Last Rites in Kashmir or a New Journey?

Netizen #75 You write ``Hindu nationalism in 47? could you please elaborate a bit more. ``

Surely you are not unaware that hindu nationalism existed prior to 47!! RSS e.g., was formed way before partition, as I understand. Gandhi was murdered by a hindu extremist. Even the Congress had a few prominent hindu extremists (Patel I think was one of them).


As for the rediff article, just switching a word here or there (my use of ``afraid`` rather than the exact word used int he article) does not change the substance - the writer is clearly off his rocker when he tries make it appear that Pakistan was a creation of the British to make India weak. The entire thrust of the article is quite absurd.

Re: # 78

``Netizen #73 You say you deliberately (and not unintentionally, as I assumed) illustrated my point (thus reinforcing it) even as you were trying to argue against it. ``

i am not arguing against your statement. I agree with you, I have no love for muslims and islam. For that matter for any religion. I just consider islam as Arabian nationalism, nothing more than that. I just wonder to what extent people believe in things without questioning it. Simply because they were born in a family that professes a particular religion.

Re: # 81

tahmed:


``Surely you are not unaware that hindu nationalism existed prior to 47!! RSS e.g., was formed way before partition, as I understand. Gandhi was murdered by a hindu extremist. Even the Congress had a few prominent hindu extremists (Patel I think was one of them). ``

Gandhi was murdered because he was too cozy towards pak. He was again on fast so that india could deliver several crores to pak and to prevent him from going on a pilgrimmage to pak. Anyway, if you have forgotten, Gandhi was Congress`s foremost leader, a party accused by you of being a hindu chavunistic party. So one hindu nationalist party kills the leader of another hindu nationalist party? Man i am lost now....

of what significance was RSS at that time? Even Yasser, while defending Jinnah, never mentioned of the threat from RSS. He was all against Gandhi and Congress.
Congress was as against RSS as it was against ML. Still now that they are the main opposition parties. Congress doesn`t even mind to sleep in bed with Indian Muslilm League. Jan Sangh (RSS) hardly use to win any seats until 1992, after Babri.

Jinnah was more afraid of subjugation through Congress than from RSS/Jan Sangh.
Regarding Sardar Patel, simply because he defended Iok and rebuilt the somnath temple, are these grounds for being a hindu nationalist?
As there was Patel as home minister so was Maulana A.K. Azad as education minister.

Re: # 79

Why was Ghaffar khan imprisoned?

``In today’s NWFP, nobody even talks about that referendum. Politics has moved way beyond 1947. I am afraid today Jinnah would win any referendum in NWFP with a 90% majority ``

the world has changed several times. Forget about Jinnah, even if that Bangali Baba (islamic fanatic from Bangla) stands he will win easily. Its NWFP after all, other than Islam and Kalashnikov what else do they have?

I am also not sure of the British angle in creation of Pak. They would even be happy to have several smaller hindu (if i may) countries rather than a united country. Like the arabs (some 20+ states), easy to influence. (Can you imagine if all the arab states become one country controlling oil reserves). THe british were definitely too weak to shoulder any further responsibilities.
But if the nationitself is bent on destruction, why would they stop it. Theres are saying in hindi `` ghar ka bhedi Lanka dhayee`` (sorry for the errors) something like a mafia man ratting on his own people.


``if the attempted coup had not failed in the early 50s, Pakistan would have been a communist state today.``

whats the scoop on that? my inderstanding is that no muslim nation can EVER become communist. Simply because as a communist you become atheist, which muslims have a hard time in swallowing. THey are programmed diferently since early childhood.

I think a new aspect should be introduced into this debate, to get a better idea of the different views on independence:

What are our Indian colleagues views on the creation and independence of Bangladesh. Did it have a right to break away from Pakistan? Was India correct in supporting the breakaway? Another point that is important to note is that East Pakistan broke away from an entity called Pakistan. While Pakistan broke away from the British Empire. The entity India being created one day after Pakistan..........

The second point that should be discussed is the kind of attitude Pakistan has towards Bangladesh. Is there the same kind of hatred in Pakistan for Mujeeb, that exists in India for Jinnah? And is there the same kind of dislike in Pakistan, for Bangladesh that exists in India for Pakistan?

Re: # 85

Raja Pakistani,

If there would not have been paks desire to have kashmir and indias stand to maintain it, Jinnah and gandhi would been confined to history books. Also, the difference in religion (which in fact was the basis for partition) and indias substantial muslim population keeps on stoking the fire.
Apart from the political standpoint of who will govern the country there were not any substantial issues b/t pak and bd. And being not lying next to each other takes care of the border problems.
Hence comparing indo-pak relations to pak-bd is totally inapproriate.

Pakistan is a racist construct which means land of the pure, by implication it means others are probably impure.

Pakistani flag is comparable to Confederate flag because the very design defines the dichotomy of Muslim greens and non-muslim whites, a divisive - segregationist view in my opinion.

Romair:
Bangladesh and every other future province of pakistan has the right to seced from the Federation using Jinnah`s twisted communal logic.
In Bangladesh case, West Pakistan got a free ride of sorts for the horrendous crimes Army commited there on the behest of Commander In Chief Yahya Khan. Japanese Imperials were wiped out from the face of the earth for doing something of the same magnitude.

RE: HP:
``people of Pakistan are generally democratic and live with diversity of opinion. ``

I agree fully, though as a trend upper-middleclass urban Pakistanis are an exception.

#84 by Netizen

“Why was Ghaffar khan imprisoned?”
He opposed the army on several occasions. He never opposed Pakistan after 1947. His brother became a chief Minister of West Pakistan in the 50s.

“whats the scoop on that? my inderstanding is that no muslim nation can EVER become communist. Simply because as a communist you become atheist, which muslims have a hard time in swallowing. THey are programmed diferently since early childhood.”

Your understanding is absolutely wrong. Pakistan always had an active Communist Party and baring a few Hindus, all members and activists were born and raised as Muslims. Both Communists Parties in India have members and Activities who were born in Muslim Families. One prominent name would be Kaifi Azm, Shabana Azmi’s Father.

I am an atheist from my school and college days in Pakistan. Nobody did anything to me. All Muslims wanted me to marry their daughters. I have never been to any Mosque in my life after I was 11 years old. My father did not know how to offer prayers nor do I and I have not taught anything about any religion to my kids either. We go to Pakistan often and nobody dare touch my kids or me. I strongly oppose any attempt to make Pakistan an Islamic state.

In 1950-51, a group of Army officers and the Communist Party of Pakistan attempted to overthrow Liaquat Ali Khan. He was the Prime Minister then. They failed and were arrested.

Neti baba you need to do a whole lot of reading about Pakistan before you comment on any thing about Pakistan.
Who was that Ghar ka bhedi?

#88 by Raw_Dust

``though as a trend upper-middleclass urban Pakistanis are an exception``

How many upper-middleclass urban Pakistan do you know? I know a lot at least in Sindh and Karachi and they don`t care and mostly welcome diversity of opinion. Fairytales are never true.

Netizen/RawDust: Do both of you support the creation of Bangladesh or do you oppose its creation?

H P

This link will show you some of India`s inner city highways.....`decaying` is the word you used to describe our infrastructure.....yet you pout when we indians propound our pak views based on what we have been taught and learnt through out media.....why this double standard??.........

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=161436

Re: # 34
re: arjun_m:

///HP didn`t..I agree with most of the points he`s made in his well thought out article. I`m talking about Romair aka captain clueless///

Whoops. My mistake. I thought you were commenting on bbabu #9 (in which he refers to HP) when in fact you were commenting on bbabu #14 - in which he refers to Romair.

*I wish people would reply to interacts using the ``reply to interact`` link below each interact. That way the discussion is properly threaded and much more manageable.*

Re: # 93

Stop lecturing aha_Snarl.Let there be a free flow of exchanges and viewpoints.Are you a commie?.If so, i do understand your authoritarian ways.

Re: # 43
re: harish_hyd:

///Boss, I thought you knew better. If India is not averse to making the LoC the border, does it not imply that India doesn`t lay claim to ``Azad`` Kashmir anymore?///

Of course India`s hinting in a nudge-nudge-wink-wink fashion that it is not averse to the LOC as the border. I only raised the 1994 Parliament Resolution because you talked about the stated and official position of Pakistan and the difficulty it will face in resiling from that. It`s not fair, is it, to compare the official position of Pakistan (which has changed radically in a few years time) with the unofficial position of India is it ? And no doubt, if India ever says officiallly that the LOC is acceptable to it as the border, rather than repeat that the ``whole of the erstwhile princely state of Kashmir is Indian territory`` screams of rage will emanate from those seeking to gain political mileage. It`s not going to be easy to contradict a resolution of Parliament right ? Only 40 years have allowed the Government to contradict in real life the resolution calling for the armed forces to throw the Chinese out. We give Aksai Chin, they give Arunachal and Sikkim.

cheers,

A_S

re: Romair # 85

The common view in India is that after a democratically held elections in which ALL Pakistanis took part, a minority part of Pakistan tried to usurp power from Pakistan`s majority part. When the minority part insisted on snatching power by force, the majority part of Pakistan walked away. In a democratic set up, no majority would or should allow/tolerate a minority segment of the population to usurp power through illegal military means.

Was India correct in supporting the Pakistani majority?

Depends on what one means by the word `correct.` Consider India`s options. Hardly five years ago, events in 1965 had made it clear to many in India that Pakistan was not going to live in peace, until it felt it could achieve its objectives in Kashmir militarily. For the proper Indian defense of Kashmir, and for the sake of future peace in the subcontinent, it was necessary to reduce Pakistan`s ability to militarily snatch territory from India.

There was also a major factor that India had not fully anticipated. After a minority group in Pakistan used military force to deprive the Pakistani majority of democratically won power, large numbers of members of Pakistani majority began to pour into India for refuge. If India did not intervene decisively on the side of Pakistani majority, India stood to suffer enormous costs of supporting large and increasing numbers of Pakistani majority refugees.

Facing international pressure, India could not shut its doors to the threatened and discriminated members of Pakistani majority. On the other hand, the nation had no obligation to let this situation worsen endlessly.

``Is there the same kind of hatred in Pakistan for Mujeeb, that exists in India for Jinnah?``

Pakistani attitude toward Mujeeb (or even India) has changed as they have learnt more about what happened in 1971. For quite sometime after 1971, Mujeeb was no hero to west Pakistanis.

Neither are Jinnah and Mujeeb equivalent. Indian hatred for Jinnah arises from his espousal of TNT. On the other hand, Mujeeb, a member of the majority community in Pakistan, continuously emphasized his brotherhood with minority Pakistanis, repeatedly begging minority Pakistanis to believe that he was a good Pakistani brother.

``And is there the same kind of dislike in Pakistan, for Bangladesh that exists in India for Pakistan?``

There would be no reason for the similar kind of dislike for Bangladesh. Pakistan does not lay claim to any Bangladeshi territory now. Pakistan also seeks to establish itself as a sort of leader of Islamic brotherhood.

One doesn`t hate a so-called brother as easily as one hates another who one considers less pure than oneself or religiously defiled. Clearly, there is a deep sense of racism involved here, although Bengalis too suffered the brunt of the same race-based discrimination when they were part of Pakistan.

Finally, if India is viewed as the great enemy and the biggest threat, then it makes strategic sense to promote Islamic brotherhood with Bangladesh and to weaken Bangladesh`s ties with India. The kind of dislike promoted toward India would be very irrational were it also extended toward Bangladesh.