In Defense of The Left

As far as the Bachelors Degree is concerned, My BA in Economics from Rutgers has given me no problems here in Lahore... whether in commercial sector or education sector... Not only is my degree acceptable in all financial institutions I have applied to for jobs, but I will also start the LLB programme part time at the University of Punjab...

I believe there is an element of exaggeration in the guy`s letter... LUMS for example accepts all Accredited American degrees without the interference of UGC or University of Karachi, Punjab or QAU... Perhaps his school in bumblebee alabama just didn`t cut... or perhaps his grades were really poor who knows? Or maybe the poor fellow is just hiding his guilt for leaving Pakistan ...

As far as Pakistani education system is concerned.. it has its faults... there are some great institutions like LUMS, GIKI, Agha Khan, IBA, NUST etc... but unfortunately these are too expensive... for the common man to afford...

-YLH

In Defense of The Left

PS: LUMS, Agha Khan and GIKI are world renowned in their expertise...

In Defense of The Left Akash,

Precisely, and atleast Nehru lived for 17 years... Indians should be grateful for that.. Jinnah died in 13 months...

In Pakistan (and any country for that matter) the compromises that one makes for the sake of popular power often come to haunt you... one can argue that the westernized Muslim League leadership was such a case.. PPP`s Bhutto is an obvious case of a secularist making deals with the devil ie Mullah... One might argue that Vajpayee is also the victim of the same, what is not well known is the case of Wali Khan, the secular socialist ANP leader and the son of Bacha (A G) Khan,... this man has made the deal with the devil more often than any other `secular` politician... In 1977 for example he joined the PNA under the slogan `Nizam Mustafa` or the `System of the Holy Prophet (PBUH)`... his major allies were Jamiat e Ulema Pakistan, Jamiat e Ulema Islam, Jamaat e Islami amongst others... more recently he supported the Nawaz Sharif government and also has to his credit the repeated blockade of legislation against Honor-killing which is now clear that it is one of the leading issues in Pakistan...

Fawad,

My dear boy when was the last time you were in Lahore... I am living in Lahore right now... and I know what Pakistani culture is... when you are in Lahore next, try putting on some of the Pakistani channels ie Indus Vision, Indus Music, UniPlus, the Pakistani Channel etc... and you will see what Pakistani culture is ... If 2 or 3 NCA wallahs go abroad, a lot of them stay home as well... Pakistan has a rapidly improving arts scene.. which may I add was only crushed temporarily by the Zia government...

To a Pakistani, American and British cultures, and American and Canadian cultures are very similar too.. Infact the pop and rock icons of these countries are all the same... think Beatles, Rolling stones, Oasis etc... yet one knows that there is a distinct American feel to the Western Culture prevalent in the US, a distinct british feel in the culture in Britain .. similarly, the base of Pakistani cultures and Indian cultures, a total of some 25 odd cultures I would say, is common.. which is why there is so much `South-Asianism` running about...

In any event, my first point is : Pakistan has a culture which can be called Pakistani.. yes it does have similarities with Indian culture.. and that is nothing to be ashamed or apprehensive about... My second point is: Pakistan doesn`t need a cultural justification to exist...

Pakistan exists and it is a fact of life...

Samina Shah,

If you order the transcript, can you please share with us the debate between Tariq Ali and Christopher Hitchens? That must be an interesting reading...

Thankyou

Yasser

Kashmir Fatigue ``This is the first time that a government has not only tried to justify the riots but seems to be proud of its shameful inaction.``

Well in that case, I hope you will appreciate that not only has nothing like this ever happened in Pakistan on such a massive scale, nor has Pakistan`s horrible theocratic government ever justified any violence and shown any pride in its shameful inaction...

Kashmir Fatigue Roohi,

You people are terrible ... I am now in Lahore. I don`t have the same sources when I visited Columbia University in Manhattan on a monthly basis... In any event, the Times of London source I quoted in quite detail was also quoted in Formative Phase by Khalid Bin Sayeed if I am not mistaken... Please note his reference and then look up the Times of London archives.

Dostmittar,

``I have never seen (in Indian or in Pakistani media) any Muslim victims of that holocaust blaming Nehru for their plight; on the other hand, they have blamed Patel just as the Hindu/Sikhs have blamed Jinnah.``

Opinion of an illiterate lot is not necessarily the gospel of the truth... facts will be facts, partition massacres happened in South Asia... a political leader just can`t be blamed because he asked for a specific demand, and got it... Ultimately it was those who killed that were to blame... like Freedom at midnight states `Jinnah and nehru were rational men, they couldn`t imagine the communal feeling of their masses` (paraphrasing)...

The question is what did Nehru and Jinnah do to stop it... in their capacity as Prime Minister and Governor General respectively... Now first of all, it was Mountbatten who was responsible for the boundary force which practically let everything happen... nevertheless, Jinnah and his brilliant Governor of Punjab Sir Francis Mudie are praised universally by academics, and some honest Indian authors like Sri Prikasa and M S Sharma for their heroic role in stopping the massacre of Hindus.. and the facts on the ground are, as I have read and quoted many times, that the massacre of Muslims in East Punjab was much more intensity than massacre of Hindus and sikhs in West Punjab...

Now, as far as popular opinion is concerned... take your own example... You by your own admission left Pakistan in Mid July of 1947 as a 7 year old ... whereas Jinnah didn`t arrive in Pakistan till 7th August... yet you too have repeatedly blamed Jinnah for your flight from Sialkot or was it Faisalabad? Shouldn`t that be example enough to make you see what `popular` opinion amongst Hindus and sikhs really amounts to? Hinduvtists have been publishing articles about How Jinnah personally ordered mass conversion of Hindus to Islam... an assertion which is laughable for the obvious reasons, considering that even his first law minister was a Hindu. Besides can you explain why the representatives of Indian government in Pakistan would call Jinnah the `Protector General of Hindus`?

My accusation at Nehru is based on the same premise that Indians like yourself blame Jinnah for your flight.. Nehru was incharge, Murders happened, Nehru is to blame.. get it?... I am well aware of Nehru`s antics of running in streets of Dehli beating up people for stirring communal violence.. I am willing to give Nehru a benefit of a doubt ... but then the same courtesy isn`t extended to our man, who by all factual accounts could hardly be blamed...

In Defense of The Left Dear Akash,

I thankyou for wishes and your advice.. (I must point out that I don`t intend to join the PPP which is a sell out party)..Your sincerity is beyond question since you have given the example of your hero whom you hold in great regard ... and I thank you for that... I am not seething anger, and politely I`d like to disagree with the example you have given...

My problem with Gandhian politics is that it tolerates, accepts and even encourages the superstitious mass beliefs... Undoubtedly Gandhi was a man of the masses, but whether for political reasons, or truly spiritual reasons, he became one with the masses... that is always dangerous... for it stagnates the society.. and doubtless you will agree that India owes its success to Nehruvian ideals of Modernity and not Gandhian spiritualism... I suspect your reference to `drawing room` politics was a jab at my hero.. that sadly shows that you haven`t read much about the man.. clearly `Parliamentary Politics` is quite different from `drawing room` politics, and my hero was a parliamentarian and a legislator in the early part of his life and not a drawing room politician... 1928`s famous protest against simon commission is to his credit... in the latter part of his life, especially when he resuscitated the Muslim league from a dead party of sirs and nawabs to a party of the masses, he did so using some of the techniques that Gandhi had used for mass mobilization... like civil disobedience and mass protest... but he maintained succinct difference... like Gandhi, he too had become a man of the masses (in the closing stages of the raj Muslim League had processions of any where from 500 000 to 1 million) but unlike Gandhi, he didn`t tolerate their unruliness, their lack of discipline, their superstitious beliefs... he led from the front by example, and thus didn`t become one with them spiritually...

`Pretty Secular` vs `Secular` :

I am in general agreement with you, but your advice about tolerance for people like Romair who preach `pretty secular` instead of `secular` is the kind of mistake I feel the Pakistani politicians made... given that Pakistan emerged out of a Muslim Nationalist demand, I agree that secularism needs to be tempered with some amount of Islamic vocabulary (since words like `Musawat` and `adl` are readily available in Islam) as was the case with the original Muslim League but the balance should not tilt... the Islamic Vocabulary which is sought to justify secularism should not be allowed to spill over into the constitution.. to contrast two examples:

1) Jinnah had established the principle of Impartiality of the state towards religion in practise by appointing a Hindu as Pakistan`s first Law Minister thereby indicating a secular state (this is significant for in an Islamic state law is supreme so a Hindu can`t be the Law minister)... Jinnah justified this by saying that Islam stands for equality of all mankind... so it was possible for Pakistan to remain a secular state with justification in Islamic terms for the secularism of the state... this would effectively keep the Mullahs at bay... none of Jinnah`s speeches in constituent assembley have any references to Islam for example...



2) Pakistani politicians that followed Jinnah however tried to approach the matter in a different manner... they made compromises with the mullahs, by introducing the religious vocabulary into the constitution... for example the Pakistani constitution reads : `to promote equality fraternity and social justice as enjoined by Islam`...

The intention behind this particular phrase `Enjoined by Islam` was to suggest that: Islam enjoins equality fraternity and justice for everyone and hence Pakistan should be effectively a secular state...

However Mullahs interpretted differently : `as enjoined by Islam` which means = Second class citizenship for Non-Muslims.

Practically this manifested itself in Pakistan`s constitution in a very disastrous way... In 1949 when this particular phrase had been inducted into the constitution, Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan had suggested that a Non-Muslim could become the Prime Minister or the Head of the state of Pakistan! The Hindu members like Chattropadhaya and Jogindranath Mandal (who was the law minister under Jinnah) objected on two grounds .. one being that this was against Jinnah`s wishes ... second that the words are being interpretted by liberal westernized politicians like Liaqat Ali but what will happen when the Mullahs are going to interpret them???

So eventhough Liaqat had unambigiously stated that in Pakistan, a Non-Muslim could be the head of the state under `equality, fraternity and social justice as enjoined by Islam`, 7 years later, a `pretty secular` constitution of Pakistan declared that the `Head of the state` as well as the `Head of the government` had to be Muslims... then abusing the same loophole, the `pretty secular` Bhutto made the state religion of Pakistan Islam under his `pretty secular` constitution of 1973... and finally came Zia who declared in his `not-so-secular` amendment to article 62 that not only does the head of the state have to be a Muslim, but has to be a practising pious and religiously devout Muslim...you see how `Pretty secular` ended up being `Pretty non-secular`?

What form of secularism:

It is my belief that Pakistan`s problems cannot not be dealt with `Gandhian tolerance`, or Liaqat`s `Pretty secular theory`... so much water has passed under the bridge that they can`t even be solved with Jinnah`s laissez faire `secularism` ... time calls for Ataturk`s Militant `secularism`... which will for a time crush the Mullahs... and then gradually allow them a particular place in society...

If indeed Pakistan`s `nazaria` is the propagation of the political, social and economic rights of Muslims, then these are most threatened by the perpetuation of a narrow interpretation of Islamic doctrine... it must be kept in mind, that Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, the Muslim Modernist and the father of South Asian Muslim Nationalism, fought against the Mullahs within Muslims... Ataturk`s secularization of Turkey in the end benefitted the Muslims of that country who when liberated from the shackles of neem-Islam were able to use the modern banking, institutions, education etc... Pakistan`s own creation was vehemently opposed by the mullahs... If Pakistan`s Nazaria was `Religious freedoms` of Muslims, then today its greatest enemy is the Islamic theocrat who has been brought into the fray by Zia`s dictatorial regime..

So like Prof. Hamza Alavi concluded and I paraphrase If indeed there is a nazaria pakistan, its true bearers are the Pakistani secularists... Today only secularism can save Pakistan and its ideology... not `pretty` secular-ism, not `pseudo` secularism, not `relative` secularism, but Real Secularism... and that is my axe which I have to grind...

Sincerely

Yasser

Kashmir Fatigue

Dost Mittar,

I thankyou for your support of `my courageous band of secularists`... but I deeply resent your comments about what you think are the foundations of my country... Yes Pakistan is a thoroughly confused state, most definitely because it was hijacked by the very mullahs who were its most vociferous opponents... and Pakistan`s impotent politicians of the 1950s let them do it... they should have hanged maudoodi when they had the chance to...

Nevertheless one visit to Pakistan will show you that your assertions are incorrect... I live in Pakistan, I am in Lahore at this very momenet...!!!!... As god is my witness what I am saying in the post is the truth and nothing but the truth... Pakistan is a liberal country... and I agree with you that Pakistan has discriminated against its minorities, but quite honestly, there haven`t been any Gujurats in Pakistan (please don`t start with your nonsense about Pakistan doesn`t have minorities, PAKISTAN has 13 million christians according to a recent survey, plus 1.2 million Hindus, and some 1 million other religious minorities) To call Pakistan a `fundamentalist` state is typical indian arrogance based on fallacious information dished out by your Hindu fundamentalist government...

If you are in South Asia, please turn on any of Pakistan`s new networks... Turn on Indus TV, Indus Music, or Uniplus... see the programmes aired, listen to the debates... So you see my `brave band of secularists` doesn`t really have to brave.. my brave band along with a moderate muslims form the silent majority which has begun to assert itself... I am sorry, but I am not going to be the victim of the venom that you dish out in the guise of your sweet polite statements ....

You speak about learning a lesson from `Pakistan`... well my dear friend the riots of the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, didn`t happen under the `Hindu Nationalists`... Golden Temple wasn`t destroyed by the Hindu Nationalist government... What the Hindu Nationalists have done have exposed the true face of India it seems.. the difference between the Hindu Nationalists and the so called Moderates like yourself is simple... Hindu Nationalists are not hypocrites... India was never a religiously tolerant, multi-ethnic secular state... that was just a facade... and India has a lot of such facades my dear. Now yesterday another church in India got burned... blame it on the Hindu nationalists, but the truth is that this has been happening since 1947 in India.. One wonders if the excuse for `Gujurat` : They made Pakistan, also applies to the hapless christian minority of India..? Perhaps, before he embarked on his misguided programme of Islamization, Zia should have taken heed from the Hindu fundamentalists of India... the Congress`s legacy isn`t so `poviter` after all is it??

By the way you still are evading the question I asked you many months ago... Why is it that if we Pakistanis are to blame for partition massacres did some 80% to 90% murders happen in East Punjab under Nehru`s watch?? This is per Times of London source I quotes a few months ago...

Kashmir Fatigue Bal thackerey ki najaiz aulaad #480,

Before you go on making stupid comments realize that you are thoroughly obsessed with Pakistan, despite the fact that you have never been to the country...

As for knowledge information etc... let me remind you that a few months ago, in typical indian fashion, you were suggesting that Pakistan couldn`t have day light savings time because it is a geographically thin country... forgetting, again in typical indian fashion, that DST has nothing to do with Time Zones or latitudes... You

are motivated by hate... You bigot... You are the reason, Why India is about to come down..

Kashmir Fatigue Bal thackerey ki najaiz aulaad #480,

Before you go on making stupid comments realize that you are thoroughly obsessed with Pakistan, despite the fact that you have never been to the country...

As for knowledge information etc... let me remind you that a few months ago, in typical indian fashion, you were suggesting that Pakistan couldn`t have day light savings time because it is a geographically thin country... forgetting, again in typical indian fashion, that DST has nothing to do with Time Zones or latitudes... You

are motivated by hate... You bigot... You are the reason, Why India is about to come down..

Kashmir Fatigue

Those who trying to argue with Sadna.. there is no point arguing with those motivated by hate...

Sadna is a typical child of India, brainwashed by Indian government and media into thinking that everything about India is perfect, and everything about Pakistan is wrong... Perhaps if such hatemongers concentrated on their own country instead of wasting their time on us, they would amount to something... perhaps all the non-hindu minorities of India wouldn`t be burned alive...

Yet it is easier to concentrate on Pakistan, call it a fundamentalist state, without having visited it... This is a disease Indians suffer from... its best they were left to their own ...

In Defense of The Left Dear Akash,

Thankyou for your support and encouragement... My uncle has been offered a Provincial assembley PPP ticket for the October elections from Khushab district... I don`t know if he is going to accept though... One of my aunts was a moderately famous PPP leader, and another one of my aunts is currently the member of the District Assembley of Khushab district.. she too is with the PPP...

I personally don`t intend to use these connections but I do want to be legislator in the national assembley, as a full time job one day. But if I do, I want to represent the urban constituency I belong to. Pakistan is slowly becoming a meritocracy, so I am hopeful that one day, I will come up by my own accord, the way my hero did in the British India of 1910s... :)

-YLH

In Defense of The Left

Fawad..

I was born in Pakistan.. the passport I hold is by the grace of Pakistan`s president... my citizenship is Pakistani, Pakistan is a state with well defined borders...

Is this identity not distinct enough on its own? Let the culture be what it is ... Pakistan has a multitude of cultures.. Baluchs have Irani culture, NWFP is Afghan, Sindh has its own historical distinct culture... Punjab has punjabi culture... What does any of this have to do with Pakistan`s distinct national identity?

Real frontiers don`t need ideological frontiers..

Kashmir Fatigue

Ladies and gentlemen,

I believe we have discovered why Jay is so bitter against Pakistanis... His recent post exposed it to us. It seems a Pakistani dapper rake ran away with his daughter leaving Jay bitter and hostile...

tsk tsk bechara jay... Waisay I endorse the suggestion that we free the bhartiya naaris from Hindu casteist oppression... atleast they make obedient servants...

-YLH

In Defense of The Left

http://www.dawn.com/2002/07/01/letted.htm#7

Turkey`s pro-West role: clarifications

With reference to the article `Turkey`s pro-West role` by Eric S. Margolis (June 17) I would like to make the following clarifications:

The claims of the writer such as ``the real power in Turkey remains the army`` and ``behind a facade of squabbling impotent politicians real power in Turkey is held by the generals, who throw out prime ministers whenever they please`` are absurd, baseless and reflect his prejudice against Turkey. ``The sacred flame``, which apparently bothers Mr Margolis very much for not unknown reasons, is not only kept by the ``generals`` or ``the Turkish Army``, but also by every Turk because it is the flame of strong belief and conviction for Turkish independence, a sense deeply rooted in every Turk`s heart and mind.

Regarding his views on the leaders of some political parties, the former mayor of Istanbul and ``a few Turkish intellectuals``, the writer should be well aware of the fact that there is no room for ``phony charges`` in a modern, democratic country like Turkey, which is governed by the rule of law. As a modern democratic, secular country, Turkey imposes no restrictions on fundamental freedoms and rights including the religious ones. All Turkish citizens enjoy equal freedoms while they share the responsibility of observing the democratic rules of the country like any other democratic country around the world. Turkey has the legitimate right as well as obligation to prevent fundamentalism and militancy from disrupting constitutional order.

His views on Ataturk and the political system of Turkey reflect sheer ignorance. Ataturk`s vision and principles have been guiding the modern and democratic Turkish Republic since its foundation. Alleging that Ataturk ``imposed a dictatorial regime that was influenced by 1930s fascism and communism`` is a blatant distortion of historical facts. It was Ataturk`s worldview that has laid the foundation of the modern Turkish democracy. Turkey is an open, democratic society. Claiming that ``anyone daring to question Kemalism is jailed - or worse`` is an outright lie.

Ataturk did not repress Islam but he did save it from foreign subjugation as well as from bigotry and fundamentalist zealotry. Ataturk did not hang Islamic scholars, but prevented exploiters of the religion from misusing the sublime values of Islam. He paved the way for enlightment of the Turkish people.

The similarity in the language used by Mr Margolis against modern Turkey and that of the fundamentalist zealots is very striking and it serves as eye-opener.

Mr Margolis` enmity against Turkey puts him in such a desperate ferocity that he does not hesitate to depict a most vicious terrorist and his killing-machine as ``captured leader``, or ``struggle for independence``. The PKK (now KADEK) is surely not a charity organization but one of the most dangerous terror organizations in the world. It uses terrorism as a means to achieve its target of dividing Turkey. It is responsible for the deaths of more than 30,000 people, most of whom were innocent civilians and public servants. The PKK, headed by Abdullah Ocalan, has been declared as one of the most dangerous terrorist organizations by many countries and international organizations including the USA, England, Germany, France, the EU etc.

Kashmir Fatigue

Whenever these two states with roughly similar ideological basis (Religion based cultural identity as a nationalism) will cooperate great things will happen...

Pak-Israel Joint Tennis team creates History at Wimbeldon..

http://www.dawn.com/2002/06/29/spt8.htm

Aisam creates history at Wimbledon

KARACHI, June 28: Aisam-ul-Haq made history Friday when he became the first Pakistani to reach the third round of the Wimbledon Championships.

Together with his Israeli partner Amir Hadad, Aisam stunned 11th seeded Ellis Ferreira of South Africa and Rick Leach of United States 6-4 6-4 6-4.

For a place in the quarterfinals, Aisam and Amir will Sunday face seventh seeded Czech Republic duo of Martin Damnn and Cryil Suk who defeated Julian Knowle of Austria and Michael Kohlmann of Germany 6-4 6-4 6-7 (2/7) 6-3.

The only other Asian in the doubles competitions - Mahesh Bhupati of India - also reached the third round with his partner Max Mirnyi of Belarus.

The two defeated Tim Crichton (Australia) and Mark Merklein (Bahamas) 7-6 (7/4) 6-4 6-3.

If all goes well for the Aisans, Aisam and Bhupati are likely to lock horns in the semifinals next week.

But before that and in the quarterfinals, Aisam and Hadad are expected to face top seeded American pair of Donald Johnson and Jared Palmer who were due to play their second round match against Germans Karsten Braasch and Rainer Schuettler later in the day Friday.

AFP adds from London: Aisam-ul-Haq and Amir Hadad has caused a stir. But it wasn`t their surprise win over Ferreira and Leach that was attracting attention.

It is the fact that Aisam is a Pakistani Muslim and Hadad an Israeli Jew and in the current climate in the Middle East, it`s a partnership that is becoming a major talking point.

``I don`t care what people think about it,`` said the 24-year-old Hadad.

``As long as we enjoy playing together, we will continue. When we agreed to get together, it was all about doing well here, making some money and improving our doubles ranking,`` added the Israeli who is playing with Aisam for the first time and had to come through qualifying to make the main draw.

``If we win here, then I would dedicate the victory to my family and to peace. It would be good for those doubters to see that even though we are from different religions it is possible for us to work together and have some fun.

``Even if only 100 or 200 people paid any attention, that would be a good thing.

``A Jew and a Muslim playing together is not the end of the world. We are all human beings, we have the same blood, the same skin.``

Aisam said he ignored their two different backgrounds when he approached Hadad to partner him.

``We aren`t trying to change anything in the world.

``We are friends who enjoy playing together and we don`t think about me being a Muslim or Amir being a Jew,`` said Aisam who asked Hadad to form a doubles team when both men had been knocked out of singles qualifying last week.

``I would hope that people will take something positive from this especially if we do well.

``I haven`t been home to Pakistan for two months, so I don`t know what the reaction has been there,`` added 22-year-old Aisam who said he is surprised by the fuss being made over his partnership as he has played doubles with Israelis in the past - men like Eyal Erlich and Andy Ram.

But those matches were in Challenger events and not played out under the noses of the world`s media at the greatest tennis tournament in the world.

``I suppose more and more people will notice us after this although we would like to be talked about for our tennis rather than politics,`` said Aisam.

However, the politics are not easy to ignore.

Although they intend to keep playing together, there is a bitter irony in that both men are banned by their respective governments from playing in each other`s countries.

``If we can change peoples` minds then that would be a good thing, but our main aim is to improve our ranking,`` added Aisam who has the family background to take the huge interest in him, and his Israeli friend, in his stride.

His father Ehtsham was the All-India tennis champion before partition while his mother Nosheem, at a sprightly 41-years-old played Fed Cup for Pakistan.

Last year, she and her son made history by becoming the first mother and son to play Davis Cup and Fed Cup tennis for the same country.

And Aisam believes that maybe it`s divine inspiration that is sparking such success for him and Hadad.

In the final round of qualifying, they saved four match points and won 15-13 in the final set - a victory greeted with a big kiss for her trailblazing son Aisam by his proud mum!.-AFP

In Defense of The Left Dear Fawad,

You clearly are mingling the issues... secularism ie the separation of church and state in Pakistan, has nothing to do with its ideology ie Protection of Economic and political rights of the Muslims of South Asia... Infact if History is a judge of anything... the Islamic Religious System when implemented according to the 4 fiqhs has only harmed the cause of Muslims... as with the Ottoman Empire, where in the `Millet` System, the average income of Non-Muslim ottomans was much higher than the Muslim ottomans... as evidenced by the disparity between the Muslim and Non-Muslim parts of Constantinople at the turn of the century. The implementation of `Riba` judgement of the FSC, as I pointed to Romair in my earlier post, in Pakistan would have made the Pakistani Muslims backward, whereas the Non-Muslim Minorities of Pakistan would have inherited completely the Interest-based Banking sector. If Pakistan ideological stance is the promotion of Muslim political and economic rights, then Pakistan can only harm its ideological stance by implementing Islam as it is now understood.



Consider the three examples we know off where homogenous religious minorities with identical ideological stances and national movements have established secular states or are aspiring to create secular states.

1) Israel is a state with the ideological stance as a `Jewish state for the jewry of the world` but in matters of state it remains `secular`. Not rigidly secular, not flexibly secular, not leniently secular, not pretty secular, not purely secular but secular.

2) Ataturk`s Turk Nationalism was based on the Muslims of Anatolia... All Non-Muslims living there were not part of Turkish nationalism... The definition of Turk employed the nationalist Leaders of Turkey infact considered all Muslims of that region to be Turks... this definition also was employed in the Greek-Turk negotiations in the aftermath of Lausanne... in which Greek-Speaking Muslims of Greece moved to Turkey becoming Turks, and Turkish speaking Christians became Greeks... yet we know that both Turkey and Greece were secular states...

3) The irish conflict though a religious sectarian one has nothing to do with the creation of any sort of catholic or protestant Governance...

Now let us remember what the imposition of religion has done to our raison de etre... Zia`s imposition of religion led to the sectarian division... One group of Muslims has been declared Kafir by the state... another is actively pursued by the Majority sect...

So infact the imposition and involvement of Islam in the state has led to :

1) Disunity amongst the Muslims of Pakistan

2) Infringement upon the rights of Minority sects within the Muslim community of Pakistan

This means that by involving Islam in the state, the state has managed to undo the raison de etre of Pakistan... ! We have divided the imagined `Muslim` Nation into several smaller nations such as Shia, Sunni, Wahabi, Barelvi, Ahmadi etc etc.

My Question in response to your question is: Can an `Islamic` Minority which created a country because it felt it won`t be able to sustain its own political and economic status in a country dominated by an often hostile Hindu Majority, then turn around and do the same to its own minorities? If not then the rationale for Pakistan can only be achieved if Pakistan was a Secular State... a More just, equitable, and egalitarian secular state, than the one which was left behind..

You ask wouldn`t we be Indians then? No.. clearly you have been taken in by the logic of the Mullah who hated the creation of Pakistan in the first place. It must be remembered that Jinnah tried for the longest time to keep India united... 30 years out of his 40 years... It is when he realized that the emerging `Secular` India will necessarily have a Hindu Identity and that the Muslim cultural and social communal identity would be submerged, that he made Pakistan.. So in a nutshell, the rationale for Pakistan was not that we don`t want to be part of India because it is secular, but we don`t want to be part of India because it will HINDU-DOMINATED. See the DIFFERENCE... there is a clear difference.. the difference has become clearer now that India`s One party rule (congress 1947-1990s) has been buried... and democratization has led to slow theocratization and the rise of Hindu Nationalism in India... Keep in mind that the new `Token` Muslim APJ Kalaam is also a Hinduvtist in ideology ... which is the kind of Muslim Hindu Nationalists are willing to tolerate....

This is another debate and clearly one which needs to be indulged in. My point, however, is that there is no such thing as strictly secular and leniently secular... there is no such thing as rigidly secular and flexibly secular... Both you and romair are making a grave mistake in indulging in such dangerous rhetoric.. given that unlike Romair, you have been educated in the same precepts of Governance as I have been, I find your

stance quite remarkable. As Hobby points out.. a state is SECULAR when it is IMPARTIAL to all faiths...

Pakistan`s ideological stance is `Homeland for Muslims of South Asia`.. right? That definitely is not a `Secular` ideological stance... however it is totally divorced from the concept of secularism itself... Jinnah wanted the religion to stay out of state affairs, even if it is a Nation-unifier... Now I am upset because in my other post to Romair, I spent 3 hours explaining the same thing, which I have been forced to repeat...

The point is : The ideological standing of Pakistan as a Homeland of South Asian Muslims has no bearing on the precepts of Governance... Regardless of the fact that Pakistan was made on a principle of religious minority-ism, if it keeps Religion out of State affairs, as Jinnah said very CLEARLY it should... if it is not a theocracy, which Jinnah stated expressly, ... if it ensures equal rights to all citizens regardless of religion caste or creed... IT WILL BE A SECULAR STATE.

How???

Romair`s own definition states:

``Secularism: The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.``

So tell me what is rigidly anti-religion, or secular about this... There is no such thing as Rigid secularism ... if someone is Anti-Religion, it is his fault... it has nothing to do with Secularism... the alleged excesses in the Turkish state which are sometimes exaggerated are the fault of the Kemalist Elite and not Secularism...

The question is: Is United States a Secular state?

The answer is : Yes it is...

So Secularism, if practised honestly and fairly, leads to complete freedom of religion, conscience and expression.

Eastern Societies which are behind have hardly been able to implement a perfect secular system... the involvement of religion has always plagued the Modern states outside the west... Secular Turkey dealt with it by force when necessary to stop Turkey from drifting into the abyss of theocracy as with the case of Erbakan`s Rifah party... Pakistan, a confused state, was able to stop its power hungry Prime Minister from making it a theocracy due to timely intervention by General Musharraf... India wasn`t so willing and so slowly the Theoretically Secular state has become highly communalized and is moving towards a theocracy...

So the Bottomline is that with respect to Pakistan, the return to the secular state of pre-1949 objectives resolution has nothing to do with its ideological stance as the Homeland for Muslims of South Asia... That is our ideological stance. However this ideological stance has nothing to do with how we run Pakistan, which for the sake of its 73 different Islamic sects, and some 14 million religious Minorities can only be secular.. and that too then becomes the integral part of Pakistan`s ideology, the denial of which has brought us to the current impasse.

What I have said is undeniable... Romair`s replies only show that given his overinflated ego, lack of objective knowledge, 2+2 strategy, he is unwilling to concede that he has made a fundamental mistake in introducing such things as `Pretty secular` and `purely secular`... which is pure garbage!!!

Nobody is trying throw Islam out of the civil society... for eg Turks I know are devout Muslims... over 99.9% of them are Muslims... Instead the `Secularism` that I talk about, as per the definition that Romair provided as, is that Religion should be kept out of affairs of the state... The state has no business deciding the matters of religion, which may I point out Jinnah said in his famous Two Nation Theory speech ... Read the complete text...



-YLH