Old Neighbors And Old Memories

re: ana, ali, ally

I suspect that ally is somewhat right. Pakistanis who are not fired up with religious fervor may not feel as negatively about Indians as average Indians do about Pakistanis.

Why should such a difference exist? Tomorrow, I will give one possible answer.

G`night all.

Ref bbabu #36

[ally #21, # 25

Since you are so knowledgeable about Indian education system there is no one single education system in India. There are multiple systems - practically at least one for each state.]

The results just came out in Tamil Nadu and my head is spinning!

There is the CBSE (Central Board of Secondary Education) and the State Board. For the hoity-toity, there is the Cambridge Examination Syndicate or the American International School in Chennai. Then there is the Matriculation examination and the Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC). Then you have got the Anglo-Indian stream and the Oriental Stream, the latter of which offers Arabic as a language.

No madrassahs, at least in the South though! Any madrassah/Quran Studies program is optional and in the evenings.

Ref Aha_Snark #38

[...Say what you will but I`m glad that I never studied Indian Studies. And I think religion in education is a bad idea. As commonly propagated today, it tends to rot the critical faculties.]

Oh yes, you did! All those history books coming out of Romila Thapar`s and KN Panikkar`s arse at JNU is Indian Studies.

Didn`t you learn how lovey-dovey the Islamic Sultans were towards their Hindu subjects?

That is Nehru`s way of keeping the peace on the subcontinent.

re: aisha_sarwari # 47

I will try to remember the politically correct version of the affirmative action, as suggested by you! lol

Aisha, thank you so much for bringing up the Lahore-New Delhi comparsion! lol ;)

re: Aha_Snark # 38

I did not have any problems, though some of the students were a trival uneasy when some of the most popular myths were being riddled with questions.

Pakistan history, as it is taught is so filled with contradictions that one only has to only raise the discrepencies to show the subject`s shallowness. At first, the student did not believe me and after I had periodically challenged them to defend their views, by asking them to justify the basis of their knowledge, they would admit to the doubt that they might be wrong. In fact, at Aitchison College, I had to de-construct the history of Pakistan since 1947 and then re-construct it. I always tell my students that I do mind them disagreeing with me, but they better have solid reasons to justify their disagreements and cannot just disagree with me for the sake of patriotism.

In Aitchison College, teachers who teach a critical version of history are known as ``anti- Pakistan`` and I was called that; by some of my students and a few of my co-workers. In fact, I have learned that one needs to be very aggressive in the defense of the truth and I would be verging on the point of rudeness in my discussion with my co-workers. There was a lot of gossiping and rumor mongering going at Aitchison behind my back and finally, I had to confront the purveyors of disinformation and present them with an option. I told them that if they wanted to call me names, I would much rather prefer that they called me names to my face, because then I would have a much greater respect for them. I also told them that I have a very poor opinion of people, who talk behind a person`s back especially when that particular individual is not present to defend his/her views.

In fact, the first lesson I teach my students in Pakistan history is by asking them the question, who created Pakistan? The answer is always Jinnah and I inform them, every time, that it is the wrong answer because Pakistan was created by Nehru, Sardar Patel and Gandhi and by the Congress Party. :)

In Lahore American School, though I have not been called an ``anti-Pakistan``, I think that most of students think that I am a pagan, because I force them to reconcile their views on Islam, with life style choices. Whereas, I had to de-construct history at Aitchison College, I had to force the students to confront the dilemma posed in the Pakistani society and which is; that there is a huge gulf between what is claimed in a religious sense and what is preached as Islam.

Parenthetically speaking, recently I am also seeing this trend in the Indian new media over the resignation of L. K. Advani. In India, it seems that there is an offical history, which is at variance with the actual history and anyone, who attempts to suggest so is hounded by the ``moral guardians of the past``. In fact, what Advani said is not new. I am certain that the next victim of the Indian media feeding frenzy will George Fernades. I was reading The News and there was an article in on Advani and in which Fernades is quoted as saying and I quote, `` Jinnah was a secular person till 1935 but the behavior of then Congress leader Jawahar Lal Nehru forced him to fight for a seperate nation``.

To me, it does not matter that the Indian post 1947 history does not hold high opinion of Jinnah, but what is even more amusing is that, to the best of my knowledge, no Indian historian has asked what made Jinnah demand a seperate nation? I have no qualms about the Indians hating Jinnah for his TNT ideas, but it should be instructive to learn, what made Jinnah turn his back on All India Congress Party? The hounding of Advani and maybe, Fernandes, suggests that India is also not ready to confront the past honestly and it too exists in a bubble of its own mythology. The whole Advani episode is a storm in a tea cup and it is really funny also, because it seems that political leaders in the world`s largest democracy cannot even express their own opinions because of the intolerance of their constituencies! lol :)

Ciao

Re: # 52

``The whole Advani episode is a storm in a tea cup and it is really funny also, because it seems that political leaders in the world`s largest democracy cannot even express their own opinions because of the intolerance of their constituencies! ``

Feroz,

He did not go there in personal capacity. He went to Pakistan on the invitation of Pakistani president, which was extended to leader of opposition of India and not L.K. Advani, the individual. The leader of opposition is equal in rank to a cabinet minister in the ruling dispensation and is accorded all the privileges thereby. The privileges (or perks as we call them colloquially) are not extended in isolation. The underlying assumption is that individuals will air their `personal` opinion in personal meetings and follow the mandated protocol during public appearances.

Nobody gives a flip to what Mr. Advani thinks when he sits in his library, what matters is his public persona. Jinnah, Advani, Vajpayee and Savarkar all are/were atheists or not too religious people. Yet, they built their political careers by playing the religion card. There was a clear dichotomy in their personal and political beliefs. Yet, nobody raised a hue and cry about this. Why? Because they are known to people by what they say in public and not by private musings.

Personally, I feel the current controversy is a manifestation of symbolic nature of politics in our countries. We are emotional people who easily get swayed by empty sloganeering and inconsequential tokenism. What difference does it make to anybody`s life if Jinnah or Gandhiji who died aeons ago, were communalist or secularist. But the hysterical reactions convey otherwise. Interestingly, I`ve never seen anyone labelled `traitor`, statements from people across the spectrum and such media frenzy when a company which employs thousands of people is closed down, or when a bridge or highway is delayed. We are a nation of fools, and we deserve the leaders that we have.

BTW, article was a good read. I particularly liked this:
``It seems, from hearing the conversations that Saturday night, that we humans have a desire; a wish and a longing to revisit our places of birth and reconfirm the memories of our childhood. I am not sure, what is the real reason behind this impulse. Maybe, as we grow old and are forced to make compromises, we hark back to the memories of our childhood, because it was a period of unblemished bliss and innocence and it was a time of a carefree joy, which we all miss as we grow older and are burdened by the injustices of life. `` and your post #16 on the way History is taught in our region.

#52 by ferozk on June 8, 2005 5:01am PT


The whole Advani episode is a storm in a tea cup and it is really funny also, because it seems that political leaders in the world`s largest democracy cannot even express their own opinions because of the intolerance of their constituencies!


That`s just silly...They can express their opinion all they want..In case you hadn`t read(you probably did but chose to ignore it), he resigned on his own volition...It would be a knock on Indian democracy if the government had forced him to resign...He is free to say what he wants and his party is free to kick him out if it wants...

My take on this...the whole thing is moot really...

Now the BJP leadership has refused to accept his resignation and advani will now decide whether he`ll continue..yup...advani now decides...

52/feroz
//...to the best of my knowledge, no Indian historian has asked what made Jinnah demand a seperate nation?....//

For a self-proclaimed history teacher - you don`t seem to possess that much knowledge, do you?

Almost all history texts india mention the dispute between congress and jinnah which led to his TNT and his communal politics. Of course, the books are critical of jinnah and his communal politics [ and rightly so] but not that critical. See - the history texts in india, as a rule, never go too critical on any muslim personality - not even the invaders ... because that may upset the secularism apple-cart.

So most people know about why jinnah did what he did. But see - unlike pakis, we don`t believe in ``devil made me do it`` theories. Just because Jinnah had a dispute with congress, doesn`t justify his communalism, vitriol, demonization of hindus and general islamo-fascism that he professed. just because you had a quarrel with your wife, doesn`t mean that you would suddenly become gay.

Jinnah`s actions are his alone and cannot be explained away with ``congress made me do it``.

++++

//..The hounding of Advani and maybe, Fernandes, suggests that India is also not ready to confront the past...//

The so called ``hounding`` is from congress, commies, and other assorted freaks[call themselves ``seculars``] who don`t know jack from their a$$es. And mostly because- advani seem to be on verge of redefining ``secularism`` iself and in the process, would pull the rug from under their feet.

Indians in general know their history and their past - there is nothing hidden to ``confront``. Indians know what jinnah was and what he did and why did. Like I said - that in no way justifies his actions. But people , in retrospect, generally accept that what happened is for the best - except for the bloodshed.

And please curb your paki tendency to throw stupid hyperboles like ``...political leaders in the world`s largest democracy cannot even express their own opinions`` - that`s just bullsh!t. The whole discussion here is because advani expressed his opinion and is standing by it.

everyone always has an answer for everything, don`t they?!

mohar, no, jinnah`s actions were not completely jinnah`s alone, he wasn`t like in a vacuum you know. . . and yes, they cannot simply or completely be explained away by the actions of AINC. :)

there are enough boards going on and on about jinnah. i guess we are all ``doomed`` to dig him out of that beautiful mausoleum. can we please leave gandhiji and jinnah sahib to rest in whatever state of soul they are resting in, and go on with our lives?! i suspect the answer will be (looking at the 8 ball). . . .

#55 by mohar11 on June 8, 2005 7:28am PT


Indians in general know their history and their past -


First they`ll accuse Indians of not knowing enough about Pakistan...Then when Indians actually post what they know about Pakistan, like it`s support for Islamic fundamentalism/terrorism, it`s secterian conflicts, the joke that is it`s stock market(all true and all backed by links), you`ll be accused of being an anti-pakiland bigot....

maybe google can create a special search engine for pakiland.. pakiland.google.com.. searches on this domain will only return positive news about Pakiland...searching for Pakistan +``support for the taliban`` will return a no results found..

Maybe the new google India research ctr can work on this...

Ferozk

Indian history is as fraudulent as Pakistani history. It`s been made to order to support a distorted Nehruvian vision of the world.

India`s JNU propaganda-as-history discipline does not ask uncomfortable questions. It determinedly avoids vast areas of Indian life like the Great white Pope (we must hope) avoids pornography.

Fringe leaders of the VHP, or even the BJP, are understandably unlettered. But notice how JNU liberals and communists - the ever-obstreperous, self-deified `friends of Pakistan,` have reacted to the idea that there might have been shades to Jinnah`s character with howls of complete and unrestrained horror.

# 48 Harimau

I personally have no malice towards your country or people, and if your students want to go to whichever country for further studies, then best wishes to them, may they be successful in their studies. You can trumpet your countries successes to me all you want, and in reply all I will say is MashAllah, long may it continue. Just as I would to students/successes of any other third country.

In the long run your country’s success will benefit my country. But my post isn’t about students knowing information about Pakistan, it was directed more towards the general population of India having a general idea about Pakistan. Basically the general kind of information that most culturally similar neighbouring countries have about each other.

People in Spain know that Italy has some great fashion, they often wear it. But they also know that not everyone in Italy is a fashionista. They have a general idea about Italy and Italian life, and vice versa. People in Italy know that Almodovar makes fab films, at the same time they also know that not all Spaniards live in an Almodovar film.

Many people in India still think that everyone in Pakistan wears a sherwani, speaks fluent Urdu, and says ‘Adab arz’ when greeting each other (Veer Zaara anyone!!!). Even my Punjabi Indian friends were surprised to hear that I spoke Punjabi, and in Canada some Asian ppl at work thought I was Sikh!

The fact of the matter is, now, our govt’s are beginning to work together, not because of pyaar mohabet, but because we have to, we need to, for pure economics. Your country’s success cannot be maintained without fulfilling your ever increasing energy needs. It’s your govt that wants to start construction of these pipelines etc within 6 months. Recently, Indian businessmen visited Pakistan in a big delegation, (100 or so) they invest all over the world and have expressed a desire to invest in Pakistan. Not because they love their cousins to the west, but because they are going to make money, moola, rokRa, rupaiyah!

And that is the bottom line. Money, is what it’s all about. The juppi brigade can juppi pa all they want, but it’s not their love that’s driving this, its big business. Those students will come back to India and deal with some of our students who also went there (haN haN, humarey log bhi udher jaatey haiN!) so we will have an expanding business relationship.

But those students will not know much about Pakistan other than the Veer Zaara type info they have been fed. And for us in Pakistan, that’s not so good. If we are to get more business from the east, we need to ensure that those people have a positive view of us, or at least know a little about our roz maara ki reality. For the most part they will be pleasantly surprised!

re: mohar11 # 55

My historic background is in European history and I will be the first one to admit that I am always learning about the Indo-Pak history through interacts such as these on Chowk.

I was surprised to learn that Indian texts are not critical of Muslim personalities and as a student of history, I do not agree with this logic. Historic analysis should ``cut to the bone`` of the issues and the personalities involved and no justice is, or will, ever be done by treating the past with gloved explanations. As Ana rightfully said, Jinnah and his politics did not exist in isolationism; Jinnah was reacting to the events and political debates/issues of his time. I am one of those people, who hold the view that history is accidental and it happens as a result of petty mistakes made by great women and men, who are at reacting to their environment instead being pro-active in influencing their political environment.

As to communalism and demonization of Hindus, would you agree or disagree that same was happening to the Muslims in the pre-1947 Indian politics? This demonization is still occuring as seen in the debates on Chowk and in the coverage, which dominates both of our news media and in the levels of distrust we all share about the other`s motives and intentions, while we hold ourselves and our intentions as noble and beyond the pale of question. Jinnah`s actions were not his alone and they had a stimulus, which was the politics of his time.

Nothing ever happens in isolationism; there is always a ``trigger`` to events. Otherwise, it would be like suggesting that the First World War was simply the result of the German attack on France. It would akin to suggesting that the Indian War of Independence of 1857 happened due to the instance of cartridges issued to the sepoys of the East India Company. There is always an immediate event and then, there are always long term consquences, which create a situation, whose consequences is the evolutionary process known as history.

As to my hyperbole, I will stand by it. It might be hyperbole to you, but it is a legitimate question to me. :)

re: arjun_m # 54

Arjun, I agree with you that the Indian government did not ask Advani to resign. Advani resigned due to the pressure from within his own political party - BJP. I was under the impression that Indian political parties have a healthy tradition of open debate and tolerance of dissenting views, which are sorely missing from Pakistani political parties and their political discourse.

Was I wrong in that assessment?

My own personal view is that Advani showed a very poor example of judgement. There is an opinion, within the Indian media, that Advani was simply catering to the ``secularists`` in India in hopes to enlarge his own popular support base outside of the BJP and in the process, cast aside the image of the hawk, with which he has been associated in the past. Personally, I think that the occassion of the remarks was a bit surprising and if he had to say them, it would have been better had he said them in India and not in Pakistan, given the emotionalism of political immaturity which exists in our nations.

Ciao

re: rahulmal # 53

I would agree, with your conclusions.

re: kaalchakra # 58

Yes, it would seem that there is a distorted version of history in both the nations and there are people on both sides of the border, who wish to believe this version of history.

Ciao

ally

People like you do a lot to change our opinions of Pakistan. It`s unfair, but real learning about Pakistan is going to be slow, at least among the hard-headed cynics. The love brigade in India has no credibility, being worthy of no respect or attention.

The problem is that for a very long time we have not heard from the common person in Pakistan, unless that common person was frothing at the mouth about Kashmir, or paying us a very unfriendly visit as a Jihadi. Over time, Indian people have learnt to identify the whole of Pakistan with the `proactive` Pakistani military. And it is fair to say that between Pakistani military and Indian people, there is no love lost. People to people contact and reconciliation will be much easier and is already occurring. Pakistan earned an unsavory reputation over many long decades. So please be patient. It will gradually step out of the shadows of that past, as that past is perceived by outsiders.

Re: # 40
re: bbabu:
///There is nothing wrong with a religious education if teaches proper values and if it emphaises balance and moderation.///

I agree completely. Any value based education which emphasises balance and moderation would be worth enough indeed. In my opinion, you will have to look really hard to find a political text as radical as the Isa the Kena and the Katha Upanishads. What they exhort people to do is find the truth for yourself and refuse to accept received wisdom.

My reservations on your statement stem from my belief that in Hinduism at least (the only religion that I can speak of with any degree of confidence) the body of what can be called religious literature / thought is vast and so devoid of any central theme or overriding concept. Furthermore, in closely related or in the same texts, ``virtues`` such as duty, expediency, honesty and subterfuge are promoted equally. If a religious education could spread balance and moderation I`d be all for it

cheers,

A_S

It is really nice to keep the guest happy bcoz this is our tradation. This is islamic as well. We must look after and feel good about having guest from across the border.But just cursing and making fun of ourselves will make them happy, there is a big questin mark on that. Normally wise people avoid those who feel self pitty.
What all that we try to do is in reaction to our friends there. yes we want to be in peace with them.We do respect them as a big nation, bigger democracy and then as our neighbours.
What all that we want from them isthat when somebody from this side is visiting they should also have a big heart( I am refering just one example of cricket)I will not ask any question about Mr Advani that why the poor fallow was forced to resign and still you talk of love flooding in from the common people of both the cpountries. Sir plz look in to this as well.This is food for thought for those who really want friendly relation between both the nation