Is Secular India really Secular and Islamic Pakistan really Islamic?

August 13, 2005

...and now to teach the eunuch a lesson in objectivity

Khamkhwa {``this is what started it all...please don`t be confused with hiro who is salim who is also premwala...who is also a thousand other nicks...;) ``}

Again you lie and are blatantly engaged in yellow journalism. This is NOT what started it all. What started this particularly cycle of profanity was your action in causing my friends` and my messages and threads to be arbitrarily deleted. Because you and your cohorts, almost all Paki liberals assisted by one gay Mahratti from Pune, cannot debate issues successfully, you resort to deleting responses and preseting one-sided explanations. I do not blame you, of course, because this is typically Paki behavior. Let me explain and also try to return to the topic in hand:

The British citizens of Paki descent who bombed the London transportation system were not at all influenced by Pakis.
Kashmir belongs to Pakis because a majority of its people are Moose Limbs.
India started all the wars against Pakiland and Pakis won every one of them.
The Bengalis were committing horrible massacres in East Pakistan and they are traitors.
The US is wrong in being concerned about Pakis` leading role in planning and executing terrorism throughout the world.
Pakis who don`t agree with the Paki majority need to be muzzled and eliminated as traitors.
Ahmedis, Shias, Christians, Jews, Hindus are all kafirs and want to do Moose Limbs in.
Salim is NOT a Rajput, NOT a Turk, NOT Irani, NOT Shia, NOT educated, and definitely NOT a Paki. He must be something, but he is defintely not a Moose Limb and a Paki, otherwise he would not be speaking his mind and pointing out the truth.

Khamkhwa, you may have the power to regulate what is posted in threads and messages, but you CANNOT control what I say or do in real life. I am very disappointed by the so-called ``liberal and progressive`` Paki hypocrisy and I plan to expose it whereever and whenever I have the opportunity.

You are not so bright, are you?

Salim



August 13, 2005

A far far more stupid person than we understood him to be.

Mr. Temporal,
Please do not resort to insulting me with your abuse via alternate means by addressing Mr. Hamidm2 and Mr. Tahmed as if you were educating them about the imminent amoral atmosphere on Chowk.

Sir, and I use the word hesitatingly, you are a fraud, a hypocrite, and a charlatan. You accuse me of using profanity and have not offered a single word about the vulgarity used by Saminasha, Scout, Succubus, Jagdeesh (Tytler) Godbole aka JohnGalt, and Atif. You have been an amused spectator when Scout has fantasized about ``penises rotting and falling off.`` You were peculiarly silent when Saminasha referred to my young, religious wife as a ``Turkish whore.`` You were definitely one-sided in your deafening silence about the abuse Atif has been hurling at me, Mr. Tahmed, Mr. Montag, Mr. Arjun, and Mr. Delhiwalla. You have even encouraged the feces-mouthed Succubus in her abusive rage against my female relatives. Very recently I offered proof of dirty, filthy, and intolerable language posted by several so-called ``females`` such as Succubus, Scout, Saminasha, and Mizz Nadia. ``Women,`` who want to be treated with the respect they demand as the ``fairer`` sex, need to refrain from using unlady-like language with which they are often caught with their pants down. And then ``men,`` such as Atif aka Dr. Israr Ahmed and Jagdeesh (Tytler) Godbole aka JohnGalt, have been using abusive, horrible, and dirty language against other men and their female relatives. But belonging to the Brahmin cast of Chowk, they and their ``she-male`` pom pom girls are immune from being muzzled and being banned.

So, Mr. Hypocrite, now do you understand why some of us have to resort to multiple nics? By banning people with whom you and your cohorts disagree, by deleting their polite and reasonable messages, and by erasing their threads, you yourselves are forcing us to resort to multiple nics and evasive measures.

Mr. Temporal, you have often complained about the draconian measures employed by the military dictators in Pakiland. I must say I am pleased to note your plight and your consternation at being muzzled, being banned, and being arbitrarily barred from decision making in your wretched country. The Lahore Marathon, the Mukhtar Mai tragedy, the Dr. Shazia injustice are all testatments to your utter failure in being credible. When you practice intolerance yourself, it is natural that others will do unto you what you are doing to others. You deserve every Yahya, every Zia, every Musharraf that is imposed on your miserable lives.

Mr. Temporal, YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER, and please don`t ever compare yourself to Mr. Tahmed. I know Mr. Tahmed and believe me, Mr. Temporal, Sir, you are no Mr. Tahmed. He is brilliant, honest, just, compassionate, friendly, logical, and most of all not at all a hypocrite like you.

By the way, I do not care what you think. Go ahead and label me as you wish. You are so perceptive that you have determined or negated my ethnic, religious, national, and residential identitiies, or lack of them. You know, you are even more stupid than I gave you credit for.

Salim


The rejected ``lover`` keeps coming back for more

Succubus,
I wanted to ignore you, but you insist on continuing your macabre act of playing a victim. You have insulted in very vivid and horrible profanity me and my family, including my mother and my sister-in-law. Even now you resort to using words such as ``jackass.`` I assure you that you do not have to interact with me for any reason. You started this series of insidious remarks against me and I just wanted to give you an ample response. The so-called ``40 thousand`` identities are due to the prevailing atmosphere of biased, one-sided, and definitely Paki-style of censorship found on Chowk, where they muzzle opinion they don`t like and ban interactor with whom they disagree. I would have been content with my own initial nic.

Please get over me. I am not interested in you and do not want to get into another slugfest with the likes of you. Get on with your life, I have.

Thanks,
Salim

Use of abusive language by Pakis - a she-male no doubt

Another example of ``polite`` interaction by Pakis, this time a ``female`` no doubt. Notice the use of expletives in almost every sentence. She can`t put together sixteen words without using fu ck, sh it, or ass:

{``#8 by Mizz_Nadia on August 12, 2005 4:55pm PT
Injuns getting proud of a industry that sucks money outta the public...Thats fucked up....and hilarious...

Wouldnt it b better if they gave half of what they earn to the Indian public and clean up the cow shitted streets ...and put sum clothes on those nasty ass women with sagging bodies....

Better put money towards having the ganges purified what with all that shit floatin in it....grosss.... :}

And these are the literate she-males of Pakiland, the Land of the Pure. Notice the free use of ``invented`` verbs and adjectives.

Salim



August 13, 2005

Circumventing the malicious deletion of my viewpoint by Khamkhwa and Chowk Staff

Now that Khamkhwa and his Chowk Staff cohorts are deleting my responses, I am compelled to repeat them here. Please read and accept my apologies for any inconvenience caused by this one-sided, biased, and repressive Paki website.
Mr. Jagdeesh (Tytler) Godforbidbole, Hoshiyaar Hole, You Jhoot Bole.
******************************************************
Is this what you meant by polite interaction when you were pontificating about Salim and Mr. Tahmed in this forum earlier?

{``#5 by JagdeeshGodbole on August 13, 2005 6:29am PT
delhiwala why dont you take your history and shove it up your ass``}

You Jagdeesh are a hypocrite.

Salim
****************************************
Hypocrisy

Is this what Succubus, Atif, Scout, Saminasha, and Jagdeesh (Tytler) Godforbidble mean by polite interactin and refrain from abusive language?


#2 by atif2 on August 12, 2005 5:30am PT
arjun madarchod idiotic smelly injun - instead of gloating over these human rights abuses, you should be condemning them.
***********************************************
Advice to Ms Succubus
In the case of Ms. Succubus, I think it is simply a case of ``sour grapes.``

Succu,
I am happily married. Please find someone else and hopefully you will be able to get rid of some of your own personal rage. Who knows you could possibly channel all this negative energy into something, let`s say, productive and fun.
Sounds like a case of ``sour`` grapes to me.

Response to Nonsense from Succubus

Succubus,
I have been deliberately ignoring you and your ridiculous nonsense for several months now. I have not said a thing to you or about you, despite your several attempts to malign Mr. Tahmed and me. Suffice it to say that, just like your sense of humor, your sense of fairplay is also biased.
Please refrain from accusing me of profanity when you yourself have uttered your vulgarity at my female relatives in the worst possible language. I never thought that, with the exception of Scout and Saminasha, any Paki girl could use such colorful profanity. You are such a turn off.
If you and your cohorts cannot confront Mr. Tahmed with logic and polite discussion, then please don`t resort to using his friendship with me as ammunition to assail his well-established reputation as a polite, logical, and accurate interactor. Please move on and get a life.

By the way, you said ``As you have done earlier, please do not take this personal.`` The correct word that you should have used here is ``personally`` and not ``personal.``
Please don`t take this advice personally. In my desire to enlighten Pakis and encourage them to use proper English, I invariably end up rectifying their use of this foreign language. I can`t believe that the standards of academic attainment have sunk to this low level in the UAE. And they are about to give you a degree?

Salim
******************************************

Thank you, my friends

Mr. Tahmed, Monty, and Jang,

Thank you for your kind words and attempt to respond to Succubus, Jagdeesh (Tytler) Godforbidbole, Atif, KK, and the other members of the Scout/Saminasha gang. While they constantly whine about my verbal ``abuse`` hurled at them, they conveniently neglect to confess to their own substantially vulgar attacks on me, my wife, my sister-in-law, and my mother. Just recently, Saminasha posted, right here on FP, a remark referring to my wife as a ``Turkish whore.``
Yes, I do respond and as I have often said with ten times the effect. I can`t help it, that`s the American way and I AM an American. Usually, I am quite a gentle, polite, and compassionate interactor, whose only desire is to laugh and bring laughter to others. But once this gang of Scout, Saminasha and their cohorts resorts to lewd and vulgar assaults on me and my family, I am entitled to teach them a lesson in ``French`` - and that is exactly what they receive.
I apologize to Mr. Tahmed, Mr. Dilliwalla, Mr. Jang, Ms Zeena, Mr. Montag, and other fine friends for any inconvenience that may have come their way because of their friendship with me.

Salim
******************************************************
Response to Nonsense from Succubus

#165, Succubus,
I have been deliberately ignoring you and your ridiculous nonsense for several months now. I have not said a thing to you or about you, despite your several attempts to malign Mr. Tahmed and me. Suffice it to say that just like your sense of humor your sense of fairplay is also biased.
Please refrain from accusing me of profanity when you yourself have uttered your vulgarity at my female relatives in the worst possible language. I never thought that, with the exception of Scout and Saminasha, any Paki girl could use such colorful profanity. You are such a turn off.
If you and your cohorts cannot confront Mr. Tahmed with logic and polite discussion, then please don`t resort to using his friendship with me as ammunition to assail his well-established reputation as a polite, logical, and accurate interactor. Please move on and get a life.

Salim :)

Romair#161:

``You keep looking at the partition as a one-sided affair, where people were driven out from Pakistan. Do keep in mind a lot were driven out from India.``

When did I say it was one-sided? But you were talking about West Panjab and how it was backward in human capital before 1947 and I was responding to that. You said that Pakistan was not based on religion, this is why I asked where are the 25-30 million hindu-sikhs who should have been there if the demographics had remained the same. Although it is not relevant to the topic, the proportion of Muslims is now about the same as it was prepartition in the areas which are now India: I find it amazing that the people of the country whose hindu-sikh minority has disappeared have the temerity to question the one whose percentage of minorities is increasing despite tragic episodes.

``Did Pakistan want Punjab to stay with Pakistan, or did it try to split it? To the best of my understanding it was the Sikh leadership that split Punjab?``

The ``wise`` men decided to divide first India and then Panjab and Bengal. It was all part of the same compromise in which your and my ancestors had no say, except those who marched in the streets saying ``Pakistan ka matlab kya?``....you know the rest. I have not met a single hindu or sikh who wanted to leave Pakistan because it had become a muslim majority country; they had lived under Muslim rule before and the typical refrain was that ``raja badalde nain, praja nain badaldi``. In fact almost every one of them thought that they would return to their homes after the ``rollays`` (turbulence) were over.

``It is always the job of the majority to make the minority feel secure.``

I agree, but it is also the job of the minority to have the right leadership; if IM leadership in India empahsises the right to have Muslim personal law, right to have haj subsidies and the right to teach whatever they want in government supported Madrassas by government paid teachers, then that`s what it is going to get.

``As someone who is part of the, ``separation`` of Kashmir, I can safely say, I am quite happy about it, as is everyone in the separated part.....And in the end that is what counts. Not what one Maharaja thinks.......``

How about the happiness of your hindu-sikh cousins who were in a majority in Muzzafarnagar? By that one action and by throwing Hindus out of the valley, separatist Kashmiris have raised doubts about whether they are deserving of human rights.

``I would be interested in your comments about Junagarh, which was signed off to Pakistan, in its entirity.``

I have said it before that neither India nor Pakistan occupied a high moral ground. Both claimed Junagarh, Kashmir and Hyderabad while applying differing criterian; Pakistan kept talking about all three right until the sixties while Indians have been using clever reasoning to justify the same.

Romair

People`s feelings are much more a reflection of their own INTERNAL SPIRITUAL/EMOTIONAL environments, rather than a reflection of their external contingencies. That`s why people feel differently on most issues.

On the basis of the FEELINGS of some people, the lives and livelihoods of other people cannot be undemocratically affected.

We are entering a stage in which many non Muslims (increasingly) FEEL insecure with Muslims living amongst them.*

Your logic - one hopes it is your logic alone - points to a rather dismal future.

Dost-Mittar #160: You keep looking at the partition as a one-sided affair, where people were driven out from Pakistan. Do keep in mind a lot were driven out from India.

Did Pakistan want Punjab to stay with Pakistan, or did it try to split it? To the best of my understanding it was the Sikh leadership that split Punjab? You seem to have simply called it an act of, ``Wise men.`` I have nothing against the Sikh leadership splitting Punjab. If they did not feel secure with Muslims. But then you need to acknowledge that............

There was indeed, great insecurity amongst Mulsims in India. They did not feel they would get a fair deal with a majority Hindu population. You may think they were going neck and neck with Hindus in human development. But I don`t think they were. Even in the areas they were in a majority (geographic Pakistan), it was the Hindus dominating them. You yourself seem to accept that.........

It is always the job of the majority to make the minority feel secure. Not the other way around. Which is why I accept the partition of Punjab, by Sikhs. I am surprised to see you arguing both way. As I say, the status and progress of Indian Muslims in India is the criteria I use. If they are the new Dalits and whipping boys, then I am left with no argument but to accept that Pakistanis are better off, where they are........

``You are right about Kashmir whose separation was forced by Pakistan. The Mahahraja acceded it in its entirety.``

This is exactly the point I am trying to make. No one wanted Hindu Maharajas to control the destiny of millions of Muslims. I certainly didn`t. What kind of civilized system allows a Maharaja to write off his whole population into slavery, like this. I am truly suprised you support it. This is why I think Pakistan was a better option (as do a majority of Kashmiris). Look at the situtaion in Kashmir now. That could have been all of South Asia, had Pakistanis not acted when they did.........As someone who is part of the, ``separation`` of Kashmir, I can safely say, I am quite happy about it, as is everyone in the separated part.....And in the end that is what counts. Not what one Maharaja thinks.......

I would be interested in your comments about Junagarh, which was signed off to Pakistan, in its entirity. The signing papers are still sitting in Karachi. Do you apply identical standards to Kashmir and Junagarh. Or do you have different standards? Another reason, why I think Muslims would not have gotten a fair deal in India..........

As I keep highlighting it is the job of the majority to make the minority feel secure........

Romair:

``The population of Karachi at Partition was 400,000. That of Bombay was already 4 million.``

I was comparing the influx in Karachi to that in Delhi. Delhi too was a small city of, though larger than Karachi, and grew enormously between 1947 and 1951. Karachi grew even faster because it became the political and commercial capital of Pakistan, in addition to attracting a large number of refugees.

``You can compare East Punjab to Pakistan. That is a legitimate comparison. But you cannot compare all of India. Nearly all the infrastructure, technical, and most of all human resource capital of South Asia was in what is today India. Pakistan was Lahore, a wheat mandi in Faisalabad, a couple of cottage industries in Sialkot type small cities, a 400k port in Karachi and military cantonments.``

Punjab had its fair share of human capital. Ninety percent of India at that time was rural, so agricultural prosperity meant more than anything else and Punjab was ahead in that area than any other state. And you keep repeating Lyalpur derisively as a wheat mandi, instead of calling it the heart of agricultural industry which accounted for more than 60% of the national output and ignoring what I said about it having a large textile mill and the only agricultural post-secondary institution.

``Pakistan`s whole human capital was based on Muhajirs coming in from India..........``

Assuming that the decision to drive out the existing human capital had already been taken.

``Even if India had experienced 6% growth for 4 decades, only a tiny % of that would have gone into the areas of NWFP, Baluchistan, and Sind and much of Punjab............``

Until the militancy took hold in Punjab, it was the most prosperous state in India. According to a Pakistani economist in Daily Times, Indian Punjab is way ahead of Pakistani Punjab even though it was way behind the West before the Partition. After the end of militancy it is on a roll again. Here are some excerpts on an article - url: http://us.rediff.com/money/2005/aug/13spec.htm

[Acccording to a survey by the National Council for Applied Economic Research, while there were 267 households with an annual income above Rs 1 crore (Rs 10 million) in 2001-02 in Ludhiana, there were only 96 such families in Jalandhar.

In fact, Ludhiana is ahead of the state capital Chandigarh as well, which had 199 households with an annual income of Rs 1 crore and above. But looking at recent developments in both Jalandhar and Ludhiana, these numbers are bound to have risen.``

`` Banks in both cities rank industrialists in Jalandhar and Ludhiana high. ``In the year ending March 31, 2005, we extended term loans of Rs 2,000 crore (Rs 20 billion) to 45 units in Ludhiana -- and they have all complied,`` says a senior official in the State Bank of India, Ludhiana{This is just one bank in one city}. ``There is only one case of default, and that too is under debt restructuring - and the default amount is Rs 20 crore (Rs 200 million), which will not be difficult to get.``]


``However the only two provinces that were truly split were Bengal and Punjab (Kashmir, but that was a forced separation).``

Are you saying that the split of Bengal and Punjab was with the consent of the people? The two provinces were split because three ``wise`` men decided to do that. Millions who were killed, raped, looted and uprooted did not do so voluntarily. You are right about Kashmir whose separation was forced by Pakistan. The Mahahraja acceded it in its entirety.

``Secondly, one cannot view the partition as a mere religious thing. It wasn`t.``

How many Hindus and Sikhs are there in Pakistani Punjab today? If it wasn`t a religious thing, there would have been 25-30 million of them there today. [introspection, anyone?]

re: romair # 158

``Or am I misreading something.``

OK, I am going to make a sincere effort to explain what you are missing.


Step 1:

Do you see the PROCESS AND ACT OF PARTITION ITSELF introducing any factors affecting the social and competitive situation of Muslims in free India?


Work with me here, Romair. I promise you will get it.

Hindvi #149: ``lastly the composite culture i was reffering to was the commonality in food, clothes, language etc which were more common withing provinces than within religions. and i was referring to the common culture of Amir khusro, nanak,.............crucible of the indo-gangetic plane but has now slowly dissapeared.``

Actually the cultural and linguistic argument goes agaisnt the Sub-Continent being one country. In fact, it goes towards it being several different countries, based more on current provinces, that anything else. If it went towards being one country, as you are suggesting, then South Asia would have been one country over thousands of years. Yet it has only been one country for a brief time, under the Brits and Mauryans. And that too, due to large scale conquests........

The moment the pressures were off, it broke into different pieces.........Had the British not conquered India, after the Mughals fell, India would be many different countries today. India and Pakistan being two countries, instead of ten or fifteen (like Europe), is a mere unnatural coincidence, due to British rule. It is not an organice cultural phenomenon. It is the opposite of one. Even within Pakistan, what to talk of much larger India, there is so much cultural difference. NWFP and Punjab are so different. Baluchistan and Tamil Nadu are even more different......

There is more commanality within provinces on these subjects as you suggested. However the only two provinces that were truly split were Bengal and Punjab (Kashmir, but that was a forced separation). The others remained.......

Secondly, one cannot view the partition as a mere religious thing. It wasn`t. It was related to security because of relgion. Pakistan was not created just because Muslims were Muslims. It was created because Muslims felt they would be discriminated against and would be insecure in a large India. Specifically after the refusal of the Cabinet Mission Plan......Much like Bangladesh wasn`t created just becaue they were Bengalis. But because they felt discriminated against because of being Bengalis.

This is what I am trying to figure out (albeit with great difficulty, since everyone gets so defensive, when India is critiqued) i.e. would Pakistani Muslims have been better off as Indian Muslims. And to do that one has to understand where Indian Muslims sit, at the moment. Would I have had the same opportunities in life, as an Indian Muslim? For example, you mentioned India`s advancement in IT etc. That is correct. But why don`t I see any Indian Muslims in the North American IT industry or university? Nearly every South Asian Muslim I meet is a Pakistani. Even though I have met hundreds of Indian Hindu IT engineers. I have met more Sikhs than Indian Muslims IT people here......

I am not attacking India here. I am accepting its advancement in IT, while trying to figure out where Indian Muslims sit (Azim Premji excluded), and where I would have sat, had I been and Indian Muslim....

On the one hand, you say they are the new Dalits and whipping boys of India. On the other hand you say Pakistani Muslims would have been better off in India. Why would I be better of as a Dalit and a whipping boy? Or are you suggesting that had India not split, the Muslims would not have been the whipping boys and Dalits in India? Or am I misreading something.........Hopefully through statistics and arguments (and hopefully without personal attacks), we can discuss this.........

Ref Romair #155

[....As I said, the view of Indian Muslims and Pakistani Muslims will be different on the Partition. I am willing to accept your view. You should be willing to accept mine, while attempting to counter it. I think it was bad for Indian Muslims and good for Paksitani Muslims......]

Still being under the thumbs of the feudals is good for the Pakistani peasants.

Being jailed under the Huddod ordinance is good for Pakistani women who are raped.

Being honor-killed or karo-kari`ed is good for Pakistani women.

Banning music and dance is good for Pakistan`s cultural development.

Being denied the right to run in marathons is good for Pakistani women.

Do you have anything else to add to the list?

Hindvi #149: ``Even if u ignore her its evident to the naked eye which country has the better educational institutions which has better industrial development and which has the market and expertise to grow faster. which has the better political situation and which has the better PR.``

The infrastructure development in Pakistan is actually quite good. I am not sure if you have ever visited Pakistan. Infrastructure and lack of street-level urban poverty is usually what people give it high marks for, with respect to other countries in South Asia....Education and market expertise in india is better.

The economy of India has been better in the 90s. However, that is an up and down thing. It changes. In the late 80s, India was being considered a basketcase and almost bankrupt. While in the 60s, Pakistan was the primary candidate for making it out of the third world. Over the past 55 years, Pakistan has had a higher economic growth average, than India. Generally on the HDI, both countries are usually pretty close. Even though India would have been quite a bit ahead in 47........

In any case, I really have no time to get into an argument or a pissing contest on who is better. For the sake of argument, lets assume India is way ahead of Pakistan

Now that, that is out of the way........What I am interested in is the condition of Muslims in India. Not where India is as a whole. That is what I am trying to figure out. That is what, at least in my opinion, decides, where Pakistan would have been had it stayed with India. If every Hindu in India becomes a millionaire and every Muslim is a pauper than I would be more affected by the pauper part.........

You seem to have a lot of knowledge on the subject. If you are willing to not get defensive and not get into a competition on who is better, we can have an interesting discussion......As I stated earlier, lets work with the pre-requisite that India is a far superior country........Hopefully that should satisfy you and others........Lets now discuss the other issues..........

Hindvi #varouis: ``Romair pakistanis are obsessed with color stop dishing out this bull......ofcourse their were many who continued to stick to your stand but then ignorance and obstinacy are not virtues in my book.``

Asking someone about skin color and how it affects the society, after they themselves posted a long post on it, quoting from Mahabharta is a valid question. Also, just because someone is happy with the creation of their country doesn`t make them ignorant and obstinate.....

Is it possible to have a discussion on India, including critiques of India, without people getting personal. I have found that to be an impossible task on this site.........One should view introspection as a positive and not a negative. One should not view it as an attack. Take a look at all the abuse that is hurled on Pakistan. In the end I think Pakistan will be better off, for it. You have continously made a long list of, ``critiques`` of Pakistan and its uselessness, but have i made a personal comment agaisnt you?

Introspection is a good thing. Not a bad thing..........One should not get defensive over it.......

Similarly, kindly stick to the point...........As I said, the view of Indian Muslims and Pakistani Muslims will be different on the Partition. I am willing to accept your view. You should be willing to accept mine, while attempting to counter it. I think it was bad for Indian Muslims and good for Paksitani Muslims......

Ref Romair #140

[I have always felt that if Indian Hindus really want to, “defeat” Pakistan and specifically defeat the, “idea” of Pakistan, there is only one way: they have to raise the living standards of Indian Muslims to a very high level. Higher than that of Pakistani Muslims. After that, no one will have an argument. I would accept the fact that I would have been much better off in a united India, with no Canbinet Mission Plan…… ]

India doesn`t have to do squat for Indian Muslims just to prove something to Pakistanis. In fact, if Indian Muslims want something, they should get off their butt and start working for it.

Anyway, we buy off Indian Muslims by subsidizing their Hajj pilgrimage. So at least a certain portion of Indian Muslims are guaranteed their 24 ghilmans and 72 houris without having to wear an explosive-laden belt around their midriff.

As to the Cabinet Mission Plan, nobody in Congress was dumb enough to buy the idea that a united Punjab and a united Bengal would be part of Class B provinces (those with a Muslim majority) and then be free to secede after 10 years. Better to partition the provinces and let Jinnah have his moth-eaten Pakistan.

Jinnah was just too clever for himself and for Pakistanis. You can`t whitewash THAT fact away.

#147 by hindvi

“Dalit when I said muslims are the new lowest caste i didnt mean it literally, I meant in terms of only physical security, this too mostly in urban areas and some rural ones like gujarat. What u say about the discrimination is true, but liberal hindus are now breaking these taboos and the habits of several millenia canot be changed over night.”

Falling for this liberal Hindu stuff? No such creature exists and if there is any animal by this name in the Hindu society, it cannot be more than 0.10% of the total Hindu population. The trend in the current Hindu society is more towards conservatism than liberalism. This is in keeping with the worldwide trend of conservatism. The Hindu society is so rigidly patterned along the caste lines that the more you turn the clock back, the harder Hindu attitude would get.

Hindu attitude with Muslims is exactly what it was for Dalits and untouchables. Hindu by nature has to find people to hate or it would be hard for Hindu to hold on to his stupid, obsolete, inhuman, and pagan rituals that clearly show that it is the only religion in the current world which is intellectually just a tad above the grotesque ritual following and often men eating naked tribes of Africa and Amazon.
This pagan religion has no values, teachings or defined set of rituals to follow.

Dalit conditions have not changed in the several thousands of years in India. In the emerging suburban sprawls, it is whole lot easier to howl and growl at Muslims now than alienate Dalits any further for the obvious political reasons. unfortunately, most of the Dalits still hold Hindu beliefs and are counted as Hindu in the census. The city dwelling Hindus political interests prevent them from going after Dalit like their forefathers did and still do in the rural India. But Muslims are a fair game as former or new Dalits.

Forcing Muslims into ghettoes, depriving them of jobs, and making them social outcast supports that the Muslims are the new Dalits at least in the urban India.

Good recap of the history….the attempt to deny Aryan invasion or Aryan arrival is part of the effort to contradict the reality that the current Hindu at least in the north and central India is a bast-ard child of the marauding hordes from the west.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Infact if u look at Iqbal`s pakistan it is actually a racial unit not religous, it excluded bengal and included hindus and sikhs of the north west.

by the way there is also evidence that dravidians discriminated against the evn darker adivasis, so racial discrimination appears to be universal.

Romair pakistanis are obsessed with color stop dishing out this bull. infact if u look closely under the arguments that iqbal and the others were putting forward their was a fear of miscegination as much as one of being crushed by hindus, they wanted to preserve their racial differences. but then this is common to upper caste hindus as well. for example the kashmiri pandits settled in hindustan would search for kashmiri brides from as far as calcutta and madras in order to preserve their sharp features and fair skin, so with hindu punjabis and bengalis and muslim pathans settled in hindustan and every other fair race in india and pakistan.

since the culture of the movies was created by these upper caste hindus and muslims and since india had been ruled by fairer people for millenia (aryan hindu, muslim, British) the local population whether it was fair or dark came to look upon fair colour as a sign of attractiveness, class and beauty. moreover the fair people will not accept a dark hero/heroine (they just dont find them attractive) where as the darker people accept fair actors hence logic dictates taking lighter skinned people.

Romair

I am not in the business of convincing anybody here, but if u are interested u can look into what Ayesha Jalal who pakistanis on chowk often quote thinks about its creation. i have outlined some costs below but she has her own litany to add. She thinks it was a blunder whose costs are being paid till date starting from its inception when it got locked into a permanent struggle witha much larger country which has inturn resulted in a permanent huge military and debt overhang thereby strangling dev. expenditure. she ascribes to it the rise of the military and the maintainence of feudal forces which might have been abolished in a united india and she thinks that the creation of pakistan was a curb on liberalism and a cause for rise in religous conservatism.

by the way she is indulging in her own little bit of confidence building, atleast when i was in the US she was either living in with or married to sugato bose.

Even if u ignore her its evident to the naked eye which country has the better educational institutions which has better industrial development and which has the market and expertise to grow faster. which has the better political situation and which has the better PR.

On the question of diversity being a good in itself you can have a look at both the societial level and the individual. In india the south in general and delhi are more hospitable to IT and other outsourcing, this has been a great boon to the rest of the north - bihar and UP which have both sent large numbers of people their and to bombay which is a thriving industrial belt. thus the backwardnes of one area has been mitigated by the advance of another.

similarly at an individual level can one imagine Zia taking such a conservative line if his colleaguse had been general raina or sundarji or maneckshaw? Could the soviet union imagine invading afghanistan witha two million man defense force on the other side of the border? thereby saving pakistan the agony of the lat 26 years.

for that matter can one imaging china invading a united Indian army or the amount of energy, money and lives that India and Pakistan have spent on combating each other. but then the losses India suffered due to partition are another story.

Also the pakistanis I have interacted with, once i had explained the costs of partition, have had a slightly diff. view of partition than you, more so the mohajirs but also the non mohajirs, ofcourse their were many who continued to stick to your stand but then ignorance and obstinacy are not virtues in my book.

lastly the composite culture i was reffering to was the commonality in food, clothes, language etc which were more common withing provinces than within religions. and i was referring to the common culture of Amir khusro, nanak, bhulley shah, chishti, nizzammudin, Awadhi court, akbar`s court (tansen etc),shah jehan`s architecture, jahangir`s paintings, aurangzeb`s generals all of whom were hindu inspired and ghalib (yes ghalib the agnostic), the progresive writers and poets from Faiz, sahir and krishen chandra to bedi and manto and Kaifi. from Mehboob Khan who made mother india to Yusuf Khan who was the perpetual bhayya. the formation of a common tongue, hindustani/urdu which was born and raised in the crucible of the indo-gangetic plane but has now slowly dissapeared.

Hindvi #147: ``there is a passage from the mahabharata which says: the brahmins are fair, the kshatriyas are reddish, the vaishyas yellowish and the shudras black.``

Quite an informative post.......

I have always wondered about the importance of skin color in India. I have read things about its importance. Is it a sociological reality?

The average Indian I meet is not very fair skinned. I would say nearly all I have met are less fair skinned than I am. And I am less fair skinned than Europeans. In fact, most Indians I have met, other than Sardarjis and Kashmiris, tend to be on the darker side.

Yet every Indian movie I see has an emphasis on gora color: ``Gori hain kaliyaan,`` ``Goray goray gaal.`` Gori this, gora that. And everyone in India seems to accept it. Instead of finding it racist. I suppose if a large portion of the population was relatively gori or gora (as in Pakistan), one could make an outside argument for it. But even then it would be racist.

Yet nearly every Indian movie hero or heroin is disproportionately gori or gora, in comparison with the average Indian I meet. I would say these actors and actresses represent less than 10% of the general population`s color. This would mean the 90% of the population cannot get into the film industry, just because of their color. Even if they are very good looking and are good actors. Not to mention they would be representing the actual population............

Is there a sociological preference given to fairer people at a large level? How is that related to the caste system? What if one is a dark Brahmin vs. a Gora Vaish or Kashtari.........

Dalit
I found this part of ur post relevant
`` I also don’t agree with you on Muslims being the new Dalits of the Indian society. Muslims have been relegated to convenient whipping boys for the last 60 years but they are still as socially equal as the Hindu caste society would allow. All these so called liberals in Hindu society would have hard time sharing a dinner with an untouchable on the same table but would do that with Muslim on an infrequent basis.

Thousands of caste Hindu work for the Muslim landowners in villages across India but it would be nauseating for them to work for an untouchable landowner. ``

Dalit when I said muslims are the new lowest caste i didnt mean it literally, I meant in terms of only physical security, this too mostly in urban areas and some rural ones like gujarat. What u say about the discrimination is true, but liberal hindus are now breaking these taboos and the habits of several millenia canot be changed over night. Your focus on hinduism as a religion is misplaced because all traditional religion aims to reinforce existing socitial norms and so is evil by its very nature.

The problems of dalits and caste in toto is actually the universal problem of race, earlier it was only visual evidence but now their is linguistic and most recently genetic studies confirming that there are atleast three distinct races in India, one is the aborigne i.e. Aadi (first) vasi (inhabitant) , the second the dravidians (who probably displaced the adivasis) and the third the upper caste aryans. infact even after millemia and a great degree of miscegination DNA markers are revealing that Upper caste brahmins and kshatriyas have more in common with the people in Iran then with dravidians, which is no surprise because the word Iran and the ancient name for India i.e. Arya-varta are from the same root word and these markers get stronger as we move west across the subcontinent. in linguistics too the Indo-european languages (sanskrit etc) are very distinct from dravidian languages and probably orignated in the region around the caspian and the caucuses. Even the ancient religion of Iran, which the Zoroastrens destroyed in their monotheistic fervour, had mitra as the chief god and the drinking of the soma (the greek bacchus) as a religous ceremony.

to cut a long story short caste is a sociological phenomenon which was cemented by religion. Even muslims practised it in india and has to do primarily with colour of the skin and racial differences infact the word for caste in sanskrit is Varna which means colour.

caste systems are common to all societies even the aryans originaly had a division between kshatriyas and vaishyas i.e. aristocracy and commoners, justy like the Junkers in germany but with the conquest of the dark skined dravidians was added a new caste that of dasas (slaves/serfs) slowly as new tribes invaded the subcontienent they were absorbed into the varying strata and as hinduism evolved 4 distinct castes developed that of brahmins (the god`s intermediaries), khsatriyas, Vaishyas(traders) and the shudras (cultivators, craftsmen, rearers of cattle/sheep) and beyond their pale came the untouchables whose tasks involved the most unpleasent like carrying nightsoil, skinning carcasses, cleaning lavatories etc.

inititially there was some movement among the upper castes, many moved upto the status of vaishyas by a process known as brahminisation i.e. strictly following purity laws that is why u wil often find the vaishyas (banias etc) to follow hindu taboos most strictly along with brahmins (since their bread depended upon it).

but lest their be any doubt about the origin of varna (i.e. color distinction) there is a passage from the mahabharata which says: the brahmins are fair, the kshatriyas are reddish, the vaishyas yellowish and the shudras black.

145

Yeah - you are right ... these pagan hindus want to break all mosques ... how dare they ... Go get them tiger? Let`s see what you have got - go kill these pagan kufrs ... I am right behind you ... they call themselves secular!!! pagan, idol-worshippers - that`s what they are.. how dare they :)))

#144 by mohar11

“The dream was for a secular, pluralistic, democratic state where everybody is equal regardless of their caste, creed, religion or whatever - people are free to go to their temples, mosques, churches as they please.”

heheheheh…another joker ……homily….hehehehehe

free to go to temple…hehehehe…if they would let you in….heheheh…want all mosques converted to Mandirs…heheheh free to go to hell…that’s what it is …..hindu….there is no concpte of equality in your heheheh.. pagan religion…hehehehe… secular…heheheh... joker…hehehehe…Nobody ever said India a secular country….hehehe..not until indra put that in constitution…hheheheheh in 1975…hehehehe..

“what India has delivered [notwithstanding some serious aberrations].”

Hehehehe..always a footnote…hehehe always a condition….hehehehe no abrerration….hehehehe…. that is the norm……Hindu….heheheheh

//...As stated earlier, IMs got the worst deal. They have every right to complain....//

No they don`t. This hand-wringing [about IMs getting a ``bad deal``] has been going on for a little too long. It`s time everybody snapped out of this self-defeating bullsh!t.

IMs stayed back because they believed in a secular polity. And that`s what they have got...... They didn`t do any favor to anybody by staying back.... Nobody forced them to stay back .... Nobody promised them any special consideration, neither any such consideration was/is required.

The dream was for a secular, pluralistic, democratic state where everybody is equal regardless of their caste, creed, religion or whatever - people are free to go to their temples, mosques, churches as they please. That`s what India has promised and India thats what India has delivered [notwithstanding some serious aberrations].

Of couse, IMs are economically backward....for most part, it`s because of their own follies - extreme orthodoxy, ghetto mentality, no focus on education, failure to integrate, and failure to move beyond votebank politics.....And such problems is NOT particular to IMs, it exists in muslim communities everywhere in the world, even in developed countries of the world.

So let`s stop this chest-beating here and now - this stupidity has gone for too long and has created a deplorable victim mentality among muslims which has driven them further backward.

+++

//.... if Indian Hindus really want to, “defeat” Pakistan and specifically defeat the, “idea” of Pakistan...//

Who said hindus want to defeat idea of pakistan? Not anymore..... Pakistan is the best thing that happened to indian hindus, even though many didn`t realize that until recently.

Regarding living standard of any community - all India can and should do is provide a level playing field, which it has, more or less.... After that, it`s upto each community to make the best of it - get education, compete, and move ahead. If anybody is looking for hand-outs or special considerations - well, that ain`t coming....

This has worked for most other minority/majority communities and it will certainly work for muslims. The onus is and has always been, on IMs themselves.

#133 by harish_hyd

hehehehhe…too-cute-by-half….hehehehe

Typical hindu…hehhehehe…personal abuses right away…hehehehe… Hindu wont change…uncivil people, uncivil religion……hehehehe…

Do this…go out and grab an untouchable…mop/broom/sweep all that…..hehehehe…ask your mama to cook dinner for him….hehehehe...then haul your holy Brahmin ass along with your holishit dad and your mom to sit down ….. eat dinner with untouchable….hehehehe…comeback and tell me how liberal you are ….. heheheheh…



#137 by shankar

Dr. Crazy Pisscology…hehehehe…you are an entertaining hindu joker… heheheheheh

correction #141: ``Again, I am talking about the current inhabitants of Pakistan. Not about the ones who migrated. Where would they have been. They progressed not only because Hindus migrated (that was a minor reason). They migrated because a lot of economic development took place. The area of Pakistan average 6% growth for 4 decades. Even if India had experienced 6% growth for 4 decades, only a tiny % of that would have gone into the areas of NWFP, Baluchistan, and Sind and much of Punjab............``

should read,

Again, I am talking about the current inhabitants of Pakistan. Not about the ones who migrated. Where would the local inahbitants of today have been. They progressed not only because Hindus migrated (that was a minor reason). They progressed because a lot of economic development took place. The area of Pakistan average 6% growth for 4 decades. Even if India had experienced 6% growth for 4 decades, only a tiny % of that would have gone into the areas of NWFP, Baluchistan, and Sind and much of Punjab............

``The same, more or less, is true of Bombay in India. Karachi and Delhi both gained because of the influx of refugees. Nearly all the academic development in India and Pakistan is post-partition. East Punjab had no university at the time of partition, now I can readily think of at least four at Chandigarh, Patiala, Amritsar and Kurukshetra.``

The population of Karachi at Partition was 400,000. That of Bombay was already 4 million. Now both are at around 13 million. One cannot compare the rise of cities in Pakistan, post 47 to those of India. India already had major urban centers. Pakistan, had nothing, other than Lahore.

You can compare East Punjab to Pakistan. That is a legitimate comparison. But you cannot compare all of India. Nearly all the infrastructure, technical, and most of all human resource capital of South Asia was in what is today India. Pakistan was Lahore, a wheat mandi in Faisalabad, a couple of cottage industries in Sialkot type small cities, a 400k port in Karachi and military cantonments.

Other than a good canal system, what did Pakistan have? Most of all it had an illiterate local population, led by large level landowners and tribal leaders. The case of Muhajirs coming in from India is not the same as Muhajirs going into India. India already had enough Human capital to survive without Muhajirs coming in from Pakistan. Pakistan`s whole human capital was based on Muhajirs coming in from India..........

Again, I am talking about the current inhabitants of Pakistan. Not about the ones who migrated. Where would they have been. They progressed not only because Hindus migrated (that was a minor reason). They migrated because a lot of economic development took place. The area of Pakistan average 6% growth for 4 decades. Even if India had experienced 6% growth for 4 decades, only a tiny % of that would have gone into the areas of NWFP, Baluchistan, and Sind and much of Punjab............

Other than Lahore (which would have been larger than today, perhaps), all other cities of present day Pakistan would have been much smaller (specially Karachi) in a United India........I would probably have been living in Delhi or somewhere. At best in Lahore. There would have been no Islamabad......

Hindvi #130: I think the views of Indian Muslims and Pakistani Muslims will be quite opposing on Partition.

You will have to look long and hard to find someone in Pakistan who opposes the creation of Pakistan. I would say less than 5%. One of my grandfathers left behind everything. He was a rich man. I never heard him oppose it. My father grew up in parts of India. Still talks about it all day. In the end, however, he concludes by saying that Pakistan’s creation was a good thing. My wife’s side of the family lost two brothers during migration. Yet they all still seem very pro creation of Pakistan……….

I have been trying to analyse all of this, no my own. I have reached the conclusion that Cabinet Mission was the best way to go. At the very least, it would have avoided the deaths. Things could have settled down, and a united India could have, at least, been tried. But Nehru killed it. I am quite surprised so many Indians (not you) don’t know this part of their own history. To them, Jinnah is the devil.

At the same time, I strongly believe that Muslims needed some protection in India. They were too far behind and too weak. And India has a lot of historical baggage. The, “thousand” years of history may look to you and me as a model of Hindu-Muslim co-operatoin, but to many Hindus, it is a history of colonialism, primarily by Muslims. I think Muslims, post-47, needed large-scale affirmative action and disproportianate voting rights to the point that BJP-type parites did not come into power…….Nehru was unwilling to give those. Although he could have very easily………..

At this point, the fact that you are pointing out that Muslims are the new Dalits in India, combined with the rise of the BJP is enough to consider the fact that maybe I have a point, about the protection Muslims needed……

As stated earlier, IMs got the worst deal. They have every right to complain. In fact, they are the only ones in the Sub-Continent who can legitimately complain about Jinnah. But from a Pakistani point of view, the situation is different. The one criteria that I use is the condition of Indian Muslims in India, to figure out where I would have been had Pakistan not been created. I don’t know of any other criteria to use. It is not an exact criteria, but it is the best one available. Granted the middle class migrated and the IMs had a lot of problems. But if Nehru and others were so pro-unity and promised to look after the Muslims, then why have Muslims ended up as the new Dalits? Someone is not keeping their promise to the IMs.

I have always felt that if Indian Hindus really want to, “defeat” Pakistan and specifically defeat the, “idea” of Pakistan, there is only one way: they have to raise the living standards of Indian Muslims to a very high level. Higher than that of Pakistani Muslims. After that, no one will have an argument. I would accept the fact that I would have been much better off in a united India, with no Canbinet Mission Plan……

hindvi # 130

Although I do consider Shouri to be a (partisan) scholar, I believe your post hit the bull`s eye.

In evaluating the total effects of partition, one must consider the overall and continued impact of the

(1) creation of the Two Nation ``Theory,``
(2) demand for partition,
(3) negotiation and fight for partition,
(4) implementation of partition,
(5) memories of partition, and the effects of the
(6) creation of two large, rival, bitterly hostile, underdeveloped countries,
(7) the rooting of this bitter hostility and mutual contempt in religion, and the
(8) creation of two large populations, one with a negligible number of Hindus, the other with a much smaller number of Muslims than before.


My opinion is that vast majorities of people in India and in Pakistan, in the much talked about ``Indus Valley`` and in every other valley, Hindus and Muslims, all were huge losers - in terms of property, time, and life; in terms of economics; in terms of religious experience and maturity, peace and social development; and in terms of their relative standing in the world.

And the worst affected, in toto, were the ``Indus Valley`` and the Muslims.

Sure, some people won for themselves. Some people will win from any arrangement of human affairs.

Also perspectives matter. I do not believe in the Two Nation -, or Three Nation -, or Ten Nation ``Theories.`` I am not even sure if Jinnah ever did.

Romair#129:

``I don`t think this is correct. If the only thing you can mention west of Lahore is the fledgling sports cottage industry in Sialkot and a wheat mandi in Llaylpur, then I would have to say the area was the boondocks. Llaypur has grown as a textile center, and it is still nothing more than a very large village. And Sialkot is still just a large cottage industry center.``

I mentioned those two cities because of my personal association with them and did not mean that other cities were not there. Karachi, indeed, was one of the three major ports at that time. But come to think of it, textiles and sports goods are perhaps still the only industries in which Pakistan is globally competitive.

``Nearly all of Pakistan`s revenue (67%?) comes from Karachi. A city that was quite small in 47. Nearly all the academic development in Pakistan is post-partition. How many universities/medical colleges etc. were there in the Pakistan area pre-47. And how many of the students in those colleges were Muslims? Weren`t they all studying Farsi?``

The same, more or less, is true of Bombay in India. Karachi and Delhi both gained because of the influx of refugees. Nearly all the academic development in India and Pakistan is post-partition. East Punjab had no university at the time of partition, now I can readily think of at least four at Chandigarh, Patiala, Amritsar and Kurukshetra.

I already agreed that Muslims in Pakistan gained by the removal of competition by hindus and sikhs. The fact that Muhajirs were/are more educated than other Pakistani Muslims is also well known. But this does not show that people in UP were in general better educated than Punjabis. It just means that educated Muhajirs were attracted by the job opportunities opened for them in the new country created through their efforts; this was perhaps one of the motives of their campaign for a separate country.

Re: # 133

harish-bhai,

Just WHERE would Moghal-e-Azam BE without slimy brahmin Birbal; hahn?!

Wonder if ``Islaaam ke mashoor pehelwans from wrong side of border are privy to such CLASSICAL literature!?

Yaaro, I`m willing to BET that that achooot, foetid, son-of-a-dukkar, night-soil-carrying, (i-hate-indian-indoor-plumming),is a KATLU 12 head....some goddamned dickless/prepuceless neurologist in Amrekistan!

Oy Achoot...Dalit....
At this point you should go ``heee heee heee``

Damn! we ought to teach EVERYTHING to these sub-human species!:))

Re: # 128

Dr Shridhar,

Romair-mian is PRECISELY the reason I loooooooooove coming to Chowk:))!!

I mean...what better way to take out my aggression on IDIOCY...than CYBERSPACE:)!

This gareeb sees IDIOCY every day in his office. I gotta keep my trap shut...er..cos they pay me:)!!
Fortunately, nobody pays me on Chowk...

I`ll give Romair-mian some FREE ``unsolicited`` advice....

Cos I KNOW he reads our posts:)....eventhough he pretends to give us ...the..the..``blissful`` ignore....

the ONLY pill for IDIOCY is a blunt brick of REALITY hitting you.....BOING!!!...right in the skull....

Great Saraswat Brahmin Philosopher...told me that, in beloved Bombay...

Jai Hind:)

Re: # 127

dostji,

{{Still, I feel that while Muslims of Pakistan gained with the partition, Pakistan itself was a loser. It lost the energy, enterprise, savings ethics and professional class represented by Hindus and Sikhs. These are precisely the elements that Pakistan lacked and to some extent still does. If these missing ingredients were added to the other geopolitical advantages and support of Arab countries enjoyed by Pakistan, the country would have been far more prosperous, in my opinion}}

Dost-ji..
you are 100% right ; ofcourse...
BUTT BUTT..
may I RESPECTLY ask?...Please dont give any idiotic ideas to your prepuce-less Punjabi cousins...on the wrong side of the border....

ALLAH!!
Some of those BUTT(heads) will want to come BACK!!! Allah ki kasam...their idiocy knows no bounds

Re: # 101

Jesus-Jenny!

You still alive?!:))
Its nice to see you...
I do hope the stint in the alcohol detox facilty has put you back...er...in the pink of health:)!

Please please DONT try to make sense of Romair-ian logic; yaar!
NOT GOOD for mental health...

#131 by Dalit

Abey Chutiye, I`m a Brahmin (slimy brahmin bania as Shankar would call me), and my best friend is a Dalit. There is absolutely no bar on his coming to my home and having food from the same plate right in front of my mom and dad, who BTW are as orthodox as they come. I do the same whenever I`m at his place. I would never treat friends in terms of caste or religion, and the same is the case with them.

The situation is bad in rural areas, but that IS changing. A few years ago, my Aunt (who BTW is even more orthodox than my parents) who lives in a village in South India refused to meet me because I was seeing a non-Brahmin girl, but now willingly embraces her own daughter-in-law who is a Dalit.

So it isn`t as bad as you seek to portray, and things are changing for the better. In the years to come, it will be even better, and people like you, the whiners will be left extinct.

Ref hindvi #130.

[In all the work of a thousand years was reduced to rubble. but this cannot be understood by those who count only per capita GDPs or consider Arun Shorie to be a scholar.]

The saving grace is that t least those who consider Arun Shourie to be a scholar do not consider Sonia Gandhi to be an Indian.

#130 by hindvi

“The subcontinent had been one economic unit not only were the economies of the two halves of bangal and punjab integrated but the economies of all of the subcontinent had nature trade linkages and flow of labour, a woman n in quetta could get up and sip tea grown in assam, buy chillies from Malabar and read a paper printed in Bombay, a young man in kohat could get up and leave for work in Madras or calcutta.”

None of your examples make up a true example of integrated economy. Tea is available from many sources and people move around countries for employment.

More than this, in India, the true issue is tolerance. Hindus have a real problem in tolerating other religions and even new ideas in their myopic world.

You need to pay attention to thousands years of history to get the feel that Hindu have always failed to embrace new ideas and have always turned inwards at every juncture of the history. Don’t be misguided by the last 12-15 years of history. Hindu is bound by his/her customs, culture, and the stupid dharma that ensures that Hinduism goes back to its inhuman ways as soon as its gets some breathing room.

Hindu supports the most reactionary society this world has ever seen and that is the reason for its backwardness and not the partition.

I also don’t agree with you on Muslims being the new Dalits of the Indian society. Muslims have been relegated to convenient whipping boys for the last 60 years but they are still as socially equal as the Hindu caste society would allow. All these so called liberals in Hindu society would have hard time sharing a dinner with an untouchable on the same table but would do that with Muslim on an infrequent basis.
Thousands of caste Hindu work for the Muslim landowners in villages across India but it would be nauseating for them to work for an untouchable landowner.

Appeasement is not necessary for you. You can do better and show them what it is and your posts show that you know the real story.

These caste Hindus are a curse on this earth and must be exposed as such.

to those who hink in terms of hindu sangathan/muslim ummah and per capit GDPs I cannot explain what was lost by partition, because it was something ineffable.

Diversity is invaluable in itself that is why the west values it in their societies, in their food and culture for its effects are similar to those of biodiversity in ecology the whole is more than the sum of its parts, it leads to a catholicism of outlook, a liberalism is infused not only in practice but in the thought process of the individual its effects are seen in everything from politics to economics, from the individuals aims in life to his way of socialisation.

it is true that muslims and hindus largely lived separate lives, but so did coreligionists from diff provinces (compare the mixing of a punjabi witha bengali or a Tamil to that of a hindu and muslim Jat), that is the nature of pre modern societies. But on the other hand there had always been cross communal relationships and in the all india services and among the professionals a new interaction was occuring during the first half of the 20th century. this was broadening outlooks and aims in life a flowering of the subcontinental culture looked set to occur an example was the progressive writers and poets and their part in litreature and film.

The subcontinent had been one economic unit not only were the economies of the two halves of bangal and punjab integrated but the economies of all of the subcontinent had nature trade linkages and flow of labour, a woman n in quetta could get up and sip tea grown in assam, buy chillies from Malabar and read a paper printed in Bombay, a young man in kohat could get up and leave for work in Madras or calcutta. An iqbal if he felt so could visit his friends and doctors in delhi, hyderabad, aligarh, lucknow or bombay. A Jawahar could enjoy a vacation in a peaceful and unified Kashmir.

communities which had existed in their villages and towns for millinia were uprooted and transported to alien places with different tongues, those who left pined for the streets they had left behined and those who remained pined for their loved ones, mothers were seperated from sons and brother from brother. This apart from those who died in the violence and the journeys.

borders went up which were as impregnable as those between countries on different continents, a town where one might have gone to purchase the weekly groceries or meet a loved one or friend now might as well have ceased to exist. In the language they spoke, the clothes they wore and the food they ate there was a little bit of hindu in every muslim and a little bit of muslim in every hindu.

In all the work of a thousand years was reduced to rubble. but this cannot be understood by those who count only per capita GDPs or consider Arun Shorie to be a scholar.

Dost-mittar #127: ``Punjab, especially West Punjab, was not the boondocks, any more than all of India was a boondock with the exception of a few metropolitan and industrial centres.``

I don`t think this is correct. If the only thing you can mention west of Lahore is the fledgling sports cottage industry in Sialkot and a wheat mandi in Llaylpur, then I would have to say the area was the boondocks. Llaypur has grown as a textile center, and it is still nothing more than a very large village. And Sialkot is still just a large cottage industry center.

Nearly all of Pakistan`s revenue (67%?) comes from Karachi. A city that was quite small in 47. Nearly all the academic development in Pakistan is post-partition. How many universities/medical colleges etc. were there in the Pakistan area pre-47. And how many of the students in those colleges were Muslims? Weren`t they all studying Farsi?

To get an idea of the backwardness of the area, you have to consider the fact that the educated elite of Pakistan consisted of the Muslim migrants from India. This, at least to me, indicates that areas in India were quite a bit ahead. Even today, Pakistan`s major human and economical capital is the Muhajir class.

Had Pakistan not been created, the Muhajir class would have remained in India. Not only that the educated class of today`s Pakistan would have migrated to present-day Indian cities. Pakistan would have been agriculture, an odd wheat mandi, and military recruitment centers.......

``It is difficult to apply `what if` scenarios in history. Still, I feel that while Muslims of Pakistan gained with the partition, Pakistan itself was a loser. It lost the energy, enterprise, savings ethics and professional class represented by Hindus and Sikhs.``

Yes. What if scenarios are difficult. Whenever a group of decide to migrate, the area loses. However, a large population migrated in, also. Had Punjab not been divided, maybe the group would not have migrated out......

I think Cabinet Mission was the best way to go. However, once the paritition did occur, one has to acknowledge the fact that massive development did occur in a geogrphical area (provinces of Pakistan) which would not have occured there, had South Asia remained one country.............

What would have happened to Muslims in such a country, without the Cabinet Mission Plan. This is something that greatly interests me. Though it is a, ``What if`` scenario also. It is due to this reason that I take so much interest in the condition of Indian Muslims.........

re: Romair`s post
(I think the people who got the worst deal in the paritition, were the Indian Muslims. And the ones, who got the best deal are the West Pakistanis..)
Let us see how logical the above statement is. West Pakis before 47 were also Indian muslims. So, if IMs got a raw deal, the West Pakis too got a raw deal unless, by some contorted logic, Romair (ever on the dope and sixth heaven) is making a distinction between IMs from what is today`s India and West Pakis.
(The Muslims, circa 47, were in a very weak and backward position, vis-a-vis Hindus, in South Asia.)
Muslims of the subcontinent (which includes Pak) in Circa 2005 are still weak and backward. Terrorism is the weapon of the weak and backward.
And why all this talk about future of sikhs Mr Moron? Sikhs are a part of Indian diaspora and one of them is the PM of that country. They made a wise choice in 47.
The condition of IMs is no better or worse than the condition of muslims from Pak but at least the former do not indulge in export of terrorism that muslims from Pak are now becoming famous for.
Sridhar

Romair#125:

You have raised several issues in your post but I am going to address only one, as others have been addressed before upteen times.

``Anything West of Lahore was mostly the boondocks``

Punjab, especially West Punjab, was not the boondocks, any more than all of India was a boondock with the exception of a few metropolitan and industrial centres. My childhood was spent in two such cities and neither was a boondock. We already talked about how Sialkot was the centre of sports goods industry in India, such as it existed in the pre-partition India. Lyalpur was the wheat mandi of the whole country as well as produced cotton crops. It was perhaps the only city during the pre-partition India which had an Agricultural College, which later became a university. It also had a large mill, Delhi Cloth Mill, which was taken over by the government of Pakistan and renamed Lyalpur Cotton Mill. It was because of this that Lyalpur is now the Manchester of Pakistan. Lahore, of course, was considered at par with Bombay, Calcutta and Madras and was ahead of Delhi in terms of education, culture and financial institution.

It is difficult to apply `what if` scenarios in history. Still, I feel that while Muslims of Pakistan gained with the partition, Pakistan itself was a loser. It lost the energy, enterprise, savings ethics and professional class represented by Hindus and Sikhs. These are precisely the elements that Pakistan lacked and to some extent still does. If these missing ingredients were added to the other geopolitical advantages and support of Arab countries enjoyed by Pakistan, the country would have been far more prosperous, in my opinion.

Re: # 116

Romair mian

{{Who is it in India?}}

er...may I take this one?!

Ans--Saraswat Brahmins...(with genes going back to Kashmir); like me!:))

Hey! seriously! I was a pretty damned good boxer in my schooldays...even flattened a couple of katlus (er..ofcourse..marital races; they werent)...

Please write to that American professor & ask him how you can spin yourself out of THIS one!

BTW,
Speaking of which...
You have been talking about going to India...since... like... the past 20 zillion years...or so

Whassup!?

GoI refuses visas to ISI agents?
or what?!
Damn...shameless DUKKAR Raw!...they wont even let Romair-mian into India...

So he can speak to Azim Premji...& say...

``I knew it! I KNEW IT!!...Muslims are being discriminated in India...Just like Michael Jordan, these Indians let me talk ONLY to successful katlus...they didnt let me talk to any enslaved katlus from Kashmir....

..handsome milt-ry katlu like me went to night-club in Bombay. Saw Aishwarya Rai...introduced myself...put arm around her & said ``hey babe...wassup!``
She slapped me!...One tight thappad across handsome Kashmiri miltry face....& called me ``FRESH!``...she thinks I`m a vegetable ; or what?....Same thing happened when Rawalpindi express approached Indian-kudi....
%$^& horrible hindoo ugly b*tches!...hum handsome us paar ke katlu logon ko dete hi nahi!!
Astafigarullah!
TERRIBLE... TERRIBLE...discrimination against muslim...they even harrass poor Salman Khan...now; what MORE can I say``

Sunte hooo!
Poor poor enslaved Kashmiri...
mein abhi aaya...hamere ``world famous milt-ry ke saath!``

Here is the problem in discussing partition - continuous mixing up of disparate arguments and shifting of conflicting descriptions between Islam, Muslims, culture, Arabism, Indus Valley, constitution, fear, the salariat, the sufi, the average guy and probably many many more to come.

Hindvi/Dost-mittar #various: Interesting discussion.......

I think the people who got the worst deal in the paritition, were the Indian Muslims. And the ones, who got the best deal are the West Pakistanis........I am talking here, about the average guy working in the farm or as labor, etc.

Partition wasn`t supposed to happen the way it did. In fact, it wasn`t supposed to happen at all. We have discussed the Cabinet Mission Plan, on this site. That was the best solution for the Sub-Continent. Nehru torpedoed it. Then, once Partition occured, the Junagarh solution should have been applied on Kashmir. Junagarh, due to its population`s desire, ended up with India, even though its Muslim ruler signed it to Pakistan. Similarly Kashmir had all linguistic, cultural, religious, social, trade, populational ties with Pakistan. It should have gone there. Nehru torpodoed that also.

Even outside the problems that Dost-mittar is relating to Nehru, much of the original problems created for IMs are from Nehru. Perhaps they were unintentional, since he seems to have had a soft corner for them. But they are there. Had he agreed to the Cabinet Mission Plan, IMs would have been the biggest beneficaries. Had he agreed to plebscite in Kashmir, again IMs would have been more secure in India..........

Another group that got an odd deal out of the partition are Sikhs. However, they had all the cards in their hands. I am not sure they played them correctly. Much of the Paritition violence was in Punjab (the remaining in Bengal). In fact, the actual Partition of Sub-Continent was really only a partition of Punjab and Bengal. I doubt the population in Tamil Nadu and Baluchistan was overly affected, other than some individuals migrating. The Sikhs wanted to Partition Punjab. Even though Pakistanis wanted all of Punjab to stay together, with Pakistan. I think it was the Sikhs right to partition it, if they did not feel secure with Muslims. Just like I think it was the Pakistanis right to partition India, if they did not feel secure with Hindus......

However, Jinnah was willing to give the Sikhs an autonomous region in Punjab. I think through that they could have gotten an independent Punjab, eventually (perhaps with India`s assistance, much like Bangladesh; or even without assistance). Ironically, the Sikhs eventually tried for this in 1984, after having themselves argued against it and joining India, in 47! And if the expat Sikhs are anything to go by, they still seem to mention Punjab as their, ``dharti.`` And not necessarily India as their dharti. They will remain in a state of flux for a long time, now, I think. They seem to be losing their culture, language etc. due to the commercialisation and demographic changes in South Asia........

The Muslims, circa 47, were in a very weak and backward position, vis-a-vis Hindus, in South Asia. Many people don`t realize that. The areas of Pakistan, were the worst off. They looked more like Afghanistan than India. Anything West of Lahore was mostly the boondocks. It had been like that for centuries. The Indus Valley was, infact, one of the most backwards areas in the world. Even today, you will have to look long and hard, to find people in this area, who had educated grandmothers. Both of mine were illiterate.......

Had Pakistan not been created, I don`t know how the rest of South Asia would have been, but the Indus Valley would have moved furthur back into oblivion. All its human resources, including all us Chowkies, would have migrated to Bombay, Delhi etc. There would not have been much investment in what is today Pakistan, other than for agriculture and natural resources. The area around Taxila would not have been the bubbling metropolis, it is today. The Medical Colleges, roads, mega-cities, military bases, etc. would not have been built. And most of all, they would not have had Muslim students. It would have, infact, move furthur towards Afghanistan-like area........

This is point many people seem to miss, i.e. the geographical area of Pakistan, pre-47 was way behind the areas of present-day India (including the Muslim population), in human development. However, after Pakistan, it has caught up and even moved ahead for a decade or two...........

It is hard for me to comment on IMs and their position in society, since I haven`t met too many. And one has to go to a country, to get a good idea. But I cannot imagine their situation being worse than those of Dalits, at the time of Partition, even if a big Muslim population migrated. If it is worse now, then the factors should be analysed, because it could have long term implications for India..........Pakistan was unable to do such an analyses for Bangladeshis, and we know what happened. In India, the same won`t happen because Muslims are too spread out. But other problems will arise, if one community (Hindus) are advancing so much, and the other community (Muslims) are now even worse off than the worse-off Hindu community (Dalits).........

Hindvi#114:

While I agree with some aspects of your post, you have been somewhat partial to Nehru. The rest of India has gotten over its Nehru worship and is now willing to assess his role through more objective indicators; I think that Indian Muslims should do the same.

When India became independent, Muslims became a tainted minority . There was thus a crying need to establish the credentials of IMs among the mainstream and to provide them with real security by giving them prominent roles in police and bureaucracy, not through a false sense by giving a constitutional guarantee to emphasise their differences. This hampered instead of helping their integration with the mainstream.

I am not denying that Nehru had a soft corner for IMs, just as I do not deny that he wanted India to be a great power; what I am talking about the hell he created with his good intentions. It is a myth that there was no enlightened Muslim leadership left in India after the partition. Most of the leftists like Dr. Saifudin Kitchloo and Dr, Z. Ahmad stayed in India; moreover many progressive Muslim leaguers, such as the President of Bombay Muslim League (father of Ismail Merchant) also stayed back. If you go through the deliberations of the Constituent Assembly, you would notice that progressive Muslims and minorities in general spoke vociferously for a Uniform Civil Code. The reality however was that Nehru and other Congressmen were beholden to their Deobandi supporters of Jamiat-ul-ulema-e-Hind variety and conservative Muslims, including the most illustrious Indian Muslim, Maulana Azad. So, Nehru chose to heed to these obscurantist elements rather than the progressives.

Nehru was at the helm of affairs for 17 years and set the tone for the succeeding government. During his leadership, several anti-muslim riots took place. Nobody ever got punished for participating in those riots nor was any police chief or chief minister punished. He did nothing to reform the Madrassas to ensure quality education for their students so that they could compete with others on an equal footing. He did not institute any institutional reforms in the police services to ensure a non-communal, professional attitude. All he did was ensured that Muslims were free to think of themselves as Ummah, free to live with sharia, free to control their backward madrassas and free to retain an in-your-face separate identity. Unfortunately, even progressive Muslims think that this was enough to qualify him as saviour of Indian Muslims.

And Romair is not wrong in saying that the partition was good for Muslims in areas which became Pakistan, even though it was disastrous for South Asian ``Umma`` which has been divided into three equal parts. There should not be the slightest doubt in anyone`s mind that Muslims of Punjab, Sindh and Bengal would not have progressed as they have if they had continued to face the competition of Hindus and Sikhs who were leap years ahead of Muslims in education and dominated every aspect of economic and professional activity in the pre-partition days. [incidentally, this would not have happened if Jinnah`s speech of August 11 had been effective and Hindus and Sikhs had continued to stay in Pakistan]

#121 by hindvi

[i think you better read up on Partition history it was an unmitigated holocaust, especially for the punjab starting from delhi and faridabad all the way to rawalpindiand and in the north from jammu down wards, and in the east from bihar to chittagong. nothing can be worth that holocaust.]

Yaar, this is one of the better posts I have seen. Pakis thank Jinnah for having created Pakistan whenever there is a communal riot in India, but I think this is just a facade to cover the massive disillusionment they feel with the way their country has shaped up.

i think you better read up on Partition history it was an unmitigated holocaust, especially for the punjab starting from delhi and faridabad all the way to rawalpindiand and in the north from jammu down wards, and in the east from bihar to chittagong. nothing can be worth that holocaust.

and even pakistanis will know what partition means if a bomb goes under musharraf`s car.

your criteria of judging partition doesnot work because the very fact of partition skewed things against muslims both, because middle class was depleted and because political bargaining power was crushed. also anitpathy increased.

the boxer analogy doesnt work either though muslims produce more prostitues, gangsters and entertainers than their national percentage.

the condition of the muslims is partly due to the fact that they were anyway converted from the poorer sections of society, partly due to partition (apart from the facts above also is the siege mentality that went up among muslims because of the fear of loosing their identity in an overwhelmingly hindu India) aqnd partly due to govt. apathy.

An interesting article, but so full of holes and misperceptions that it would take a long article to rebut! Some statements that are so far of the mark.........

WRONG Secular Gandhi, in India he is identified as the demi god of contemporary Hindu history.

WRONG majority Hindus, a lot many of whom are extremists much like mullahs of their neighbouring country....some maybe, but a lot many??

Separation of Church and State as Jinnah envisioned and is enshrined in the constitution of free democracies including India is the only way to go.

True: the blame goes to the subsequent dictatorial rules in Pakistan, especially that of Zia-ul-Haque

TRUE and this continues to happen in India inspite of isolated hiccups.: both religions co-existed quite peacefully for centuries after the advent of Islam in sub continent India. Art, culture and science actually blossomed under the multicultural environment of India.

# 117 isn`t about questioning anything at present, but about approaches to making sense of the events in the past.

Romair

That is a completely illogical criterion for judging partition, don`t you think?

(even if we could ignore all this confusion about why exactly partition was asked for and what precisely it was supposed to achieve)

Hindvi #114: Interesting post.......

I have been trying hard to figure out the position of Indian Muslims, socially, economically, educationally etc. in India. i think I will have to go to India, to get a real feel. To me, that is the primary criteria for judging Partition (though many Indian Muslims may not agree), i.e. if the HDI indicators of Indian Muslims become higher, or significantly higher than Muslims in Pakistan, then the idea of Paritition becomes null and void. Muslims would have been better off living with Hindus, as a whole......

If the Indian Muslims are the new Dalits, as you are indicating, then what are the reasons for this. One seems to get two views, depending on whom one talks to: much like one gets two views for African Americans, i.e. one group says the govt. discriminates against them or does not provide them with enough facilities. The other group states that it is their own fault.........

From what I can see, the Indian Muslims have been affected the worse by the Indo-Pak conflicts. And perhaps by Partition, itself..........

P.S I had an American history professor who said that a good way to see which community is being discriminated against, in a society, is to which community produces the most professional boxers. In the USA, it is the Blacks and Hispanics. In Pakistan, it is the Mekranis. Who is it in India?

Re: # 114
hindvi good post.
I also read that family planning among Kerala muslim women is higher than hindu women in UP.

Romair
to make any generalisations about a huge country like India is fraught with dangers, there are parts where hindu and muslims enjoy excellent relations (mostly in the south), places where their relations are ok and places where they are very bad.

But you are right in saying that many hindus have been convinced that muslims are pampered despite the fact that there social indicators are at the same level as dalits, infact Indira gandhi in the early 80s suppressed statistics which would reveal the full plight of muslioms in indian govt services. how they got this idea is not difficult to imagine, the conservative elements in any community are most vocal after partition the small muslim middle clas was lost, the remaining membrs of that class were silent with the stigma of partition. leadership naturally fell in the hands of the rabble rousers so the initial security given to a beseiged community by nehru turned slowly into tokenism towards conservative elemnts at election time due to the compulsions of democratic politics. but no real substantive things like education etc were pushed, but they were generally not pushed for anybody including dalits. where dalits beneffitted a bit along with huge benefits t