India Through Pakistani Eyes

After 60 years, difference between two neighbours could not be more stark. One heading north korea way and the other south korea -way:

"Commonwealth leaders unanimously appointed an Indian as secretary-general on Saturday, two days after the 53-nation federation suspended Pakistan.... "

Full read at-

http://dawn.com/2007/11/25/index.htm

It is so interesting to have a read that Mukesh Ambani's networth is more than twice the fiscal budget of Pakistan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Pakistan

For Mukesh Ambani's networth, just google, internet is full of results.

A few such individuals can truly run national budgets of other states in south asia...truly amazing!! Soon, Paki generals wouldn't have to beg their American masters, the wealthy Indians can pay them to stop sending terrorists to India and the world.

pervez article is an eye opener, being smug about what we have achieved and not thinking about our negatives is wrong.
this helps get a balnced view of our country.
on the hind sight, had india and pakistan, not been partitioned, muslims would have 30% or more share in population, do you really think hindus would play around then? with that kind of majority? how big would we have been as a nation, even china would have looked puny? reading about pakistan and partition, i feel jinnah took a rather hasty decision, and pakistan became an artificial state. its this artificial nature of pakistan thats leading to trouble be it in politics or religion.

F**K YOU prince leo... its fuckers like u that cause all the trouble that there is. Dont be too over confident about india either because its u who doesnt stand a chance infront of pakistan. Before commenting on Pakistanis please take a good look at urself, the english and grammar was all wrong in that piece of shit u had written. My advice to u is to f**k off before i personally chop off ur balls(it`ll be a shame if ur mother is unable to suck n tea bag u) WATCH IT!!!

Dr. Hoodboy`s articles are consistently first rate. He is a distinguished physicist, but being a layperson, I only know him by his articles on broad humanitarian concerns. There is surely no Indian scientist of comparable stature who is so free with political opinions (and that`s a compliment to Dr. Hoodboy)

Some off hand comments...
On National College, Bangalore: This seemingly ``ordinary`` (as he puts it) college has produced many distinguished citizens. It was headed until recently by a true legend, a Gandhian, a rationalist Dr. H Narasimhaiah, who passed away at age 78.

On Indian nationalism and intellectual ``smugness``:
Yes, it is true that Indians are nationalistic, by and large. They trace everything wrong to one or more political parties, rather than the state/nation itself. The dissatisfactions have seldom taken the form of a rage to undo the nation state(stray secessionist movements apart, which have historical causes). This is because the Indian state (since `47) has had a salutary effect on the civil society. Millions have been pulled out of poverty into middle class, though admittedly this may seem pale when compared to neighbouring China. Besides, romantic doubts about the state itself are essentially a preoccupation of the elite, who ironically have benefited most from the status quo.

On Muslim conservativism in Hyderabad, AP:
I`m sure the burqa-clad women would be surprised to know that their counterparts in Pakistan (NWFP, FATA excepted) are less conservative. In fact, the author missed the fact that the burqa is fast becoming the norm now in South India. They`re trying to prove their Muslimness to themselves and to others (perhaps as a gesture of defiance). Once the word gets around that ``good`` muslim girls wear burqa, it requires great courage to resist. This practice has become common particularly among the economically weaker sections of Muslims. The elite seem to be exempt, surprisingly. (Any theories why?)

On Muslim conservativism in general:
To elaborate the point made earlier - Muslims generally tend to assert their muslimness, their distinctness, to themselves and others. A need to be more muslim than other Muslims. The conservative Indian leadership of the community says their faith requires them resist changes to civil law, regardless that Iran, Egypt and also Pakistan have reformed their civil laws. They will follow the Sharia and not Pakistan or Iran.

Sir V S Naipaul, the Nobel Laureate, whom I greatly admire, calls phenomenon ``the neurosis of conversion.`` I have a simpler term for it - competitive religiosity.

Re: # 618

i am not sure what u r worried about take over of israel by muslims or kashmir .............................u confuse us

I generally agree with most observations. I may, however, comment upon the following observation in the article:



Indian philosophy and thought considers all knowledge as `sacred`. It is in this sense that knowledge deserves and is `worshipped`. However, this does not preclude questioning. A Sanskrit aphorism lays down `reading, writing, observation, questioning and leaning from pundits` as the way to acquire knowledge. It is this questioning, which is inbred in Indian thought, that has led to the myriad systems of Indian philosophy. The Hindu thought does not assign the supreme position to anything or anyone and encourages each seeker to invent his own path.

Nehru`s oft-quoted observation has to be understood in this manner. When he `worships`, he does not stop `questioning`. Indeed, `questioning` is his way of `worshipping` knowledge.

Hi Pervez, Thanks for sharing - I enjoyed reading your piece a lot!

Also - I don`t understand why some Indian posters are being so uncivil and nasty to Mr Hoodboy. Relax, people! Why the paranoia and defensiveness???

About JNU - that`s why I love JNU. I`m also becoming aware of how many right wing desis there are in this world, and its scary. Without ``commie`` ideas like - local control over resources and means of production, driving out British capitalists etc - we would never have got rid of colonial rule. The masses, without whose support elites would not have succeeded in the freedom struggle - were first and foremost fighting for control over means of production, issues of livelihood, *not* some vague and wishy washy idea of ``culture``.

I once asked an Israeli friend of mine why, if Israelis are secular, Israel has to be a Jewish state by its constitution. His reply was that the muslim population in Israel multiplies at a far higher rate than the jewish population, and once the muslims gain majority, they`ll use democratic mechanisms to create an Islamic country under Allah, and impose Sharia laws on everybody. And maybe in this day and age they won`t be able to apply a ``religious tax`` on minorities, but then you never know. He gave the example of Kashmir, which for thousands of years was a Hindu country, the birthplace of great saints and scholars of hinduism, where, since the Muslim population, is beyond the tipping point, muslims all over the world have been demanding that DEMOCRATICALLY it should be an Islamic state, because the Hindu minorities` opinions can be voted out.
When Pakistanis and Kashmiris say that Kashmir should be for Kashmiris, they are actually saying ``Kashmir should be for Muslims``, because the Hindus sure do not agree.
I wonder what the gentle people on Chowk think about this.

#611 by haroonellahi

[India`s signing of resolutions with U.N.O, along with Mr. Nehrus constant speechs to the world of `free and fair` plebliscite all demand that we go back and analyze the situation.]

Like a one-act clown, every Paki likes to conveniently quote the UN resolutions on Kashmir, of course without mentioning (or not knowing) the fact that these very resolutions stipulated that for a fair plebiscite to happen, Pakistan was to withdraw its troops and the assorted tribal thugs that it had mobilized to annex Kashmir by force. That never happened, but Pakis have an aversion for facts, so they will go on endlessly about how Nehru promised a plebiscite for Kashmir, overlooking their own part of the responsibility.

[Premise 4 was framed by an untouchable Indian. Now, I don`t know whether he is `less` Indian to the Champions of Democracy coming from India, but he`s just as Indian as any other Indian.]

At least the Indian constitution does not discriminate on the basis of caste, even though some Indians may. OTOH, the Paki constitution decrees that Ahmadis are non-Muslims and no non-Muslim can become the President or PM of Pakistan. But here we have Pakis shamelessly having innocent doubts about whether Ambedkar is treated as an equal Indian.

[Afterall, you Indians DO stand for democracy and respecting the will of the majority right? Why not respect the majority of the Kashmiri People?]

Which is why the recent elections in Kashmir were universally acknowledged as free and fair. Which is why Kashmir, like every other Indian state, has its own people ruling it. Pakis, on the other hand, can never aspire for such things. All they have to be content with is a dubious referendum where Mushy wins ‘97%’ of the votes, and then hand picks the PM and his council of ministers, and for the fig leaf, holds an election for them from the safe seats.

Ok, I think the Indians now agree that partition`s main goal was to create a state for Muslims constitutiong Pakistan and for Hindu majority it was India.

Okay, so now we have a premise.

premise 1. Partition aimed at creating Pakistan whereever there was Muslim majority, and India whereever there was Hindu majority.

Now, looking at this from a legal point of view. What exactly had the British decided?

Now, before we continue, I would like us to look at p1 again.

premise 1. Partition aimed at creating Pakistan whereever there was Muslim majority, and India whereever there was Hindu majority.

Now, what had the British decided? Muslim majority = Pakistan, Hindu majority= India.

Therefore, our second premise would be;

premise 2. Muslim majority = Pakistan, Hindu majority= India.

Now, we all were in agreement of Premise 1, and premise 2 coherently flows with premise 2.

So, yes, partitition DID take place, thats a fact. However, based on those two premises, only a certain `degree` of partition took place. Just looking at it from a logical point of view begs that we address the issue again.

India`s signing of resolutions with U.N.O, along with Mr. Nehrus constant speechs to the world of `free and fair` plebliscite all demand that we go back and analyze the situation.

I asked the distingished Indians to tell me what democracy was. I would like to present a dictionary meaning and a quote.

premise 3(the meaning of democracy):

``Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
A political or social unit that has such a government.
The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule.
The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community. ``

premise 4: ``The Theory of nationality is embedded in the democratic theory of sovereignty of the will of the people. This means that `the demand for a national state by a nationalisty does not require to be supported by any list of grievances. The will of the people is enough to justify it`. But if grievances must be cited, the Muslims have them in plenty.
- Dr. B.R Ambedkar, Framer of Indian constitution on the demand of Muslims for an Indepedent state in India.

Now, a I proposed that a certain degree of `partition` had taken place(Pakistan), but I feel that a proper partition has not taken place. Premise 4 was framed by an untouchable Indian. Now, I don`t know whether he is `less` Indian to the Champions of Democracy coming from India, but he`s just as Indian as any other Indian. Look at what he has to say! Now, look at premise 3, it tells us what exactly a democracy is.

So, let us give Azad Kashmir and Indian Administered Kashmir regional autonomy. Then allow them to be reunified, and hold a plebliscite whether they would like to go indepedent, join India, or remain with Pakistan. I personally feel that they ought to become indepedent, with my proposals which I had written above. I forgot to mention the Right of Return for the Hindu Pandits.

Afterall, you Indians DO stand for democracy and respecting the will of the majority right? Why not respect the majority of the Kashmiri People?

Re: # 611
Partition i.e. the division of the erstwhile undivided India, was initiated by the Quaid-i-Azam and his party, the Muslim League and was never supported by the Congress and had to accept it out of compulsion, due to the flaring up of communal riots. The British accepted the Partition only after both the parties had accepted it.
However, as you said the Partition occured and it is a fact. The Muslim Legue`s idea was:
Muslim majority = Pakistan, Hindu majority= India.

Yet some Muslims opted for India, for she had decided that :

India = Secular country, equal rights to all.

These Muslims decided to stay where they originally resided and formed Muslim - majority areas in parts of India, without showing any threat to the unity of India and without a desire to form a separate independent `Pakistan` wherever they resided. There are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan, as a result of this. The British had no objection with the decision of these Muslims.

So your Premises #1 and #2 and your proposition that the Partition occurred in a `certain degree` prove false, it got completed in and around 1947. Kashmir, on the other hand, was to be decided on a plebicite, which cannot be possible unless Pakistan stopps its cross - border terrorism and withdraws its troops.

Sridhar, why would the international community put pressure on India to relinquish Kashmir. Where is the logic in that?

They have not done so all these years when they had nothing to lose. As years go by the international community will be increasingly intertwined with India. Why would they unncecessarily want to upset the applecart?

As far as Kashmiris are concerned what more do they need if they are treated equally as Indian citizens. Even now they have more rights than anybody else.

# various by haroonellahi

India is highly unlikely to relinquish control of Kashmir. Universally acknowledged free and fair elections have already helped mitigate some of the Kashmiri grievances. As the law and order situation improves because of the reduced violence, made possible by the fence on the LoC, the prognostications for peace are there. Tourism is booming and except for the stray violence, Kashmir is beginning to resemble its old self. When things are looking so positive, why would India even think of handing over Kashmir to Pakistan on a platter?

The US is wary of creating another nation in South Asia, already a hotbed of Islamic terrorism, thanks to Pakistan and Bangladesh. Another redrawing of the map is going to be virtual suicide for it.

All attempts by Pakistan to gain control of Kashmir have miserably failed. The only hope for Pakis now lies in accepting the LoC as the International Border and get on with their lives. Or the day is not far off when Pakistan will join the ranks of Afghanistan, Somalia, and Sudan.