet. You can contrast that to the ruling class status that muslims had throughout South Asia prior to the British.

re: Ferozk:
``There is a very dire and pressing question because each and every Pakistani and that is:

Do we live in a common future for our nation or not? ``

---

No. There is no common future for Pakistan. Pakistan is a dead state that is being sustained artificially by Pakistan Army through their brtual force. Mujeeb ur Rehman`s path is the only way out. Every time Army train their guns on the people of pakistan, they should know that the template is already set and it is just a matter of time............

---

``Today Bangladesh is a sovereign and independent country. On Thursday night West Pakistani armed forces suddenly attacked the police barracks at Razarbagh and the EPR headquarters at Pilkhana in Dhaka. Many innocent and unarmed have been killed in Dhaka city and other places of Bangladesh. Violent clashes between EPR and Police on the one hand and the armed forces of Pakistan on the other, are going on. The Bengalis are fighting the enemy with great courage for an independent Bangladesh. May God aid us in our fight for freedom. Joy Bangla.``

Sheikh Mujibur Rahman
25 March 1971

Khamy
Stop being paranoid....He makes lot of sense.. Sometimes.

...what`s happening here...hundred plus interacts and no salim chauhan with anti-punjabi anti-pakistani agenda...i hope he is not sick...physically...;)

HP #106
You are being modest! You are correct in stating that we must learn from history. Jinnah was certainly a very good implementor (or a do-er). Once he decided on a mission, he accomplished. However, he never had a plan for what he will do with his success (or if he had, than he never announced it). This has resulted in everyone coming up with all sort of plans attributed to MAJ.

It is strange that we neve got a well defined plans from MAJ.

You are correct about Indian Union struggling for first 50 years and democratic succession helping us in correcting the situation. Whatever fault Congress`s planning had, at least everyone knew what the plans were. We did get lunatic political groups coming to the top once in a while, but fortunately, people got a choice to push them out through election. Ouster of Lallu/Rabri is a case in point. Current scenario in UP where Mulayam Singh, Mayawati and Kalyan Singh are playing musical chairs is another such case. Whatever flaws democracy has, we can always hope to get rid of idiots through a democratic vision given by our founding fathers.

Unfortunately, Pakistan didn`t get such vision. Pakistanis need to sit together and decide upon their vision for future.

Regional political parties have given voice to the aspirations of a country so diverse as India and this has actually strngthened the nationalism/ federalism. Every one has a stake , every one thinks it is their own country. Only Kashmir valley muslims and a few ethinic groups (tribal identities) in NE have not joined this.

Nothing is imposed from the mythical center to any ethnic, religious groups in India. If the groups portoest the Center timidly backs off. Alliance politics ensures that no group dominates others completely.

A Dravidian DMK party originally with separatist ideology in the south made the biggest donation to the war effort when a few mountains were occupied in Kargil by Northern Light Infantry of Pak army in 1999. Some of the most jingoist tricolor waving Indians can be found in the Madras. A Muslim from the south who designed missiles for India does not even speak Hindi, yet it did not prevent him from becoming the President

When the instituitions and civil bureacracy are strong no group can reach the top and change things dramatically.

#101 by friend

“HP#92 has summarized the cause of Pakistan`s existing situation very well”

Not true at all. I pointed out some historical realities but nowhere did I claim what you are attributing to me.

IMO, as a nation we must understand what historical mistakes were made and where we were successful. The open discussion on issues without fear of someone looking over our shoulders has to form the basis for the dialog and a future course of action. So, I write what I think is something that future Pakistani leaders like Yassar should understand. My opinions about the Pakistan struggle were formed some 20-25 years ago and now what I write is based on the exact understanding I had then.

However, not having a program in 1947 did not lead to the current situation. What If Jinnah had a program in 1947? We cannot assume that some overwhelming political factors could not have changed that program.

I can quote several countries that started out with a program and a plan but faltered majestically and some of them are not in any better position than what Pakistan is in today. I can cite many countries, that were never occupied and still don’t have well defined political future for them.

Since people are comparing Pakistani situation with India, I might add here that for the first 50 years India struggle mightily with its economic or even the political message. Basically, what Congress planned and visualized for India came to naught in only 50 years and India had to change course after suffering many setbacks.

What has so far worked for India is the system of succession in the form of democracy but the fear in democracies like India is that that some lunatic political group can get to the top and change the structure fundamentally.

All Indian problems have not been resolved because they had a plan in 1947. Every plan is good until it meets the ground realities. In India’s case, the ground reality has altered many features of the original plan. This correction would continue because you cannot sit on laurels.

This perhaps is beyond the scope of this article but the rise of regional parties and alliances is opening a dangerous political situation for India.

What if the next federal government in India is an alliance of regional parties without any national party dominating?
Where would India head in such a situation?

Pakistan has helped people of that region. So Jinnah was right in going after his goals and he got to it despite the hurdles thrown at him. We must also accept that he was not perfect and move on.

Re: # 91 Ranjit
>>>>>>>>The creation of Pakistan will go down in Islamic history as one of the biggest setbacks to Islam comparable to the defeat of Islam in Cordoba, Spain. No wonder the mullahs opposed it tooth and nail. Effectively, Jinnah withdrew muslims to two corners of the subcontinent that they once had ruled and handed over the rest in a religiously clensed manner to hindus. It was a perfect solution for hindus and a complete mistake for muslims, who gave up all hope to be the masters of South Asia. <<<<<<<<

RIGHT ON TARGET!

Terrorism, nuclear intimidation, ``Gujarat riots prove that Pakistan was not a mistake``, etc are consolations to hide this painful reality from consciousness. ..............



That`s all fine if only they could pull together and focus on economic development and stop shooting professors in Bangalore, planting bombs in temples, etc.........

re: Mantolives

Yasser, let me expand on my interact # 72.

There is a serious problem in Pakistan today. The problem comes from the reality of Pakistan, as it exists today in the present, and as it might exist tomorrow in the future. The reality is Pakistan is not operating on the reasons, which were claimed for its existence. The present day reality of Pakistan would suggest the reason of its being a bonzai Mughul empire.

In this sense, it really does not matter historically what others might have thought of Jinnah and what Jinnah wanted of Pakistan as a nation-state. As a realist, I am not interested in the lessons of history, because I live in a world where there are choices and they are consequences. History does not offer Pakistan any meaningful guide on how to solve our problems, because we have to deal with the very real and serious limitation of our present situation and we have to find an answer to our problems from within the constraints of our limited choices.

We cannot re-create history and in that sense, even though I understand the circumtances of Pakistan`s birth in 1947, I believe that those circumtances are a moot consideration in our present predictment. It has been awhile, but my sense/instincts of realism are finally overpowering my sense of wishful thinking and I am coming, very fast, to the conclusion that it does not matter what happened in the last 60 years. What matters and is now the only consideration is what happens tomorrow in Pakistan.

We, as a nation, no longer can take refuge in the pages of history and use history as tool for abdicating our collective responsibilities towards the future. In that sense, I believe that we have to influence our future on the basis of using our intelligence and not on what was hoped for, as our future 60 years ago. Whether Jinnah had plan for Pakistan or not is immaterial, because we should be more concerened about whether we have an idea of where Pakistan is headed or not.

There is a very dire and pressing question because each and every Pakistani and that is:

Do we live in a common future for our nation or not?

Everything else will come from the answer to this question and if we do; then we must forget what history wanted or wished us to do and we should make our own history by shaping a future.

In a nut shell, the question is not what Jinnah might have wanted but what we want as a nation. Do we even know what we want as a nation? To most of our citizens, Jinnah is only a historic memory and nothing more and this generation does not really care what he might have said or thought or wanted, because the issues in their lives are more common and more urgent - like potable water, good schooling for their kids, safe streets, law and order and jobs for all.

In many ways, Jinnah`s speech of August 11, 1947 was an evocation of a dream but we never created the right tools to build that dream into a reality. I am not denying the importance of that speech, but I am stating that it has no bearing on our future. Speeches motivate the people and it is the people, who them craft a future on the basis of those speeches but a people who do not believe in a future will not be motivated by any speech; no matter how inspiring.

The task before us, as a nation, is to convince - not motivate - our people that there is a future ahead of them and then, we have to deal with the problems facing them and making their lives more gentle and happy and safe. Once they are convinced that they have a share in this nation, then they will motivated to work towards a common future but we must show them that future, not on the basis of a few speeches, but in real and practical and tangible terms.

The question is - can we do it?

If not; then the reality is what I suggested in my interact # 72.

Ciao

``The ML was not able to resolve the tension that can arise between a new set of formal rules and existing informal constraints (housed in norms, conventions etc) resulting in frequent constitutional violations and experiments. The Congress party on the other hand, due to its historical embedded ness amongst the peasant population was able to successfully pursue its objective of institutionalizing its role within a democratic Indian polity. ``



Can we have some sanity in these obscure statements made by the author.........someplain english would be good enough.................do we need to speak jargon to say clearly that Pakistan`s imagined identity was flawed in its very conception and that TNT or its variants now being propounded by OBL is not a viable political theory in modern times.............

Manto#96

``Ofcourse the person who was offered the chance to become ``shahinshah`` but refused emphatically and whose family never claimed any dynasty to rule in the country he founded... and whose relatives live a low middle class life in Karachi`s lower middle class neighborhoods ... wanted to be sole emperor..

But people who ruled for 18 years straight and whose families have made great ruling dynasties and whose daughter in laws have been claiming power despite being foreign... are democrats...

so you are back to your old games! When left with no arguments, you will resort to a comparison game. Nehru`s cabinet was not handpicked by him. It was full of people who there own mass appeal.

In retrospect, Jinnah should have done what Gandhi did. He should have taken a director or script writer role and let other act according to his script.

HP#92 has summarized the cause of Pakistan`s existing situation very well
``The truth is that Jinnah had no program for Pakistan. He never outlined any economic or social policy for the country nor did he work to set up a political system.``

Even Yaseer, a diehard fan of MAJ, ``more of less agrees`` with this conclusion given by HP.

Yaseer mian, you still claim that MAJ`s ideal was a new, curtailed Mughal Empire in the tradition of Akbar, democratized and modernized but embracing people of all faiths. You are quite adept at quoting Ayesha Jalal, Ambedkar and Hodson. Quote something from MAJ that supports this theory and elucidates how Jinnah was planning to have a democratized and modernized Mughal Empire, that would embraced people of all faiths I would suggest that this so called plan is just a wishful thinking on your part, unless you can quote something from Jinnah`s writings.

Re: # 98 nasah

Gandhi was a fool as far as real-politic is concerned .... jinnah was indeed smarter - but he was trying to be too clever by half and ended up doing good for enemy hinuds :)))

Re: # 94 YLH

OK - so this Hudson guy is pulling it from his a$$...where do you get these guys anyway?

``Jinnah was far smarter than Gandhi.``(HP)

indeed -- the conditions that the two countries find thesmselves today -- `proves` your contention......:)

Re: # 93 YLH
[....spare me this obsession that you have with some how proving me wrong (something that you have done for many years)...]

With vast ``knowledge`` you have on this topic - who can ever prove you wrong?....not me... I am more of an observer here - it has been an interesting discussion, I learnt quite a few details, ideologies, idiosyncracies of the partition game.... But I do push and prod various people... that makes the discussion interesting and fast-paced.... I guess I do jab you more frequently - but nothing personal - so don`t be a pu$$y....:))

Ofcourse the person who was offered the chance to become ``shahinshah`` but refused emphatically and whose family never claimed any dynasty to rule in the country he founded... and whose relatives live a low middle class life in Karachi`s lower middle class neighborhoods ... wanted to be sole emperor..

But people who ruled for 18 years straight and whose families have made great ruling dynasties and whose daughter in laws have been claiming power despite being foreign... are democrats...

But ofcourse...

This is logic...

What jinnah wanted or what Seervai thought of Jinnah has no bearing on the state of affairs in today`s Pakiland..a land bustling with jihadi terrorism..

FEATURE - Pakistani jihadi videos thrive on execution scenes

By Arshad Sharif

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - The movie salesman was selling jihad to the converted.

The buyers thronging his stall on the sidelines of a late-night rally in the Pakistani capital belonged to a crowd organised by a sectarian Sunni Muslim group.

``This is the latest video of the beheadings,`` he told his customers, as they pored over titles including ``Slaughter of Americans in Iraq``, ``Slaughter of Traitors in Afghanistan`` and ``Taliban Celebrations``.

In Pakistan, compelled to join a U.S.-led global war on terrorism after al Qaeda`s Sept. 11, 2001 attack on the United States, anger has risen over what many see as an attempt by the West to suppress Muslims around the world.

The video seller didn`t have the latest action from the conflict on the Afghan border, but he had something just as gruesome.

``This one is about the activities of mujahideen in Waziristan and Afghanistan,`` the seller said.

Dated in December, and supposedly shot in Miranshah, the main town in North Waziristan, it had footage of hangings ordered by influential militant clerics.

The bodies of the hanged men, described as criminals and bandits, were then dragged through the streets by pick-up trucks, in a grisly demonstration of rough justice in an area where the civil administration has, according to tribesmen, collapsed.

``And I thought jinnah never wanted pakiland in the first place?.... so how was he going to create a ``democratic version of mughal empire``?....``

When I quoted the latter I was presenting a point of view that exists and was expressed by H V Hodson. I actually believe that HP has summed up the situation.. that the creation of Pakistan was not non-negotiable... it was open to negotiation... and that is proved by H M Seervai and Ayesha Jalal.

Mohar11...

Ferozk and I are well aware of each others ideas as we are friends off chowk as well ... the only person lashing out with ``impotent`` fury is you. Thanks for providing Feroz and I a good laugh.

Now I come to your claim that we Pakis are pulling ideologies out of our ``asses``... that claim is not mine... or any Pakistani`s... I merely quoted it as a point of view:

On 589 (the 1985 epilogue to Great Divide) H V Hodson wrote:

``Nor does Modern Pakistan display much trace of the ideology of its founding father, Mohammed Ali Jinnah. He was not only a constitutional lawyer but also, through out his career, a parliamentary democrat. Though he led a Muslim cause and based his policy on the claim that the Muslims of India were a nation, his deep rooted demand for the whole of north western provinces of British India and all Bengal implies that his ideal was a new, curtailed Mughal Empire in the tradition of Akbar, democratized and modernized but embracing people of all faiths.``

Now... lash out more wiht your ``impotent fury``... but spare me this obsession that you have with some how proving me wrong (something that you have done for many years).



HP:

Thanks for the restatement... I agree more or less with the positons you have now elaborated.

#82 by Mantolives

“My disagreement with ferozk and HP is in so much as that they feel that Jinnah had no clear programme on how to run Pakistan...”
“Let me tackle the question of setting up a political system. I think the outlines we already know... but as far as a political system (I assume a constitution)”

A political party’s plan, program etc are presented in the form of an election manifesto, resolutions in general body meetings, general declarations and the key statements by the primary leaders.

I will start off with the message that Congress delivered. Congress was clear in what political system independent India would have since the 20s (parliamentary with Prime minister). It made sure that people knew that it leaned on socialist economic system and it positively declared as to what kind of rights the provinces would have and the Union would be secular. It also ensured that linguistic and historical boundaries of the Provinces would be preserved. They had that all out of the way before 1928. In fact, before the 1946 elections, they went back to their 1928 resolutions to assure the Sikhs in Punjab of their linguistic rights.

After the 1940 resolution and in fact, within two years after that, the ML was the recognized Muslim representative in India. The British and the Congress knew that independence of India would have to be a negotiated settlement between the Brits, the congress, and the ML.

Please refer to my previous post here too. The ML and Jinnah were aware of where they were headed but from 1942 to 1946 they never really defined what they planned to do after their objectives were met. After the failure of the CMP and the elections, Pakistan became an achievable dream and in 1946 Pakistan was actually announced. But the ML was completely mum on what Pakistan would stand for. Jinnah’s speech of August 11 about secularism was a little too late and a mega dollar short.

The ML during the early 1947 failed to create an outline of proposed Pakistani constitution and in fact it was not even sure of what Pakistan political system would be. Jinnah was scrambling in the last minutes to decide whether he would be the governor General or the Prime Minister.

My theory is that the ML was being pulled in so many different directions before the partition that they feared that some decisions might backfire and some Muslim groups might declare their opposition to Pakistan especially, in Sindh and NWFP where opposition to Pakistan was significant.

After Jinnah became the Governor General, he also lost the control over the constituent assembly and the rest is history.

Jinnah was far smarter than Gandhi. Gandhi had India on a platter, Jinnah climbed a mountain to get a slice of India from Gandhi and the Congress, and after getting the slice, when he looked back he was the only one on the mountain… There were no strings for other to follow him.

That is what I meant when I said,” The truth is that Jinnah had no program for Pakistan. He never outlined any economic or social policy for the country nor did he work to set up a political system.” In my post #58

Re:ferozk #72

The creation of Pakistan will go down in Islamic history as one of the biggest setbacks to Islam comparable to the defeat of Islam in Cordoba, Spain. No wonder the mullahs opposed it tooth and nail. Effectively, Jinnah withdrew muslims to two corners of the subcontinent that they once had ruled and handed over the rest in a religiously clensed manner to hindus. It was a perfect solution for hindus and a complete mistake for muslims, who gave up all hope to be the masters of South Asia.

I can guarantee that if Jinnah came back alive today and saw the state of Pakistan and India, he would immediately reverse his demands.

Hindus to their credit have got their act together and made the most of this strategic error by muslims. We have managed to keep the country together, jump start the economic growth and implmented secular democracy. These steps have ensured that India is headed to greatness. Mulsims failed in all three. They could not keep Pakistan together, ruined their economy and moved 180 degrees away from secular democracy. As a result, Pakistan has now fallen behid India by a big margin.

#82 by Mantolives

“My conclusion that as he had never expected Pakistan to come into existence…”

Jinnah had started out his second stint in politics with some assurance and some ideas as to what he was going to do. He did not come back to politics to play blind. He knew exactly what he wanted.

It seems to me that he did lots of work in UP and other Muslim provinces but the elections in 1937-8 made him realize that the Muslim electoral power was in Muslim Majority provinces and not in the central India. There was a definite shift in the Muslim politics after the 37-38 elections. That shift in thinking resulted in 1940 resolution.

I would not credit him solely with the shift in Policy. The intellectual brain of the ML besides Jinnah consists of the following core people and some others who were in and out based on the situation.

The people who helped him develop the message were: Khaliq uzzaman, Raja Sahib Mehmoodabad, Perhaps nawab of Bhopal but the most important people were: The Isphanis from Bengal, The habibs from Bombay and the Haroons from Sindh. In Punjab, Sir Zafarullah khan and Chaudry Mohammed Ali and later Khizer Hayat were the core leaders. They were the intellectual leaders of the ML.

So Jinnah and his core people knew exactly what they wanted when they went to Lahore in 1940. If you understand political symbolism, then the 1940 resolution drafted by a Punjabi and presented by a Bengali-two from the majority Muslim provinces- were some strong symbols of the direction Jinnah and the ML had planned.

There were some possible results of 1940 resolution and they were:

1) The ML would get representation % in the central government based on Muslim population
2) The ML could possibly get provincial autonomy for the Muslim Majority provinces and guaranteed Muslim representation % in the minority provinces.
3) The ML would get something like that appeared in CMP
4) The ML would get an independent country for the Muslims.

There were numerous other possibilities and I am sure those possibilities were explored and discussed by the ML leadership.

I think Pakistan was the last possibility but no one had ruled it out.

If Jinnah was not aware of these options, he would not have gone into the CMP negotiations. He went there fully prepared, - I know you have read those papers- he was ready to respond to any question from the Congress and the British.

One more post to go…

#82 by Mantolives

“My conclusion that as he had never expected Pakistan to come into existence…”

I think this is not based on historical facts and the type of person Jinnah was.
I will comeback to this later.

“This is at best a speculation. I am sure on the contrary that over throwing Jinnah by a military coup would have been impossible.”

He died in 1949 so it is speculation. However, when we look at what happened to Liaquat ali Khan in 1951, we know that there were forces in Pakistan, who wanted to change the UP stronghold from the state. LAK’s murder was a coup. Everything suggests that the Bureaucracy, Feudal, and the army were in it together. Now I am not going go to in the details but if you analyze the LAK murder, you will reach the same conclusion.

Re: # 82 YLH
[... to be a modernised and democratised version of the Mughal Empire inclusive for all and progressive...]

pakiland was supposed to be ``democratised version of mughal empire``?..... How come we never heard it before..... boy, every other day you pakis pull a new ideology out of your collective a$$es....

And I thought jinnah never wanted pakiland in the first place?.... so how was he going to create a ``democratic version of mughal empire``?....

Re: # 82 yLH

looks like ferozk did hit the sweet nerves :))... YLH is lashing out with impotent fury.....

Mantolives #82
``In so much as India was to be the embodiment of ancient wisdom and culture (and therefore logically Hindu civilisation) coming into contact with modernity and technology, Pakistan was - as H V Hodson put it in the epilogue of the 1997 edition of his book ``The Great Divide`` - to be a modernised and democratised version of the Mughal Empire inclusive for all and progressive...``

Pray please expound this vision of ``modernised and democratised version of Mughal Empire``. Please quote and allow us to share wisdom of words uttered by MAJ on that subject. Please enlighten us more on what this version of Mughal empire was supposed to be?


Jest aside, any sensible manager always prepares someone to be his backup and a backup for the backup. If vision of empire was what MAJ had, was his sole goal to be an emperor? Could this goal of becoming a true Mughal emperor have caused his not letting anyone else being allowed to become a successor? Afterall it was standard Mughal policy to eliminate all successors. Could this vision have led to Pakistan always facing vacuum whenever top place beomces available?

It is strange for you to state that Jinnah did not expect Pakistan to created and therefore his politics was more tactical than strategic``. In my workplace I evaluate short and long term impact of any initiative that changes structure of my team or organization. Changing structure of a nation is much bigger task. Are you stating that MAJ didn`t think of impact of his actions and would have created a strategic vision later? I would respectfully submit that MAJ`s temprament was at best that of a lwayer, to win immediate court case and than allow his client to deal with success. Failure of MAJ in this case was to deal with aftermath of his win. He should have allowed others to handle it.

Re:

[Rakesh, can you share with us your solution to resolve temple-masjid issues in Mathura and Kashi?]

Krishnaji,

It would be pompous of me to claim that I had a simple solution for an issue that people have been discussing and fighting over for so long. In Mathura, the destruction of the ages old Keshav Dev temple on the Krishnajanmabhoomi by such vandals as Mahmud of Ghazni and Aurangzeb many centuries ago calls for the most bitter denunciations of their actions and motives. A site of paramount spritual significance to the Hindus was obliterated to make way for a mosque. However, it must be noted that these destructions were carried out centuries ago and today, there can be absolutely no excuse whatsoever to justify the demolition/bringing down of a mosque in order to build a temple, or vice versa. The Babri Masjid demolition, while justified by some, was an outrageous and barbaric act.

Although I will be the first to admit that I am not cognizant of the intricacies of matters on the ground, my logic would entail the area being used both as a mosque and as a temple. The area can be shared as a common holy place for Hindus and Muslims, much as Jerusalem is a holy place for more than one religion (although it has its own problems)

In fact, I read once that the Babri Masjid area was used in the 18th century as a religious place of significance for both Hindus and Muslims. There were no serious conflicts then. Why now? Let bygones be bygones sir, that is my philosophy regarding these issues.

#68 masanamuthu

Without agreeing with you on the exact details (after all I am a hindu :-), we are on the same page here. This attempt to manufacture a semitic-style BIG GUY (jesus, mohammed, moses) whatever is a real waste of time. It goes against the basic flow of hindu tradition.

Regarding Ramayana being a story of north-south interaction/conquest; hmmm, I am skeptical. Arya, as you probably well know, is a generic term meaning well-born, noble, well spoken etc. It is heavily used by the Buddha, for example. I dont believe it translates into UP-wallah or Punjabi.

The Ramayana does seem to be a story of the encounter between a monarchical society and many tribal societies. Where did this take place? It could well be in UP/MP itself; to this day Madhya Pradesh is a tribal-dominated society.

South india, especially the tamils, had a strong culture that had moved beyond tribalism quite early. So it would be very strange if a north indian king would view their culture as tribalism. It would be viewed more like king vs. king (maybe Ravana fits?). Anyway, this is a good topic to explore...

Stuka #65

A small clarification - where you use the word ``Pakistan Movement``- I would say Muslim League`s politics ...

The feudals and others in these areas of Punjab and Sindh etc were fiercely particularist ... and were therefore naturally hostile to any Pan-Indian movement be it Congress or the Muslim League... (recall that most of the Muslim feudals from Punjab felt betrayed by the Lucknow Pact 1916 which stripped them off a communal majority in Punjab and yet Lucknow Pact was Jinnah`s greatest achievement)... To sum it up... the Lahore Resolution was an attempt on part of Jinnah and the Muslim Salariat from Central and South Indian provinces to provide a general demand to bring under one banner the particularist demands of Punjabi, Sindhi and other Muslims...

Mohar11...

``YLH... nuts``

Looks like you`ve gotten your balls (assuming you had any) gotten cut off so many times on this website - to assume the worst.


Ferozk, HP, Stuka...

Thankyou for those points of view.

On the issue of whether Pakistan was to be a privileged Island of preserved Mughal absolutism- I disagree only with the vocabulary. In so much as India was to be the embodiment of ancient wisdom and culture (and therefore logically Hindu civilisation) coming into contact with modernity and technology, Pakistan was - as H V Hodson put it in the epilogue of the 1997 edition of his book ``The Great Divide`` - to be a modernised and democratised version of the Mughal Empire inclusive for all and progressive... this is the vision he ascribed to Jinnah and this is the vision the failure to realise which he said was the failure of Pakistan so far.

On other issues I disagree with Ferozk and HP... and agree in part with stuka. My disagreement with ferozk and HP is in so much as that they feel that Jinnah had no clear programme on how to run Pakistan... The three last volumes of Jinnah Papers give enough evidence to the contrary. It is true however that Jinnah did not expect Pakistan to created and therefore his politics was more tactical than strategic. It was not until early July that he first decided to be part of the Pakistan government ... in June- after partition was allowed- he had announced his retirement and planned on residing in Bombay


HP writes:

``I would just add that Jinnah would have been overthrown via a military coup in 1950. Others were smart enough to keep the army at bay until 1958``

This is at best a speculation. I am sure on the contrary that over throwing Jinnah by a military coup would have been impossible. Infact it would have been great if the army had tried during his life time... then we would have a different precedent. I also don`t understand why others were smart enough to keep the army at bay ... knowing that HP is a very perceptive interactor who has deep insight into Pakistani politics, I will sure keep tuned into see how this was possible.

``The truth is that Jinnah had no program for Pakistan. He never outlined any economic or social policy for the country nor did he work to set up a political system. ``

I respectfully disagree. Let me tackle the question of setting up a political system. I think the outlines we already know... but as far as a political system (I assume a constitution) is concerned- if Jahanara Shahnawaz is to be believed the government of Pakistan is in possession of a constitution modelled on fourth French Republic pre-1939 model which has so far not been declassified ...

As for a economic policy is concerned... Jinnah unveiled the commercial policy of Pakistan in April 1948 - a policy that was followed more or less till the 1960s... On 27 April 1948 he gave a rather long address to Karachi Chamber of Commerce - in which he outlined basically what he felt were the cornerstones of Pakistan`s commercial policy...

Since the speech itself is too long to quote in full ... I am giving the references and the points he makes in this speech 27th April 1948

1- After the usual pleasantries - he started off by speaking of Pakistan`s cotton policy. Placing the utmost importance on textiles and cotton ... he said it was important to recognise that a strong emphasis on Cotton and Textiles was required as this was Pakistan`s pride. (That 60 years later the Textile sector remains vibrant and strong and a major buck earner for Pakistan tells us a different story)

2- He declared about ``International trade`` that ``Regulation and restriction with their attendant administrative evils will be imposed only where conditions compell`` and that ``I can assure on the behalf of the government of Pakistan that it is their intention and policy to let the channels of free trading flow as freely as possible``. He went on to say that all internal controls on essential commodities were to be removed as soon as possible... that an Open General Licence was being issued to completely undo any licencing issues that may add to red tape...

3- He then went into the reforms being made to allow Banking sector to flourish in Pakistan for easy availability of capital for free enterprise. It must be recalled that Habib Bank and other such big banks were brought in because of his personal initiative...

4- He then announced that the Pakistan government only planned on reserving for itself these sectors at the moment:

a-Arms and Munitions
b- Hydel Power
c- Railway Wagons
d- Communications

Everything else was to be deregulated and developed by the private sector.

5- He spoke of the creation of Industrial Finance Commission and the Pakistan National Savings certificates.

6- He then spoke of shipping and ports... (it must be remembered that in June 1947 ..Ardeshir Cowasjee`s father was already tasked with the task of the propagation of private shipping in Pakistan by Jinnah... the target was to have a 100 Pakistani ships on the way by the time Pakistan was created) .. and the development of Karachi as the great South Asian hub of trade (which it remained till Zia took over) ... In order to achieve this he initiated the remodelling of East Wharf and created Commercial Dry Docks ... this eventually led to the expansion of Karachi from the sleepy town that it was in 1947 to the global cosmpolitan trade hub that it became... and would`ve been had Zia not destroyed it..

7- Then he moved onto trade with India. He hoped a normalisation of relations and saw India as Pakistan`s foremost trading partner.

8- He then spoke of Civil Aviation .. and rightly pointed out that Karachi had the best equipped airport in the East. He outlined his vision for Karachi as the the main centre of International Air traffic... At this point he criticised his own government for not having done enough to win over TransWorld International to switch over to Karachi from Bombay`s Santa Cruz airport. He also repeated the Air Transport Policy unveiled 3 months earlier by the government of Pakistan and informed his listeners the initiation of two airlines: Orient was one of them... Later these two airlines merged to make the PIA in the 1950s. PIA still remains one of the few national companies with its credibility intact.

9- He then spoke of the railway policy and how Pakistan should proceed on that. He recalled how Pakistan`s railways had been hurt by mass migration of people to India.. but he hoped that they`d be able to pick it up soon...

10- ``Commerce- gentlemen- is more international than culture ... I have no doubt the Commerce of Pakistan would be an effective instrument in the establishment and maintenance of High standards business integrity and practice. If Pakistani goods are to establish themselves a reputation all their own, a beginning must be made right here and right now. I would like Pakistan to become a synonym and hallmark for standard and quality in the market places of the world.``


As for the suggestion that Jinnah wanted the British traditions to continue. I think evidence suggests that he wanted Pakistan to make and implement a constitution as soon as possible and become a Republic... ofcourse this would mean that British traditions would have to be harnessed and adapted .. I do think however that at some point he became very disappointed by those entrusted to make our constitution… for their inability to come to a consensus on basic principles..

I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that he ruled without opposition for 6 months… Right from 1947 to mid 1950 Indian National Congress’ Pakistan faction operated as the opposition… but in reality they worked in close collaboration with Jinnah as they found themselves to be in agreement with his ideas on Pakistan. Infact it was the existence of “Pakistan” National Congress as an adjunct of the Indian National Congress that many Muslim League leaders strongly objected to the bifurcation of the AIML into two factions PML and IUML. Jinnah governed Pakistan for 13 months… by the time December 1947 … I am sure you know that a vibrant opposition (both from Khudai Khidmatgars etc and the religious right had developed)…


My conclusion that as he had never expected Pakistan to come into existence… Jinnah was a reluctant governor general to begin with. He filled in because he was afraid that Mountbatten would be unfair to Pakistan and because Nawab of Bhopal – the original AIML nominee- was not going to be available for GGship till 1948 if at all … (Later - the Bhopal’s ruler wanted his daughter Abida to take over and then accede to India while he could move to Pakistan and become the governor general.. but Abida Sultan escaped and came to Pakistan inspired by Jinnah- PCB chairman Shehryar Khan is her son)… Still Jinnah did the job honestly and fairly … and that’s what matters to common Pakistani…

The day the Pakistanis put that stupid clause in their Constitutions that -- only a Muslim will be the President of Pakistan -- the country was doomed for fratricide and military takeovers --

those who do not learn from the history of Christian Secularism -- are condemned to repeat it in their own country --

in this regard India`s love of Western intellectualism and knowledge of Western secular history -- not of Western sandwiches -- helped the Indians formulate a Constitution that was advanced, progressive, irreligious secular and cognizant of the mosaic of multiethnic multicultural diversity.....

Indian Constitution was way ahead of its Subcontinental Time -- more attuned to Greenwich time -- yet with deep roots in the subcontinental mixed soil......

freozk #72. {``The fact is that Pakistan was created for the Muslim salaried classes and Muslim intelligensia and these groups wanted the same traditions of the British Raj in Pakistan, but without the need to compete with and live under a Hindu majority rule. Where things went awry, was the power play of the feudals who completely disenfranchised the Indian Muslim emigres to Pakistan, specially in Sindh, and the result was this group, which had sought and created Pakistan to protect its own economic and political interests suddenly found itself at a loss. ...``}

Feroz,
There is a lot of validity in what you have said. Anytime people use religion or race as an excuse for their own selfish goals, you can pretty much predict disastrous results. The Zionists established Israel as a refuge for persecuted Jews, even bribing Romanian and Russian officials to let Jews emigrate to Israel. Because their efforts were sincere, for their constituents, Israel is pretty much a success. The Muslim League establised Pakistan, ostensibly as a ``homeland`` for Muslims of the subcontinent, and its government has ended up persecuting Muslims and even preventing some of them from being repatriated. That is one of the reasons why Pakistan is a dismal failure. If people can`t see the difference between the two, then they are either blind or pretending blindness.

freozk #72. {``The fact is that Pakistan was created for the Muslim salaried classes and Muslim intelligensia and these groups wanted the same traditions of the British Raj in Pakistan, but without the need to compete with and live under a Hindu majority rule. Where things went awry, was the power play of the feudals who completely disenfranchised the Indian Muslim emigres to Pakistan, specially in Sindh, and the result was this group, which had sought and created Pakistan to protect its own economic and political interests suddenly found itself at a loss. ...``}

Feroz,
There is a lot of validity in what you have said. Anytime people use religion or race as an excuse for their own selfish goals, you can pretty much predict disastrous results. The Zionists established Israel as a refuge for persecuted Jews, even bribing Romanian and Russian officials to let Jews emigrate to Israel. Because their efforts were sincere, for their constituents, Israel is pretty much a success. The Muslim League establised Pakistan, ostensibly as a ``homeland`` for Muslims of the subcontinent, and its government has ended up persecuting Muslims and even preventing some of them from being repatriated. That is one of the reasons why Pakistan is a dismal failure. If people can`t see the difference between the two, then they are either blind or pretending blindness.

Re: # 61

```` Not so much the wish to build a temple in Ayodhya - which is a legitimate religious concern which can be addressed through dialogue````

Hey Rakesh, can you share with us your solution to resolve temple-masjid issues in Mathura and Kashi ?

Thanks,

Re: # 60 wise
[.....Believe me, if we actually do what he is saying - we would be called a progressive country, in the mould of a malaysia.....]

good point... Malayasia is an interesting country - it`s one of them relatively developed place in muslim world where people are supposed to be ``moderate`` muslims.... but are they really?.....

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006 04 29 story_29-4-2006_pg3_5

``Malaysia is hosting a conference to discuss crucial questions like how does a Muslim pray in space, how will he take ablutions and which direction shall he face``

I have no understanding of courts so my comments may be wrong.
The details of constitution are not very important as most written documents in modern times provide all basic human rights. Countries like India, usa etc have constitution , england has no constitution ( if I am correct , but laws and traditions and more decency). Still these are democratic nations. We or China has also constitution but we are not democracy. Practice makes difference.
The problem in our county is how to follow constitution in true spirit and letters. The spirit was shown when Gen Zia said what is constitution, i can tear it , just papers or present ruler just ordered courts to approve `` CEO` thing.
It is clear that black or brown men and women of pakistan can not produce a dozen of good supreme court who can FOLLOW the law of Land. This is not regratable but understandable as it is corrouption at highest level a mental corrouption. Generally blacks and browns are still backward mentally ( you can become lawyer but mental retardation can not be taken out of him , Punjabi can wear coat or tie at 110 degree temp in lahore but he can not be good as old whirte british officer of bottom rank with great respect of law and understanding).
Our courts will always rule khaki rule as ``fact accomplee`` and declare doctorine of necessecity and army rule will be upheld. I read things have become worst for blacks in South Africa after Mohatma lover dark Mandella took over. Same thing in Pakistan it is worst than Raj. Even person like me born in 1948 are for return of Raj. Still we rever Col Nicolson, or name of person who was replaced by Faisalabad as they did so much for ungrateful dark people.
What we need ``Recolonization`` of Pakistan under United Nations. We can have our bhutto constitution but supreme court should be made up of only white Judges ( english only) who can interpreat our constitution. That is only way, may be 2 american judges ok but majority be british those are nice white people left with some decency and good english.
Just like we have foreign consultants we can have foreign ( note majority British) supreme court judges and rule of Jungle law will be gone.
I agree with JINNAHOLIC and MAHATMAPHOBIC Mr. Manto about his thoughts about constitution but to carry out letter of constitution in real world we NEED WHITE JUDGES from ENGLAND.
Good Night. It good time, my cat was missing for 13 days and has returned home , very happy to see cat the most beautiful animal, 11 years old and still good attitude.

Re: # 72 freoz
[...Pakistan was an attempt to re-create the priviliged enclave of a Mughul style absolutism for a Muslim minority....]

Ouch.... you hit YLH right in the nuts.... :) Any comments, YLH?

#73
quote:
``India has the best behaved Muslims in the world``
``Most are mild``
``Islamic fanaticism is not as prevalent in India as it is in other countries``

>90% of muslims in india,pak,bangladesh are converts from hinduism
>living as a minority has had a moderating effect

but this moderating effect is NOT ENOUGH as of now.
we need to do more.
the tools we need to use are TV,promotion of english language at the (expense) of urdu &
arabic(so called divine language of muslims) , globalisation of economies-trade, free flow of goods-services ,money-capital in all its tangible-intangible forms. In short , to promote
ECONOMIC SENSE-WISDOM among all of us.