Who Created Pakistan?

Re: # 243 Ajeya, let`s suppose majority of Indian Muslims (i.e. Muslims living in the present territory of India in 1947) opposed partition. Would you still think about them the same way? I am not talking about Islam or Muslims at large. I am asking you this question because I have a personal hypothesis that the present generation and I am included tends to link the two issues. I have seen the biggest Muslim haters melt the moment there is a hint that India Pakistan relations are improving and who knows we might go the Germany way. (I don`t quite fancy the idea though). I call these guys pseudobigots because their hatered is not real. They just feel rejected. Its like a lover scorned. Its the child in all of us.

Coming to the issue of faith. It is not an issue to be put to a test of logic. It caters to the irrational part of human psyche. The area of darkness will continue to shrink as scientific knowlege grows. Yet as long as man continues to have a sense of powerlessness in the face of nature`s might there will always be need to cling to an all pervasive and all powerful entity. Religion, while including the centrality of this entity, got into other peripheral areas of human life. Unfortunately it has done more harm than good. One can not say this religion is better than that because none stands to the test of logic. Therefore it is best left to the personal realm. Now to hold the whole idea of nationhood hostage to something as unpredictable and obscure as religion, is like trusting a baby with a loaded gun. Same holds for people. To judge, classify and treat people on the basis of something as `silly` as religion is itself silly. Kashmiri militants are wrong if they want a separate country because they are muslims and so was Muslim league in 1947. When we give logic to prove that a particular religion or its followers are inferior (or have superiority complex), it amounts to proving these two right. They want you to do just that. This game is so divisive that the end is endless.

This is not specific to any of the dialogue that could have happened between anyone in this thread. But since behind the veneers of flimsy excuses of hurting a section of the population, devaluing long held beliefs of a community, keeping public order, no matter how unreasonable adherents of an ideology be it Islam or Communism or Hinduism or Falun Gong act, spirit of free enquiry and questioning is muffled, whether in India or in the US or in Pakistan or in France, pissed off people like me are forced to resort to this medium.

Firstly, people who constantly raise the bugle that their beliefs, ideology are being targeted and vilified need to understand that no reason exists for others to hold their dogmas high, higher than the topmost book in their loft. I say this for Islam, the Mormons, the Aum Shinrikyos, Hindus et al. To a nigga dark crow, its nigga dark chick is the cutest. Adherents of different ideologies, have different levels of arrogance, tolerance towards other people. Who can deny the fact that Buddhists were more peaceful than say the Muslims or Hindus throughout their history? Saying this in the public sphere invites wrath, know why? Because people are twisted. Accusations of harboring hatred are thrown around immediately.


Secondly, no religion is scientific. Many of their dogmas are ridiculous. Even the scientologists, the name scientology not withstanding, force new converts to undergo weird-ass rituals. The very concept of believing something without questioning is an anathema for rationalists. Well, they are adherents of rationalism. Why does not the secularism in India treat them with EQUAL respect ? Pisses me off. A Muslim cleric delivering a fiery speech from the pulpits of a mosque conveys the same information as does the case of a dog biting a man. When a rationalist says something is terribly wrong with muslims, and to a lesser extent with Hindus, and to a very less extent with Buddhists it creates ripples throughout the world, because, again, people are twisted and either seriously believe nothing is wrong with these religions, or know but choose to propagate the myth.

Thirdly, whats up with the number game? Why should the so-called minorities seek concessions in every issue? Why should they hit to the streets to kick Govt. of India into submission in Shah Bano`s case ? Why should they hit to the streets when a state run bus honks in the traffic, and their prayers are ``disturbed`` ? Why should they stone it and set it to fire? Why do I not see Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, Jews, Parsis, Mizos do the same? Raising these questions do not make me a hate-filled Hindu. The so-called secular parties of India created an anal situation in India. Indian secularism is all about timing and riding the political wave, and pandering to every religious section, more in the case of some, and less in the case of others. For instance, we see Congress walas, typically throw large number of Iftar parties, lesser number of Diwali celebrations, much lesser number of Mahavir Janma Divas celebrations, and far fewer if at all any number of Mizo celebrations. We all know why, they look for enough bang for the buck, and also take note the street power thats in each section. And, saying this does not make the pissed off me hate-filled. People who throw the charade of these utterances victimizing minorities, ridiculing minority faiths.... thanks, but no thanks. Everyone is a minority.

These are specific to the proselityzing type Muslims on Chowk. If you find it ridiculing your religion/beliefs, treat me like a local Mullah would treat a wannabe-convert. He feigns an unlimited degree of approachability, desperately tries to show that everything in this world is as per the logic in The Quran. Feign that degree of tenderness, warmth, approachability if you care to answer the following:

1. Is it not true that Muslims throughout (generalizing, because it is the case, no victimizing here) the world in general are very proud and sincerely believe in the completeness of their beliefs, and the incompleteness in other beliefs? This belief without any sincere efforts at understanding other beliefs, isn`t it a cause for their seemingly arrogant aloofness? (been classmates with Nigerian Muslims, Indian Muslims, interacted with Bangladeshi Muslims, seen the case first-hand in Indonesia too.... heard about people being quite religious in Pakistan too ;) ) Does asking this question make you feel victimized or threatened?

2. Why do even seemingly prosperous Muslims want to remain distinct, segregated and yet complain of discrimination ? People who say I am overly generalizing....sigghhh, I have no answer to you.

3. The Quran says many things. But if some of those things cause bad blood with your Kafir neighbours, even for what seem to be at no fault of the Kafirs, what takes precedence? Junking those things, or letting the blood get fouler and fouler? For instance, I and a large number of Hindus, find Manu Dharma (contains not so nice things on how to treat women) BS. And we, trashed it. Does this question make you feel victimized?

4. The tail on a Brahmin`s head makes me laugh, and I laugh without getting beaten up or killed. But, I wouldn`t dare do something similar to a Muslim, for my own safety. Why do Muslims get worked up so easily? Asking this, am I victimizing you?

5. Why do Muslims think they are a minority? The Ongis in Andaman are several orders of mangnitude less in number. And now, it is generally true that Muslims live in distinct quarters of a district, and Hindus are a minority in those quarters. And they live in dread, especially during riots.

6. Why did Muslims (again, generalizing this because, it is true, ``secular types``, keep your BS to yourself. I don`t believe in God, and you cannot be more secular than I am) think that the Islamic rule in India was perfectly fine, good for both Hindus and Muslims but dreaded a possible democratic government led by mostly Hindus but also by many Muslims? Why is it that their representation in equal numbers required? Are the Ongis being represented in equal numbers? Are the Hindus in Pakistan being represented in equal numbers?

Just felt like disgorging the venom out on Chowk here...
Take Care

Ranjit and Mike
You guys are chutias. Sanjay Gandhi`s solution seems best in dealing with people like you - you must be stopped from breeding at any cost!

Ajeya and antihypochrist,
Please ignore tahmad, he is batshit crazy. Please continue your debate with Jang and Bongdong.

Jang, Bongdong and Sridhar and other Indians,
This article has seen some excellent debate. Please continue in the same spirit and ignore the idiots.

Re: #242 by southasian

[I think we should not target Indian Muslims. They are us.]

This is the problem with this world. People try to confuse the issues. If there is no substance to dispute an argument, they go straight to the motive issue.

Tahmed32 is a case in point.

When people like him have no argument to counter yours, they typically come up with one of the following:

1) Oh, you HATE muslims.
2) WHY do you hate Muslims?
3) You hate minorities.
4) You hate minority religions.
5) It’s VERY bad taste to hate minority religions.

and so on….


I am not targeting anybody. I am stating facts as I see them.

If you think I am wrong, tell me how.

I’ll discuss it with you civilly, if you are civil with me.

Re: # 240 Ajeya you are doing exceptionally well in that Advani in Karachi article thread. I think we should not target Indian Muslims. They are us.

where is HP when you need him :(

Re: #239 by Mike

[Ajeya take it easy boss. Arjun is a maha-Indian patriot. Leave him alone.]

In that case, he should take it easy on the personal attacks.

If you live by the sword, you die by the sword.

Ajeya take it easy boss. Arjun is a maha-Indian patriot. Leave him alone.

Re: #236 by arjun_m

[Yes..please..focus on making more hindu babies..]

Ah...hah!

I see.

So you ARE a closet-cutloo.

My apologies.

Keep breeding like rabbits.

Make more Muslim babies. So that you can democratically overrun everybody else.

As Arafat once said, his strongest weapon is the ``womb of the Arab woman``.

What a strategy!

Re: # 234 Personally I don`t mind more Shahrukhs, Aamirs, Zeenat Amans, APJ Abdul Kalams, Shabana Azmis .... and fewer Modis, Tagadias and ..... Point is its quality not quantity that matters.

#235 by Ajeya on July 4, 2005 10:20am PT


Maybe it’s time to quit this forum.


Yes..please..focus on making more hindu babies..

Re: #234 by arjun_m

[My point: Percentage, or ratio-wise, Hindus’ numbers are DECREASING,

So you`ve from the hindus aren`t procreating enough while muslims multiply like rabbits rabbits school of thought?

Wonder how many muslims babies were created while you were jerking around on the internet...?]


What’s your problem? Not enough to do? Trolling the internet for a fight?

This site seems to be infested with idiots and fanatics. Just a small handful of rational people.

Maybe it’s time to quit this forum.

#232 by Ajeya on July 3, 2005 11:41pm PT


My point: Percentage, or ratio-wise, Hindus’ numbers are DECREASING,


So you`ve from the hindus aren`t procreating enough while muslims multiply like rabbits rabbits school of thought?

Wonder how many muslims babies were created while you were jerking around on the internet...?

antihypochrist #219

you write ``It is true that early Indian socialist politicians threw their weight around in the comity of Asian and African leaders talking for the entire South Asia.``

First part is true, but meaningless - this was the so-called ``non-aligned`` movement, which proved to be nothing more than hot air, and soon disappeared like hot air as well: The supposed partners China and India were fighting one another a few years after the Bandung Conference (the high point of this movement), and the ``movement`` was soon dead.

Second part is not true anyway: Do you seriously think that anyone anywhere thinks that India has ever spoken for Pakistan (or even Bangladesh or Sri Lanka) on world forums?? T

you write ``Aah, this sweet intoxicating youthful hubris we have here, may it drive our nation down the fast lane. `` whatever. What you see as ``sweet intoxicating youthful hubris`` on chowk is more accurately called ``smelly delusional petty-minded crowing``. :-)

I join you however in your desire to see India ont he ``fast lane`` to economic progress for the future though - since that is good for Pakistan (and therefore for the tends of millions of Pakistanis living in miserable conditions), and also because it is good for the hundreds of millions of indians living in miserable conditions - the reality that is carefully avoided by those ``intoxicated`` by what you consider to be ``youthful hubris``.

As for Jinnah and the 2-nation theory: You missed the point. The 2-nation theory was merely an argument used for purposes of getting a separate nation. And on that question there is no doubt - there has never been any serious question in Pakistan on the goal that Jinnah achieved, namely the formation of Pakistan itself. ylh (the ``lawyer`` you mention) admires Jinnah for his secular view points and for his strength of character - and ylh is not alone by any means in the high respect he accords to Jinnah. I too, for example, agree fully with ylh on this issue.

On religion: I think you are confusing things here. It is not enough to say that ``There is good and bad in every religion. `` You have to take a step forward and identify what is good and what is bad. I have been doing this for years on chowk - by saying that what is good is basically positive values that every religion promotes and the philosophical meaning it brings into our lives. And what is bad is the conversion of religion into primitive superstitions (which about both among muslims and hindus), as well as the exploitation of people`s religious feelings for personal gain (in the form of political power, wealth etc.) as is true both for India and in Pakistan.

Anyway, I appreciate the civilized manner in which you have written this post. And wish you all success in whatever you do. Just try not to slip into this ``youthful hubris`` - since hubris is simply a gentle word for arrogance, and arrogance is a sign of insecurity and weakness. Not strength.

Re: #231 by arjun_m

[There`s lies, there`s damn lies, and then there`s statistics.

and then there`s cliches....

why don`t you focus on his main point....hindus in India aren`t a persecuted bunch...their numbers aren`t shirinking any....]


You don’t like cliches? Now if only I’d known!

I did, actually focus EXCLUSIVELY on his main point.

Maybe the logic was lost on you.

His point: Hindus are doing just fine, because their numbers are increasing.

My point: Percentage, or ratio-wise, Hindus’ numbers are DECREASING, and the ratio is what ultimately matters. And that increases the probability of more trouble in the future from the adherents of the only TRULY peaceful religion in the world – the muslims.

Can I go now?

#225 by Ajeya on July 3, 2005 8:02am PT


There`s lies, there`s damn lies, and then there`s statistics.


and then there`s cliches....

why don`t you focus on his main point....hindus in India aren`t a persecuted bunch...their numbers aren`t shirinking any....