Pervez Musharraf Ko Peace Do #216 by Mantolives on January 10, 2006 6:42am PT
Layman...
.. I suppose Mukhti Bahini was not being trained and supplied with weapons by India...

Muktibahini was in Bangladesh not Pakistan.

Pervez Musharraf Ko Peace Do These articles and debates are useless because they are not going to change a single thing on the ground.

Pervez Musharraf Ko Peace Do ``I meant people of Pakistan who have loyalty to the country above and beyond the army or Musharraf``

How does your having loyalty to Pak or not concerns India? What will India gain if someday all the people like you decide to be friends of India? First of all that is unlikely to happen; second of all even if that happens by some miracle, you will still be in a minuscule minority; and lastly, even if the whole Pakistan decides to be friends with India, what will India gain from such a friendship except arguably the reduction in Kashmir terrorism? What does Pakistan have to offer to India that India does not already have or cannot buy it cheaper from some other part of the world?

Now if in order to gain such a friendship, India has to compromise its territorial integrity, I for one do not think it is worth it.

Pervez Musharraf Ko Peace Do Manto yaar, I have seen what you can do and it don`t impress me much.

Let me submit another interesting counter-perspective to. Let`s say, and why not, that Indian government somehow decides to trust Musharraf and signs a peace accord with him - on whatever terms. What is the chance that there wont be another coup in Pakistan with some other tinpot replacing the current tinpot and totally reneging on the terms of the treaty? Haven`t we experienced that once, when Vajpayee the senile fool decided to trust Navaz Shareef at Lahore? Whatever came out of the Lahore declaration?

Pervez Musharraf Ko Peace Do Because these two will win India a lot more friends... it will win India a friend like me... and there are many like me.

What will India gain from having friends like Manto? The best they can do to harm India right now is abuse India and Indians on anonymous internet forums. Big fucking deal. I am not sure how they can help India or Indians even if India wins their friendship.

Pervez Musharraf Ko Peace Do Pakistan can gain some trust by arresting and deporting Daud Ibrahim for starters. Then we can talk about Azhar Mahmood.

Pervez Musharraf Ko Peace Do The point of this article is not, if India is secular enough, or if India treats muslims and other minorities well. The article is trying to make a case for Indians to trust Musharraf and Pakistan. IMO the article does not make a convincing case at all. Musharraf is someone who betrayed his own country by usurping powers and suspending the constitution (no matter how pathetic, it is still the constitution of Pakistan and should be accorded highest respect by all Pakistanis).

Jo apne desh ka nahi ho saka woh kisi aur ka kya hoga?

Pervez Musharraf Ko Peace Do I hope Indian politicians and indian people never trust Musharraf and never take anything he says at the face value.

The Greatest Hindu King - A Translation and Analysis of Maratha Fury and Shivaji ``Yet the conquest of the Deccan, to which Alamgir devoted the last 26 years of his life, was in many ways a Pyrrhic victory``

Wolpert is completely wrong. It was not a victory - Phyrric or otherwise. It was a complete defeat. One of the few instances in the history where a small nation repealed and defeated an all out attack from a much greater and richer nation. A la Russian Finnish war.

Shivaji -- Portrait of the King as Barbarian One quick note:
The `author` of this `article` got Shivaji`s birth year wrong. Shivaji was born in 1630 not in 1627.

Shivaji -- Portrait of the King as Barbarian This article as well as most of the interacts on this board can be described thus: Stupid, Stupid, Stupid.

It is definitely not worth my time to set right each and every stupid claim made on this board. (i.g. the wheel on Indian flag is a spinning wheel. Yeah, right). However, I am going to make an exception in Mantos case, because, let`s face it, it is easy. And fun.

The long and short of manto`s `interesting counter-perspective` is - imagine the whiny bitch voice here - ``Oh why oh why those big bad Marathas considered Aurangzeb a foreigner?`` followed by ``Oh why oh why that big bad Nehru called Shivaji a great hero, if Shivaji considered Aurangzeb a foreigner?`` (That Nehru called Shivaji a petty robber in his book ``Glimpses of the World History`` is conveniently forgotten)

Let me explain it to manto and others slowly. Pay attention kids.

Up until the early 14th century, Deccan (territory south of the river Narmada) was an independent entity with no significant North Indian influence whatsoever. Deccan in general and Maharashtra in particular was ruled by some great dynasties such as Satvahanas,, Vakatakas, Chalukyas, Rashtrakuta and the Yadavas. That is almost 1500 years of more or less continuous self rule. In 1296, with the fall of Deogiri Kingdom to the northern hordes of Allauddin Khilji, this self rule ended. After that for a while Deccan was ruled by Bahamani sultanate which later broke up into Vijapur, Golconda and Ahmednagar dynasties. Mughals were relatively late entrants in the politics of Deccan. If I am not mistaken, the first Mughal who attempted to establish a foothold in Deccan was Shahajahan. Before him, Mughal activities were restricted to North India. So clearly, even in 1600s, Mughals were certainly not indigenous to Maharashtra or to Deccan in general.

From above paragraph it should be amply clear to anyone except the extremely dumb that Mughals could not and would not ever have been considered by Shivaji or any of his contemporaries from Deccan as `non-foreigners`. Mughals sought to subjugate a fiercely independent populace; they made delhi/agra the seat of the empire, choosing the rule Deccan by proxy; they looted the local land and heavily and unjustly taxed the population in order to grow the treasury in Delhi. So no self respecting Maratha in 17th century could and would have accpeted Aurangzeb (or any other Mughal). Note that this is not a question of religion. Even the so called great warrior Pruthviraj Chauhan could never extend his rule south of Narmada. On the other hand, after a generation or two of living on the Deccan platue, the sultanates of Golconda and Vijapur were accepted as local entities even though they were muslims. Having said that, religion did come into picture as it gave Shivaji an emotional platform to rally the peasants around him. (Just like jinna as Manto would testify)

Now I can already hear Manto whining ``That is all fine but that big bad Nehru in 1945 called Shivaji a great leader and Aurangzeb a foreigner. Surely bigotted to consider Aurangzeb a foreigner only because he was muslim`` and GT adding to it ``Well may be he was not so big and bad, but he was surely an idiot``

I will tackle that in my next post.

Shivaji -- Portrait of the King as Barbarian I would like to see where Nehru called Shivaji a great hero. Any references would be appreciated.

Shivaji -- Portrait of the King as Barbarian ``Hindu Dharam Rakshak Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj ki jai``

Interesting perspective, considering Shivaji himself called his kingdom as `Hindavi Rajya` and not `Hindu Rajya` / `Ram Rajya`. Big difference.

Manto,
There is nothing interesting in your counter perspective. The point you raise has already been extensively debated (for more than a week) on chowk and things were explained to you and you seemingly accepted the explaination given to you by me and others. I will track down the link of that whole discussion for you so as to not waste time in rehashing old points.

My Dudley! This was funny. I especially liked the dream sequences. :)
This story can be very easily adapted into a one act play, or may be short film. Good writing.

Reinventing Pakistan: The Rise of The Left #17 Mantolives
I hope all of you are very grateful.

Clearly, you suffer from delusions of grandeur. Another Jinnah in making?

Nowhere: The Utopian Destination test