In Defense of The Left Hobbyty

You have made a good analysis... however the definition I am using is the one Mr.Romair posted...

Secularism is the view which excludes religion as a consideration from civil affairs or public education. The only reason I say Jinnah wanted a secular Pakistan, was because he wanted Pakistan to be completely Impartial to All faiths. That is the beginning and end of secularism.

His credentials as a `Secular nationalist` in Pre-1940 era don`t prove my case, nor do his credentials as a Muslim Nationalist from 1937-1947 disprove my point of view.. They are completely unrelated to what I am trying to say.

-YLH

In Defense of The Left

PS

What you describe as `Subjective` Secularism is only `Anti-Religionism` or `Fascism`. It is only secular in the sense that it has nothing to do with religion...

Secularism, like I said, doesn`t imply Humanity or lack thereof... here I think the fauji only showed his fauji 2+2 mentality... he claimed something which i didn`t state... hence creating a new strawman fallacy. On the contrary I have declared that No Non-Secular system can ever be `Humane` because it believes in the propagation of one religion over another... As is the case in our `Mixed` and `Confused` state in Pakistan which is not humane, even if someone would dare define it as non-theocratic.

A Secular system can be fascist or it can be humane... depending on who is at the helm of affairs... A religious system can never be humane..

In Defense of The Left CONFUSION ...

Please can anyone help me in understanding this new and fantastic concept???

Romair claims that Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be `Pretty secular` but not `Purely secular`. Keeping Jinnah aside, can someone explain to me the difference? If we go by Romair`s own definition, a state can either be secular or theocratic... then what are these concepts? what is pretty secular and what is purely secular?

On another note, not that Jinnah is the ultimate judge of affairs or my opinion, but I wonder what `Turkey-haters` think of the fact that Jinnah held Kemal Ataturk to be one of the greatest leaders of the Muslim World, a Model for the Muslim League to follow, and infact ordered the League to celebrate `Kemal Day` on 18th November every year... that Jinnah admitted that he looked towards Turkey for inspiration... I have quoted the relevant speeches on a number of occasions and will happily do so at anyone`s request...

One is forced to wonder that if the charges levelled against the `Inhumane secular Turkey` are true, then why is there an Islamist Party ruling Istanbul, Turkey`s largest city, at the moment?? If Turkey banned the Hijab, why does one find Hijabs and Burqahs in abundance in Secular Turkey??? Why was Erbakan`s party allowed to rule and make coalition governments several times.. before being ousted after an attempt to alter the constitution to make an Islamic republic???

I am confused.. can anyone help me?

-YLH

In Defense of The Left Caution: None of this has anything to do with the politics of left and right... though some people who have religion as their axis may be deluded enough to think so...

Romair old boy,

Once again... LITTLE KNOWLEDGE IS DANGEROUS... and you sadly are in abundance of the disease of `little knowledge`. It is also quite clear that you don`t even have the courtesy to read my post completely... I am going to try this one more time... if I find that you haven`t read my post completely, I will leave you to your fate...

``You are talking about the, ``variety`` you belong to, and I think you have redefined secularism to be what it isn`t.``

The Problem my dear fellow is that My definition of secularism is widely accepted as the standard definition of Secularism in the field of political science... United States is a secular country, it is accepted as a SECULAR country by the Political scientists.. and is perhaps one of the few real secular countries in the World... Is Religion banned by the US??? Same is the case with UK, Australia, Canada, etc atleast one of these countries you mentioned, and thereby contradicted your argument... yet as you will see, Turkey will also figure prominently in the abovementioned list...

``by this term, I actually mean secularatics, i.e. secular fanatics, who want secularism even if it produces Hitlers, over religious systems even if they produce Mohammed and Gandhis; and vice-versa``

So now you are introducing a new term... by your own admission the criteria for being a `Secularatic` or `Secular fanatic` is quite different from being a `Secularist` or why would you invent a new term ? As for Mohammed and Gandhi... I will take this up as the first evidence of your `confusion`. You clearly have not made up your mind what `Humanism` means... because if you consider Gandhi a `Humanist`, clearly Mohammed cannot be a Humanist because he was an exact opposite of Gandhi... and if you consider Mohammed a humanist, Gandhi is excluded from the definition. Mohammed and Gandhi are two exact opposites... had you said Buddha and Gandhi it would have made more sense... Mohammed was a shrewd statesman, a law giver, a soldier, a modernist, a rationalist, a progressive... heck his `humanism` was more akin to that of Kemal Ataturk in the same period from which you extracted your other example of `Humanism`. Quite clearly you have yet not resolved the basic criteria for greatness in your mind.. You have stuck to one term which has failed to produce any specific examples... later on you exhibit the same kind of confusion, owing no doubt to the lack of knowledge, when putting Turkish Secular Government and the Hindu nationalist government of BJP in the same basket...

``Turkey has a secular govt. Look at how it is treating its Kurds.``

Every country makes mistakes... the US made mistakes in Vietnam, Pakistan made mistakes in Bangladesh... Sri Lanka made mistakes against Tamils... yet clearly you have no idea what you are talking about... Please list for us the `excesses` of the Turks that you speak off... not that there aren`t any, but you are inspired by the sermons of your favorite Mullah.

``It bans democratic parties that wins elections. It is infact an inhumane secular govt.``

You sir absolutely have NO IDEA what you are talking about. The One party that was banned was infact `Rifah` of Mr.Erbakan, an extreme right wing religious party akin to the Muslim version of BJP... It was ALLOWED to form its government!!!! The party was allowed to implement its agenda... it was even allowed by the Kemalist NSC to pursue a Pan-Islamist foreign policy.. but then Erbakan tried to strike at the very root of the Turkish constitution, by attempting to make it an Islamic republic after which his government was dislodged...

Now you will say that if Turks want an Islamic republic... why not??? BUT THEY DONT !!!! And here is the reason.. Most TURKS had voted for Left, Center left and Center Right SECULAR parties.... Erbakan`s party got 20% of the popular vote... Center Right party of the secularist Tuncu Ciller got 18 % ... another secular party got 15%, another party got 19%... So some 80% of the Turks voted for a secular agenda, but by parliamentary machinations Erbakan was about to make Turkey an Islamic Republic modelled somewhat on Iran ... much in the same way, Mr.Sharif was abusing his majority by trying to pass the 15th Amendment which would have made Quran and Sunnah supreme, and made the Prime Minister `Amir ul Momineen` in Pakistan.

``India has a secular govt. system. Look at what is happening there.``

What is happening in India is because unlike Turkey (and infact Pakistan in 1999), the Army there didn`t intervene and throw the BJP out... that can be seen as a good thing or a bad thing...

``Iraq has a secular govt. (its vice-prime minister is a Christian).``

Ha ha ha ha... For your information Iraq is a Monarchy for all practical purposes!!!! Is it a `Secular` Monarchy... I really don`t care... Ottoman Empire had many ministers and vizirs who were Jews and christians... Next thing you are going to tell me that Ottoman Empire was Secular.



``by all definitions of secularism (except maybe yours) in the dictionary,``

Last time you took one out of three definitions available ... and eventhough I quoted the two others, you stuck to the one you quoted... and like I have said, Secularism is not just a word but has become an Idea... that Idea is explained in specific terms in Political science... Quite clearly you never had the opportunity of attending such a class...

``these govts. are secular, not Western``

Congrats you have made a FULL circle... So according to you, secularism is not the only criteria, but Westernization is also important...

You quote the following definition...

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

Like I said this is one definition, but does this definition say that `Secularism` is against religion? Like I said SECULARISM is important because it speaks of COMPLETE IMPARTIALITY of the state to all RELIGIONS.... (Aside: please read Jinnah`s speech `My guiding principles will be justice, fairplay and Complete Impartiality`)

``Yet you seem to have redefined the term, and have produced your own addages, like equality, humanity etc. onto it. These are nowhere in its definition.``

Now clearly you are not too gifted in the faculty of comprehension, because nowhere have I done this... Equality is part of secularism in the sense that the state treats people of all religions equally... Humanism is an indirect result of a well managed Secular system... because the alternative ie a religious state will always be exclusive, as we have seen increasingly in Bhutto and Zia times.

``You cannot define these terms``

I haven`t... I have used your own definition mian ji... why must you always expose your ignorance?

``What you personally think Pakistan should have or not have, is immaterial (neither is your definition of secularism). What will work and be accepted by the Pakistanis is important.``

This above mentioned statement was PATHETIC! You, an expatriate currently residing in another country are declaring me, YLH, a Pakistani citizen, braving the heat of lahore, make all possible efforts to settle down in Lahore, a voter, `immaterial` and irrelevant... kyoon bhai, mein Pakistani nahin ho, even though I am living in Pakistan, working in Pakistan??? and you are relevant eventhough you are a bhagora, who dodged the PAF, fled the country and are living a comfortable lifestyle in the Bay Area? No doubt that there are Expatriates, like Aisha and her family, who have done a lot for Pakistan... but they don`t go around REDEFINING `PAKISTANI`.... HOW DARE YOU???? Shame on you!!!

If you are man enough... APOLOGIZE.. because out of you and I, I am the one who is a citizen and the voter of Halqa 97 National Assembley!!! If I am `IRRELEVANT`... you are DOUBLY so.... and if I am not included in the `Pakistanis` who will decide...Who will? As for my definition of secularism... Once again, it is the accepted, standard, Dictionary definition... whatever you think `my definition` is a productive of your imagination...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

``would you prefer an inhumae secular system in Pakistan, over a humane non-secular system?``

This is a pathetic question with absolutely no relevance... Whereas it is true that a Secular system can be inhumane, no Non-secular system can be humane, because a Non-Secular system is:

1) Theocratic

2) creates the supremacy of one religion over the other.

3) Is not impartial...

Whereas Humanity is not necessarily a given in a Secular system, Secularism is a Given in a Humane system....

A Humane System is based on:

1) Equality of all regardless of religion, race, gender, caste or creed.

2) Justice

3) Fairplay

4) Complete Impartiality to all religious and racial divisions...

So the answer to the question is that I will PREFER a HUMANE system over an INHUMANE one... but no religious system can be Humane... so the way you have asked the Question shows utter ignorance in these matters!!!!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now on Jinnah...

``You are already convinced of what he wanted, and are unwilling to look at anything that may contradict your views; lest it not match with a stance you have taken.``

This is Your imagination.... My point has always been simple... Jinnah wanted the COMPLETE IMPARTIALITY of the STATE towards RELIGION ... that matches your OWN definition of SECULARISM:

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



There is no such thing as `Pure` or `Impure` Secularism... that too is your imagination, and quite contradictory to your own earlier stance... given that you are claiming to be such a `Dictionary` Purist...

``The fact that it has taken you so long, and you can still not (or barely) point to anything to counter my point, should be an indication that perhaps things aren`t quite as you had thought.``

Wow... You really are so full of yourself aren`t you... I had used the abovementioned definition to disprove your argument... which was based on stupid little assumption that Jinnah never used the Word `Secular`... Are you really this ignorant? My point was ALWAYS, that Jinnah wanted the state to be COMPLETELY impartial to all FAITHS and that is why he was secular. This is proved by your own definition...

Given that I was a student in the US, I am sorry but I didn`t have the time to fulfil your every demand, but then one day, BY CHANCE, I came across the Jinnah Papers Appendix deliberations of the First Constituent Assembley... Now if the usage of the word `Secular` in the First constituent Assembley of Pakistan `just barely` proves my point, then I suggest you get your HEAD checked. Things were exactly like I THOUGHT!!! given that I THOUGHT, after I READ, and didn`t THEORIZE based on LITTLE KNOWLEDGE as you are so FOND OF DOING... You really are worse than the Mullahs... God save Pakistan from the likes of you. For the way you shamelessly manipulate and lie has cost us dear in the PAST... the two men that You claim to HATE, Bhutto and Zia, were exactly like you.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Answer this : Did or Did not Jinnah want the State to be Impartial to All Faiths???

If yes, then I had COUNTERED your point way before I quoted the Word secular from the 1st PCA ... as shown in JINNAH PAPERS ...

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

Keeping that in mind let us see the logical progression of our Argument...

Your original Argument was: Jinnah was `personally` secular, and he didn`t want a theocracy but he never used the word secular.



My Original Argument was: Jinnah was Secular because he wanted the `STATE` to be Completely Impartial towards all Religions. This had nothing to do with Pakistan`s ideological position as a Homeland for South Asian Muslims.

For your feeble mind, I am forced to repeat your own definition again:

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

Yet you continued to PARROT: `Jinnah never used the word secular`

So when I found it in the PCA Deliberations... I put it there, to shut you up... But it seems like you are devoid of any sense whatsoever...and arguing with you is like throwing water on duck`s back... I had COUNTERED your argument in LIGHT of your own definition a while before you jumped up and down... to claim your greatness...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You say:

`Jinnah repeatedly stated (in so many speeches) that Pakistan should not be a theocracy. If I stated that Jinnah never stated in a speech that Pakistan should not be a theocracy, you could quickly point me to so many instances where he stated, otherwise. Yet, in no speech (can you please point out any speech, in which he addressed the public, instead of pointing me to such and such paper in which Sir so and so Din, stated that he heard Jinnah say this while Jinnah was going to sleep) that I know of did he openly come out and say, ``should be secular.```

First of all, this again shows your immense ignorance ... for I didn`t Quote Sir Somebody Somebody.... I quoted the JINNAH PAPERS, for the Pakistan Constituent Assembley`s deliberations of which Mohammed Ali Jinnah was the President... I have ALREADY QUOTED IT.. and since I am no longer in possession of the Jinnah Papers which I found in Columbia University (nor can I get to Columbia to satisfy you given that I am now permanently residing in LAHORE PAKISTAN)...

Secondly, the reason Jinnah probably didn`t say it out in the Public was that he probably understood far better than I did the mentality of people like you... Is that not possible? Instead he spoke repeatedly of IN PUBLIC:

1)`COMPLETE IMPARTIALITY OF THE STATE to Religion`,

2)`SOVEREIGNTY RESTING IN THE PEOPLE`

3) Pakistan Not being a theocracy, and not being ruled by `PRIESTS WITH A DIVINE MISSION`.

4) Religion NOT BEING THE BUSINESS OF THE STATE.

5) Religion being A MATTER STRICTLY BETWEEN MAN AND GOD

Now to Quote Your Definition ONCE AGAIN:

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

Do the abovementioned principles not completely sit with the concept of Secularism then??? It is either that, or you are not to gifted in the comprehension department...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Your utter immaturity is further elaborated by the following stupid statement:

``I am sure what George Bush discusses with Cheney in privacy is different, in many aspects, than the public policy he states to the US people.``

Please tell me How the DELIBERATIONS of the first Pakistani Constituent Assembley analagous to Bush discussing privately with Cheney???? Because once again, The QUOTE I had put previously was from the deliberations of the Pakistan Constituent Assembley of which Jinnah was the President ie Speaker...

``That is somewhere close to where I stand, vis-a-vis Pakistan.``

Given that you are an expatriate living in another country, where you stand or fall is quite irrelevant to the discourse on Pakistan... My only concern is to put you in your place. (before others jump in... Please be informed, that Mr.Romair, the self proclaimed Pakistan kaa chacha, had informed me that I, a Pakistani citizen residing in Lahore Pakistan, was completely irrelevant to Pakistan`s ideology.)

Those who try to mingle the issues such as the Pakistan`s ideological stance as a homeland for the South Asian Muslims, with the the role of religion in the Pakistani state are completely and totally misguided... either that, or they are Pakistan`s Worst enemies...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

WAS JINNAH CONFUSED? DISORIENTED?

An outsider and a critic of Pakistan like Emma Duncan, a journalist for Economist`s India Bureau, writes after discussing Jinnah`s apparent paradox `making a nation based on religion` and then his wanting to `run it with secularism`:

`I suspect he was not disoriented, nor was he so ill that he knew not what he was saying. He was, after all, a Whisky drinking, Ham-sandwich eating Muslim, trained at Lincoln`s Inn in the legal system of a country whose church had long since kept its nose out of the state business. In India however the connections between religion and power, strong under the Moguls and the Sikhs, had been fostered, not ignored, by the British; and Jinnah judged that when the British had gone, the Religious minority would suffer political and economic discrimination. BUT, when he had won his separate country, his passion to secure his co-religionists` future was replaced by a determination to see that the political precepts into which he had been educated should be implemented in his country. Bizarrely, he wanted a SECULAR COUNTRY`.

(Quoted from Emma Duncan, Breaking the Curfew a Political journey through Pakistan, Page 222 Paragraph 2.. Arrow Books 1990 edition)



I have repeatedly said that atleast in the last 10 years of his life, Jinnah could not afford to be Consistently Secular, given the nature of demand he was putting up... He was championing the cause of Muslim Nationalism... and religion given the example of Mohandas Gandhi in the 1920s had proved itself to be a great mobilizer... Even Ataturk, the universally accepted secularist had raised the cry of Jihad to drive out the Greeks from Turkey... Jinnah therefore had to for the sake of his cause had to give religious coloring to his movement... and even if Jinnah was a Ham eating whisky drinking Muslim, he had also remained a deeply involved Shia in his personal life... BUT at no point did Jinnah ever contradict his vision for a Pakistan which would be egalitarian progressive and Impartial regardless of religion caste or creed... As early as 1943 he had choked the resolution to declare sharia as the future constitution of Pakistan, declaring it as a `censure` for all Leaguers...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now Mr.Romair I hope you will READ the whole post and see that NOT only have I shown you exactly where Jinnah used the word secular, but I have also shown you that how he `PRACTICALLY` wanted Pakistan to be secular. The question no longer is how Secular Jinnah was, but that he had clearly envisaged a country where the state will function with ` the view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs.`

PRACTICAL NEED FOR SECULARISM...

Allow me to inform you that I don`t need anyone Jinnah or Ataturk or anyone to corroborate my stance, but that these two men had practically placed before us a vision which is closest to mine... You are right that the constitution of Pakistan, and its affairs will be run as desired by Pakistanis.. and Pakistanis alone... and these Pakistanis INCLUDE:

1)Some 9 Million Christians Pakistanis, (though officially they are considered to be in the vicinity of 3)

2)Some 1.5 Million Hindus

3)Hundreds of thousands of other religions such as Parsis, Buddhists, Sikhs, `Kafirs` of Kalash, and Jews (I recently located a small settlement of 300 Pakistani jews near Karachi). Also there are some 3 million Ahmadis atleast who are now considered non-Muslims.

4) A lot of Pakistani-Muslims who are secularists, progressives and intellectuals and who want Pakistan to be a Secular country...

5) Little Ol me... who, unlike yourself, has returned to Pakistan, and is part of its trials and tribulations...

Any `decision` made exclusive of ALL OF US... can never be considered the decision of Pakistan as a whole... The principle of Democracy is Quite different from the tyranny of the Majority which masquerades as democracy in our neighboring country of India... Perhaps we can use Jinnah as an inspiration then... As per Mahmudabad`s testimony, Jinnah had floated a contingency plan in 1947 if Independence came without the creation of Pakistan... the plan was to convert the Muslim League into a Secular party called the Minorities League... Perhaps The time has come to create a Minorities League here in Pakistan!!!!

To Quote what an eminent Barrister said at Nagpur session of the Congress in 1920... `My way is the right way!` Indeed, this is the only way...

Pakistan Zindabad.

In Defense of The Left The debate of secularism is totally unrelated to the discussion of Left vs Right... but it seems that some people are so utterly confused that they mingle issues. However I have spent a lot of

time writing this post so please do try and read it atleast once!

For eg Romair once again has jumped in with his `Secularism` vs `Religionism` analysis.

Once again he has betrayed his below average and mediocre understanding of the term `secular` and once again he has sought to generalize about the so called `secularists`. I wonder who made him such an expert? He claims `A secularist will prefer an inhumane secular system over a humane religious one`... Oh meray khuda mujhe bacha!!!

Romair Meray Bhai... `SECULARISTS` (atleast the variety I belong to) are NOT against Religion. They believe in the State`s impartiality towards every religion. Now please explain how a `Religious` system can be humane if it PREFERS one religion over the other? I claim to be a Secularist... Have you ever seen me condone Nazi Rule in Germany? Have you ever seen me sing praises of Mussolini (though the poet of the East who said the verse `deen siyasat say alag ho to reh jaati hai changaizi` was a big admirer of Mussolini).

There is a saying `Little Knowledge is dangerous.` Your `analysis` (if one can call it that) is based on the typical 2+2 approach which has brought about the downfall of Pakistan. Earlier you argued about Jinnah`s usage of the word secular ... to remind everyone, you based your argument on the premise that Secularism can divided into personal and public spheres... (ie Jinnah was personally secular and not publically secular ... what nonsense). You refused to acknowledge that the word for such a condition is known as personal irreligiousity though recent evidence suggest Jinnah didn`t suffer from any such disease given that he was a practising shia no matter what his diet or drink. Please consult Jinnah papers for this info.

Instead of accepting the universally accepted principle that secular is an adjective and not a noun. That when we speak of Jinnah`s secularism we speak of his `state theory` only which he propounded after the creation of Pakistan. His state theory was based on the classical precepts of Western Secularism.. that church and state are separate. Such a notion does not infringe upon the view that `Pakistan was the homeland for a Muslim Nation` though even the latter is contested. Bizarrely or not so Bizarrely ... Pakistan was to be a country where the Mullah and the religious priests were to have no say in the Governance of Pakistan... Such a condition would be described in the English Language as `Secular` ... but the issue is irrelevant since we never achieved such a condition.

NOTE: However complying with your request I pin pointed the exact place where the word `secular` is used by Pakistan`s first constituent assembley in the presence of Mohammed Ali Jinnah who not only accepted such a principle but appreciated and encouraged it. I posted the entire thing from `Jinnah Papers` printed by National archives. Yet you professed ignorance instead of fighting fair ... you asked me `What are you talking about`... It seems that you also suffer from memory lapses...

Earlier you launched an uncalled for attacked on Turkish polity, eventhough you know nothing about Turkey other than what your local mullah has taught you in the Silicon Valley.. let me guess what his name is ... ah Hamza Yusuf. Thank God I left the US when I did...

For your sake ...Let me repeat this once more... Whether or not one believes in `Muslim` solidarity or common Muslim Bonds.. or territorial Muslim Nationalism, is a separate issue.. the definition of such imagined identities are based on the idea of `Muslim` or `Jew` or a `Hindu` as an ethnicity rather than a religious identity... it can also be described as communalism... and or sectarianism.. but the point is that such a definition entails the possibility of `Atheist`(or cultural)Muslim, `Atheist` Hindu, and `Atheist` Jew (hence the opposition of the Mullahs to territorial Muslim Nationalism ie Pakistan). Such an identity can be allowed in democratic framework ... but what cannot be allowed is intolerance and fanaticism... which is bred by a `Religious` system of Governance which prefers one religious belief over another...

PLEASE NOTE: The truth is that propagation of the `Islamic` Religious system only hurts the Muslim community as a whole. I will start with the Ottoman Empire... The `second class` citizens of the Empire (especially in 19th century), Jews and Christians in the Ottoman Empire lived and prospered while the Muslims got poorer day by day... because Jews and Christians had no bars against Interest banking, no official shariat was holding them back, they imported as much wine as they liked... while Muslims lived in Abject poverty because of what Ataturk called `the Lazy interpretations of hocas` WRT Shariat. Thus when Turkey was freed and secularized, the living standard of the Muslim Turks went up (owing partly to the flight of christians and jews as with the case of Pakistani punjab).

A MORE RECENT EXAMPLE:

The RIBA case in Pakistan concluded yesterday resulting in the ANNULMENT of the earlier Federal Shariat Court ruling against INTEREST BANKING... While arguing for the Federation which was appealing against the RIBA, Dr.Gelani said that If Interest Banking is declared illegal for Muslims by SC, which according to his colleague Raza Kazim had no such jurisdiction, the whole I Banking industry will fall into hands of the Non-Muslims thereby further regressing the living standards of most Muslims.

Given that Pakistan was formed ideally for the political, economic and social freedoms of Muslims, will not the implementation of an `Islamic` system infringe upon the very premise? Will not the so called `Islamic` system actually ruin the advantage that Pakistani Muslims have as a Numerical majority?

Therefore the separation of church and state in Pakistan is in the best interest of the imagined `Muslim` nation. That is if you hold the interest of `Muslims` superior to the interest of `Islam` (or an imagined version of Islam to be more accurate). History has shown that the two are mutually exclusive... I am sure `Solitude` would have agreed!

Pakistan Zindabad!

-YLH

In Defense of The Left

A continuation of my earlier reply...

The problem is that Mr.Sameerjb can`t realize that the `two party system` that he bemoans, was an illusion... the feudals and opportunists on both sides were using the ideologies of the left and the right to promote their power base...

In the final assessment Pakistan`s problem is the unwillingness of the politicians to ally themselves decisively with one point of view... PPP and PML(N) (and QA, F, J etc) are all the same... only names are different!!!There was no party politics in Pakistan in the 1990s,.. only personality politics of BB and NS...

Party politics was murdered by Bhutto`s opportunism in the 1970s, and Zia`s power hunger in the 1980s...

-YLH

In Defense of The Left

Sadly by comparing the creation of Pakistan to the creation of taliban, Mr.JB deliberately provoked all the patriotic Pakistanis who were willing to listen to him. Whatever the inadequacies and inconsistencies of Pakistan and its so called ideology, its creation or raison de etre was not similar to the taliban, but I fear I am throwing water on duck`s back. Chowk has a strange effect... to win praise from the Indian crowd, us Pakistanis will do anything...But fear not oh great one... I am not going to honor you by letting you become our Farzana Versey, by attacking you like the Indians. You have the right to make any such comments..

now to the crux of the issue...

As per regards to his observations on Pakistani politics, I will say this much.. ideological politics maybe necessary at some level.. but Centrism and Not Leftism (nor rightist politics) is the answer to Pakistan`s problems... Two Party system is the best system nevertheless.. the observation as far PML and PPP being Right and Left parties is right but Mr.JB sadly doesn`t realise that in 1997 PML and PPP had almost identical manifestos.. so what separates the left from the right?... Centrism has to triumph... No left or right party henceforth will be able to rule in a modern democracy unless it is Moderate in its ideology... Slightly center-left and center-right parties can work together for the legitimate issues of Pakistan... left and right can`t no matter how democratic..

(An Aside: While going through the Jinnah Papers by Z H Zaidi, I found a pamphlet called the Constitution of Islamic Democratic Socialist republic of Pakistan published by the left wing within the AIML. Basically a secular constitution, it called for a statist/socialist state which controlled all the key resources and actively promoted a basically a mixture Keynesian and Marxist understanding of Economics... in my personal opinion such a situation would have been disastrous as we experienced adequately in Bhutto`s time)

I have been Bhutto`s greatest fan for a very long time... but it is quite clear that Mr.JB now has taken to outright lying when praising Bhutto...

Let us see what Bhutto did:

1) Made Islam the state religion (the experiment that Mr.JB detests actually started in Bhutto`s time).

2) Played an active role in the declaration of Ahmadis as Non-Muslims, thereby opening a pandora`s box for future legislations.. paving way for Zia`s horrible manipulation of religion.

3) Created an anti-West and anti-semitic Hysteria amongst Pakistani people by promoting fantastic fads like Pan-Islamism, imagined anti-Imperialism, anti-capitalism, etc.. all for political popularity. In the end he was sadly deluded by his own paranoid dreams of United States` evil designs against him.



4) Fomented Islamic fundamentalist trouble in neighboring Afghanistan in a bid to destabilize a secular socialist government there (as opposed to his half hearted `Islamic` Socialist government)

5) As a last ditch effort to please the Mullahs, Bhutto banned all night clubs, Bars, alcohol, Casinos, and instituted the most hypocritical Islamic regime...

6) In a bid to control the army, dismissed the sane secular officers replacing them with the monster named Zia who ultimately completed the process of Islamization started by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.

If these were Bhutto`s attempts to make a secular socialist progressive humanistic and modern Pakistan... you really have to be drunk...



While Ayub should be blown to bits for destroying Pakistan`s democracy, and creating a military dictatorship, his contributions to the propagation of a Modern secular Pakistani culture, not to mention his Government`s terrific achievements in terms of Economic Growth, though not Economic development, should account for something... Instead of making everything black and white, and comparing a relatively sane human being like Ayub Khan with a Monster like Zia, while praising Bhutto who created Zia ... one should see that there is good in every ideology.. and it is usually individuals who fail ideologies and vice versa... I suspect Mr.JB is too caught up in his own little world of biases to actually heed my advice...

Dissing Ideologies For my dear Indian friends:

`No ALQAEDA role in Kashmir` the United States of America

jal gayee barnol lagaye!

Dissing Ideologies

Dear Mr.Zia Ahmed,

I am glad that you know that your article is irrelevant to the national discourse. For those who are born in the aftermath of partition, especially those born as late as 1980 like myself can hardly give two-sh-ts about whether Hindus and Muslims are two nations or one, for them the objective reality is that Pakistan and India are two nations...

That the Cabinet Mission plan was accepted by the Long Dead Mohammed Ali Jinnah or that he was once a staunch Indian Nationalist is also IRRELEVANT. Pakistan is here to stay, and Pakistan will exist, whether or not Two Nation theory exists. My own personal interest in the founding father is limited to a Historical exercise and as a basis for the free-thinking libertarian state his speeches in that first crucial year of Pakistan spoke of..

Pakistan is indeed an expression of self rule.. but more than that it is a clear and present reality...which small minded Hinduvta fanatics, especially those educated in `Nehru`s time`, can never reconcile with... Hence there will never be peace until we drive Islamic fundamentalists and Hinduvtists to the ground!!!!!

Long Live Pakistan

-YLH

PS Detractors feel free to bark!!!!

The Perfect Murder drumz,

If someone makes heinous use of pearl`s murder the way your countrymen are doing.. I will resort to a much more befitting description of them.. ie dogs... Whatever my age... I am far ahead in maturity than you are...

jay the resident fart..

I usually ignore your barking... but let me respond...

1) My mother is a shia doctor...

2) There are 3 Dr.Salaam roads in Lahore alone.. Many have pointed it out to you... but the kind of thick skinned bigoted fanatic that you are you will never learn... you are the kind of scum bag which one finds in abundance in India...

3) Lala Lajpat Rai was a great man.. undoubtedly.. Maybe we will locate his house in Lahore and indeed make it a national monument.. just like Dayal Singh College or Ganga Ram Hospital stay untouched... just like Gandhi`s famous bronze statue remains protected (due to special orders from Pakistan`s first governor general) ... However.. the myth of `Indian freedom struggle` will not be perpetuated in Pakistan... Indian freedom struggle is a farce.. if anything.. this `freedom struggle` delayed the freedom struggle delayed independence by 22 years.. and don`t you start with your usual nonsense about Pakistani propaganda... my sources are western.. non Pakistani! As for men and women sections on the buses.. sorry I don`t travel in buses.. but a visit to Liberty Lahore will open your eyes...

You can lie all you want about Pakistan... I don`t expect better from animals... but the truth will remain constant...

The Perfect Murder Ladies and gentlemen,

What do you do when the dogs (especially of the Hinduvta variety) bark? I know what you don`t do!!! You don`t bark back.. so viking, soundmeister, rsaxena and arjunm please note, I don`t wish to engage in a barking match...

Besides being back in Pakistan has made me a lot more secure in what we really are.. no amount of barking will change the facts!!! Please switch on one of our channels... Indus Vision, ARY, Indus Music.. to see the truth. Thank God for Pakistan... the liberal progressive and Modern Pakistan which is a light to the world.

Yes true currently we are under threat from Hindu fascist nation which is drunk on power imagined or otherwise... but for every Nazi Germany there is an England.. for every Hitler there is a Churchill!

hobbty,

I will soon respond to you in detail in a few days.. as for `restricted`... I meant simply that only a special class is allowed in them for now...

I will be visiting my ancestral village ... so I will let you know what I find there...

tahmed

:).. I will be a posting a lot more about my experiences in Lahore.. I think its about time someone pointed out the positive ... thanks for the encouragement..

ana,

Thank for the welcome.. now don`t tell me you have a soft spot for a man like christopher hitchens... As for Arundhati Roy article.. it was published in Dawn as well... Also check out Kissinger`s article today.. and Huck Gurman`s article yesterday.

INTOLERANCE...

In the final assessment those who exploit unfortunate incidents like the Pearl murder for their own petty satisfaction.. as the poster in #459 .. are not human beings... they are animals...

Or maybe its acceptable `Indian` behavior..

The Perfect Murder tahmed, Hobbyty,

I am so glad to be back... It is like being back in a new country... Zia and Jamaati conservativism has been dealt with through the rational approach of creating media consciousness... and a global awareness... A progressive outwardlooking globalist interpretation of the National discourse has been undertaken... The founder`s speeches especially the ones that talk of equal rights and women`s rights are being repeated often. Dissent is appreciated and even celebrated on National TV, ....

But more than anything.. Pakistani Music and Arts has taken a giant leap towards the future.. a freethinking modern democratic society undoubtedly has its foundation in a society that appreciates Music, and dancing. Economy definitely is showing signs of upsurge.. I say this because My father is after me to take a position in his office because of the increased workload.. I haven`t made up my mind though...

Lahore Restaurants are as always, maginificent .. :) .. after all it is the food capital of the world... I have been frequenting a lot of places .. maybe if chowkwallahs would like I would post a few Restaurant reviews... Also the newly opened Lahore Dance clubs (though restricted for now) are creating quite a name for themselves :)

Pollution however has increased which is a little disturbing.. but generally all other things have improved... especially the law and order situation.. and traffic regulation... People have become more disciplined... or they get ticketed for small things like changing lanes...

Sky scrapers are going up alongside Main Boulevard... it is going to be a great downtown area of the future.. Seth Abid seems to be our Donald Trump...

I can go on.. and it burn our neighbors up.. but I`d rather not for now.. the only thing I would say is that whereas it was hard leaving America with which I had developed an emotional attachment of sorts... Pakistan hasn`t bit the least bit disappointing... its time Pakistanis abroad gave up their negativity...

Like Tahmed Once said: `The Mullah`s attempt to take over the republic of Pakistan will be a Footnote in History`...

Long Live a Liberal Progressive secular democratic Globalist Pakistan!!!!!!!

The Perfect Murder

Ladies and gentlemen,

I am back in Pakistan.. and so am still trying to figure things out... so I apologize for my prolonged absence which will continue for another few days... which might allow a few of our Indian `friends` to continue with their drivel unchecked.

By the way, my view has been reinforced that Pakistan is a liberal progressive and modern looking country... and the current surge of Media consciousness, especially the 6 odd Pakistani channels devoted to cultural pursuits, music, dancing and politics has once again set Pakistan on the free thinking and liberal course it once owned... in Pakistan I see the cooings of a truly democratic society of the future.. (and not of the Hindu nationalist variety, one `largest` democracy practises!

My appeal to Pakistanis abroad is to emphasize the positive.. give up your negativity and see that Pakistan needs to be represented as it truly is ... Liberal, Modern, Progressive! An identity which the Hindu Fundamentalist Nazi state of Bharat can`t reconcile with!

-YLH

The Perfect Murder

Ladies and gentlemen,

The Brilliant British have yet again presented us lowly dark races with a new lesson.. a lesson which our `brothers` from India will most definitely heed!

The lesson is...

If a country can invade and take over a territory and deny the people of that territory the right of self determination for 55 years... the territory becomes their`s, and all UN resolutions become `Null and Void`!

Jack Straw is brilliant!

Lighting The Nuclear Fire

Wow.. my post 156 was completely missed :) chalo kuch nahin hota!

Lighting The Nuclear Fire http://www.dawn.com/2002/05/29/op.htm

India`s midsummer madness

By Ahmed Sadik

What is going on in the subcontinent is unbelievable and yet true. In less than three years there have been three large-scale mobilizations of the armed forces of India and Pakistan which have now been face to face for the last six months or so. It used to be said in a light-hearted vein that the people belonging to a particular community which frequented the northern parts of the subcontinent went mad around noon with the excessive heat having travelled to its head.

This was more by way of a myth rather than reality. But in the contemporary situation of the subcontinent it seems that the myth has indeed turned into reality and no community in the subcontinent is an exception to the heat-wave having spread to their respective heads. The fact of the matter is that India is right now very much on the war-path under a BJP-led government and Pakistan is following suit. Mr Vajpayee has come to the conclusion that the days of his government would be numbered if it does not settle what he perceives as `the Pakistan question` `once and for all`.

The BJP has by now sensed that in a matter of months Messrs Blackwill and Co. will soon enough want to cobble together another coalition government in Delhi, this time led by Sonia Gandhi, the Italian-Indian darling of the West. The trouble with the present ruling coalition in India is that they have found it impossible to outgrow themselves from their self-inflicted Pakistan phobia. The BJP particularly believes that the present situation in the region and the one inside Pakistan which is faced with a yawning political vacuum is a second chance of a life time to `conquer` what is left of Pakistan.

Now whether they can do this or not only time will tell. However in attempting to do so they can only inflict on themselves mortal blows from which they can hardly ever hope to recover. The lack of statesmanship in the present ruling coalition in India is so complete after the Gujarat pogroms and now the Jammu killings that an ailing Vajpayee continues to be the only slender thread that is momentarily holding it together.

In the frontlines of the BJP the only ray of hope for peace in South Asia happens to be an ex-army officer, none other than the foreign minister Jaswant Singh who is viewed with suspicion of nursing ambitions for the top job of prime minister and chief executive of India. He may, of course, never quite make it to the top, thanks to the reigning mediocrity of the BJP, but the fact is that he is cool and farsighted enough to be able to understand that first of all militarily conquering a neighbouring country will not solve India`s problems - that an armed conflict with Pakistan will only further complicate and compound matters.

Only two years ago, he advised the Government of India to refrain from going into Sri Lanka in support of the Tamil Tigers. And he did so at a time when there was a lot of international encouragement and interest in allowing India a permanent interventional beach-head on Sri Lankan soil. Jaswant Singh`s book `Defending India` is replete with arguments that the defence of a country lies in having a robustly booming economy coupled with a political system that is fine-tuned with the rest of the democratic world.

Now a lot of his detractors are bound to say that as the BJP`s and Vajpayee`s foreign minister he is dutifully carrying out a confrontational policy towards Pakistan and that he is as much of a hardliner as any other BJP MP - so what is really so great about him. Well I suppose when you are working within the confines of a parliamentary system of government a minister is only duty-bound to carry out a policy that has the approval of the cabinet and the majority in parliament.

The difference about Jaswant Singh and the others is that he is definitely not the run-of-the mill politician in that he has meticulously educated himself over the years with the nuts and bolts of the fundamentals of conducting foreign policy and is a voice of moderation in the Indian Cabinet.

What is more in his Rajasthan constituency which he represents in the Lok Sabha there is a large Muslim population most of whom support him strongly each time there is a general election. In fact his constituents affectionately refer to him as `the field-marshal`. He is indeed a man to watch on the Indian political scene and could well be part of even a future Congress-led coalition.

But coming back to the current state of things, Vajpayee at present appears to be in a state of extreme political desperation and is having to get closer and closer to the Advani crowd in the BJP and the extremist Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) elements. The war on terrorism today has a mixed bag of fellow travellers and adventurers in the post-September 11 situation. India also seeks to gain some advantage out of this world-wide not-so-free-for-all bonanza.

There is a school of thought in India`s South Block secretariat which is of an entrenched view that now is their last chance that they are ever likely to get to overwhelm Pakistan having found out that the American establishment is deeply divided in opinion on its short-term Pakistan interests and its long-term India interests in the South Asian region.

This is a situation which therefore needs a very careful and clever handling by the Pakistan Foreign Office.It will require all the political and diplomatic adroitness and dexterity in handling this new situation. If it has already not done so it should call in all the old and tried hands in diplomacy - people like Sahabzada Yaqub Khan, Agha Shahi, Sultan Mohammad Khan, Najmul Saqib Khan, Akram Zaki, Shahryar Mohammad Khan, Najmuddin Shaikh and the likes in an advisory panel on how to go about it.

Notwithstanding having given all the diplomatic inputs as stated above the biggest handicap for Pakistan is going to be what to do about the political vacuum which seems to be getting chronic by the day. In the 1971 situation the Indians thrived on the sense of deprivation and cumulative hostility of our Bengali brothers.

A similar political vacuum is building up in parts of what in effect is residual Pakistan. The recent referendum has not quite been able to make the international grade in so far as the yardsticks of acceptability and/or respectability are concerned. And whether we like it or not, once again we find ourselves internationally/diplomatically/ politically in a back-to-the-wall situation.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the Indians are fully aware of our internal lack of cohesion and are therefore hell-bent on stirring mischief. Pakistan has always been a fixation with them but it is our job now to be able to play out the impending crisis with the objective of ensuring our country`s safety.

I therefore daresay that all major indigenous political forces of the country need to be harnessed in an attempt at shoring up the civilian defences of Pakistan. The army single-handedly cannot pull it off because this is indeed a multifaceted international situation. The integrity and the fighting strength of the Pakistan army not only needs to be preserved but also enhanced in every possible manner.

By way of recall I can remember having told my erstwhile colleague and friend the very outstanding Mirza Mohammad Abbas, DIG Rawalpindi, in 1971 when I was the district magistrate of Rawalpindi-Islamabad that `when the chips are down no foreign power will come to our rescue.` In 1971 the Chinese and the Americans were of no avail to us and we were all witness to the over-running of East Pakistan.

The Indian army is today a lot more beefed up in numbers as well as equipment. Also the Indian economy is in a lot better shape than ever. There is no doubt that the Pakistan army is man to man qualitatively a lot superior to the Indian army. But that was the case earlier also. Where we have always been deficient has been in the art and practice of politics and diplomacy.

If there is a real sharing of power in our country an internal equilibrium will have arrived to pre-empt external machinations. There is indeed no substitute for utilising the power of the people in times of crises. The western world learnt this lesson a long time ago and have not regretted since for having done so. The common man happens to be the pillar of western society because he is at the same time both the voter as well as the consumer and as such the pillar on which the political structure as well as the economic edifice rests.

One thing one has to say to the credit of the Indians is that they are great ones at coming to terms with the reality of political strength or otherwise. The moment they will have found that we have united across our present political divides their language will transform into that of peace. But as of now the Indians happen to be in the throes of a massive midsummer madness that needs to be taken very seriously.