Last Rites in Kashmir or a New Journey?

One needs to look at the context of Pakistan’s creation and 24 years of two-wing existence before evaluating the question of Bangladeshi ‘secession.’

Recall that one-man one-vote universal adult franchise was not good enough for Jinnah and his ilk, since it would inevitably have led to tyranny of the ‘permanent Hindu majority.’ All kinds of constitutional ‘safeguards’ – separate electorates, communal parity, provincial grouping and gerrymandering, etc. – were proposed to prevent such an undemocratic outcome. Partition happened because of the pig-headed refusal of Congress to accept these safeguards.

It was therefore completely consistent to apply the same principle once Pakistan was formed. Why should kala-kaloota Bangalis lord it over Punjabis and others in West Pakistan merely because of their accidental 57% majority of the population? Hence the ingenious schemes – inter-wing parity of representation and One Unit – invented to prevent Bangali majority tyranny. Hence also the refusal by the West Pakistani establishment to accept the results of the 1970 general election (the only undiluted one-man one-vote general election in undivided Pakistan’s history) – leading to Civil War and separation.

In addition, the ruling establishment of Pakistan used various devices to transfer economic resources from East Pakistan to the West wing. Most revenue sources were placed under central control, whereas revenue expenditures overwhelmingly favoured the West wing (about 75% of total expenditures). Foreign exchange earnings from East Bengali jute were used to fund imports for industrialization of the West wing (which had been earmarked as the preferred location for industries). An overvalued Pakistani rupee was used to favour importers in the major importing (i.e. West) wing. Perhaps as a consequence of all this, the per capita ratio of gross regional products (West / East) went from 1.2 in 1949-50 to 1.61 in 1969-70.

During Ayub Khan’s celebrated Decade of Stability and Progress, Pakistan was on a higher growth trajectory than Turkey, Malaysia, etc.; was cited by the World Bank as a model developing economy, was studied as an example by South Korea, and so on. Unfortunately those fractious Bengalis thought they were being discriminated against, colonised and robbed blind to make this splendid achievement possible.

What one makes of these policies depends on ones outlook and ones definition of equity. Obviously the West Pakistani establishment – starting with Jinnah – had little use for conventional ideas of equity. It’s entirely a matter of taste whether you think East Pakistani secession was justified by the prior history.

#95 by Aha_Snark

[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?]

All things being equal, it would be unfair. But then, how many Indians feel passionately about reclaiming PoK? Is it comparable to the number of Pakis who want Kashmir to be a part of Pakistan? You know as much as I do that the only Indians that make a song and dance about ``Azad`` Kashmir being an integral part of India are the RSS-types. Not even the BJP makes it an issue anymore.

[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.]

Once it is decided that the LoC is going to be made the border, I don`t think it would be too difficult for the government to backtrack from the 1994 resolution. The two largest parties the Congress and BJP both have had a hand in the peace process and will not rock the boat, and the others don`t have too much of a choice.

[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.]

This took 40 years only because the India didn`t have good relations with China until recently. India now accepts Chinese sovereignty over Aksai Chin, how many parties were able to gain political mileage out of it? None.

#103 by Romair

”Netizen/Kaalchakra/RawDust: Do you support the cessation of Bangladesh from Pakistan and its creation.......”

You did not ask me but I would say that I supported the secession of Bangladesh from Pakistan.
I will elaborate it in my reply to Alephnull.

Nullman, How racist can you be to even suggest that Bengali were a problem because they were “kala-kaloota” like you? When Bengal became a problem in the 50s and the 60s, UP-ian and Bihari Bureaucrats were running Pakistan and believe me those mofos were as kala-kaloota as you and Bengalis are. I mean one look at those little guys from Muzafargarh, Meerut, and Patna city(even Hyderabad Deccan) would tell you that they never had a light gene in their last fifty generations.
Your Kala Kaloota analysis shows that you are an uncontrolled freak.

Now we are talking about people admiring Jinnah, no matter how grudgingly, for getting Pakistan. Indian politicians may hate him but no Indian Politician would fail to acknowledge that he certainly accomplished a monumental task in a very short period of time and that too after being written off just a few years ago in Indian Politics. There is no precedent of that in the annals of history. Nobody just gets a new country out of nowhere and without any prior historical or geographical boundaries. Hate him as much as you want, disagree with him as much as you want, but nobody can show any precedent of what he did in India, in the world history. Some may not agree with his tactics or the ideology he backed but in the end he proved to be the shrewdest politician around at his time.

Once he accomplished a gigantic task of getting Pakistan, he made the biggest political blunder when he went to East Pakistan in 1948, and declared Urdu as the sole National language of Pakistan. Thousands in Palton Maidan Dacca had come to hear and see him and their enthusiasm for Jinnah and Pakistan had no bounds but when they heard him talking about Urdu as the sole language of Pakistan, they knew that they have been had. From that day on, dismemberment of Pakistan started.

Problems just kept piling up after that. The Language riots in 1951, the Jugto Front Victory in 1954, and the One unit all just continued to hurt Bengali pride and finally they were pushed out of Pakistan by an army that was unwilling to hand over power to ANY civilian Bengali or not.

What was Jinnah thinking? You don’t outsmart Gandhis, Nehrus, Patels and Mountbatons to make such an elementary mistake.

Whole India knows Bengali pride in their language, culture, and in their land. Bengali Muslims may have asked for separation from India, but they never asked for separation from their culture, their Language, and their history. Here comes Jinnah trying to impose a language on Bengalis which was as alien to them as Marathi or Tamil were. There was no way Bengalis were going to sit down and take that insult.
If Jinnah created Pakistan from nowhere, he also sowed the seeds of Bangal separation from Pakistan.

Romair,
Now that you are asking questions from everybody about what they think of Bangladesh secession, my question to you is and please read it carefully:
Why did Jinnah make this colossal mistake of declaring Urdu as the sole language of Pakistan and that too in Dacca? I hope you will come up with some answer too. Dost Mittar please take a shot too, if you like.

re: HP # 115

I would hazard a guess. Jinnah was running on momentum. (Despite his seeming rejection of TNT in one speech), he might have begun to believe his own rhetoric about Muslims being one nation.

As one nation, people`s internal differences were supposed to be minimal, which could then be easily subordinated in the service of the greater one Muslim nation Jinnah thought he had created in India. This apparent one nation had listened to him before independence, and he saw no reason why they would not do so after independence.

Of course, there was no such thing as one nation. People had listened to him because they saw in him an instrument for the advancement of their own pet and differing causes, and a solution to their own pet fears, not because they in any way agreed with him philosophically, or even knew what Jinnah`s views meant for them in practical terms.

Jinnah had made a clear offer to all his followers of only one thing: to save them from being dominated by Hindus. Once Hindus were taken care of, Jinnah had ceased to matter in practical terms, either politically or ideologically, except to those of his followers whose vision happened to fully match his own. With the rest of his flock, Jinnah would not have had a democratic, happy, and productive relationship for long.

#115 by HP

While I agree with some of the reasons you put forth, I beg to disagree with your rejection of Alephnull`s analysis. West Pakis (Punjabis) had (and continue to have) this air of superiority about them and there were any number of instances when Bengalis were humiliated because of their color. In fact, Paki troops in Bangladesh boasted that by raping Bangla women, they were only improving/purifying the gene pool of the dark Bengali race and making them better Muslims. I remember reading this somewhere (Hamood-ur-Rahman report?) and if you wish, I will find the relevant extract for you.

BTW, you still haven`t responded to my post on how Pakistan arm-twists Kashmiris on the other side of the LoC to have them endorse its position, i.e., by asking candidates to sign an undertaking promising their full support to Kashmir`s accession to Pakistan. As recently as a couple of months ago when Indian media persons were invited on a tour to AJK, JKLF activists were not allowed to meet them for obvious reasons.

HP ji and others

Following may have been the first attempt to keep Bengalis under the thumb. Since you are an erudite person, you must be knowing who has been quoted therein:-

``......Over all races, not only Muhammadans but Rajas of high position and the brave Rajputs who have not forgotten the swords of their ancestors, would be placed as a ruler a Bengali who at sight of table knife would crawl under his chair ( uproarious Cheers and laughter), ........ Do you think that the Rajut and the fiery Pathan..... could remain in peace under the bengalis? ( Cheers). ..... therefore, if any of you - men of good position, Raises, men of middle classes, men of noble family to whom God has given sentiments of honour - if you accept that the country should groan under the yoke of Bengali rule and its people lick the bengali shoes, then, in the name of God jump into the train, sit down, and be off to Madras, be off to Madras ( Loud Cheers)

Regards

BJ #107 There is no win or lose in a discussion. You can call me a ``religious bigot`` - but there is nothing I have said in our interactin that any reasonable individual would consider to be bigotry. Pointing to the plain and obvious reality of hindu extremism and hindu animosity to islam and muslims (and I explained early on in #37 the factual basis on which I say this) is not religious bigotry.

Unlike many people on chowk, I dont paint an entire community with the same brush. Nor in real life have I had anything but excellent personal relations with Indians - including the the young chap who had just came to the US from India who gave me what I consider to be one of the biggest compliments I ever received: after ending his assignment and moving on to some other company, he told me that he was very concerned in the beginning that he would have a Pakistani boss, and upon leaving he could say that I was the best boss he ever worked for. I have been on chowk for years, and have always stood for respect for other religions, including hinduism.

So, you can call me a bigot or whatever you like. I know that I am not anything like that. So, when I point to the hindu nationalism as being what led Jinnah to switch from being the ``Ambassador of hindu-muslim friendship`` to the worst nightmare of the Congress Party, that is not because I am a bigot. That is because I go by the facts as I see them, as I described early on in #37.

Have a good day.

#107
forget it BJ, you are not the first person to be here. Time and again people ihave nteracted with this guy, time and again they have quit talking in disgust.

forget it, its not worth it.

#119 by tahmed32 on June 9, 2005 5:28am PT


but there is nothing I have said in our interactin that any reasonable individual would consider to be bigotry.


Ok prophet tahmed(peace be unto your self-righteous left butt cheek..or was it right)...we get it...you`re the prophet of indo-pak peace...pakis are peace loving souls and a majority of pakis never supported Islamic terrorism in Kashmir and elsewhere...indians in general and hindus in particular are hateful bigots(because they post articles from mainstream media that point out a small discrepancy between what pakis think and what the facts reall are)...

tahmed,
what do you propose as a solution for hindu (incl sikh i guess) animosity?

#118 humsab, where is the speech from?

kaalchakra

Very good! That is the second part of the answer. Don’ forget the UP-ians in the equation. There is a first part to it and that goes to Jinnah’s mental make up and understanding of Nationalism from his early days in Indian Politics.
I will discuss this again after Romair’s post.

Harish!
My man from Hyd.

Indian/Pakistanis are masters of racial slights and stereotyping. UP-ians are I think the real culprits. People are called Madrasis, Gujjus and what not but ask yourself one question: Can this be the only overriding factor in decision making at the highest level in both India and Pakistan? No! This factor plays at the lowest level of social intercourse but it is not a factor at all when real issues reach at the top and solutions are considered. When a Punjabi army sepoy is dishing out in Bangladesh, he is not the champion of the ideology or the architect of the government policy. He is executing something and he needs to motivate himself to do the ugly deed. Thus, his lowest instinct helps him make this decision. Remember Abu Gharib! that certainly was not a representative of an average American or the US policy.

Humsab,
This sounds familiar and I have read it somewhere. But what does that prove? It only shows to me that some bigoted politician was motivating his followers. Would one speech be enough to determine a national policy? We are talking about a speech well before the partition. My comments above apply to you too.

Harish,

About Kashmir and Azad Kashmir. Again you are relying on one decision by the government of Azad Kashmir to judge the whole Pakistani stand on Kashmir. When you look at the policy or the position of a government, you need to remove all layers to see where they actually stand on the issue. In Pakistan’s case, the stand is UN resolution and referendum.
On your post to aha_snark,
It is true that Indians are not attached to PoK but what would be their reaction if Indian government decides to give up Kashmir all together?

Now a question for you too and others can take a shot at it too.
Hypothetical, but important part of any analysis on Kashmir.

Why would the Pak army agree to accept Kashmir in Pakistan? Or Why wouldn’t the army welcome Kashmir into Pakistan, assuming that India gives up its claim.

Re: # 124

`` Any views on the causes of hindu animosity from me would be meaningless: my main experience with hindu animosity is what I have seen on chowk and what I have read about in the news and history books. So there is nothing I say that you would not already know. ``

is it restricted to kashmir and partition or beyond that?

jang #122 I would be glad to discuss the causes of this hindu animosity to islam and muslims...except:

1. This animosity is not important - as I have been saying, Jinnah saw this as a problem, and fixed it by calling for a separate nation, Pakistan.

India-Pakistan state relations are improving because both governments see it to be in their interest - and over time the herd of cattle on both sides that parrot their government lines (on chowk e.g.) will no doubt change their tune to match that of their governments. And if they dont, it doesnt matter anyway.

2. Any views on the causes of hindu animosity from me would be meaningless: my main experience with hindu animosity is what I have seen on chowk and what I have read about in the news and history books. So there is nothing I say that you would not already know.

What would be interesting, if you wish, would be your views on (1) the nature and extent of this animosity towards islam and muslims today among people you know and of Indians on chowk; (2) the reasons for this animus.

bongdongs #120 yup. the face in the mirror is indeed disgusting.

but dont let that stop the jay thakerays and arjuns from continuing to shower chowk with their expressions of love for muslims and islam, as they have been doing for years to the virtual exclusion of every other topic.

tahmed.. good to know that your experience of hindu animosity is based on what nicks in cyberspace, and not based on tales of how bad the banias used to be, how impossible it was to live with them and how ignomous it would have to live under their raj.

hindus that i know in india have a dim view of muslims, but cant call it animosity. there is animosity towards pakistanis due to the wars etc... som of it seems to emanate from partition experience.

This news item in the indian press illustrates the difference between India and pakistan.In India we have a constitutionally elected Head of State and Head of Government, in other words, a system of checks and balances.No individual or government can unilaterally take action on any matter of national interest.Unlike Pakistan, where there`s a military strongman and an appointed satrap.As far as Kashmir, fuggedaboutit.NOthing`s gonna change.Even if Manmohan is inclined to a settlement he cannot act without unanimous parliamentary approval and finally , the approval of the Head of State who is also the Commander-in-Chief of India.EVen during the ``Emergency`` Mrs.G was able to make ti official `cause the then President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed went along with it and signed on the paper to make it official.Even he did not grant MrsG an extension and called for elections in 1977, and the rest is history.

PM calls on President Kalam

---

Thursday, June 9, 2005 (New Delhi):


Prime Minister Manmohan Singh today called on President A P J Abdul Kalam, who has just returned from a four-nation tour of Russia, Switzerland, Iceland and Ukraine.

During the 30-minute meeting, Kalam`s interaction with political and business leaders, scientists, intellectuals and students during the tour was discussed, a Rashtrapati Bhavan spokesman said.

The follow-up actions to be taken by various ministries on the outcome of the President`s visit also figured during the talks, he said. (PTI)

http://www.ndtv.com/morenews/showmorestory.asp?slug=PM+calls+on+President+Kalam&id=74253