Advani in Karachi

Re # 483

Why do you term them (before you read the next paragraph) as crocodile tears? When I support the palestinian cause or Tibetan cause, would you term them as crocodile tears?

Anyway, I really do not want Pakistan to be divided any further. I mean it.
I hope it prospers.

These were my attempts (however silly) to show how silly and dangerous these arguments are when one group starts blaming other for their pet causes insetead of working it out
without unreasonable terms and conditions.

I do neither begrudge partition nor want it reversed. Me or my family was not affected
by it in any remote way. Only thing I believe unfortunate was how families were destroyed
during the process and the causes attributed i.e. Hindu this, Hindu that instead of Muslims
blaming their own demons.

Manto, the arguments that you give, ``a product of those two streams, am doing just fine in Pakistan.``, ``Officially Shiites are well placed in society ``, I am sure existed in pre-partition India as far as Hindu/Muslims are considered. But that was not enough for Muslims to change their desire to go separate way.

Any way, I have spit out whatever I had in me ever since I started reading chowk.
These are all dead and depressing topics, need to move on.
Work is catching up, PBC ratings have to be maintained.

I will read the reply/ies if anyone cares to reply and will go back to being occasional reader/observer that I was on chowk.

Re: # 484 I knew Kashmir had to come sooner or later. I have a feeling that Kashmir will show us the way. Kashmir will not be a problem but a part of the solution. This problem amply shows all that is wrong with the two nation theory. Here was a society at peace with itself. Kashmiri pandits and Kashmiri muslims sharing a common culture and living peacefully. All of a sudden someone decides they are different. How were the solutions attempted in 1948, 1965 and later (I forget the Kargil year, 1999 I think) through the barrel of a gun. Who gave them the right to choose their own representatives and who everytime gave a call to boycott or else face death. They are not the kind of people you and I are talking about. I would be indulging in the same game ``mine is better than yours`` if I continued down this lane. I wish someone deleted and rewrote 1947 for all of us. For our generation the job is cut out. Let`s reclaim what is left of us. I will again emphasise that Kashmir has the potential to throw up a better bilateral environment : porous border, more interaction, and a political bridge between two countries which embody one nation essentially. Remember siamese twins.

Re: # 482 southasian ``This is a new age. As of now though, as I said we need to live as two independent neighboring countries with porous borders, maybe no visas``

This is a recipe for disaster - just look at what`s happening in East Punjab. Bihari Hindustani migrants are pouring in at such an enormous rate than within a generation they will be the majority in East Punjab and hence its political masters. With huge numbers of Bangladehis also looking to get into India and Pakistan, open borders will the end of the nations within Pakistan and the beginning of Hindustani mastery over the entire subcontinent.

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/20050612.htm

Extending the hand of friendship

By Ardeshir Cowasjee

IN more than one way, Lal Krishna Advani is certainly a changed man from the man he was in 2001, when for the first time I met him at Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee’s luncheon in Delhi in honour of General Pervez Musharraf, chief executive of his country, as he then styled himself, prior to the July Agra meetings.

I had one memorable exchange with Mr Vajpayee, a gentle soul. As he shook my hand, I asked “Kitney saal lartey rahengay?,” to which he sincerely responded, “Arrey bhai, abb to bahout hogia, bahout hogia.” Introduced earlier to Mr Advani by Cushrow Irani, editor of The Statesman, I politely suggested that he pay a return visit to the city of his birth. The remark was brusquely dealt with by Advani telling me he would do so in his own time, and at the right time. (This exchange was heard by a sad looking Manmohan Singh, standing silently nearby.)

Advani took his time, and chose exactly the right moment, and this man, known formerly to be a difficult man to deal with as far as Pakistan was concerned, a man hostile to the peace process, and apparently unforgiving, has charmed all he met during his six days in Pakistan. As deputy prime minister and home minister in the government of Mr Vajpayee, it was he who was considered to be the dominant figure. As leader of the opposition, as he has been since last year’s elections, and under India’s functioning parliamentary democracy, he remains one of the most prominent personalities of Indian politics.

I met him for the second time here in Karachi. The Karachi Council on Foreign Relations, Economics and Laws hosted ‘an evening with Mr L.K. Advani’ on June 5, which received no mention in the press as on that day he had lunched with the Sindh governor and other local illuminati, visited the site of his old house, toured Mohatta Palace, and been feted by the Hindu community.

This was his second visit to Karachi in six decades where he had spent the first 20 years of his life here. When he left in 1947, the population of Karachi was a mere 400,000 (he had a little dig at our statisticians who claim that the population of Karachi is now nine million whereas he and we know it is nearer 14 million).

He had much to say about his old school, St Patrick’s, which has so often cropped up in his talks and meetings with our leadership — with Musharraf, who is an old boy, with Shaukat Aziz, also an old boy. On a visit to the Philippines in 1974, he met another old Patrician, and in Tel Aviv, ran into one of the three Jewish boys who were with him in class at St Pat’s.

Having dispensed with his school days, he moved on the Jinnah’s August 11, 1947 speech. There was in Karachi, prior to partition, a man who holds a most reverential place in Advani’s life, Swami Ranganathanandaji (a mere 17-letter name when compared to the 28-letter Vitianandashivaramakrishnaji, as a late friend was named). After partition Swami left for India and on a visit to Kolkata many years ago, at Advani’s last meeting with Swami before he died, he was asked if he had read Jinnah’s speech, which was, as Swami put it ‘a classic exposition of a secular speech’, as it referred to religious freedom, tolerance, and to the absence of discrimination of any kind. Swami asked if he would send him a copy on his return to Delhi.

He then spoke of how his visit was partly political and partly cultural. He had travelled to Chakwal to lay the foundation stone of the uplift project of the Katas Raj Temple, one of the projects in which Pakistan and India were cooperating in the preservation and rehabilitation of historic and archaeological sites. This visit had triggered the August 11 speech in his mind — and he quoted : “If you will work in cooperation, forgetting the past, burying the hatchet, you are bound to succeed. If you change your past and work together in a spirit that everyone of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this state with equal rights, privileges and obligations, there will be no end to the progress you will make.”

This has not so far happened (not that Advani said so) but he did hint that it is never too late to make a beginning.

To Advani’s mind he agreed with Jinnah that the biggest hindrance to India’s gaining independence was the religious factor, “the angularities of the majority and minority communities”, as Jinnah put it, from which there is a lesson to be learnt, and he again quoted, this time the most famous passage of that famous speech : “You are free, you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques, or to any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed — that has nothing to do with the business of the state.”

The speech, said Advani, describes what is known in India as a secular state in which there is no place for any form of discrimination, intolerance or religious extremism. We must accord full marks to the man for his major political revision, and for standing firmly in the face of pretty virulent criticism from the BJP. He has infuriated his party by his remarks, in particular as being the first major Indian politician to visit Jinnah’s tomb and then to inscribe in the visitor’s book :

“......His address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on August 11, 1947, is really a classic and a forceful espousal of a secular state in which every citizen would be free to follow his own religion. The state shall make no distinction between the citizens on the grounds of faith. My respectful homage to this great man.”

His party is also highly incensed by his statement made on ‘enemy’ territory on the destruction of the Babri Masjid which he described as the “saddest moment of my life.” But this is odd, as his official biography recounts that when he appeared before the Lieberham Commission, constituted in December 1992 by the Indian home ministry to report on the Ayodhya incident he had then claimed that the demolition was ‘the most agonizing moment of his life’. This is on record.

In Karachi, on June 5, he repeated his thoughts on partition, that it is an unalterable reality of history, but that its follies can be undone. It divided hearts and countries, but both can be reunited with us all remaining loyal citizens of our respective countries. We must seize the ‘historic moment’ (Musharraf’s ‘fleeting moment’), two brother nations cannot be held hostage to the resolution of four or five or six disputes, we must talk and talk and talk, we must ‘wage peace’. Peace must be won, as a war is won. But slowly, patiently, through dialogue so that mutually acceptable solutions may be found — to all issues and particularly to the Kashmir problem in which the Kashmiris must be involved.

This is all highly commendable, though somewhat surprising, coming from a man renowned formerly as a hardliner. He ended his speech on a most practical note, which we must hope will be heeded and taken up by the leadership of both countries. In Pakistan, said Advani, he could watch on cable TV news stations from around the world, but he could not tune into his own Indian channels to find out what was happening whilst he is away. Somewhat ridiculous, as is the fact that he can buy newspapers published in Europe, the US, China, Brazil and from countries all over the world when he is at home in India, but he cannot buy a copy of Dawn (he made specific mention of this newspaper).

Advani is secure enough to have resigned the chairmanship of his party in the face of the hostile remarks made by the perverted element of his party, and sufficiently confident of the power he wields to have allowed himself to be persuaded by these same bigots to withdraw his resignation.

The final sentence we heard him speak on the evening of June 5 : “We must do what is desirable and do it quickly.” There can be no arguing on that one.

#482 southasian-ji what good has your high and holy secular democracy done the Kashmiris? Has it prevented their homeland from being occupied by India? Has it brought them their democratic right to self determination? Has it protected them from the raping, murdering, torturing Indian occupying army?

NO.

And if it hasn`t done them any good what makes you so sure it will do us Pakistanis any good?

Re: # 480

Still shedding crocodile tears eh?

Shia-Sunni violence is of recent origin and continues on both sides. Officially Shiites are well placed in society and are the makers of Pakistan. They don`t consider themselves a persecuted minority. The official discrimination Ahmadis indeed, when they were actively involved in the creation of Pakistan, is very sad and unfortunate... but that shows how far Pakistan has moved away from the ideal of a modern democratic and tolerant state... not to mention Jinnah`s clear pronouncements that no one can decide what the religion of another individual is.

However... the world has not come to an end.. and one day this discrimination will reversed... and Pakistan will be restored the egalitarian, democratic and secular vision of the Quaid-e-Azam.

Re: # 479 This is precisely the kind of apprehension that mutual interaction allays. Slavery, colonialism and stuff are passe`. We are talking democracy, a truly participatory democracy with a federal polity. Federal polity would ensure there are no colonies and no slaves. This is a new age. As of now though, as I said we need to live as two independent neighboring countries with porous borders, maybe no visas. More trade, perhaps joint or co-ordinated defence and foreign policy. Give India and Pakistan a joint veto in security council. Must emphasise that modern equivalents of slavery and subjugation do not work in long term.

Re: # 452
re: arjun_m:

Seervai`s three volume series on the Constitution of India are considered to be among the finest, if not the finest works on the subject. Ask any law student. When I was one, people respected someone who had ``read the entire Seervai``. A lot.

cheers,
A_S

Re # 466

``The only problem for Shias is a tiny, but very lethal, sectarian terrorist organization, which is targeting them. It is on the govts.` hit list. However, even such terrorism never causes any Shia Sunni riots in Pakistan. The only Shia-Sunni rioting, and that too at very small levels, have been the recent ones in Gilgit........... ``

Precautions, precautions, precautions. Are not these incidents enough to forewarn what
it is to come? Why do you want to wait for something like ``BJP style handling of Muslims which your visionary leaders saw happening`` to happen to Shias?

You mean this organization is as lethal or more as RSS (remember that strawman/boogeyman) was in pre-partition India, the organization which exemplified ``Hindu Animosity`` and was reason enough to partition India?

#478 southasian `` In 1947 we had the opportunity, a unique one, of living under on state under a democratic dispensation.``

An opportunity to be a Hindustani slave more like. The Indian Union can never be anything more than a Hindustani empire with a Hindustani language, Hindustani capital, Hindustani name. and Hindustani indentity where Bengalis, Sindhis and all the other nations of the subcontionet are colonized subjects. Maybe when India and Pakistan break up there can be some kind of economic unity among the nations of South Asia, but not before then.

Re: # 474 In 1947 we had the opportunity, a unique one, of living under on state under a democratic dispensation. For all its faults democracy is one big crucible. All it required was a century or two of coexistence and of course a couple of people with intent in that crucial decade. That opportunity is lost. Yet another may shape up though. One feels a strong undercurrent to this effect.

Re: # 476

I told you not to shed crocodile tears for Ahmadis and Shias. I, a product of those two streams, am doing just fine in Pakistan. Please stop derailing the discussion to suit your own ends. I think Romair has answered your question well. Your comments would be valid if indeed Jinnah did want a complete partition. Events prove that he did not.

Read 473 by South Asian.

Re # 463

This is even more amazing.
So Mr. Jinnah, a shia, could visualize what Hindus would do
to the Muslims, but he could not visualize what Sunnis would do to Shias.
And Sir Zafarullah Khan could visualize need to protect muslims from Hindus but could
not visualize need to protect Ahmadiyas from Shias and Sunnis.
So when it comes to Hindus, all these Muslim League leaders were sooooo visionary.
I would call their behaviour/leadership bigoted or opportunistic, they certainly were not visionary. No sir.

And personalities like Mr. Jinnah, had no room for such noble sentiments as displayed by you. Do not you think pre-partition India had families whose father was Hindu and mother was Muslim or vice versa? They must have agonized and questioned need for divisivness displayed by Muslim League leaders during those times with similar thoughts you have displayed.

Re: # 473

Agreed...

Re: # 472

Again you jump contexts. Indira Gandhi was wrong historically since it was her father who insisted on making Bengal part of Pakistan... Lahore resolution calls for independent states. Now... I`ve shown before that Jinnah stood for a confederal India... but what you`ve raised is a separate issue and needs to be dealt with on its merit.

``Coexistence`` didn`t necessarily mean ``one state``. In ``5000`` years there are 3 instances where there was one state or one superstructure that united the subcontinent... those three instances were:

1) Later part of Asoka`s rule

2) Some 5-10 years of Aurangzeb`s last years and that too without the Southern most tip.

3) British rule from 1857-1947


Other than these 110 or so years... for more than 4890 years South Asia was never one state or under one empire .... so co-existence is good... we can coexist as Pakistanis and Indians as well, but the land of the Indus has a primordial identity that cannot be denied ... as that fine barrister Aitzaz Ahsan of Pakistan Peoples` Party proved in his book the ``Indus Saga``.

The idea of Pakistan as expressed by the Lahore Resolution is in no contradiction to 5000 years of coexistence... but by quirk of fate, it reaffirms the primordial Sindhu identity which is historically well documented. Ofcourse I am sure the politics in that crucial decade had nothing to do with it.

Having said this it becomes all the more credible that Jinnah was for a united or unified India. Given a century or so of independent existence we would have become a true one nation even on Jinnah`s own scale of measurement. What prevents us now from living peacefully. We have new generations who are not burdened with the baggage of partition. More exchange, porous borders and an honest reappraisal of historical events, rewriting text books on either side and so on and we can reclaim something out of the ashes.