My Pakistan Diary: The Feudal

I can`t recall the last time I was so impressed by a piece of writing than the one I just read. Call it me being naive, but I can`t think of anyone capturing a Punjabi rural, heavily anglo-saxon influenced-yet very human and (trust me) real beautiful part of our culture in such a real way. Coming from a family described above, I can vouch for the fact that I, in my mind, I have alway considered myself the luckiest person knowing the fact that there are so many poeple (``subjects`` in ultra-liberal writing samples) that pray for my wellness every time they think of me and my family. They are the mochis, naais, lohars, and mirasis mentioned above......... all real people working in their own worlds trying to make each otehrs` lives better. Those are the placesand people you find selfless respect and care of people for each other. At least some of the very `feudals`, some writers on this portal claim to wonder how they keep coming back to the parliament, are the very poeple who have dedicated their lives to well being of their village people. The point being that, as primitive and inefficient the somwhat modified of version of `feudalism` people so claim to hate might sound to other readers, there are still so many areas in our country where it has still worked so beautifully over generations. And people are still happy in their daily lives. May be that is how life is......... part of me definitely believes that part of my culture to be beautiful and so intimate.

Thanks Dost-mittar for putting a real face to my culture that I still have fond memories of........and want to keep it that way.

Nakhok,


The link is there. Why don`t you stop denying reality and proving again and again that there isn`t an honest bone in your body. Shameless.....


Sincerely

YLH

# 216 by Mantolives

+++++
In his letter M P Bhandara clearly mentions that Suhrawardy spoke to the PCA on 6th March 1948
+++++

If I had believed that Mantolives was genuinely misled by an honest error in drawing inferences, I would have gladly tried to help him. But this is a case of deliberately insisting on misleading/unwarranted inferences for the sole purpose of obfuscating facts. Mantolives is wasting his time with his subterfuges. Try as he might, he cannot change the past. He is wasting his time. And he has wasted enough of my time. I have no time for his dishonest posts, nor for his silly games. Enough is enough!

In his letter M P Bhandara clearly mentions that Suhrawardy spoke to the PCA on 6th March 1948... My quotation and direct link is there. You are the only liar here and god save the world from people like you. Still no answers to direct questions...

Shameless... still facts will not change.

Dear Nakhok,

I suppose you missed this bit from M P Bhandara`s Article:


http://www.dawn.com/2002/01/19/letted.htm#9

Finally, let us hear Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy in his own words which are as valid today as on 6th March, 1948, when he first addressed the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan:-

`Sir, a person has not only loyalty, he has several loyalties to several causes which are not ``antagonistic to each other, and I feel, Sir, that the greatest loyalty which a person can possess, is a loyalty to humanity which transcends all parochial loyalties .... if this State is not founded on the cooperative goodwill of all the nationals, a time will come when this State will destroy itself. `

---

Nakhok I must add that your previous post is yet another additiion to your huge pile of lies.
Now have some shame and apologize...

-YLH

# 214 by Mantolives

+++++
Both of them (quoted posts 195-201) contradict your claim.
+++++

Outright lie. Neither M.P.Bhandara nor Shahida Jalal dispute the facts. Only Mantolives` false/misleading/unwarranted inferences do. The DAWN article that I quoted, elicited multiple letters to the editor - not one of them contradicted the facts that Mantolives
is so desperately trying to purge from recorded history!

Mantolives is in no position to offer an honest explanation about:

[1] why the DAWN article would make such false claims on Suhrawardy

[2] why none of the letters to the editor that were published in response to that article contradicted the facts that are bothering Mantolives so much.

Mantolives has wasted his time trying to weave out a dishonest contradiction with false/misleading/unwarranted inferences. Try as he might, Mantolives cannot change the past with subterfuge. Mantolives is just wasting his time and he has wasted enough of my time in the bargain with his subterfuge. Enough is enough!

Nakhok,

More personal attacks and Lies I see?


Instead of Obfuscating Answer the question... but ofcourse you don`t have the answer... except repeating the same `op-ed` article without any source.

Since you had a problem with primary sources I have given you the internet sources as well ...


If Suhrawardy wasn`t physically present in Pakistan then how did he
a) Address the Pakistan Constituent Assembly for the first time on 6th March 1948?
b) Vote against the dissolution of the AIML in December 1947 in Karachi?


``Verifiable Internet Sources``:

A G Noorani`s paper (page 4):

http://www.jamiahamdard.edu/PDF/Studies%20on%20Islam.pdf


MP Bhandara`s letter

http://www.dawn.com/2002/01/19/letted.htm#9



-YLH

PS

Like all newspapers in the world, Dawn does not take responsibility for OP-ED columns. If some one expresses an opinion it doesn`t become the gospel of the truth. From the same Dawn I have quoted much more reputable authors including Barrister Shahida Jalal who is the grand daughter of Suhrawardy and MP Bhandara A renowned parsi leader, acquaintance of Suhrawardy and Bapsi Sidhwa`s brother.

Both of them (quoted posts 195-201) contradict your claim. Now by your logic shouldn`t you be trying to extract an apology from dawn?

# 210 by Mantolives

+++++
You are not an ideal reflection of the global Bengali community... I have nothing but affection for them, despite people like you.
+++++

The challenge seems to be to reconcile Mantolives` ``affection`` ``for the global Bengali community`` with his contempt for ``Bengali historians`` and for ``your prized Banglapedia``.

Is it Mantolives` contention that ``Bengali historians`` don`t really belong to the ``global Bengali community``? And why does he get so livid with rage if someone quotes from the ``National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh``? More importantly, why does Mantolives deny his ``affection`` to any member of the ``global Bengali community`` if he/she fails to fall for Mantolives` skullduggery?

Mantolives reminds me of a line from Shaw`s ``Arms and the Man``. The heroine had pointed to herself incredulously to say ``I, Raina Petkoff, tell lies!``

Well, Mantolives has done a Raina Petkoff with his sanctimonious games. Like Captain Bluntschli, I have indulged Mantolives for his sanctimony. But enough is enough. I don`t really have time for his games.

# 210 by Mantolives

Well here`s a challenge. If Mantolives is so convinced that he can fool everybody with his obfuscations, why doesn`t he try his tricks on the DAWN? Let`s see Mantolives force a retaraction/apology from DAWN with his clever obfuscations.

To make it easier for Mantolives to try his tricks on the DAWN, I am once again posting the link as well as the quote:

---

http://www.dawn.com/2003/09/08/op.htm

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
08 September 2003 Monday 10 Rajab 1424

A model of political rectitude
By Roquyya Jafri

..... When Pakistan came into being, Bengal was faced with extensive riots. Suhrawardy stayed back in Calcutta to help the riot-affected people. The irony was that when he wanted to come to Pakistan, he was dubbed as a traitor and was not allowed to enter Pakistan. .....

---

Mantolives might pretend all he can that he doesn`t know of the externment order on Suhrawardy. Mantolives can pretend all he can that Suhrawardy was never denied entry into Pakistan. But his rantings would have as little effect on the DAWN editor as it has had on me. It is now up to Mantolives to prove me wrong by fooling and browbeating DAWN into issuing a retraction/apology.

Mantolives is wasting his time. And he has wasted enough of my time. If I had thought that he was truly interested in the facts, I would have gladly obliged. But he knows the facts. He is merely into obfuscation of well known and well documented facts by false/misleading/duplicitious/unwarranted inferences from ``primary sources``. I have no time for his games.

Mantolives, with his ``heads I win, tails you lose`` style of fraudulent arguments had first denied that Suhrawardy`s membership had ever been terminated and had then argued that the termination doesn`t count because the Federal Court had later restored Suhrawardy`s membership!! That about sums up Mantolives` duplicity. He can carry on with his games, but I see no reason to indulge him.

Even the DAWN in his own country will have no time for his dishonest games. Let him try his tricks with DAWN. If he succeeds, he can come back to Chowk and crow about his skullduggery. But in the mean time he already stands exposed in Chowk for his dishonesty.

Nakhok,

I will ignore your repetitive personal attacks and word twisting of which you are a master.
Still no answer to the questions I asked. You asked for `verifiable internet sources` as well as primary sources (195-201) ... I obliged...

Don`t confuse the issue.... I am not interested in your victim mentality... my point of interest was only one issue... and in consonance with that issue I ask you once again:

If Suhrawardy wasn`t physically present in Pakistan then how did he
a) Address the Pakistan Constituent Assembly for the first time on 6th March 1948?
b) Vote against the dissolution of the AIML in December 1947 in Karachi?


``Verifiable Internet Sources``:

A G Noorani`s paper (page 4):

http://www.jamiahamdard.edu/PDF/Studies%20on%20Islam.pdf


MP Bhandara`s letter

http://www.dawn.com/2002/01/19/letted.htm#9



Suhrawardy travelled between Pakistan and India from 1947-1948 atleast 8 or 9 times ... awaiting Cabinet appointment and chalking out a peace plan in September, carrying Gandhi`s messages to Jinnah, attending the AIML`s dissolution in December 1947 in Karachi, and speaking to the Pakistan Constituent Assembly in March...


By indulging in another invective against me you will just prove your dishonesty further. Except for accusing me of all people of racism against Bengalis, you have no argument...


If you look up the definition of `obfuscation` .... every single one of your post is a glaring example of it. You are not an ideal reflection of the global Bengali community... I have nothing but affection for them, despite people like you.


-YLH

# 206 by Mantolives

+++++
If Suhrawardy wasn`t physically present in Pakistan then how did he
a) Address the Pakistan Constituent Assembly for the first time on 6th March 1948?
b) Vote against the dissolution of the AIML in December 1947 in Karachi?
+++++

If Mantolives were really interested in the facts and not in sweeping them under the rug, he wouldn`t have been trying to draw false/misleading/duplicitious inferences with such questions.

Mantolives knows the truth, he is merely engaged in obfuscation of facts:

[1] Mantolives knows about the externment order on Suhrawardy.

[2] Mantolives knows when, why and how Suhrawardy was sent back to Kolkata.

[3] Mantolives knows how Liaqat Ali Khan had initially pretended that he had nothing to do with the externment - on July 13, 1948 (Jinnah was still the Governor General) Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan informed Suhrawardy that the action of expulsion from East Bengal taken against him was a ``matter entirely for the Provincial Government and he (Liaquat Ali Khan) can`t interfere in their administration.``

[4] Mantolives knows that even this pretext was not maintained for long. Liaqat Ali Khan declared in the Constituent Assembly, ``Today in Pakistan there is no difference between the Central Government and Provincial Government. The central Government is composed of the provinces. …. We must kill this provincialism for all times.``

[5] Mantolives knows that the Liaqat Ali Khan government had Suhrawardy`s membership to the First Constituent Assembly terminated with effect from March 2, 1949 on the plea that Suhrawardy was not a permanent resident of Pakistan!

[6] Mantolives, with his ``heads I win, tails you lose`` style of fraudulent arguments had first denied that Suhrawardy`s memebership had ever been terminated and had then argued that the termination doesn`t count because the Federal Court had later restored Suhrawardy`s membership!! That about sums up Mantolives` duplicity. He can carry on with his games, but I see no reason to indulge him.

Mantolives knows the facts. But his only interest is in obfuscating facts. To that end he has been drawing false/misleading/duplicitious inferences from ``primary sources``. He is wasting his time. And he has wasted enough of my time.

Dear Nakhok,


Instead of personal attacks and lies... why don`t you answer a simple question?


If Suhrawardy wasn`t physically present in Pakistan then how did he

a) Address the Pakistan Constituent Assembly for the first time on 6th March 1948?

b) Vote against the dissolution of the AIML in December 1947 in Karachi?

The links to internet sources have been provided 195-201


The truth is that you are the only one here engaging in dishonest obfuscation and outright lies.

Have a nice day....

Zameer,

you were right... the way he is twisting your words now is amazing. It is a total waste of time even arguing with Nakhok.

# 204 by Mantolives

+++++
Bengalis are our brothers... and I am sure you join me in wishing them all the best in their effort to become a modern democratic state.... dair aye durust aye.
+++++

If Mantolives really feels that way, he can give teeth to his wishes by urging Pakistan`s ruling elite to make amends for the following lapses since the 1971 partition of Pakistan:

1) Pakistan`s ruling elite has steadfastly refused an equitable division of assets with Bangladesh for the last 33 years.

(2) Pakistan`s ruling elite has refused to repatriate the stranded Pakistanis (``Biharis``) for the last 33 years.

(3) Pakistan`s ruling elite has refused to pay war reparations.

(4) Pakistan`s ruling elite has refused to compensate Bangladesh for the colonial exploitation from 1947 to 1971.

(5) Pakistan`s ruling elite has refused to try those that were accused of crimes against humanity. Even those criminals who had been specifically singled out by Hamoodur
Rehman Commission Report for court martial not only managed to escape scott free, but continued to strut around in Pakistan for the last 33 years (or till their death) as members in good standing of the ruling elite.

It is perhaps too much to expect General Pervez Musharraf and his merry band of Kakul kleptocrats to make amends - they won`t even make amends for the crimes against their current compatriots.

But if Mantolives is serious about his regard for his Bengali brothers, he shouldn`t have any qualms about urging Pakistan`s ruling elite to do the needful. There cannot be a better way of truly putting 1971 behind the people of both Bangladesh and Pakistan.

# 203 by zamir1

+++++
I agree with you, arguing with this guy is a waste of time.
+++++

Well, mantolives is indeed wasting his time. He has been dishonestly trying to obfuscate well known and well documented facts with false/misleading/duplicitious inferences from ``primary sources``. Unfortunately for him, obfuscations cannot change the facts. He has wasted enough of his own time and enough of my time in the bargain.

+++++
“… what percent of Bengalis really wanted to separate, and weather they were in a majority or not?
+++++

Even to ask, what percent of Bengalis or what percent of Sindhis, Mohajirs, Balochis, Pakhtoons, Punjabis wanted to separate, amounts to blatantly skirting the real issue . Such a question betrays a lamentable lack of understanding that Pakistan broke up not because of ordinary citizens but because the ruling elite in West Pakistan had made up its mind to break up Pakistan if it ever faced a situation in which its writ played second fiddle to the wishes of the ordinary people.

To understand the 1971 partition, one must probe the mindset of the West Pakistan based ruling elite. This ruling elite had made up its mind a long time ago that it would rather risk the breakup of the country than let power slip from its hands into the hands of elected representatives. This elite was for a united Pakistan only as long as united Pakistan remained under its rule. It was determined not to cede power to the representatives of the people in a united Pakistan because that would threaten its powers, perks and privileges. ``Parity``, ``One Unit`` and the likes were just the opening salvos in its secessionist schemes.

+++++
However, Tikka Khan is not a national hero in Pakistan
+++++

One would have never guessed that from his fate in post-1971 Pakistan. After the emergence Bangladesh in 1971, the then Prime Minister of Pakistan Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto elevated him to the rank of General and made him the army chief on 3 March 1972. General Khan`s first task was to crack down on the people of Baluchistan. General Tikka Khan had earned infamy as the Butcher of Bangladesh in 1971. He went on to earn infamy as the `Butcher of Baluchistan`.

Following his retirement from the army in 1974, Tikka Khan joined the Pakistan People`s Party in 1976 and became Special Assistant on national security to Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. Afterwards he was made Defence Minister. During her first tenure as Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto made Tikka Khan the governor of the Punjab province in 1988. General Tikka Khan died on 28 March 2002, regrettably in his bed rather than on the gallows.

+++++
If you visit any upper, or upper middle class household in Karachi chances are that you will run into a Bangladeshi working as a domestic servant.
+++++

What`s the point of this assertion? Is this an attempt by zamir1 to echo the thinking of the West Pakistan based ruling elite that the 1971 partition was for the best because West Pakistan had already extracted what it could out of East Pakistan and that the latter would have proved to be a drag on West Pakistan if Pakistan had remained united?

Regardless of how rich the upper or upper middle class households in Karachi might be, the HDI index (introduced by famous Pakistani economist, Mahbubul Haq) is a dead give away that that human development in Bangladesh has outstripped that in Pakistan. And Bangladesh has achieved this despite starting from behind Pakistan, despite the genocide of 1971, and despite the upheaval.

Be it in population control, eradication of illiteracy or women empowerment, Pakistan does rank below Bangladesh in 2004. As zamir1, himself, has acknowledged, ``What Bangladesh has achieved in last few decades is really remarkable``. It is a misplaced sign of priority to gloat that Dhaka`s upper or upper middle class compares unfavorably with Karachi`s upper or upper middle class in conspicuous consumption. UNDP obviously didn`t think much of ``Karachi Shining`` when it computed the HDI for Pakistan to be below that of Bangladesh.

# 204 by Mantolives

+++++
I am sure you join me in wishing [Bangladeshis] all the best in their effort to become a modern democratic state
+++++

With or without Mantolives` gratutious posturing, Bangladesh is well on its way ``to become a modern democratic state.`` The question mark is actually on Pakistan`s future. Ordinary Pakistanis remain disenfranchised to this day. Pakistan has become synonymous with military dictators and vicious terrorists with both doing their utmost to make a mockery of the yearnings of the common Pakistani for democracy.

# 202 by Mantolives

+++++
he will launch personal attacks against me, call me racist , anti-Bengali, and a bigot
+++++

I didn`t have to do do anything. Mantolives did it all to himself in his posts as he poured scorn over ``Bengali historians``, ``National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh``, ``Awami League court``, ``one Bangladeshi historian`` etc. etc.