Pakistan, Two Nation Theory and Secularism: Response to an Indian Poster

By Yasser Latif Hamdani

This was written in response to an Indian poster who suffers particularly from the ailment of which Oscar Wilde spoke unfavorably once upon a time.    Since the arguments are the usual : cliched, hackneyed and ill-informed chest thumping on why India is better, why two nation theory was wrong, why Pakistanis suck,  why Pakistan is a failed state,  I thought I’d put up this response for the general education of this jingoistic Indian type.   I’ve always thought that these gungho Indians (not all though- there are so many fine Indians we know who can’t be put in this bracket) act like the newly rich of the world and therefore their attitudes towards Pakistanis and the rest of the world smack of a lack of class, manners, decency or sense of balance and proportion. 

Dear Indian poster,

You keep repeating your mantra that India is secular because of the Congress and its one nation idea but the fact is that your constitution itself was authored by a man who opposed Congress’ conception of one nation.  Read B R Ambedkar’s writings especially on the issue of separate electorates for the Dalits and Scheduled Castes. In every way B R Ambedkar’s politics was closer to the two nation theory than one nation theory. And yet this fellow gave you the secular Indian constitution… and if you read the ICA debates you would see just how hard B R Ambedkar had to struggle to keep Gandhian and Hindu Majority’s ideas out of the Indian constitution.

B R Ambedkar managed to give India the constitution he did primarily because he was able to scare the Caste Hindu Majority with the prospect of another partition and perpetual communal strife. That said- let me tell you as I have told others- our archaic laws and Islamic constitution is a piece of paper and your secular constitution is a piece of a paper… the reality is that both countries treat their minorities about the same whether you like to admit it or not ( infact Pakistan might actually be marginally better but let us leave that debate aside at this time).  But granted on paper you are better than us.  I give you that much.

Two Nation Theory was never in conflict with secularism. It never spoke of citizenship being subject to exclusivist principles. It is in no way different from Quebecois’ demands in Canada. Does that mean tht Quebecois would want a state where French speaking citizens would be somehow constitutionally privileged above non-french speaking citizens? No. Now don’t give me your little cop out that two nation theory was based on religion…it was based on much more than religion… it was not Jinnah’s fault (Jinnah who tried to reconcile the Muslims and Indian National Congress for the longest time) or even Iqbal’s … that long before they were born the British had coopted the Hindus, encouraged the Hindu mercantile class, made alliances with the Hindus… fostered a feeling amongst Hindus that Muslim rulers had oppressed them … it was not Jinnah’s fault or Iqbal’s fault that in the 19th century Chatterjee was busy writing “Anand Math” in which Hindus are fighting against foreign rule of Muslims and in which the British are the great liberators… The British made alliances; the first community to benefit from these alliances were the Hindus. For the Hindu mercantile class British rule amounted to a mere change of masters or this is what British told the Hindus. Hindu bought into this theory right or wrong and prospered as a remarkable bourgeoisie community which ultimately led to the Indian independence struggle after 80 odd years of constant evolution.

 Faced with this new reality, the British switched partners.  Muslims- especially the Aligarh Modernist class- became their favored allies. The result was the separate electorates which was opposed by Jinnah the Congressman mind you. Meanwhile what was Jinnah doing… from 1913 to 1937 Jinnah was making attempts to woo Muslims away from the British and closer to the Congress. He succeeded marvelously in 1913 when the Muslim League endorsed Swaraj and went from being loyalist to a pro-Congress grouping. In 1916 Jinnah managed to bring both Congress and the League together in a magnificent alliance to be called “Lucknow Pact”.

In 1927-1929, Jinnah- whose own faction of the League was dubbed pro-Congress and pro-Nehru report- managed to convince the most loyalist of Muslims from the “Shafi” League to come to an arrangement with Congress… the 14 points of Mr. Jinnah were actually the Conglomerate demands which could have been the basis of Hindu-Muslim settlement (and Jinnah even managed to convince his Muslim co-religionists to consider dropping the separate electorates in place of guaranteed representation for a time period ) but that was spurned by the Nehrus (ironically not because the Congress wanted to block Jinnah but because the Hindu Mahasabha walked out and refused to be part of the settlement if Jinnah’s demands were met).  Then through out the roundtable conferences, Jinnah made common cause the Indian Nationalists against Sir Fazli Hussain and Aga Khan. but there too the Congress was unwilling to budge from its point of view.

Then in 1937 Jinnah re-organized the League and  re-oriented the manifesto to resemble Congress’ social-democratic platform… was even funded by Hindu Industrialists.  All his efforts to make common cause with the Congress were spurned by Nehru who invited him to show the League’s “inherent” strength despite the fact that League had won substantially in UP and Bombay (and lost substantially in Punjab and Sindh primarily because it was pro-Congress) Jinnah’s adoption of Iqbal/Kifayet/Rahmat Ali formula was League’s inherent strength that Nehru had asked for. It was also a demand that was going about for a while. The truth is that Pakistan would have happened anyway but Jinnah took the demand and made it his own. In doing so in 1946 Jinnah once again gave India an opportunity to meet both the Muslim demand of Pakistan and the Congress’ vision of a United India. That chance was lost and the rest, as they say,  is history.

The Muslim League’s resolution which became the Lahore Resolution makes no mention of Islam. Jinnah’s 11th August speech which was a speech delivered by the father of the nation to the highest constitution making body in the land makes no reference to Islam. It is clear that Two Nation Theory itself was not applicable to the concept of citizenship in the minds of its most ardent advocates…nor was it in conflict with the idea of the separation of church and state. So why did Pakistan end up with a theocratic constitution despite Jinnah and despite Lahore Resolution? This has more to do with the evolution of Muslim community than with the creation of Pakistan. Despite Kemal Ataturk, Turkey, the only truly secular Muslim majority country, has only managed to remain secular by using force and intervening militarily when things got out of hand. Malaysia is a highly successful model but even there it has been ensured in part by a significant Non-Muslim minority and even then Malaysia is not secular. It has a state religion and archaic laws just like us.

So what is the solution. Well for one thing Indians should stop bothering themselves with Pakistan. Your country has a pathetic record of treating its minorities despite your secular constitution. Why don’t you bother yourself with that. Indians are no one to tell us anything and certainly not boast the way they do when their own closet is full of skeletons despite the secular constitution. So fix your own country for god’s sake. Worry about the hunger, poverty, religious extremism, superstition, casteism, backwardness that is synonymous with India and Indians.

Secondly the march of history will ensure secularization of every society as well as the idea that all citizens are equal regardless of religion, caste, creed, gender,  race and sexual orientation, especially Muslim majority ones. Europe took a long time getting there (read their history) and the US Supreme Court even as late as 1858 refused to recognize Black people as citizens let alone equal ones…and in Plessey v. Ferguson was speaking of “separate but equal”.  Despite Brown v. Board of Education, Jim Crow laws only lost their sting in the mid 1960s.

The situation in  Pakistan is much better and more evolved believe it or not. It has a strong civil society, a committed legal fraternity dedicated human rights and due process.  The constitution in principle guarantees equal rights,  even if those rights get diluted by the constitution’s commitment to Islam. The constitution guarantees freedom of religion, though bad judges have nullified some of this by some pathetic judgements but in due course of time precedents will be overturned. But this is an evolutionary concept and history is on our side.  We shall be a modern, secular democracy one day.  It might not come in my lifetime, but individuals are not what history is about.  We will fight and we shall continue to fight till we get there.

So be on your way.  Hands off.  This is not your terrain.

A Pakistani.  

Advertisements

79 Comments

Filed under Pakistan

79 responses to “Pakistan, Two Nation Theory and Secularism: Response to an Indian Poster

  1. Pingback: Pakistan, Two Nation Theory and Secularism: Response to an Indian Poster « Percuma Untuk Anda

  2. Amit

    Guys,
    Does it really matter which theory is correct? It’s just a theory after all. Can’t we just move on. We would never know if the alternate theory was correct. History is full of ifs and buts. Nations are born that way. We can carry on this argument till the judgment day. Nothing would come out of it. For better or worse, we are separate nations with quite a different outlook about national aims and character. Lets just agree to differ on some issues. For our friends across the border, be assured that a majority of people in India do not really care if this or that theory was correct. We have so many other problems to take care of. As unfortunate as it sounds, we really do not care about what happens in Pakistan. If you see a spate of recent recriminations from the Indian side about Pakistan, it’s mostly due to the Bombay attacks and the skulduggery of the political and intelligentsia in the aftermath of the attacks. Incredibly, even now, some carry on floating extravagant theories about nexus of hindu-zionist forces to defame Pakistan. Once the Kashmir problem is solved, I really wish we stop bothering each other. Let’s just bury the past and move on. As for the arrogance of current generation of Indians, well, it will last for a bit before we settle down to the real picture. But I am surprised that you are peeved. Haven’t we heard ad nauseam how hindoos(?) Indians are cowards et al. and how one Pakistani is equal to 10-20 Indians blah blah. It’s just a part of mutual love exchange. Like most nations, we have our set of rascals. Just learn to ignore them–that’s all.

  3. bonobashi

    @Amit

    You seem to be well in tune with what YLH has written, and I am taking the liberty of assuming that our perspectives are aligned. The problem is obviously not with you or with me, if I may take some dangerous liberties, it is with the egregious bunch that he is addressing with this specific post. He is not addressing the abusive and the crude; he is addressing those who should know better. Some of them are fine intellects, but I believe unprepared to play by a separate set of rules, which does not suit them.

    Like most nations, we have our set of rascals. Just learn to ignore them–that’s all.

    Hah!

    Easier said than done.

    I want to inform you that YLH’s style is combative and he takes no prisoners. But there are occasions when the degree of perversity, the volume of abuse from one or the other of our compatriots goes beyond bounds, and some of us Indian posters ourselves have asked him to take off some particularly obnoxious posts. I have done so more than once; I know others who have also been outraged at one thing or the other. He has not always complied; sometimes he takes fiendish delight in leaving those posts intact, and deriving amusement from our embarrassment.

    How does one ignore a pest who is in one’s face, in one’s hair, in one’s every post with or without reason, with or without logic? How do I ask the hosts and moderators to ignore them when I find my own bp shooting up beyond the danger mark?

    Again, I repeat, I believe that I am not wrong in saying that his post is not directed at people like you, nor even at the abusive and the crude; it is for the edification of the superior, the arrogant, and the illogical. You will be engaged in debate; sometimes feisty, sometimes (from other, more subtle sources) more magisterial, but interesting at all times.

    The simply abusive and crude are spared for display – even worse.

    One last point: I have suffered abuse on some sites, as you seem to have done. First, it was not on this site; the closest to it was some misinterpretations of my position which were wounding, and to which I replied with some excessive bitterness. There has never been a second occasion; on the contrary, even that critic has been very helpful and has made valuable contributions enriching my own.

    To end with a deliberate misquotation:
    Like most blogs, we have our set of rascals. There are thunderbolts aimed at them from time to time. Just learn to ignore them–that’s all.

  4. karun

    And yet this fellow gave you the secular Indian constitution…

    he was the president of the constituent assembly, he did not write the constitution…there were many eminent individuals from congress and all sections involved…

    do not oversimplify to justify your point

    Ambedkar had no political standing and lost badly in elections

  5. karun

    Indian constitution secular ideals are largely due to the stand by congress: gandhi and nehru not ambedkar not to say he was insignificant

  6. yasserlatifhamdani

    Dear Karun,

    I can’t help it if Indian Nationalist mythology has blinded you to even your constitutional history… as with other things.

    As far as I know Ambedkar was the law minister and the chairman of the constitution …

    You may want to read: Ambedkar:the Making Of The Indian Constitution by H V Hande

  7. karun

    We shall be a modern, secular democracy one day. It might not come in my lifetime, but individuals are not what history is about. We will fight and we shall continue to fight till we get there.

    did you have such resolve in 1971, if not what ensures in future you will.

    wat may stop balochistan, punjab and sind in going diff directions..it can theoretically…already people are equating balochistan with east pakistan…or has pakistan been always about punjab…

  8. Majumdar

    Yasser mian,

    Karun has a point. The Constt of India was adopted in the form that it was because the majority of India’s founding legislators wanted it that way. Dr BRA did make a noteworthy contribution and possibly moderated it in a positive direction but that was it.

    INC had nothing to fear from BRA and it was certainly foresighted (statesmanlike if I may say) on their part to have made BRA chairman of the drafting committee.

    Regards

  9. karun

    from wikipedia:

    i am not a scholar more research is required:

    .Between 1941 and 1945, he published a large number of highly controversial books and pamphlets, including Thoughts on Pakistan, in which he criticized the Muslim League’s demand for a separate Muslim state of Pakistan

    Ambedkar was also critical of Islam and its practices in South Asia. While justifying the Partition of India, he condemned the practice of child marriage in Muslim society, as well as the mistreatment of women. He said,

    No words can adequately express the great and many evils of polygamy and concubinage, and especially as a source of misery to a Muslim woman. Take the caste system. Everybody infers that Islam must be free from slavery and caste.[While slavery existed], much of its support was derived from Islam and Islamic countries. While the prescriptions by the Prophet regarding the just and humane treatment of slaves contained in the Koran are praiseworthy, there is nothing whatever in Islam that lends support to the abolition of this curse. But if slavery has gone, caste among Musalmans [Muslims] has remained.[8]

    He wrote that Muslim society is “even more full of social evils than Hindu Society is” and criticized Muslims for sugarcoating their sectarian caste system with euphemisms like “brotherhood”. He also criticized the discrimination against the Arzal classes among Muslims who were regarded as “degraded”, as well as the oppression of women in Muslim society through the oppressive purdah system. He alleged that while Purdah was also practiced by Hindus, only among Muslims was it sanctioned by religion. He criticized their fanaticism regarding Islam on the grounds that their literalist interpretations of Islamic doctrine made their society very rigid and impermeable to change. He further wrote that Indian Muslims have failed to reform their society unlike Muslims in other countries like Turkey.[8]

    In a “communal malaise”, both groups [Hindus and Muslims] ignore the urgent claims of social justice.[8]

    While he was extremely critical of Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the communally divisive strategies of the Muslim League, he argued that Hindus and Muslims should segregate and the State of Pakistan be formed, as ethnic nationalism within the same country would only lead to more violence. He cited precedents in historical events such as the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and Czechoslovakia to bolster his views regarding the Hindu-Muslim communal divide.[8]

    However, he questioned whether the need for Pakistan was sufficient and suggested that it might be possible to resolve Hindu-Muslim differences in a less drastic way. He wrote that Pakistan must “justify its existence” accordingly. Since other countries such as Canada have also had communal issues with the French and English and have lived together, it might not be impossible for Hindus and Muslims to live together.[8]

    He warned that the actual implementation of a two-state solution would be extremely problematic with massive population transfers and border disputes. This claim was prophetic, looking forward to the violent Partition of India after Independence.[8]

    please refer to the original references in wikipedia

  10. karun

    ^ Jaffrelot, Christophe (2005). Dr. Ambedkar and Untouchability: Fighting the Indian Caste System. New York: Columbia University Press. pp. 2. ISBN 0-231-13602-1.
    ^ a b c d Pritchett, Frances. “In the 1890s” (PHP). http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/timeline/1890s.html. Retrieved on 2006-08-02.
    ^ a b Pritchett, Frances. “In the 1900s” (PHP). http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/timeline/1900s.html. Retrieved on 2006-08-02.
    ^ Pritchett. “Rajah, Rao Bahadur M. C.”. University of Columbia. http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/ambedkar/web/individuals/6750.html. Retrieved on 2009-01-05.
    ^ Kothari, R. (2004). Caste in Indian Politics. Orient Blackswan. pp. 46. ISBN 8125006370, ISBN 9788125006374.
    ^ a b c Pritchett, Frances. “In the 1930s” (PHP). http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/timeline/1930s.html. Retrieved on 2006-08-02.
    ^ a b Pritchett, Frances. “In the 1940s” (PHP). http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/timeline/1940s.html. Retrieved on 2006-08-02.
    ^ a b c d e f Ambedkar, Bhimrao Ramji (1946). “Chapter X: Social Stagnation”. Pakistan or the Partition of India. Bombay: Thackers Publishers. pp. 215–219.

  11. Majumdar

    Karun,

    There is no need to go to wikipedia for BRA’s views on Pakistan. Columbia Univ has put his book on Partition on its website. Google serach “Amedkar” + “Pakistan” you will get the link.

    He never criticised the Pakistan demand, rather like many thinking Hindoo rightwingers (like myself) he came to the conclusion that India was better off without Pakistan .

    Regards

  12. karun

    thats is ceratinly your view but is contestable as you are aaware

  13. yasserlatifhamdani

    Karun Clueless,

    Getting your information from Wiki I see…

    You should read B R Ambedkar’s “Pakistan or Partition of India” with an open mind… you would understand why even Jinnah himself referred it to others.

    You would find much to change your pov. The entry by Wikipedia is written by someone like you.

  14. yasserlatifhamdani

    Majumdar,

    My point – which is lost on people like Karun- is that B R Ambedkar did not accept the Congress’ idea of one Indian nation and yet he is the principal author and the father of the Indian constitution…

    So this pathetic line of reasoning that only those who agreed with the Congress view could be secular is just plain wrong.

    This Karun fellow is denying that B R Ambedkar had anything to do with it.

  15. Majumdar

    Yasser,

    …yet he is the principal author and the father of the Indian constitution…

    Debatable.

    only those who agreed with the Congress view could be secular is just plain wrong.

    Absolutely correct on this.

    Regards

  16. KULKARNI

    1.ONE MUST NOT FORGET THAT TODAY’S MUSLIMS IN PAKISTAN ARE OF HINDU STOCK AND THEY WERE CONVERTED TO ISLAM BY INVADERS FROM WEST.
    2.HINDUS AND BUDHHISTS WERE ALL OVER ASIA AND SLOWLY STARTED GETTING INTO MINORITY BECAUSE OF ADVANCING MUSLIMS FROM WEST(IRAN AND AFGAHNISTAN).
    3.WAHABI SECT IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF INTOLERANCE IN MUSLIM POULATION
    4.WHY CAN NOT WE LIVE AND LET OTHERS LIVE.WHY WE SHOULD SAY MY RELIGION IS BETTER THAN YOURS?ALL RELIGION LEAD TO GOD ONLY!
    5.JINNHA WAS SECULAR AND WAS NOT BOTHERED ABOUT MUSLIMS AND USED TO DRINK LIQUOR AND EAT PORK.SOMETHING HAPPENED AFTER 1936(MAY BE BRITISH MADE HIM GO AGAINST HINDUS?) AND HE CHANGED HIS STAND COMPLETELY AND INCITED MUSLIMS AGAINST HINDUS.
    6.IT IS THE AGENDA OF MUSLIMS TO INCREASE THEIR NUMBERS WHEREEVR THEY GO AND THEN SCARE THE POULATION THERE TO EITHER GET CONVERTED TO ISLAM OR BE REDAY TO GET KILLED.

  17. Mustafa Shaban

    good response yasser, kulkarni your statements are absolutely false and are the result of constant media propoganda by india and the west, you have to study islam and history to understand what really happened and what Islam is. From independent sources ofcourse. Btw, Wahabis are a minority in Islam like less than 10%, most muslims are moderate, you need to do some serious study.

  18. B

    @Mustafa – Abt propoganda, pls refer me to a neutral source and we all can make serious study of Afghanistan, iran , Somalia , Nigeria, East of China, Djkarta, Iraq, Jerusalem …

    @Yaseer mian – Please read Pakistan: Eye of the Storm – O B Jones. ( Western propog..)

    Use better language

    and remember if you have compelling arguments on your side, you don’t need to delete any posts.

  19. Amit

    Kulkarni saab,
    Can you turn off the caps, please.

  20. hossp

    All errors on blackberry.

    I thought that seculerism and socialism were added by Mrs. Gandhi. Why BRA getting credit for that
    ?
    Wasn’t the constition in 1950 just copy of India act of 1935?

  21. Akash

    Mustafa,
    10% of 1.2 billion people is still a lot of people.

  22. Gorki

    Hi All:

    I guess there is some confusion about the authorship of the Indian constitution.
    The popular image (at least on the PTH) is that of a solitary B.R. Ambedkar toiling away all alone by himself; to produce the 117,369 words of the longest written constitution in the world.

    The reality is somewhat less dramatic but still no less heroic. The Indian constitution is a product of the labor of 308 members of the constituent assembly; BR Ambedkar as a head of the drafting committee was one of them.

    The election of 1946 elected the members of the provincial assemblies, who in turn elected the constituent assembly. The first session of the Constituent Assembly was held on December 9, 1946 and was attended by 207 members.

    Dr. Rajendra Prasad was elected as Chairman. In its August 14, 1947 meeting it proposed the formation of various sub committees.
    Eventually 16 committees were formed. These included the Committee on Fundamental Rights, (my favorite part of the entire document) the Union Powers Committee Union Constitution Committee and the Drafting committee.

    This last committee was appointed, on August 29th 1947 with Dr Ambedkar as the Chairman along with six other members. It prepared a Draft Constitution and submitted it to the Assembly by November 4, 1947.

    The larger assembly met, in sessions open to public, for a total of 166 days, spread over a period of 2 years, 11 months and 18 days before adopting the Constitution on November 26 1949.

    Some highlights:
    1. Rajendra Prasad, Sardar Patel, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Shyama Prasad Mukherjee were some other members of the Assembly. There were more than 30 members of the scheduled classes. Frank Anthony represented the Anglo-Indian community, and the Parsis were represented by H.P. Modi.
    The Chairman of the Minorities Committee was Harendra Coomar Mookerjee, a distinguished Christian. Constitutional experts like Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer, B.R. Ambedkar, B.N. Rau and K.M. Munshi were also members of the Assembly and so were Sarojini Naidu and Vijaylakshmi Pandit.

    2. Dr. Sachidanand Sinha was the first president of the Constituent Assembly. Later, Dr.Rajendra Prasad was elected president of the Constituent Assembly while B.R. Ambedkar was appointed the Chairman of the Drafting Committee.

    3. (Majumdar Da will like this) Vallabhbhai Patel played a big role. He was especially interested (and eventually ensured) that Dr B R Ambedkar, a harijan, headed the most important committee.
    He was also instrumental for the entry of eminent jurists like B N Rau, K M Munshi, Alladi Krishnaswami Aiyar and Gopalaswami Ayyangar into the Assembly. Patel also presented the committee’s recommendations on political safeguards for minorities sans separate electorates on August 27.
    The recommendations were accepted in the Assembly the following day.

    4. (Majumdar DA will not like this) Even before the drafting of the Constitution began, Nehru set its tone by preparing and moving an objective resolution in the Constituent Assembly on Dec. 13, 1946, containing the guiding principles in the form of an ‘Objectives Resolution.’

    He (Nehru) laid them out in two important speeches; one while moving the resolution and the other while replying to the debate on Jan. 22, 1947.

    The Constituent Assembly later adopted this ‘Objectives Resolution’ as the underlying principles of the Constitution which was:

    a) India is an Independent, Sovereign, Republic; and it shall be a Union of erstwhile British Indian territories, Indian States, and other parts outside British India and Indian States as are willing to be a part of the Union;
    b) Territories forming the Union shall be autonomous units and exercise all powers and functions of the Government and administration, except those assigned to or vested in the Union;
    c) All powers and authority of sovereign and independent India and its constitution shall flow from the people;
    d) All people of India shall be guaranteed and secured social, economic and political justice; equality of status and opportunities before law; and fundamental freedoms – of talk, expression, belief, faith, worship, vocation, association and action – subject to law and public morality;
    e) The minorities, backward and tribal areas, depressed and other backward classes, shall be provided adequate safeguards;
    f) The territorial integrity of the Republic and its sovereign rights on land, sea and air shall be maintained according to justice and law of civilized nations;
    g) The land would make full and willing contribution to the promotion of world peace and welfare of mankind.

    Regards.

  23. PMA

    Amit (August 6, 2009 at 10:51 am):

    “For better or worse, we are separate nations with quite a different outlook about national aims and character………….Once the Kashmir problem is solved, I really wish we stop bothering each other……….As for the arrogance of current generation of Indians, well, it will last for a bit before we settle down to the real picture.”

    My sentiments exactly. Thanks God for the intelligent people.

  24. YLH

    Hossp sb,

    Indian constitution was secular even before Indira added “secularism” and “socialism” to it. I recommend that people here read the ICA debates.

    Gorki sb,

    I don’t think you got the point either.

    No one has that image though I caution against underplaying the role of Ambedkar in constitution-making.

    The point remains that this idea that everyone who disagreed with the Indian constitution automatically is out of the pale of secularism as if Nehru owned the term the idea etc is just wrong.

    BRA had argued vociferously for the separate electorates for Dalits. That doesn’t mean he was against the principle of one man one vote. So why do Indians abuse Two nation theory when they don’t understand it beyond their own pre-conceived notions?

  25. YLH

    PS no the constitution of 1950 was not a copy of the GOIA 1935 though it retained – at Nehru’s insistence- the most draconian of all measures from GOIA 1935 – the section 93 (the article number is something else in the Indian constitution).

    Ironically Pakistan had the same 93 deleted only to have it added by Pakistan’s own Nehru in the 1970s.

  26. YLH

    Another main difference is the concept of residuary powers.

    1935’s residuary powers lay with the provinces… The Indian constitution places it with the parliament.

    All constitutions of Pakistan gave the provinces residuary powers except 1956 and 1962 suffered from one-unit disease and 1973 suffers from the concurrent list disease.

  27. bonobashi

    @YLH

    Further to your useful interventions, especially pointing out that #50 was emphatically not #35.

    I wish that the federal status and the increasing references in Indian debates to the US model did not create a faux-national spirit. What was totally non-existent is being created a step at a time, and this is totally self-destructive. Also the lack of safeguards for civil servants, their vulnerability to transfer at short notice was never addressed. It was assumed that politicians were honourable men, and would never use transfers as punishments.

    On a strictly personal note: my father’s response to the Chief Secretary, on being told that B. C. Roy had transferred him out to the districts again: “Not a problem. My refrigerator runs on kerosene!” Out of my eleven years of schooling (yes, I know, far too little, and it shows), only four were in Calcutta, of which two, KG and Upper KG, were actually outside the eleven.

  28. Gorki

    Dear Yasser:

    I understand you completely. In some ways you remind me of a mirror image of myself; when it comes to secular ideas; (though you are much more energetic and mentally agile 😉 )

    ” The point remains that this idea that everyone who disagreed with the Indian constitution automatically is out of the pale of secularism”

    1. Depend on what they disagree with and how they show their disagreement. If someone disagrees with the fundamental pluralistic principles either in letter or in spirit then they are; if not then not.

    2. If they show their disagreement by disobeying the Supreme court and destroy houses of worship by inciting a mob then they are; if they want to burn the constitution or carry out an armed insurrection then they are.
    But if they want to lobby by filing PILs or by writing seditionary articles then they are not.

    “…is out of the pale of secularism as if Nehru owned the term…”.

    Nehru could not own the term because India and secularism are much bigger than any one personality. Even Nehru himself would not agree with that characterization. (If you will promise not to repeat this ever again, I will admit this once that I have never voted for the INC in my life. Shhhhh !)

    So why do Indians abuse Two nation theory?

    You answered it yourself;

    Because “they don’t understand it beyond their own pre-conceived notions”

    To me two or three or four nation theory is perfectly acceptable.

    What I reject (having been a minority all my life; both in my birth and the adopted homelands) is the notion that no matter what; being a minority in a nation state is incompatible with complete social justice and personal fulfilment. (The fear that the minorities had in 1946 India.)

    Regards.

  29. bonobashi

    @Gorki

    Yes, but…

    I agree with almost everything you’ve said, but why can’t I burn the Constitution?

  30. bonobashi

    @Gorki

    Yes, but…

    I agree with almost everything you’ve said, but why can’t I burn the Constitution? It’s a free country, innit? Next you’ll want to fine me for SMSing Rahul Gandhi jokes (are there any, btw?).

  31. Gorki

    For your own safety; that is why.

    Because when you burn it all down then you not only destroy whatever that you were trying to protest but you also destroy the part that says that a Punjab Police cop can not take you out at night and shoot you down in a fake encounter. 😉

    Regards.

  32. Majumdar

    Gorki sb,

    Majumdar da will not like this,…..Even before the drafting of the Constitution began, Nehru set its tone by #a-#g

    Majumdar da’s contention is that had the leader of INC be not JLN, but Patel or Azad or Prasad or any other xyz #a-#g would still have appeared on the Obj Resolution.

    Regards

  33. stumblingmystic

    YLH, a very interesting post.

    I do think you’re overstating your case by saying that Pakistan is marginally better than India in its treatment of minorities. If this appears to be the case, it is only because Pakistan has successfully evicted most minority communities anyway and/or created an atmosphere such that most of them emigrate if they get the chance. Moreover, we have a tendency of completing stamping out indigenous or non-Muslim cultures in Pakistan by forcing them to pretend to be Muslim and thus rendering them practically invisible anyway.

    Honestly I find your statements on this subject kind of irresponsible given what just happened to the Christians in Pakistan recently.

    India is currently not much better, but I always get the sense that there is more hope for India to improve at least for now.

  34. Gorki

    Majumdar Sb;

    I can swear I almost heard an acceptance and a passing grade for LLN; even if a grudging one. 😉 .
    (A goal is a goal; whether it was an easy one or not. If you score it, your side wins and you are the hero.) 😉

    Seriously, I can see your point and understand your impatience with the poor parts of his record (on the economy etc.)

    In July 1863 The Union forces under General Meade won a decisive victory at Gettysburg yet President Lincoln was immediatly upset upon hearing that he had failed to press his advantage and had let the Confederate General Lee escape from the field. He even wrote a scathing letter to Meade.

    When Meade found out his boss’ displeasure he sent his resignation the next day. By then however Lincoln had calmed down and rejected the resignation.
    Also, he never sent the critical letter; saying something like “I can’t fault him for not doing more for his country than that which he had already done.”

    I hope you too may sometimes see some of Nehru’s failings in a similarly generous light. 😉 .

    Regards.

  35. Gorki

    Sorry.

    LLN= JLN

  36. yasserlatifhamdani

    Gorki sb,

    We have perfect agreement on your points.

    You write: “being a minority in a nation state is incompatible with complete social justice and personal fulfilment. (The fear that the minorities had in 1946 India.)”

    Agreed that it is not incompatible. However ‘the word minority has no relevance or sense when applied to masses of human beings numbered in many scores of millions’ (Winston Churchill, December 13th 1946 at House of Commons) especially when these millions form majorities in large tracts of land on extremes.

    Besides Lahore Resolution and Jinnah envisaged minorities in both countries living as equal citizens.

    The Indian, Muslim and Indian Muslim issue has more to do with Muslim concerns and the idea of Muslim community and brotherhood. With respect to Indian Muslims in India… It is far easier for Muslims to live in a minority situation in a place where they’ve come as workers in search for livelihood instead of a place where they have collectively imagined themselves as “rulers” and the “ruling class” for over 8 centuries… under a community that they have imagined ruling for 8 centuries.

    So the way out ? I don’t know… Today being 7th August… when Jinnah left Delhi for Karachi 62 years ago…. he left Indian Muslims in India a message – to be loyal and hardworking citizens of the Dominion of India …. to educate themselves and work with the majority community. His 7th August message to Indian Muslims was no less significant than the 11th August speech.

  37. yasserlatifhamdani

    Stumblingmystic,

    Excuse me…. May I suggest that I have spoken out about the outrage against the Christian minority more strongly than anyone else… so your description of my comment here as “irresponsible” is just out of line. It is very easy to sit in New York City and describe those who fight for minorities in Pakistan “irresponsible”… Had you bothered to read my other articles posted on this blog you would see things in a different light.

    Pakistan suffers from constant underreporting of minorities. Catholic Church alone claims more membership in Pakistan than the total of minorities in Pakistan’s census. That should give you an idea about whether the minorities exist or not.

    Now I hate to make comparisons with India… because it gives Mullah-types and Islamists something to gloat about and an unnecessary justification for their horrendous actions… The irony is that in India minorities Muslim, Christian and even untouchables get burnt alive once every decade despite India’s secular constitution. What sense do you have for things improving in India(relative to Pakistan) if they’ve had a perfectly secular constitution for the last 59 years … and in Gujurat happens in the 21st century and Orissa in 2008 … and then in 2009 one of Nehru’s grandsons gets elected comfortably for saying that he would cut off Muslims’ heads.

    The real question is does it matter if Pakistan is marginally better than India as I suspect it to be? Gojra is bad enough for us … for our principles… Pakistan was created because we thought we could do it better…. being marginally better than India in anything is still a failure for Pakistan. I for one don’t want to compare ourselves with India… for aforementioned reasons… our comparison, aspiration should be the respect for constitution and human rights and democracy in the western society.

    Now I respect your counter-points of view but please don’t start calling others “irresponsible” when you don’t know them or their background. For all you know I might be a minority as well.

  38. yasserlatifhamdani

    I call upon every commenter here… to check for themselves which website put the most articles condemning Islamo-fascism and Muslim fanaticism in Gojra in the last one week… and every single one of those articles was put up by yours truly.

  39. yasserlatifhamdani

    Karun mian,

    I went through those excellent links. Thanks. All of the links prove what I am trying to say…

    Here is a quote from your link:

    ==1939== In November, Congress left the government. Jinnah arranged the celebration of a “Day of Deliverance,” and Dr. Ambedkar enthusiastically joined him. Dr. Ambedkar was careful to emphasize, however, that this was an anti-Congress rather than an anti-Hindu move; if Congress interpreted it as anti-Hindu, the reason could only be, he said, that Congress was a Hindu body after all. (–*Keer*, p. 330.)

    And did you mention M C Rajah- the untouchable leader? MC Rajah said:

    All religions hold that God sends suitable people into the world to work out his plans from time to time and at critical junctures. I regard Mr Jinnah as the man who has been called upon to correct the wrong ways in which the people of India have been led by the leadership of Mr Gandhi. Congress took a wrong turn when it adopted wholesale the non cooperation programme of Mr Gandhi and assumed an attitude of open hostility towards Britain and tried to infusew the minds of people a spirit of defiance of law and civil disobedience more of less thinly veiled under a formula of truth and non violence. Moreover by Mahatmafying Mr Gandhi it appealed to the idolatorous sperstition of the Hindus, thus converting the religious adherence of the Hindu section of the population to the Mahatma into political support of his non cooperation movement.While this strategy was of some avail in hustling the British Government to yield more and more it divided the people into Hindu and non hind! u sectionsIn these circumstances a man was needed to stand up to congress and tell its leaders that their organization however powerful numerically and financially doesnot represent the whole of India. I admire Mr Jinnah and feel grateful to him because in advocating the cause of the Muslims he is championing the cause of all the classes that are in danger of bein crushed under the steam roller of the caste Hindu majority, acting under the inspiration and orders of Mr Gandhi “ (25th December 1940)

  40. bonobashi

    @stumblingmystic

    Honestly I find your statements on this subject kind of irresponsible given what just happened to the Christians in Pakistan recently.

    I thought that was a bit harsh, considering how he’s been speaking out the last few days about this incident. One thing about YLH, you can’t accuse him of not speaking out loudly and clearly for the minorities.

    He was not being dismissive, not by a long shot, of the predicament of minorities in Pakistan, as far as I could make out.

    India is currently not much better, but I always get the sense that there is more hope for India to improve at least for now.

    As my North Indian friends would put it, “Aapke muh mein ghee sakkar”. It’s not my saying, and it’s not very beneficial, in terms of health, but I couldn’t think of an English equivalent on the spur of the moment; nothing, for instance, as fitting as ‘spur of the moment’.

    There is much to improve in India, much to set right, and the situation is terrible right now. However, I think more and more people are ‘getting it’, and I hope at least in my daughter’s lifetime, we will see people of any persuasion or ethnicity stand and voice differences of opinion freely and fearlessly in the market place, with no fear of violence against self or community.

  41. stumblingmystic

    YLH, I’m sitting in Islamabad right now. 😉

    OK, I am not that regular a reader of Pak Tea House, so I may not be familiar with what you’ve written about minorities in Pakistan (particularly the Christian incident lately), so I will retract the comment about irresponsibility. Regarding what you say later, I am definitely skeptical about the relative strength of minorities within Pakistan … I would suspect that percentage-wise, minorities form a greater quantity in India than in Pakistan, which makes it difficult to say that Pakistan treats minority communities better than India does. I.e. if there actually were greater minority communities in Pakistan, I wouldn’t be surprised if we were hacking them down too (heck, we do it to fellow Muslims even).

  42. bonobashi

    @Gorki

    For your own safety; that is why.
    Because when you burn it all down then you not only destroy whatever that you were trying to protest but you also destroy the part that says that a Punjab Police cop can not take you out at night and shoot you down in a fake encounter. 😉

    NO WAY, JOSE!

    Now look what you made me do, lose my temper when the doctor’s warned me not to.

    Burning the Constitution is NOT a crime. Why would those dumb cops take me out and shoot me down in an encounter for committing a non-crime? Yes, people have done it (or at least burned sections of it), and felt bitterly ashamed by it, but there’s been no record of physical violence against them.

    I’ve never heard of any incident even remotely approaching this, someone getting burned down because of burning the Constitution.

    You might be confusing this with burning the Indian flag. Even that is not a crime, I think, under the Penal Code. There is only a government bureaucratic regulation governing the treatment of the flag (I could be wrong on this one).

  43. Gorki

    Dear Yasser,

    I too agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments.

    It is a pleasure to have met you and I hope to go on communicating with you privately and with some other friends I have found on the PTH.

    Publicly though I think I understand (and partly agree) with the feelings of people like PMA Sahib that right now our two nations need a little space from each other.

    I personally can have nothing but warm wishes for the place that you fondly call the land in which your father sleeps. I will eagerly read your comments on the PTH even as I will try to limit my own since I have been hogging far too much space lately.

    Your comments about of MAJ’s words for Indian Muslims are very appropriate. I would like to take the liberty of borrowing some of his words from the August 11th speech since they nicely compliment his remarks of the August 7th 1947 to read as follows:

    “Be loyal and hardworking citizens of the Dominion of India …. to educate yourselves and work with the majority community…..
    AND THEN
    ….You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship ……You may belong to any religion or caste or creed – that has nothing to do with the business of the State. Now, I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State…”

    Who knows a couple of centuries from now, even Indians may cease to be Indians and Pakistanis to be Pakistanis not in the sense of becoming one nation again but in a sense that it would be inconsequential which color passport one used (or even if a passport would be required) when travelling across our common South Asian homeland….

    Till then; best of luck and may you and your loved ones prosper.

    Regards.

  44. bonobashi

    @stumblingmystic
    @YLH

    Good people, this is not a competition! Any single death, anywhere in the world, is awful; a death on account of a person being different in faith from the killers is, if possible, several degrees worse. It’s meaningless!!

    That apart, it occurring in my country is a personal insult. It doesn’t matter to me as an Indian how many deaths per ‘000 population there are elsewhere, anywhere; a single death in India is a horrible shame. I don’t want to know who’s doing what elsewhere; I want it wiped out in my country, even if the police or the Army have to open fire and hurt people (not kill them, which exactly achieves in a perverse way what is being sought to be avoided) to stop this.

  45. stumblingmystic

    Thanks for that reminder, bonobashi.

  46. Majumdar

    a place where they have collectively imagined themselves as “rulers” and the “ruling class” for over 8 centuries… under a community that they have imagined ruling for 8 centuries.

    Ha, ha, ….. the infamous Dispossessed Mughal syndrome!!!

    Regards

  47. Gorki

    Bonobashi:

    “Why would those dumb cops take me out and shoot me down in an encounter for committing a non-crime?”
    ………………….

    I never said that you will be shot for committing the crime of burning anything (or for that matter for committing any crime at all)

    Notice I said “but you also destroy the part that says that a Punjab Police cop can not take you out at night and shoot you down in a fake encounter”.

    Of course I was speaking metaphorically but only partly so. Don’t tell me you don’t get it. (If you are serious then read ‘Reduced to Ashes: by Ram Narayan Kumar’ )

    In roughly the period between 1984-1995 you did not need to commit a crime for the Punjab Police cops to shoot you in a fake encounter. The constitution was ignored and many thousands of young men were killed on a mere suspicion and secretly cremated; the fate of many unknown to this day.

    My point is that once there is no constitutional guarantee to protect you all you then all you have is anarchy and there is nothing from stopping the cops from become just another gang of armed men.

    Regards.

  48. bonobashi

    @stumblingmystic

    I hope I didn’t sound holier-than-thou.

    It’s just that we are engaged in a war in India, and sometimes people don’t realise it. They think we are just swanning along taking potshots at other countries.

    Apologies if there was any unwanted nuance in what I wrote.

    OT:
    Good luck for your job-hunting. I presume you’ll wish me back. Unfortunately, I have a handicap, about 59 of them, in fact.

  49. bonobashi

    @Gorki

    Big chief, I got it. I got it the first time. This issue is one which affects all countries, not just India. It certainly affects Pakistan.

    I’m protesting against you blocking my right to do whatever I can do, under that very Constitution. If it allows me to burn it, as long as it isn’t a crime, I should be able to, without prejudice to my right to claim protection under that same Constitution! The Punjab Police, or Bengal police, or Maharashtra police, or anywhere in India police, redoubled in spades on Sundays in Chhatisgarh and Jharkhand and Orissa, have been killing people without due process of law. How does my burning the Constitution make a difference?

    The point being that I have things I can’t do, and I have things I can do, and we shouldn’t set about setting barriers over and above those set already. There are statistical-error kind of situations on both sides; meaning, we have punishment for things that are not to be punished; and we have no punishment for things that are emphatically to be punished. A motorist is likely to be lynched if he is involved in an accident with a two-wheeler owner, or a pedestrian, even if the fault is entirely the other party’s; Col. Bainsla or bigots in Jammu can hold up traffic including inter-State traffic with no punishment. I can go on and on.

    Burning a copy of the Constitution is in no way illegal; so why on earth are we adding to the mess of regulations and ordinances and straight statutes by a few prescriptions of our own devising? Once we start doing this, in what way are we better than a ‘khap’ panchayat? Or a murderous bunch of relatives chasing a couple because they married across religious lines?

    That was my point, dear Gorki. For a survivor of Calcutta 68, and especially for one who has seen it at such close quarters, believe me, you don’t need to talk about setting limits to the powers of the police; you are preaching to the choir.

  50. Mustafa Shaban

    B – If you are interested I will provide the sources, I read bout these things long time back so i will have to search from where I read my info and get bak to you, for now I will respond to the points made by kulkarni. Also Akash, you are right it, i made a mistake i would estimate around 1-2% are extremist fundamentalist , highest estimates go at about 3-4%, it is still a lot of people but we can change that.

    My response:

    1. Muslims are not Invaders, Islam was not enforced by the sword. It was peaceful, very little friction between hindus and muslims.

    2. Same point as 1, peaceful conversion, there are a lot of Hindus and Buddhist, i mean they are not some tiny minority, a lot of them converted to Islam, but there are a lot of them.

    3. I agree with this point completely, but again they are a very small group, wielding lots of power.

    4. I agree with this point, all religions lead to humanity, justice, tolerance and peace, the extremists in all religion in fact violate their very own religion by being intolerant. There is no compulsion in religion whether it is Islam, Hinduism Christianity etc.

    5. Jinnah was not secular, he lost hope in the Muslim community and went to London, there Allama Iqbal inspired him to make Pakistan and told him that there is a lot of hope in Muslims. He did not incite muslims against hindus, he knew that due to the hold of Hindu extremist over the government and army , minorities like muslims would have little opportunity in India. Time proved him correct. He is not anti-hindu, he wanted a separate state for welfare of muslims.

    6. Same as point 1. I respect your point of view but this statement is racist, or discriminatory, muslims like all other human beings are peace loving people.

    I will provide the sources, the thing is there is a massive amount of political and historical literature available in the net that goes with my viewpoints, will get back on that soon.

  51. bonobashi

    @Mustafa Shaban

    Sorry to interrupt, but these bullet points read very interesting. What are the questions that they are answering? Could you point them out please? I can’t seem to connect up.

    Much of what you are saying is eminently sensible. Are you really of the opinion that Zaid Hamid is sound in any sense?

  52. Mustafa Shaban

    These bullet points are a response to each of the statements made by kulkarni above in a previous post, the statments are:

    1.ONE MUST NOT FORGET THAT TODAY’S MUSLIMS IN PAKISTAN ARE OF HINDU STOCK AND THEY WERE CONVERTED TO ISLAM BY INVADERS FROM WEST.
    2.HINDUS AND BUDHHISTS WERE ALL OVER ASIA AND SLOWLY STARTED GETTING INTO MINORITY BECAUSE OF ADVANCING MUSLIMS FROM WEST(IRAN AND AFGAHNISTAN).
    3.WAHABI SECT IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF INTOLERANCE IN MUSLIM POULATION
    4.WHY CAN NOT WE LIVE AND LET OTHERS LIVE.WHY WE SHOULD SAY MY RELIGION IS BETTER THAN YOURS?ALL RELIGION LEAD TO GOD ONLY!
    5.JINNHA WAS SECULAR AND WAS NOT BOTHERED ABOUT MUSLIMS AND USED TO DRINK LIQUOR AND EAT PORK.SOMETHING HAPPENED AFTER 1936(MAY BE BRITISH MADE HIM GO AGAINST HINDUS?) AND HE CHANGED HIS STAND COMPLETELY AND INCITED MUSLIMS AGAINST HINDUS.
    6.IT IS THE AGENDA OF MUSLIMS TO INCREASE THEIR NUMBERS WHEREEVR THEY GO AND THEN SCARE THE POULATION THERE TO EITHER GET CONVERTED TO ISLAM OR GET REDAY TO GET KILLED.

    As for Zaid Hamid, I agreee with a lot of points, the thing is people have read a lot about his acussations and theories but not the literature and research that western scholars and other scholars did to back his points. If you want I willl give u evidence of his theories on the net, but it is long investigation and a very long read.

  53. bonobashi

    Oh dear! I did not pick up that one, because usually I do not even bother to read rants like Mr. Kulkarni’s. Thank you for the elucidation. I shall now brace myself and go through Mr. K’s thoughts.

    May I regretfully decline your invitation to consider Mr. Zaid Hamid’s views in detail? ‘Ars longa, vita brevis’ or words to that effect.

  54. Mustafa Shaban

    Yes you may.

  55. Hayyer 48

    It is time to set up an Institute of Indo-Pak Studies. This should research to the death all issues that just wont stop cropping up here. After the researches have been completed readers should be allowed to post on PTH only after swearing an oath that they have read and understood the research material and will refrain from posting any material that violates the findings of the research.

  56. bonobashi

    Hear! Hear!

  57. Gabban

    Hi,

    It is mentioned that relations, between Pakistan and India, will be soughted out per the issue of Kashmir.

    What is it that Pakistan will do better or different for the betterment of/for the the muslim population in the Valley ?

    What good has it done for people in their portion of Kashmir ?

    Development of cities as compared to when it took them; development of industry; rate of literacy ?

    What really is the problem that Pakistan has with the Valley as it is ?

    Most of the area of Kashmir with muslim population is with them … and their lot is not improved …

    Why is Pakistan concerned only about the muslims in the Valley to wage proxy war ; has fought wars with India for the possession of the Valley ; I mean, why not for muslims / territory in Hyderabad, UP, Junagarh, Maharashtra …

    If Pakistan is concerned about welfare of muslims in India, particulary the muslims in the Valley, why does it not develop their portion of Kashmir to set example …offer them opportunites of better livlihood (by way of development of industries, research and agriculture), Universities for all round knowledge {as against only madarsas (schools) having religious curriculum}, medical facilities for riddance from ailments … why does it not offer financial assistance for business… why does it spend money on armament ?

    If Musharraf saheb was / is well meaning Pakistani… why has he chosen to live in UK instead of his own country of which he has been a proud commando ?

    Why does he not go about the world to show case Pakistan for development of industries, medical facilities, institutes for learning… why not use the nuclear capability for electricity … why for the bomb ?

    Why does Pakistan not have Chamber for Commerce and Development instead of ISI ?

    Has it the army, air force and navy to fight India for that area of the Valley ! ? Is it not disproportionate ? Or does it want to win all India ? Which is not possible militarily.

    But Pakistan can win and rule over India forever … why should not Pakistan, itself, become a country of good opportunity for a healthy earning and living instead of being mentioned for violence ?

    Why should Pakistan want to develop strategic assessts as of messrs Osama & Omar and not industrialists and developers in Afghanistan ?
    Why should it not want to become an industrial base for USA and UK instead of a military.

    Why does not want to invest in development of airport at Bagram, Afghanistan, for civilian airlines for south Asia instead of military ?

    Pakistan can ‘kill’ every Indian with envy, trust me.

    Amen.

  58. yasserlatifhamdani

    Gabban,

    Where does your kind climb out of?

    You honestly don’t think we have a chamber of commerce?

    Most Indians upon visiting Pakistan are shocked by how much more developed and less poverty stricken it uis than back home. But who am I to say anything.

    You guys really need to get off your high horse and give up this India shining nonsense that you have fed yourselves to feel good about yourselves.

  59. Hayyer 48

    @Gabban
    You have now entered the feedback loop, also known as snakes and ladders. Back to the top.

  60. bonobashi

    @Hayyer48

    I laughed myself into hiccups on reading your remark.

    @Gabban

    Thank you for your well-reasoned explanation. Now that you point this out, it is strange that our friends in Pakistan didn’t think of these points earlier. They really should study history, sociology, some economics (maybe even send a few of their brighter students to study economics in American universities – who knows? they might return knowledgeable in history!), and much observation on the ground. It is shocking that such a backward country seeks to take any part of India and drag it back to their level.

    I personally think that we should help them climb out of their ignorant state by inviting them to come and study development in India. Perhaps six months in Bihar?

  61. koschan

    writing from my kaaliberry……….friends tell me baitullah may be dead, conrats pakistan.may uncle hafiz syed also meet the grim reeper soon..,,,,,.,i was reading delhi’s mail today in the toilet and to my utter surprise,i read about pth s rakhi savantarticle…..bradistan ,ylh,rr congrats……….ylh u may accuse us indians of obssessing bout pskistan but the fact of the matter isthat indians are ur pucce customers come hail or h1n1……..waise ,in the last week i met many muslim students at aiims…….they consider themaelves as indians as me and so do i…..ylh,ur hypothesis doesnt apply to south indian muslims …..met an afghani senior med student,,,,,mhe is half tajik half pukhtoin and his dad works at afghan air force,,expectedly he had only gandi gandi gaalis for pakistan….
    He was astonished when i told him that i have interacted with a abdali descendent…….he wishes that india offwrs more scholarships to afghanis…..,

  62. koschan

    and yes, want to wish a happy partition day to ylh and a sad one to karun in advance…..to mark this sad anniverary, i will be contributing my part to the melancholy by singing our national anthem at aiims on pandreh august.

  63. yasserlatifhamdani

    Yes. But the moti and gandi gali that Half Tajik and Half Afghan types usually throw at Pakistanis is “you descendants of Hindus”…I doubt that he mentioned that to you.

    If you don’t believe me research the matter a bit more.

  64. yasserlatifhamdani

    Ofcourse we are proud to be the descendants of our ancestors be they Hindu, Sikh, buddhist, pagan or kafir.

  65. Gabban

    @ Yasserbhai

    No offense intended … not at all comparing Pakistan to India.

    If there is a Chamber of Commerce, where is the commerce (business) … ?

    My thought here is not to indict … sure Pakistan has moved and is progressing … Amen …

    How did you feel I am riding high horse and India shining ?

    Tell me spontenously … do you not want Pakistan more industrialised than it is now ? Do you not want more comptemprary Universities, engineering and medical colleges, more electricity
    and development ?? Do you not want more stability in Afghanistan … then, why not through industry, development, electricity, communication than by trying to create by stategic assests as of now…

    Yes you do !
    (Please read ‘us’ for ‘you’)

    And yes sir, we can …

    Then let us begin right now … avoid mention of Partition… hindu-muslim… my Pakistan, your India … it has not got us anywhere in sixty years… it may not for as many years on…

    However, rest assured, we, Pakistan can go places by being commercial : industrially, developmentally, educationally …
    we know this right ? Then why has it not happened or is not going to be … or why is it not emphasised enough ?

    May I again cite Musharraf saheb (just an example of a typical leader)… he did and said what he wanted … now, he has simply walked away ! Is it not amazing … what did he do for people to be healthy and prosperous ?

    He may built an arsenal, did he enough industry, enhance agriculture so as to have long term effect ?

    There is the talk of extraditing him … wow ! Is this all about his conviction for Pakistan …

    Just trying to veer from the cliches of Partition, Kashmir, hindu-muslim … these are not relevant anymore …

    No ill feeling Yasser bhai … we have not met … may be we never will … let us always get pleasure thinking of each other by our names … !!

    You have a nice day !

  66. bonobashi

    Of course, Gabban couldn’t possibly be Koschan.

    Koschan has been released from AIIMS, with time off for good behaviour.

  67. yasserlatifhamdani

    Gabban mian,

    I can only pity your ignorance and arrogance.

    Get a life.

  68. karun

    the pinnacle of objective analysis:

    as they say ignorance is bliss

    what analysis man!! leaves me dumbfounded
    **********************************************
    Most Indians upon visiting Pakistan are shocked by how much more developed and less poverty stricken it uis than back home. But who am I to say anything.

    You guys really need to get off your high horse and give up this India shining nonsense that you have fed yourselves to feel good about yourselves
    **********************************************
    now you get off your high horses and reckon that you dont even come distant third. the grapes are sour nonetheless.

    of course your indian cronies see nothing offensive.

  69. Hayyer 48

    Karun: As a discussant, not a crony I once again risk your righteous wrath. This article is not about India’s economic growth. For years Pakistan was ahead. Patriotism is only incidental to discussions on PTH.
    And, needless to say except for the more developed pockets in India Pakistan in general is not only more ‘developed’ it is also more prosperous. Nearly two decades ago on my first visit to Pakistan I was surprised to see how much cleaner and more prosperous Karachi (from where we took off) looked in comparison to Bombay where we landed.
    If you live in Delhi, Mumbai, South India or Gujrat, or in Punjab/Haryana India seems prosperous. The squalor elsewhere is shameful. Even Navi Mumbai is squalid compared to New Town in Kolkata.
    The issues under discussion are more complex than simple economic growth. There is no need for a chest thumping on the economic front. One of the reasons Pakistani Punjabis wanted to separate was Hindu economic hegemony anyway. Till the mid nineties Pakistan was way ahead of India. Our ‘economic miracle’ is only a decade old.

  70. karun

    Rehan Ansari

    That number for Karachi is right, I am sure. I have just come from Mumbai and I know that the two cities have roughly the same numbers but it is a visual shock how little real estate development there is here compared to Mumbai… for example Mai Kolachi is a strip between Boating Basin and Lalazar, and it could be Karachi’s Marine Drive but there is nothing there yet, except for the new American Embassy coming up. Athough I hear that the mangroves along both sides of Mai Kolachi are protected and somebody pays somebody big money for that.

    I have been in Mumbai three years, been visiting Pune, and Nagpur, been to Bangalore and Hyderabad and am shocked by the construction.
    #################################
    but of course i have to bank only your side of the story.Isnt it hayyer.
    or apparently is thr some fun in letting people know that you have done the impossible, being to pak and back.

    http://blog.dawn.com:91/dblog/2009/02/16/cross-border-chit-chat/

  71. yasserlatifhamdani

    Karun mian,

    Bravo. Rehan Hassan Ansari has massaged your ego.

    May I remind you that for most years since 1947 till today, the reverse was true… when Habib Bank Plaza went up in Karachi in 1961, most Indians had problems building a three storey building without collapsing.

    Karachi rose from sleepy fisherman’s town to great heights … and yes Pakistani Economy right now is in slowdown mode… but we didn’t boast about it.

    This is why I call Indians the newly rich of the world. You discovered economic growth only yesterday (remember India is legendary in Economics for having contributed the term “Hindu Rate of Growth”) … and you are abusing us?

    Get a life dude. Even in 2006, the pace with which Pakistani real estate market was growing was something that Indians could not hope to match. So don’t worry… we have killed Mehsud. Now … things will get back to normal.

  72. Hayyer 48

    @karuna. I went to Pakistan on a visa and so had no difficulty getting back.

  73. karun

    YLH the problem is that you may quote and get away “Most Indians upon visiting Pakistan are shocked by how much more developed and less poverty stricken it uis than back home. But who am I to say anything.”

    and when i just pasted what one of your own countrymen who has lived at both places you go on a mad rant.

    look at your miserable self hamdani, you delude yourself with history and false grandeur…..

    you wrote: You discovered economic growth only yesterday (perhaps 1991-roughly 20 years back is yesterday indeed)
    i hope you dont repeat the dialouge in 2025 or 2050….

    So don’t worry… we have killed Mehsud. Now … things will get back to normal.

    at times you sound too funny and childish

  74. yasserlatifhamdani

    Here is Aakar Patel’s view:

    Visitors to Pakistan will be shocked at how they have kept their cities and their airports. They are truly world class. India can never be this efficient or clean. Lahore is paradise. It has huge gardens splashed through the middle of its roads. An enormous canal glides through the middle of a thoroughfare. Indians will also be amazed with how much at ease the Lahauri is with his culture and how little this culture has to do with religion.

    http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00003380&channel=gymkhana&start=0&end=9&page=1&chapter=1

    So your point is?

    Aakar Patel is a much more credible an authority than Rehan Hassan Ansari… who I know very well.

  75. karun

    your article is dated 2004: mine is 2008.

    perhaps 4 years is a long time…and the present is closer to ansari than patel, that i am certain…

    but then who knows what future holds….

  76. yasserlatifhamdani

    Once again…yes Rehan Ansari is right that Pakistan’s current economic crisis has brought the real estate to a halt but this is only a very recent phenomenon and has to do with the war on terror and the situation was going vis a vis the Taliban.

    In 2006 and early 2007 the situation was the exact opposite.

    So what are you gloating about if out of 62 years you guys have done better in something for only 2?

  77. Sid

    “The situation in Pakistan is much better and more evolved believe it or not. It has a strong civil society, a committed legal fraternity dedicated human rights and due process.” – awesome. I am speechless. Being a Pakistani, you are the perfect person to advise Indians about the democracy, secularism and development.

  78. vajra

    @Sid

    Presumably speechless is a figure of speech. You will be surprised how many wish it were literally true.

  79. Pingback: Two Nation Theory - Page 3 - Pakistan Defence Forum