'Constitutionally' Different Neighbours

Thank whoever for Jinnah..If it weren`t for him, this would reflect poorly on India..this and the fact that every other week, we hear of some paki somwehere in the world being busted for terrorism...

US refuses direct flights from Pakistan

``Yet, had Jinnah been alive and in power in Pakistan until the mid-60s, just as Nehru was in India, Pakistan would be a radically different place today. No leader in Pakistan has enjoyed the virtual carte-blanche that Jinnah had in Pakistan. He had the support of the masses; and the brains. He would`ve ``cast his die`` on Pakistan`s politics, just as Nehru did in India.
``

Hypothetical. Jinnah had to create a mass movement in the end and a mass movement once created has its own momentum. If Gandhi could be killed by a Hindu, no reason Jinnah could not be killed by a Muslim if the latter tried to shove secularism down the throats of a resistant population. Also, Congress had been upfront about Socialism. ML had wooed Muslim Zamindars, no way could it have gone against the Feudals. Third and most important, both Jinnah and Nehru had their political base in India. Jinnah`s language issue would have earned him enemies in East Pak and his move against feudals would have earned him enemies in Sind, Punjab etc. Jinnah is considered great precisely because he died soon after partition. Had he lived, he would have been as open to criticism as Nehru became in the 60s. This whole ``had Jinnah lived..`` is a bogey to explain institututional failures. Jinnah`s own political instincts were antithetical to the established status quo of West Pakistan. The differences were papered over during the struggle and immediate aftermath of Pakistan but would have come up at some point.

Re: # 44

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

[...vandalism, abductions, rapes, and killings of non-Muslims in Pakistan are quite factual. Even Muslim minorities are subjected to rapes, killings, and having their places of worship blown up]

Salim bhai,

Absolutely. The choicest condemnations must be used when describing those who initiate pogroms based on religion. The likes of the VHP and RSS in India are to be condemned along with the Taleban, ISI and the nefarious Mullahs in such places as Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia, not to mention several others for their atrocities.

I wouldn`t be surprised if some of these people express unfettered admiration for the manner in which minorities were exterminated in Nazi Germany. Let`s not allow another Auschwitz... anywhere!

Re: # 46
Kedar, AFAIK , Salim has never shown any inclination for any kinda Islamic law. So,
telling him whatever u did, is like preaching to the choir ...

#49,
Yaar Stuka,
Since when did you start being so focused and perceptive? :) The move to the west coast has really made you sharper. You are so right in your analysis of what would have probably happened had Mr. Jinnah lived longer. Also, your remark about papering over the issues rather than dealing with them is also factual - we are praying the price for that pusillanimous behavior of the founding fathers in Pakistan.

#46, kedarnathji {``...A Paki preaching on secularism is like a rapist giving talks on the virtues of celibacy. ``}

Kedar bhai,
aap na idhar na udhar - obviously you mistake me for someone else. May I take a message for Maulana Urstruly Sahib?

{``Bottom line is that I don`t support vigilante justice system by any community be it Hindus, Muslims, Punjabis, Biharis, you name it. I want culprits on both sides to be punished. However, the bottom line is that you cannot clap with one hand. Muslims the world over especially in India more than make sure that they keep the pot boiling. In a region like the subcontinent where passions run high, Muslims also have a responsibility to make sure that they don`t make provocative speeches or indulge in provocative actions. If not then they will have to bear the consequences of their actions.``}

AMEN, brother, AMEN


{``You, Rakesh Mani and other Islamic fundamentalism appeasers can explain to me as to why you all are silent on the Solapur riots of September 2002.``}

Which riots? Sorry, I wasn`t aware of them. Please tell me the details. This is the first I am hearing of the Sholapur riots of Sept ``02

{`` Jerry Falwell, the American preacher called Muhammed a terrorist. The same Falwell who has called Hinduism a satanic cult. Muslims did not have the cojones to take on the powerful American Christian Right and hence decided to pick on the softer target, the Hindus of India.``}

Kedar Bhai, Falwell is a jackass. We just have higher expectations of our Hindu brethren. :) Thanks.

In all fairness all INDIAN boarders should give due credit to SALIM BHAI for being so neutral and honest. No one else from Pak is anywhere REMOTELY this neutral, thus his Pak credentials are being questioned.

SALIM BHAI:
This is no pseudo secular muslim appeasement!

Re: # 47

```` That`s true.. and I agree. But that`s not what Mr Krishna is saying. He claims to be ``bound`` to secularism.. evoking a sense of being forced into it against his will. ````

The mistake we made in `47 was to make India a secular country. And follow that with policies which are anti-Hindu.

So most of Hindus here want the bias to be corrected. I want more. I want India to be made a country where all Indic religions have equal and first status. Where Hindus/other Indic religions suppressed all over the world can get asylum. Where Hindus are not discriminated against.

```` That`s what I find irksome.. and so I`m making my displeasure known :)````

Too bad it`s irksome. I guess you have to learn to live with folks like me just as I am doing with folks like you ;-)

Rgds,
Avkrishna

rakeshmani #50 {``Salim bhai,
Absolutely. The choicest condemnations must be used when describing those who initiate pogroms based on religion. The likes of the VHP and RSS in India are to be condemned along with the Taleban, ISI and the nefarious Mullahs in such places as Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia, not to mention several others for their atrocities.
... Let`s not allow another Auschwitz... anywhere! ``}

Rakesh Bhai,
I totally agree with your statement. If people who really desire peace and understanding come together and refuse to provide encouragement, support, shelter, and assistance to the hate-mongers, murderers, rapists, and violent people, supposedly from their religion, their race, or their nationality, in their midst, then the few fanatics won`t have the guts, the means, or the hideouts to carry on with their dastardly deeds.

Sorry for the long-winded ``Mission Statement.`` :)

Re: # 46

Kedarnathji,

[Muslims the world over especially in India more than make sure that they keep the pot boiling. In a region like the subcontinent where passions run high, Muslims also have a responsibility to make sure that they don`t make provocative speeches or indulge in provocative actions. If not then they will have to bear the consequences of their actions]

I agree with you.. you`re absolutely right. Muslims should refrain from hurting Hindu religious sentiments and preaching against Hindus and Kaffirs in their sermons. However, the same goes for the Hindus as well.. after all, ``you can`t clap with just one hand.``

All in all, Hindutva and Islamic fundamentalism are both reactionary forces. If there`s nothing to fight and rally against, there`s no power.. no support. Hence, the two feed off each other, each contributing to the others power base.

[You, Rakesh Mani and other Islamic fundamentalism appeasers can explain to me as to why you all are silent on the Solapur riots of September 2002]

Let me make this very clear.. I don`t approve of any form of fundamentalism. Period. Whether it`s Hindu, Islamic or even Secular fundamentalism (such as in Turkey)

Re: # 45

Please see #54

#49 by stuka

Excellent and accurate analysis.

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.

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.

Right or wrong, Nehru worked with some program until it was challenged. Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan was not backed by some economic and social ideals. He just wanted to continue what Brits had left. Status quo is bad no mater where and how it is imposed.

One more thing: even though Jinnah believed in secularism, his belief alone was not enough. You cannot have secularism in an empty shell. You have to develop environments and political system to achieve that state.

Despite 60 years of efforts, secularism in India is under tremendous pressure. In Pakistan, secularism never even had a chance to begin with.

“Jinnah`s own political instincts were antithetical to the established status quo of West Pakistan.”

I am not sure what do you mean by that. He ruled Pakistan without any opposition for at least six months. I have yet to see any evidence that he had any inclination to introduce even a minor change in the system. He did all the Bureaucratic work but it seems that policy was not some thing he was interested in. That shows two things:

1) He was not visionary enough to understand the interplay between a policy, its implementation and its long term impact

OR

2) He was perfectly happy with the system he inherited.

I think # 2 guided him and that would contradict your statement.

Maybe you wanted to say his ``natural instincts`` were antithetical...

Re: # 54

[The mistake we made in `47 was to make India a secular country. And follow that with policies which are anti-Hindu.... India to be made a country where all Indic religions have equal and first status. Where Hindus/other Indic religions suppressed all over the world can get asylum. Where Hindus are not discriminated against. ]

So you`d like India to be a Hindu country.. and Hindus have ``first`` status. So doesn`t this indirectly mean that the minorities will be discriminated against? Besides.. what about the affirmative action program, are you against that as well? So India becomes not just Hindu.. but dominated by the Brahmin (like myself) and upper caste elites, just like in the past?

You speak of Hindus being suppressed ``all over the world``... I can understand that they are being not only suppressed, but also strangulated, in Pakistan. But where else? Where else are non-Indian Hindu citizens being suppressed and discriminated against?

Re: # 57
Sirji, After decades of sh|t being bandied about in India, in the name of secularism - what
else were you expecting ?
Besides - in case you did not notice, Krishna ji is NOT talking of Hindu Supremacy anywhere. He is talking of Indic religions being given supremacy. This includes our
philosophies which are inherently pacific.
GAWD, even a Hinud fundamentalist wud be categorised as a liberal in a muslim country !
Believe me, if we actually do what he is saying - we would be called a progressive country,
in the mould of a malaysia.

> .... However, the same goes for the Hindus as well.. ...
This is EXACTLY the kinda sh|t that gets the label of secularism in our country.
This equating of an obviously violent cult with higher philosphies, as if all of them are
equally inclined towards violence, is only going to nurture more Krishna`s..
To give an example -
We are supposed to be a hinud majority country and in 6 decades we have not been able
to build 1 temple in ayodhya. 1 temple in the birthplace of the lord. Just 1.
And its not like we are asking for the temple over Kaaba ( though god knows mankind
can benefit from that ).
If this is your secularism then we don`t want it. But neither do we want mosques that have
already been built - to be pulled down.

neways, i may write an ilog or article some time, on this ....
ciao

Re: #60

Wiseguyin,

[ .... However, the same goes for the Hindus as well..... > This is EXACTLY the kinda sh|t that gets the label of secularism in our country. This equating of an obviously violent cult with higher philosphies, as if all of them are equally inclined towards violence, is only going to nurture more Krishnas]

Wiseguyin, we are not debating the relative merits of myriad religions here. We aren`t discussing whether such-and-such religion is inherently violent or peaceful either. Being a Hindu Brahmin myself, I agree wholeheartedly that Hinduism is not just highly philosophical, but rather intellectual as well in a lot of ways. But that doesn`t make us superior in any way to someone of a different faith.

My point in saying that ``However, the same goes for the Hindus as well`` highlights the fact that Hindutva and Islamic fundamentalism are both reactionary forces. Hence, if my statements result in more Hindus being goaded toward ``Krishnaism`` then yours, surely, spur the growth of Islamic fundamentalism. If we can both learn not to viciously offend each other, we wouldn`t have such problems. That, sir, was my point.

[We are supposed to be a hindu majority country and in 6 decades we have not been able to build 1 temple in ayodhya. 1 temple in the birthplace of the lord. Just 1. And its not like we are asking for the temple over Kaaba (though god knows mankind can benefit from that)]

It`s statements like these, that excite feelings unnecessarily. Not so much the wish to build a temple in Ayodhya - which is a legitimate religious concern which can be addressed through dialogue - but rather, the statement about the Ka`aba. These types of statements add momentum to the dastardly Islamic fundamentalists and then their actions add impetus to the Hindus. The cycle will go on. Until we both learn to behave.

Re: # 49

Touche