Musharraf: Excerpts from an Interview in NYT

Reported by Dawn:

``At least 39 killed, 100 wounded in bomb blasts in Multan: MULTAN, Oct 7: At least 39 people were killed and around 100 wounded when two bombs ripped through a gathering of Sunni Muslim radicals in Multan today, police and a doctor said. ``The death toll has risen to 39,`` chief medical officer of Nishtar hospital, doctor Imran Rafiq, told AFP. More than 100 people were hurt, district police chief Sikandar Hayat said. The explosions occurred at around 4:30 am. Police believe at least one blast was caused by a car bomb. (AFP) (Posted @ 09:15 PST) ``

This situation will continue to aggravate till the Pakistanis expiate for the sins of 1947.

hindvi:
If you want to get an idea of the elite hindu reaction of that time to the shah bano case, you should go to some good library and see letters to the editors of any english language newspaper or magazine like India Today. I did and I know that they were full of outrage. As for the muslim reaction, I happened to be visiting India then and was in a small south Indian town of Vellore at that time. I saw an angry demonstration of muslims in that town; if I had not witnessed it personally, I wouldn`t have believed that south indian muslims were capable of such religious passion.
I agree with you however that it is an issue that affects almost exclusively muslims. I said ``almost`` because there is that why-have-our-personal-laws-been-changed-and-not theirs question raised from time to time.
On the VP-Devi Lal confrontation, I would suggest you again to go back to the news sources of that time and see the time line of the events. Devi Lal was successfully weaning away the farmer-jat constituency with the disastrous loan-forgiving schemes and VP had to dust up the Mandal commission recommendations which, as you may be aware, all parties had paid including the BJP had paid lip service to.

Dost mittar

Kerala and west bengal are communist ruled states and their dynamics are totally different. Kerala was a progressive state since the beginning of last century and bengal has a hoary history of reform movements, there was no chance of such movements or communist govts in the gangetic heartland. Maharashtra too had a long history of reform and dalit movements, ambedkar was strongest there, and they had large reservations long ago, thackeray`s father was involved in those caste movements.

Madhya Pradesh has seen some positive movements you are right, but that is very recent, thanks to diggy raja`s development program and world bank loans and scheme. In UP and Bihar, VP wasnt responding to devi lal, he was too miniscule to threaten VP, he was responding to pressurise by the yadav chieftains (one of whom is Lohiate and the other a JP follower)and by the dalit brigade - Kanshi ram, Paswan etc all of whom are socialists this mandal commision had been in the works for long congress had been delaying it for over a decade even though they had approved of it themselves. VP was always commited to social justice, but he didnt baragain himself that it would lead to such divisions. still you wouldnt meet a single dalit or obc who doesnt favour it, because it has improved their lot (especially of the OBCs) immeasurably in the gangetic planes. it has though damaged the muslims, because even though they belong to the same castes they are not eligible for it, except a very tiny minority who are included in the SC/ST list.

The Raja of Manda contributed to the BJP`s rise but not because of mandal, the election of 89, was basically an anti congress wave and to a lesser extent a pro VP one as he rode around in his Jan Morcha motorcycle, he didnt need to do an agreement with BJP, it had just 2 seats in 84, but by doing so he gifted them 89 seats. Nor did the BJP raise the tempo because their vote was being split (they hardly had a base) they had started raising the tempo from 89 itself not 90 when Mandal was implemented. and they raised it further as the elections of 91 approached because of the success of the strategy.

VP never benefitted from mandal politically, but BJP reaped and continues to do so from the ramjanambhoomi controversy.

dost mittar

The Shah bano controversy was shameful, what with political mullahs protesting against an honorable judgement by the supreme court asking the old lady`s husband to pay her alimony beyond the pittance of the iddat period, where he was defaulting on even that as he took a younger wife. Hindus, muslims and all liberal people should be legitamitely peeved at that. But when the actual controversy happened in 1987, apart from the press most hindus and muslims were unconcerned, none of my fathers freiends, all of whom are hindus, were bothered, most people were unaware of what the issue was, infact even today most people have no idea what the controversy was about other than that it was muslim appeasement. and at the grass roots even today most dont know about it.

But by repeating it again and again the BJP has popularised it as an example of muslim appeasement and it is often quoted by the class that frequents chowk. where as it in no way impinged upon hindu rights. and that is the reason they ignored it in 87, as an internal matter of muslims.

Infact even the attitude of most hindus towards the common civil code was that it was an internal matter of muslims since it didnt affect anybody elses rights. so too with polygamy, Farzana is right on atleast this, that hindus have a higher percentage of polygamy/bigamy than muslims.

So what happened then? well as you said biases always existed on both sides, but when the Ram Janambhoomi campaign got going hindus were reminded of what some muslim invaders had done in the mideival times (this was often exagerated by the rss pracharaks, govindacharyas and sadhvi rithambras and uma bharatis), this had earlier been a hush hush topic under the congress which had never dealt with it openly, with increasing development there was also a growing search for identity, there was associated urbanisation and rootlessness and the hindu felt both aggrieved at the real and imaginary humiliation of the past and wanted a proud identity in the modern world, hence garv se bolo hum hindu hain.

the bjp said Muslims had been appeased too long, hindus are second class citizens in their own lands and all the above issues of muslim personal law got wrapped up in the juggernaut suddenly after 1990 we started hearing about how the bjp was terribly concerned about the plight of muslim women, even as it raped them and butchered their sons and husbands, how a gravve injustice was done to shabano, how muslims have 4 wives and multiply like rabbits. they are intransigent and refuse to have a common civil code, people forgot that educated muslims had been saying for decades that the civil code must be reformed.

Hitler always said if you repeat a lie many times it becomes the truth, advani took that lesson to heart, Modi isnt the only one who admires him.

hindvi:
I am an admirer of VP because he stood for honesty and integrity not only at the Centre but also as a chief minister when he refused to give up his fight against the dacoits even when they killed his brother. But I did not like his dividing the hindu society along the caste lines. I think that one is a hypocrite when one raises one`s voice against the evils of the caste system of the hindu society and then goes on to aggravate those divisions in the name of empowering the powerless. I have seen that in West Bengal, Kerala, South, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and other states, the dalits and OBCs have been empowered without dividing politics rigidly along the caste lines as is being done in places like UP and Bihar.
I would like India to be strengthened by bridging the hindu-muslim differences rather than by weakening the hindus by accentuating the caste divisions. Unfortunately, the lead players in trying to end the caste-based divisions are the sanghis, although their motivation in doing so is negative and not positive.

#188

Hindvi may be petulant and I am sure there are many more like him specially among the
expat muslims. For instance see the press releases the britain based Indian muslim organizations release. But you must understand these were the very people who could have brought change in their community, could have explained how blocking traffic affects everyone. But with every Gujarat and Modi we push this process back another 10 years. Suspicion and anger among middle class muslims again rises manyfold, another generation of progressive muslims is lost amongst the despair (yaar, nothing will ever change ...). Walk a mile in their shoes and then think again.

About the misuse of hindu tolerance. We confuse the congress style pandering to obscurist muslim leaders as tolerance. I dont think there is real tolerance among Hindu`s, but dont take this negatively we dont need any great tolerance to just stop killing each other. Similarly I dont believe Islam is any religion of great tolerance either (whatever TAhmed may say), but I say it doesnt matter, all we need is to stop violence and that is a rather minimal standard of tolerance.

I personally dont think there is anything wrong with the American style ``fruit salad`` society. But in India its a rather inconcievable model of society for most people.

#180, Boondongs: You have to realize that a nation`s life is a function of all its component populations. It is true that there are some communalistic Hindus and I would be the first to condemn them. However, a large section of Indian Muslims have been playing on Indian (Hindu) tolerance for a long time. India has been so accomodating to them that they stop traffic on roads, at places, so that they can perform prayers in Masjids that are often breeding grounds for communal violence. Part of this is due to the fundamentally intolerant and violent nature of Islam. Hazarat and his cohorts killed hundreds in 37 battles that are recorded in Islamic History. At numerous places, Koran specifies only one solution to non-Islamics and that is death. Osama bin Ladin is respected in Muslim world like a reincarnation of Hazarat Mohammad.

Look at the interactions of concerned1 and hindvi and you will see the insidious nature anti-Indian, Pakistani Indian Muslims.

They never look at anything good in India but are always vocal in supporting Pakistan - see#172 which was in response to hindvis comments that I would like you to read.

NOW DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND ME. I DO BELIEVE THAT ALL MUSLIMS ARE NOT ALIKE. (Furthermore, read my profile.) A CLEAR EXAMPLE IS TAHMED32. But it is the petulance of hindvi-type that has aggravated the communal problem in India.

Dost mittar

I dont think Fareed Zakaria, indulges in islam bashing at all, I think all his criticism is fair, i am no fan of either islam or islamic regimes. he does tone down his criticism of Israel, but then he has to do that keeping in mind his background, otherwise he might be labled antisemitic, and he moderates US criticism, which is a more complex issue, for he is what is called in international affairs theory a realist, he compares US behaviour with all previous hegemons, i.e. the british empire, the roman empire etc and finds their behaviour to be far superior and liberal, he doesnt hold their behaviour up to a defined uniform standard as the idealists would do.

And the difference between him and the BJP muslims is that he doesnt have photographs taken with icons of the christ or the madonna behind him, or mouth the bible. He hasnt left the darkness of one religion to embrace another. he is a liberal agnostic, and I would love it if all muslims in India became such, or even better if all over the world they did so, but the rest of the world`s muslims are not my concern.

Neither are the democrat and republican parties of today have ideologies such as those propounded by the RSS, BJP, VHP etc. the equivalent would be if he joined the southern confederates.

I would love to see all muslims (and for that matter all indians) in india become liberal, all I want is they feel physically secure, improvement in their economic situation and preservation of their language and culture i.e. urdu.

dost mittar

I am an admirer of VP singh because I and my family have seen the changes in UP. When my grand father was in the provincial civil service, once a case came before him in which a dalit boy refused to harvest the field of two upper caste farmers for free as they had always expected. So to teach the boy a lesson they burnt his genitals. my grand father gave them the maximum sentence that he could, they were not satisfied and took the case to a higher court, the judge chiding my grandfather for being leniant gave them an even stiffer sentence.

This was one of the few cases of caste oppresion that went to court the large majority never make it their or are withdrawn. some particularly heinous ones like Phoolan Devi`s also result in reverse atrocities.

But after VP`s mandal brigade from which arose Mayawati, Laloo and Mulayam this situation has changed, we are no where near equality the dalits are still oppressed by the cultivators, but in many districts the dalits and others walk more confidently than before, Mayawati is terribily corrupt, but the power of the colonial era administrative setup is such that in many districts she responds to any large atrocity against dalits at once, they look upon her as a protector and are full of glee when the DM, and SP/Thanedar salute her or run behind her. So important is the caste equation that even the BJP chief ministerial candidate, Kalyan Singh, is a lodh.

with the rise of mulayam the yadavs have also become quite assertive. in the village the muslims, who are converts from the lower castes, continue to remain scared. that is partly due to the upper caste jaats and partly to the police, which they actually fear more, since instead of protection its lower ranks act as a partisan agent. but their situation is also better with the rise of mulayam, i remember in the 80s a bunch of travelling sadhus camped near the Ram Ganga, had kidnapped some muslim women and the villagers couldnt do much.

In Bihar the situation is different here caste lines are even more strongly drawn. the cause as well as effect of this being that land reforms were ineffective here, either circumvented or not undertaken. In UP in many areas they were undertaken and in some they were circumvented part of the reason being that much of the land was held by muslim Zamindars and with the depletion of their political power post partition the bargaining clout of the Zamindars and talukdars as a whole weakened, though there are large land holding stills in the hands of some thakurs as the infamous Raja Bhayya testitifies too.

But in Bihar despite limited land reforms the Bhumihars and rajputs continue to hold sway, their armies are extensive and now even the dalits have formed some. the situation was such for even an obc yadav like laloo that as a young boy he says he would often be told by upper caste boys to get off his buffalo and do their work. but now the situation is different for the yadavs, for the dalits its not much better better because the OBCs had themselves been the agents of oppression of these castes. But Lalloo has cleverly managed to pack them along with the muslims and obcs, he is not as good as mayawati for them but is far better than the earlier era. infact his reputation rests on providing a measure of physical security to the dalits and muslims.

unlike in UP in bihar the muslims are largely in rural areas, and bihar had been an extremely communally charged state, the last major riot that took place in Bhagalpur in 1989 was a massive affair, muslims were wiped out of certain villages, an investigative reporter wrote of how their corpses were buried in the fields and gobi etc were planted over them to hide the evidence. infact in one village the muslim women and children and a few men had had barricaded themselves in a village mosque on a raised ground, and refused to open the door until the police came. When they did they coaxed them out, and as soon as they came out they were set upon by the mob along with the police. unlike UP rapes etc happened in Bihar, Fernandes wasnt lying when he said in parliament that Gujrat is not the first time this happened. But this was before lalloo came to power, his achievement since 1990 has been to prevent a major riot for the past 14 years. this is a remarkable achievement in a state as communally charged as Bihar. just goes to show that if the state wants it can prevent any riots.

But the cast equations are different in gujrat etc, and hence the BJP has been able to create a different situation their.

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

hindvi,

[…you seem to be genuinely concerned about muslims in Britain…]

and how exactly do you come to that conclusion?

[…they are doing much better than indian muslims both in absolute terms and also relative to the general poulation…]

sure. play the numbers game…

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/relrpt/stories/s597373.htm

from which…(and this is just one report)

“If you are a Muslim in the UK today, you are two-and-a-half times more likely to be unemployed than a non-Muslim, you are three times more likely not to have a phone in your house, and you are twice as likely to die in childbirth”

[…i am not claiming that it is all the govts fault…]

no. your claim is that it is ALWAYS somebody else’s fault.

[…these flaws lie in the inherent structure of subcontinental society where a large percentage of the population was kept depressed at subsistence level for milenia by virtue of their birth, and since the muslims in the india of today consists overwhelmingly of converts from these lower castes they suffer from the same problems...]

but of course, it had to come to this. yeah, i know…those damn ‘caste hindus’ (incidentally i heard this term for the first time in my life on chowk) are the ultimate oppressors. works like a charm everytime.

[…Salman Khurshid…loses his seat invariably from UP, he has to be put up from safe seats, or nominated to seats, some times he just sits out and does party work…]

manmohan singh also lost from delhi, yet he is the pm.

[…and pal spare me the hindu tolerance speel give it to those in naroda patiya, gulberg society, best bakery etc…]

i will, if you spare us the ‘innocent oppressed hapless muslim who never indulges in terrorism’ speel…give it to those in radhabai chawl, godhra, akshardham, etc.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_2-11-2003_pg3_3

Daily Times, Lahore, Pakistan
Tuesday, November 04, 2003

Pakistan and South Asian Muslims
By Prof. Ishtiaq Ahmed
Ishtiaq.Ahmed@statsvet.su.se

..... Apart from East Punjab where ethnic cleansing was almost complete, several of the staunchest protagonists of the Pakistan demand, among them Raja Sahib Mahmudabad, Hasrat Mohani, Begum Aizaz Rasul, Nawab Mohammad Ismail Khan, Raja of Pirpur (author of the Pirpur Report of 1937) and Mohammad Asadullah of Assam, chose to stay in India. Some left for Pakistan later but others who had gone to Pakistan returned to India. Why? I don`t know, but it is something on which more research needs to be done. On the whole it was primarily the upper middle-class and the salariat that immigrated to Pakistan.

Pakistan came into being in those areas where Muslims were in a majority. Such areas did not need as much protection from Hindu Raj as those in which Muslims were in a minority. Most of them were converts from Dalit and other depressed sections of society. They needed more help than anyone else in coming to Pakistan, but they were advised to become good and loyal Indians. I am sure the Biharis stranded in Bangladesh also come from the poorest sections of society and therefore they too have no takers in Pakistan.

Separate electorates and the Pakistan Movement were all predicated on the argument that one-man-one-vote democracy is unsuitable for a pluralistic society like pre-partition India.

Shrill complaints against the ``tyranny of the majority`` was the foundation of the Pakistan Movement. But it is as ironic as it is apt, that in post-partition era, Jinnah`s Pakistan continued to be plagued by the very same premises that gave it birth, namely, that one-man-one-vote democracy is unsuitable for a pluralistic society.

West Pakistan`s ruling elite which had once inveighed against the Hindu majority in
pre-partition India, found themselves inveighing against the Hindu-tainted majority of East Pakistan. ``Separate Electorates`` and ``Parity`` were the neo-shibboleths to neutralize the majority voters in East Pakistan from having a significant say in Pakistan`s affairs.

Pakistan`s ruling elite could not live under the ``tyranny of the majority``. So even in independent Pakistan it took to insisting on living under ``tyranny of the minority``!!!

Today, it is Pakistan`s military that has emerged as the crown jewel of Pakistan`s ruling minority.

TIME magazine had this to say in an obituary some 55 years ago - in a write up titled, ``Mohammad Ali Jinnah created Pakistan out of oratory and blood`` TIME wrote in September of 1948:

``Out of the travail of 400 million in the Indian subcontinent,`` TIME wrote in September 1948, ``have come two symbols - a man of love and a man of hate. Last winter the man of nonviolence, Gandhi, died violently at the hands of an assassin. Last week, the man of hate, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, at 71, died a natural death in Karachi, capital of state he had founded.``

Jinnah was certainly not above pandering to religious hatred to achieve his political objective. And he did that even after he had seen the massive ethnic cleansing in the aftermath of the partition.

West Pakistan had been cleansed of Sikhs and Hindus within months, nay weeks, of partition. An overwhelming majority of the country`s Hindus were in East Pakistan. The rulers from West Pakistan soon realized that they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by demonizing the Hindus left in Pakistan. If nothing else, it was the means to disenfranchise a significant section in East Pakistan and turn East Pakistanis into a minority. It was this evil urge to contain the perceived threat, from Pakistan`s majority wing in any democratic setup, that led rulers in West Pakistan to talk of ``parity`` and of ``separate electorates.``

On March 21, 1948, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan and its first Governor-General, while on his first and only visit to East Bengal, declared in Dhaka University convocation that while the language of the province can be Bengali, the ``State language of Pakistan is going to be Urdu and no other language. Any one who tries to mislead you is really an enemy of Pakistan.``

The use of the phrase ``enemy of Pakistan`` was deliberate. It was a loaded phrase, particularly mischievous in view of the massive ethnic cleansing in West Pakistan in the last seven months.

Jinnah`s demagoguery was deplorable but not surprising. He was merely repeating what Liaqat Ali Khan and his cohorts had been saying in the Constituent Assembly for the last one month. On February 23, 1948: Dhirendra Nath Dutta, a Bengali opposition member, had moved a resolution in the first session of Pakistan`s Constituent Assembly for recognizing Bengali as a state language along with Urdu and English. Non-Bengali Assembly members, led by Liaqat Ali Khan, had immediately pounded on Mr. Dutta`s religion to denounce the claim of Bengali as nothing but a Hindu conspiracy. Many a snide remark was made on the ``Hindu`` character of the language that was the mother tongue of the majority of Pakistanis.

But, fortunately, most East Pakistanis were not fooled. They realized that these non-Bengali members had deliberately chosen to forget that a language may have grammar but it has no religion. Any competent language is capable of expressing a gamut of religious beliefs. It is as easy to translate the Geeta into Arabic as it is to translate the Koran into Sanskrit. There was absolutely no basis for denouncing Bengali as a Hindu language. If anything, it was a Muslim language because a majority of the Bengalis were indeed Muslims.

But the ruling class in West Pakistan had its own agenda. And it certainly did fit that agenda to denounce Bengali as a Hindu language and to look down on East Pakistan`s majority as less than ``good Muslims.``

It is not surprising that, during the genocide in 1971, the Shaheed Minar was one of the first targets of Yahya Khan`s barbaric army. Nor was it surprising what they did to Dhirendra N. Datta. He was an octogenarian by that time. The barbaric soldiers chose to drag this old man out of his house in Comilla and to summarily execute him in front of his neighbors and family. It was, thus, that West Pakistan`s ruling elite punished Mr. Datta for having proposed Bengali as a national language of Pakistan some 23 years ago.

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

hindvi:
Yes, about the caste-based politics and things GEnerally make sense if muslims are thought of as just another caste. Yes, Farid Zakaria is likely to go places but he is no in-your-face muslim. In fact, he is doing exactly what the BJP muslims are doing in India, including marrying into the majority community and even going further as he is also indulging in islam bashing.
You keep referring to the change in the eighties following Ayodhya but never mention the shah-bano case which turned the hindu middle class against the muslims. How come that the BJP went from 2 seats to 89 between 1984 and 1989 even before the Ayodhya episode? One of my most admired politicians is also the one you admire, V.P. Singh but he is also the one who bears the ultimate responsibility for the rise of the hindutva movement. His use of the Mandal report, partly out of conviction but largely to manage an internal party crisis, left the BJP with no option but to bring out the `kamandals` to retain its hindu vote bank (Advani and Surjeet had no problem working together with VP until then in supporting his govt) . You also forget that in the immediate aftermath of the Babri demolition, there was such shock and indignation among Indians that all BJP state ministries were dismissed the following day with hardly any protest. The BJP was able to come back because it cleverly exploited the general dissatisfaction with the ruling party, presenting itself as a party with a difference and, above all, capitalising on the PErceive ``minortyism`` of the earlier govts.

[BTW, do we know you from an earlier incarnation? If so, bring back some of the old humour sans insults:-)]

Concerned

you seem to be genuinely concerned about muslims in britain so having lived there let me tell you they are doing much better than indian muslims both in absolute terms and also relative to the general poulation. Indian Gujrati muslims are very well off and even the majority who came in as labourers from pakistan (largely mirpuris), in the 50s and 60s, (because that is the only kind England wanted then), are doing very well, who do you think is supporting the Kashmir insurgency?, where do you think the hurriyat collects money from? certainly not bihar and UP. and this is despite the fact that there are mirpuri drug dealers in prison too.

This example of yours was mistaken, but your over all point has some merit i am not claiming that it is all the govts fault. these flaws lie in the inherent structure of subcontinental society where a large percentage of the population was kept depressed at subsistence level for milenia by virtue of their birth, and since the muslims in the india of today consists overwhelmingly of converts from these lower castes they suffer from the same problems. Discrimination which increased due to the bitterness of partion worsened it. the govt is generally indifferent doesnt open schools or maintain them in poor areas due to corruption and sometimes there is also discrimination in allocation of funds.

also the fact that reservations in india are not based on economic criteria but rather on caste criteria hasnt helped muslims. so where as the other depressed castes have been able to improve their situation through political mobilisation, weak muslim political clout due to depleted numbers post partition has prevented them from getting reservations. Also any political mobilisation for muslim even on economic grounds is considered seperatist. and now with the strength of the sangh Parivar in parliament has become even more distant.

as regards muslims own efforts at education, i can only talk of UP with which i am familiar, at the level of rickshawpullers which constitutes the bulk of muslims its low just as with other depressed castes, but above that level they try very hard i have seen them sacrifice a large percentage of their meagre incomes to send their children to schools, and hence there has been a slight improvement in recent times.


you also said:

``my simple point is that for a muslim to be prime minister he would have to have a general image/personality/actions built over a period of time, that appeal to a majority of indians. can you tell who that person could be amongst the muslim politicians available today?``

let me mention one from UP he is not charismatic but he is symptomatic, his name is Salamn Khurshid he is married to a nonmuslim (i think christian) all his sisters are married to hindus and he is the son of a famous muslim nationalist, yet he loses his seat invariably from UP, he has to be put up from safe seats, or nominated to seats, some times he just sits out and does party work. he is one of the most well educated people i have met, very well spoken and as secular and nationalist as you can get.

and pal spare me the hindu tolerance speel give it to those in naroda patiya, gulberg society, best bakery etc