The Ideology of Pakistan

By Col Riaz Jafri (in The Paktribune)

It was indeed brave of Ghazi Salahuddin to stir a sensitive subject like  “Induction of Religion in Politics” and thereby obliquely question the efficacy of Islamisation of Pakistan in his article “Nawaz Sharif’s Chance”  “The News” Sunday June 13th . He advised MNS against being an Ameer ul Momineen if he is elected PM for the third time and keep the state and religion separate from each other.  I agree with him. Much is talked about the Nazria e Pakistan (Ideology of Pakistan) by our intellectuals – pseudo as well as genuine, and it has become fashionable to paint it in an Islamic hue.

 I am 80 and saw Pakistan coming into being. Though Islam was used extensively in uniting the Muslims of the sub-continent and to expound the Two Nation Theory yet, nowhere did I witness any kind of religiosity in the party and public meetings of All India Muslim League during the entire Pakistan movement. Not a single meeting – party or public – ever started with what to talk of recitation from holy Qura’n followed by a Na’at or Hamd even with the Bismillah ar Rahman ur Rahim. At the most a poem of Hali, Hasrat Mohani or Iqbal appropriate to the occasion was recited to start the proceedings.

The reader is requested not to misconstrue it as something anti-Islam. It was just not the practice then. Islam was in the hearts and not on the lips. May I, therefore, ask those who say now and say it emphatically too that Pakistan was created for Islam,  was Islam in any kind of danger in the united India and Pakistan had to be created to save it?  If it were so then why did the religious parties and almost all the ulema and mushaikh oppose its creation? A very important question arises here. Did an accomplished and astute politician like Jinnah not know the power of the pulpit?  Could he not measure the damage they could cause and were actually doing to the League’s political efforts by alienating them? Why did he not, therefore, try to draw them into the ambit of his political struggle? The answer that comes to my mind is simply because he knew that once the clerics were given some space in a political arena, how so ever small it may be, they would expand it to its entirety. Once religion, more so Islam, is mentioned in any context no one would dare say even a word remotely at variance with it.  They (ulema) would prevail upon the innocent masses in the name of Islam and dictate their diktats to the extent that the religion will overshadow the governance in its all spheres. And,  he did not want theocracy in Pakistan about which he had made his thoughts amply clear to all at many an occasion. Therefore, Pakistan was NOT created for Islam in that sense but to ameliorate the socio-economic lot of the down trodden Muslims of India.

Next, we have to examine if the Islamic Ideology was given to us by the founding fathers?  If yes, then why was Pakistan not named The Islamic State of Pakistan to start with on its inception on August 14th, 1947?  Not only that, why did Quaid have Dr. Jugandar Nath Mandal as his Law Minister?  Imagine, the law minister of an Islamic state being a non-Muslim Hindu and that too of the lowest caste !  Why was Sir Zafar ullah Khan – a known Ahmadi – appointed as the Foreign Minister of the newly born  “Islamic” state of Pakistan?  Did Quaid not know of the bias against the Ahmadis in the Muslim world, particularly amongst the Muslim Arab countries?  Why was CE Gibbons – a Christian – elected as the Deputy Speaker of the Constituent assembly – the constituent assembly that was to frame the constitution for the “Islamic” state of Pakistan?  Why did Quaid say what he did in his August 11, 1947 speech —  Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims shall cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense but in the political sense —-?  Also, please note what else did he talk of in his ever first address as the first President of the Constituent Assembly of sovereign Pakistan? The very first thing that came to his mind was Law & Order, next Corruption, then Black Marketering & Hoarding, then Nepotism and Jobbery and finally a word of advice to all those who had opposed Pakistan to accept it now that it had become a reality. Not a word about Islam or anything Islamic in his entire speech of 45 minutes or so!  This all could not have been there just co-incidentally!

Let’s examine a few more historical facts connected with the Pakistan movement to clarify our thoughts more. Is it not a fact that Quaid wooed the Sikhs to side with Pakistan instead of India? Had they opted for Pakistan and the Punjab with all its Hindu and Sikh population not divided and its boundary extended up to Shahdara on the home bank of Jumna with Delhi across on its other bank, would Pakistan still have been an Islamic state in the strict sense?  Next, we all know of the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946, dividing India into a Confederation of three Zones, A, B & C.  A zone comprising of Assam and undivided full Bengal.  Zone B comprising of present Pakistan with undivided Punjab. And, Zone C comprising of Central (or remaining) India. Imagine, Quaid and the Muslim League accepted it. Again, mercifully Congress didn’t agree to it and we got Pakistan.  Had Congress also agreed to the Confederation of United India, where would have been Pakistan and its (Islamic) ideology?  And, mind you it was to happen in 1946 – six years after the Lahore (Pakistan) Resolution and the struggle for Pakistan and only a year before the actual birth of Pakistan!  If Pakistan were to be created for Islam, would the founding fathers have agreed to the Cabinet Mission Plan? 

From the above it is amply clear that Pakistan was neither created for Islam nor did the founding fathers give it an Islamic Ideology for us to follow it blindly. Pakistan was, however,  certainly created in the name of Islam but for the amelioration of the Musalmanan e Hind.  Islam was never in any danger in the pre-partitioned India.  It were the down trodden Muslims of India who were badly oppressed by the non-Muslims and needed a socio-economic amelioration for their survival. If Pakistan was created for Islam, why is there not-with-standing The Objectives Resolution  any Islamic centre of authority in it even after 63 years of its existence?  Would we all follow the Islamic verdict given by the Banuri Town Karachi, the Makhdooms and Pirs of Hala, Hur or Multan, the Maulanas of  Okara, Akora or DI Khan, or the Popalzeis of Peshawar who in any case rarely see eye to eye with the rest of country’s clergy.  As a matter of fact, the real centres of authority are still in India – at  Deoband and Breilli for the most and at Qum, Al-Azhar and Saudi Arabia for the others.

Next, the question arises should we have an ideology for Pakistan – Islamic or otherwise?  But before we delve into it let’s see as to how did this expression “Ideology of Pakistan” come into being. During the first fifteen years of Pakistan nobody knew or used the term Ideology of Pakistan, till in 1962 Maulvi Abdul Bari of Jama’t Islami used the term for the first time when the political parties bill was under discussion.  Chaudhry Fazal Illahi, who later became the president of Pakistan objected to it and asked as to what was meant by it.  The mover of the bill said that the ideology of Pakistan was Islam.  That was that. Nobody raised any objection or asked for further explanation and the bill was passed.

Naturally no one raised any questions.  Who could dare do so and invite the wrath of the clerics calling him a heretic, a murtad and what not ?! That’s how we got the Islamic Ideology for Pakistan.  Thanks to Jama’t e Islami, the party who had opposed the very creation of Pakistan gave it the ideology and started dictating Islamisation of the country.

Coming back to having an ideology or not raises an important question. Can we subordinate the acquisition of knowledge to any ideology?  If we do, would we not  restrict the field of knowledge only to what the ideology teaches us? The ideology has to run through a groove or a defined channel and does not permit one to go out of it. Europe and the West suffered from the Christian dogma for centuries. To them the earth was flat and centre of the universe. Sun revolved around it. Galileo had to face an inquisition tribunal for having expounded a theory opposed to the Christian ideology. The object of education is to acquire knowledge, knowledge of everything, of universe, the space, the remotest nebula, the oceans and the seas. Now if we subordinate the acquisition of knowledge to any ideology, political, economic, or religious, we reduce the field of knowledge because it imposes limitations on human intellect and its activities.

Never-the-less education was subordinated to the so-called Islamic Ideology and, the zealots in the process did quite a damage to Pakistan.  A case in point is the education imparted in madressas. It does not inculcate quest for knowledge among the students there. Their young and impressionable minds are ingrained with the thought that only their creed is based on truth. All other faiths and creeds are manifestations of evil. For this the curriculum was redesigned and textbooks rewritten to promote the ideology of Pakistan and create the monolithic image of Pakistan as an Islamic state. Muslims were the only citizens of Pakistan, others could also live if they wanted. Forgotten was the fact that Pakistan is a multi-lingual, multi-ethnic and multi religious society. Non-Muslims are an integral part of it. Many of them having contributed to the image, stature and wellbeing of the country.

The process is not confined to the madressas only but even the secondary school text books of regular institutions contain fantasies like the Pak army soldiers laying themselves in front of the Indian tanks with mines tied to their chests in Chawinda 1965 war (implying to attain Shahadat — ) Soldiers from outer world  (angels) dressed in green with swords in hand were seen fighting alongside the Pak army in 1965 etc.!  When the rest of the world is invading  space, travelling to moon and the mars,  we are being taken back 1500 years in the name of Islam and Islamic ideology for Pakistan.

The bottom line is, please do have Islam but as a personal matter and not that of state.  There are no two views that Islam is the best religion, the ultimate, the universal and most beneficial to the humanity. It is our heritage and a proud one too. But for God’s sake do not confine it to the medieval and fifteen century old religion only.  Keep it abreast of time, as ordained in the holy book. Let’s draw on Qura’n to fashion (I am intentionally not using the word ‘mould’ which smacks of restrictions) our lives commensurate with the progress of the mankind.  And, Pakistan will soon INSHALLAH be the envy of the most developed nation on this planet.

182 Comments

Filed under Pakistan

182 responses to “The Ideology of Pakistan

  1. Junaid

    Did an accomplished and astute politician like Jinnah not know the power of the pulpit? Could he not measure the damage they could cause and were actually doing to the League’s political efforts by alienating them? Why did he not, therefore, try to draw them into the ambit of his political struggle?

    I never thought of this. I was always suspicious that Jinnah did use religion to achieve political ends.

    However, Col Riaz clarifies this misconception by a wonderful argument.

    If Jinnah wanted to use religion as a political tool, he should have tried to persuade the religious parties to join ranks with him. However, the fact is, that he did not.

    Thanks Col Riaz for clarifying my misconception.

    Kind Regards

  2. yasserlatifhamdani

    It goes to show if you think about it… that in an environment already poisoned by religion in politics (Ref: Khilafat movement amongst other Gandhian gifts), Jinnah’s ambiguous references to Islamic ideals were to wean away followers from the Islamist parties which opposed him.

    Isn’t that what is done regularly when the US Government says “Islam is not an evil ideology. Al Qaeda’s interpretation is wrong” … I suppose one could accuse US government of exploiting Islam too by this customary logic.

  3. skyview

    to ylh

    Don’t accuse Gandhi (whom I do not worship) for having brought islam into politics. Islam has been in politics since long. If a person A gives a person B a chance and B misuses it then the person A cannot be blamed. In your post you are admitting that it is the ideology itself that is poblematic. That Gandhi in good trust gave the followers of this ideology a chance to make their voices felt and they misused it – that is another matter.

  4. skyview

    Jinnah fought to get the Pakistan of his wish (like a lawyer fighting to get his case to win).
    He is much praised and adored for that (in Pakistan by certain sections).

    Later the mullahs in Pakistan fought and got their Pakistan.

    So is life.

    Jinnah was to british India and Hindus what the mullahs are now for Jinnah’s Pakistan and the Jinnahists and ahmadiyas etc.

  5. Junaid

    Jinnah was to british India and Hindus what the mullahs are now for Jinnah’s Pakistan and the Jinnahists and ahmadiyas etc.

    And yet the party which rejected the Confederation of India was the Hindu dominated Congress party led by Nehru and spiritually guided by Gandhi.

    Wink Wink Cough Cough

  6. Yasir Qadeer

    Islam or any religion for that matter is a personal choice not a state’s choice. If I want to become a Christian today, why would the state hold it against me? I am still a Pakistani citizen. Being a Muslim Pakistani should not be a reason for preference.

  7. Hira Mir

    @yaser. In last speech of Jinnah he intimated not to mix religious with politics. I will completely agree with you as the point here is to defeat militancy and promote a tolerant country.

  8. skyview

    to Junaid

    We don’t know who was trying to fool whom in 1946-47. We are in the year 2010.

    I was writing about the Pakistan of today and in this context I wrote that what Jinnah was to british Indian and hindus – that role is now taken over by mullahs in Pakistan against the Pak govt. and muslim liberals and the jinnahists

    Everyone (every leader) has his megalomania at his own time.

    This argument about “we innocent noble muslims did not want partition, it was the intransigent scoundrel hindus who made us take it” – this is childish crybaby-ism. The hindus can say: “The muslims intentionally made demands which were unfulfillable and provocative so that they could get their islamic paradise on the earth”. I sympathise with none of them. It is all long gone. (In a sense it is good that many pakistanis now acknowledge that partition (and religious identity) was a mistake. Why would they otherwise come up repeatedly with this “we nice wonderful guys muslims did not want it” refrain?)

    Let us se what is in store for us this year through the fascism and totalitarianism that are raging around us, especially in the islamic paradise of Pakistan. Can we beat it? – I hope we can.

  9. poke

    YLH , i have seen u using lot of space trying to reinforce your idea of Nazria a pakistan, but is this really imp.For the sake of arguement lets agree that it was formed for islam and muslims and islamisation that followed was natural progression.
    The questions are:-
    1. Is islam or islamization so bad as we see in present day pak/iran/sudan or put any other muslim nation of your choice with one exception.
    2.Are these mullahs u intelligent guys accuse of hijacking the ideology are culprit or is it that they are right? No wonder none of you ever challenge them .
    3.What is this wrong or right ideology ? who decides? i have never come across any article on right ideology…..

  10. Farukh Sarwar

    Col. Rafi: Thanks for posting such an extraordinary article. The west after the reformation started a new journey towards development and now we need reformation, which is free from theocracy and totally concentrated on development in all senses.

  11. Majumdar

    Col. sahib,

    Naturally no one raised any questions. Who could dare do so and invite the wrath of the clerics calling him a heretic, a murtad and what not ?!

    The process of Islamisation started not with the passage of this bill but with passage of OR-1949 almost unanimously by all Muslim members of the AIML when the Jamaat members were conspicuous by their absence. Under these circumstances we have to consider the possibility that the aforementioned bill was passed not becuase the legislators were afraid of being dubbed as apostates but ‘cos they genuinely believed in this cause.

    Regards

  12. bciv

    but ‘cos they genuinely believed in this cause.

    based on the words of the OR itself, what exactly was this ’cause’? Actually, it was the shock and apprehensions of the non-muslim members that deserved greater attention and ought to have raised alarm bells. but, otherwise, had democracy continued, the OR might have remained a preamble to the constitution, becoming more and more inconsequential,practically revoked. A bit like God in the preamble of the German constitution – to quote an example of a comparatively modern constitution.

    The Jamaat could have used the back-door offered them by OR only in case antidemocratic forces gained power, extra-constitutionally, and did a deal with the ever-willing Jamaat. As a matter of fact, this is what did happen.

    Even ZAB, used tactics he had learnt, in his (de)formative years, as an important part of a dictatorship. it was the power structure he understood. you see, when you interrupt democracy and its evolution, the end of dictatorship is anything but restarting where you had left off. after every 10 years of dictatorship, democracy re-starts 50 years behind, burdened by all the baggage of dictatorship and afflicted by all the institutional and psychological diseases it has introduced. On top of that, the exit of a dictator does not necessarily mean that dictatorship is no more. Often it just moves backstage, from where it tries to control the stage, with a vengeance.

  13. Very factual and objective.
    As to the demand for the formation of Pakistan , the reason is not amelioration of Muslims, but the lust for power between Nehru, Jinnah and Sardar Patel(in this case it was well disguised) .
    Jinnah was nowhere in the mood to demand Pakistan till matters came to a head and Gandhi seems to have preferred Nehru to the chagrin of both Jinnah and Patel.They could not raise their voice against Gandhi.Jinnah felt he could not aspire to become PM and given the circumstances he felt he had no chance whatsoever in future as well.Hence the demand for separate state.
    The argument that Jinnah was not for Islamic State or for Islamic ideology may be gauged by his personal life as a practicing Muslim.One thing honest about him was that he never pretended to be what he was not.
    People of India and Pakistan treat Gandhi and Jinnah as above review and criticism and our objectivity becomes blurred because of our emotional attachment to these people,which has been fueled by media.
    I wonder why one should have an ideology other than development and well being of people.
    The so called ideologies divide people of the nation and a hindrance in the conduct of foreign affairs.
    After all, religion is intensely personal and only harm can come when you mix it in Politics.
    Unfortunately, politicians, need vote banks.
    What better card than Religion now that Communism is dead and buried!

  14. harbir singh nain

    After having scoffed at the two nation theory for all my life, I am now starting to reconsider, starting to see the two nations.

    I am not knowledgeable enough to know whether there always were two nations, or whether the two nations were formed in the early part of the 20th century because of divisions caused by machinations of the pre-independence leadership, but what is clear to me now is that in 1946 there were two nations in British India.

    Indians like me, especially north indians, like to imagine a non-partitioned India, but in that fantasy, the undivided India is just like the real world India, with the 1950 Ambedkar constitution and a secular and relatively functional parliamentary democracy with exactly the same regional and national political frameworks, the difference only being that the undivided India would be vibrant and glorious in the wholeness of its family and polity.

    Its complete nonsense. That fantasy depends upon pre-independence Indians not behaving as two nations. but they did behave and act as two nations. If you wind the clock back to 1945, there is no course that you can chart that keeps the two nations intertwined in such a way as to create a unified secular state with a parliamentary democracy.

    The cabinet mission plan was no panacea. It only offered to bind the two nations into a loose confederation. The appeal of such a confederation today is that it might have prevented all the bloodshed and hostility that has occurred since partition. But it is not a convincing appeal. It is difficult to imagine how such a confederation would have ensured a functionally secular democracy across the groups, how it would have created universals rights, protections and privileges for all citizens, how it would have managed the competing interests of the groups to grasp for more than their fair share. The whole confederation would have been at risk of having happen exactly what happened to East and west Pakistan in between 1947 and 1971, just on a subcontinental scale.

    India is divided because the two nations did not share a common vision for the nature of the post-independence state. If the nations were really formed in the 20th century because of political divisions created by congress and the muslim league, then partition was an enormous tragedy, quite apart from the tragedy of the deaths and conflict. but if there were always two nations, then partitions was just as well, the conflict and deaths not withstanding.

  15. Ammar

    Sadly the ideology of Pakistan was distorted to suit the interest of ruling elites and clergy, Pakistan was envisioned as liberal progressive democratic state, however growing intolerance has plagued the society it is time that true vision of Pakistan is revived.

  16. Hayyer

    “Islam was never in any danger in the pre-partitioned India. It were the down trodden Muslims of India who were badly oppressed by the non-Muslims and needed a socio-economic amelioration for their survival.”

    In which part of India were the Muslims down trodden and oppressed by non-Muslims. This is something of a factoid. One reads that the Muslim peasantry in Bengal was oppressed under Hindu landowners. If this is true can it be said that the oppression was because of their being Muslim or were they like any peasantry? Was not the Krishak Samaj Party a good forum for settling their grievances?

    In Punjab, the Frontier, Sindh and Balochistan the very idea of oppression by non Muslims would have been laughable.

    The creation of Pakistan has not solved the problems of Muslims in the rest of India if they were indeed being oppressed there. To what extent it answered the issue of empowerment of the Muslim salariat I cannot say, or of the feudal Muslim classes from areas in present day India.

    “…. The mover of the bill said that the ideology of Pakistan was Islam. That was that. Nobody raised any objection or asked for further explanation and the bill was passed.

    Naturally no one raised any questions. Who could dare do so and invite the wrath of the clerics calling him a heretic, a murtad and what not ?!”

    Muslims in present day India do not fear being called heretics and murtads by the Mullahs. They do not fear the Ulema at all. Even if a Maulvi should pass some absurd fatwa no killers come out to enforce it. This was probably true prior to ’47 in the areas now comprising Pakistan. Why then did the leaders of Pakistan from very early on allow themselves to be silenced by the Ulema? What can Pakistani leaders do at this stage to undo the craven submission to Mullahdom? That is the key question.

  17. bciv

    @harbir singh nain

    This is not to comment on your views on the CMP, but to dispute those of your claims about the CMP which are contrary to the contents – officially documented – of the plan.

    It only offered to bind the two nations into a loose confederation.

    The CMP was not a confederation.

    It is difficult to imagine [..] how it would have created universals rights, protections and privileges for all citizens

    It included a universal declaration and adoption of civil rights.

    The whole confederation would have been at risk of having happen exactly what happened to East and west Pakistan in between 1947 and 1971, just on a subcontinental scale.

    If you mean all out civil war, then I cannot comment only the ability of the state (ie the centre) to respond to it. Defence was a wholly central subject, with a single army and single command. Are you suggesting that there would have been a breakdown of discipline or open revolt in the army along communal lines?

  18. P. Vengaayam

    Dear Sir,

    Thanks for this article and your view of the world. I note that you said:

    ” Jinnah did not want theocracy in Pakistan about which he had made his thoughts amply clear to all at many an occasion. Therefore, Pakistan was NOT created for Islam in that sense but to ameliorate the socio-economic lot of the down trodden Muslims of India.”

    I do not understand this notion that Pakistan was created for the benefit of Indian muslims, especially when there were many Indian muslims in the Indian National Congress that were staunchly on India’s side. I find it hard to understand how one country can be formed for the benefit of citizens of another country, especially when Pakistan’s muslims themselves are having a hard time ekeing out an existence. Is this why Pakistan never fixes its own problems? because it wants to solve the problems of Indian muslims before that of Pakistani citizens?

  19. P. Vengaayam

    Another poster Shiv had written:

    “It is important for the Pakistani to see unhappiness among Indian Muslims. It is important for the Pakistani narrative to hold up as poster boys, unhappy and disssatisfied, and preferably murdered or raped Indian Muslims.”

    So if Pakistan was formed to provide a better life for Indian muslims, then is Pakistan’s use of terrorists to create communal violence is being done with the intent of making Pakistan look like a safer place for Indian muslims? Can someone please clarify?

    Thanks

  20. bciv

    indeed, arun, they should have used sms.

  21. P. Vengaayam

    AG3L: “If Muslim League stuff was preached in the mosques, then how can it not be said to be religious?”

    AG3L, I think you ask the wrong question. The name “muslim league” combined with its focus on pushing the interest of followers of Islam, and excluding other religions already makes it a religious political group. Even in the absence of technology like SMS, the open use of religious institutions for political purposes negates all claims of the Muslim League being a non-religious entity. It appears like a semantic sleight of hand to claim that this parochial organization called the Muslim League was “inclusive” and not formed on the basis of religious bigotry.

  22. bciv

    @P. Vengaayam

    you obviously don’t know the difference between religious identity and religious belief system, let alone religious bigotry.

  23. Kaalket

    Good Colonel ‘s effort is reminder of the dilemma of one ridining crocodile assuming it to be a boat. Once you have grabbed it you cant leave it on your own volition. Pakistan was made of the welfare of Indian Muslims yet Jinnah wanted Hindus and Sikhs to remain there , has nothing to do with Islam yet Army motto is Iman, Takwa, JihadfiSabilliha” ,not the defence of the country and its people and door is close for IM to migrate their and enjoy their portion of safety and reward. Can some one please point out the logic in the whole argument/s or rational behind the issue.
    TNT is a correct theory if taken to its logical conclusion and i perceive real fear in the eyes of Pakistani to face this reality.Pakistan is the symbol of true, pure Islam as similar observation was made by the King of Egypt in 47. I dont think anyone doubt the contribution of Pakistan, its Nazariya and actual practice of pure Islam in currently touching new glorious height,fame and achievement of this true deen in the whole civilized world.Post 47,India has been really unlucky to reach such intellectual, spiritual, cultural and social height to discuss such humane ,compassionate ,merciful and equality issue of Wajibal Qital or Khattam a Nabuwwat. Indian must admit that they remain backward in this sense, way behind Pakistan. Indians failed in implementing true secularism in essence as feared by Jinnah and Pakistan achieved complete success in impelenting Islam at state and individual level.Its as simple as that.

  24. bciv

    @Kaalket

    are you saying that ayub khan was a jinnah-ist? or, that jinnah was the reason for his coup and all the subsequent ones? i’m sure you have got a ready-made theory. i am just curious to see you share it with us.

  25. @P. Vengaayam

    I do not understand this notion that Pakistan was created for the benefit of Indian muslims, especially when there were many Indian muslims in the Indian National Congress that were staunchly on India’s side. I find it hard to understand how one country can be formed for the benefit of citizens of another country, especially when Pakistan’s muslims themselves are having a hard time ekeing out an existence. Is this why Pakistan never fixes its own problems? because it wants to solve the problems of Indian muslims before that of Pakistani citizens?

    There are obvious discrepancies both of fact and of appreciation, and it is not surprising that you therefore find the matter hard to understand.

    Rather than answering your questions and doubts piecemeal, it may be better to advise you to await a forthcoming publication by PTH which may help you navigate these issues a little better.

  26. P. Vengaayam

    @bciv:”you obviously don’t know the difference between religious identity and religious belief system, let alone religious bigotry.”

    Dear Sir, that is a snippy retort🙂 though it does not answer the question posed.

    More seriously, the above quotes by various people indicate clearly that arguments made by the Muslim League and others who argued for the creation of Pakistan clearly stated that they had no intention of living in a place where hindus and muslims would be treated as equals. This kind of prejudicial behaviour is what is known as bigotry, and when the prejudice is based on religion, it becomes religious bigotry. This cannot be whitewashed by retroactively making claims that Pakistan was formed for reasons other than religious parochialism.

  27. P. Vengaayam

    vajra:”There are obvious discrepancies both of fact and of appreciation”

    Dear Sir, I am sorry to say that the above is a vague response and short on detail of any kind. Which of what has been said is incorrect/wrong precisely? I believe I can provide references for what was stated.

    I am not sure what exactly I should be expecting in the article given that the responses have so far been evasive rather than enlightening. But I eagerly await the article you mention will be enlightening on my earlier questions.

    Best regards.

  28. yasserlatifhamdani

    Bciv,

    Arun Gupta/ Sadna Gupta and her motley crew have to be really a bunch of losers to act the way they do waisay. I have begun to wonder about their mental state.

    My feeling is that the overwhelming consensus amongst historians has really upset this family and their little myths have been shattered. Shocked and awed and overwhelmed by this overturning of cherished myths and lies …they are forced to act like the way they do.

    A comment here is necessary on just how a big of a scoundrel one has to be to act the way they do. I do hope someone some where pays them for this herculean but utterly futile effort. Because otherwise making a fool of themselves day in day out must really take its own toll.

    I was forwarded some stuff by a few people and I was rotfl…these guys have started a new blog dedicated to “watching” liberal Pakistan and undoing “myths” by PTH. Ha ha. Indeed. Myths that are shared by without exception all historians studying partition in the west.

  29. Kashif Jahangiri

    @Vengaayam

    Pakistan was conceived for political empowerment of the Muslims living in the united India.

    Over the years, under the British rule, a majority of the Muslims had isolated themselves from education and civil service, as it was considered “haraam” (thanks to clergy!). By way of example, when my grandfather went to Aligarh in 1920 from a remote village of the former NWFP to do LLB from the famous Muhammadan University, his father back home had to face social boycott from the fellow villagers, only because his son was receiving “angrezi taaleem” (English education).

    As a result, Muslims in general were not doing well. Furthermore, the golden rule of the Brits, divide and rule, had created a lot of rift between the Muslims and Hindus. Both would look at each other with suspicion. This perceived animosity along with the fact that Muslims were not educated enough had created a fear that after the English would depart Muslims would not get a fair share in the Indian administration / political system and that they will be dominated by the Hindus whom they had ruled over for centuries. It was therefore considered important to have a separate State in order to upscale Muslims and bring them at par with Hindus. A sizeable Muslim population in a neighbouring country would also keep pressure on the Indian Government to give a fair share to Muslims living in India in their political system.

    Pakistan was never conceived as a theocratic state for Muslims only. Had that been the case, all the religious parties (barring Ahmadis and Ismailis) would not have opposed Pakistan to the maximum. The religious leaders (including Jama’at-e-Islami, Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, Majlis-e-Ahrar) used to call Pakistan as NaPakistan and Paleedistan (the land of filth and the land of immorality). They even dubbed the state of Pakistan as a prostitute. Do you think they would have reacted in this manner if Pakistan had been conceived as a theocracy?

  30. PMA

    Hayyer (June 23, 2010 at 7:17 pm):

    Sir, you as always raise pertinent questions. It is a fallacy that Pakistan, East and West, was created for the benefit of “ALL” Muslims of the British India. It was and is for the benefit of the Muslims as well as non-Muslims of the Muslim majority areas of the pre-1947 British India. In spite of Pakistan’s current troubles, which will eventually pass, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis have tremendously benefited from the creation of Pakistan and Bangladesh. There is no question about that. We Pakistanis are better off having our own country – good or bad. The chapter is closed.

    As for Muslims of independent India. We in Pakistan wish them good like we wish good to all other non-Muslims of India. From what I see, other than periodic religious killings in India, most Indians of all religions have found a place in the Indian society. Which is a good news. The bottom line is: You Indians take care of your people as we Pakistanis do the same for our people. Lets relegate history to the history books. Lets move on.

  31. swapnavasavdutta

    I thought it was AIML, All India!
    So eliminating competition is the way to get ahead!
    If AMD wants more market shrae, it should
    either destroy Intel or divide the world into two,
    one which will buy only Intel microprocessors and
    other will only buy AMD micrprocessors!

  32. swapnavasavdutta

    PMA, good thoughts. Hope Pakistanis take your
    line of thoughs further and leave Kashmir alone,
    you keep you half, Indians keep their. It has been
    60+ years, lets put this conflict behind us also, just
    like partition of India, Bengal, and Punjab.

  33. Kaalket

    BCIV,
    Jinnah did not fight any election to be GJ of Pakistan and others including Ayub followed the steps of the father of nation like obedient sons. The onlee problem now is that there are many sons desiring to emulate the same but are being told to do otherwise. The dichotomy in the personality of Jinna is mirrored by the institution he build. Its clear to any ousider observant but not to the followers of exclusive dogma trying to make the case of being inclusive. Just accept the fact that there is no place for kaffir or kuffar to exist in the land and both are wajbul finish. No one will have issue with it.

  34. harbir singh nain

    @Bciv,

    I just read through the entire may 16th Cabinet Mission plan document.

    That it did not call for a confederation, accepted. I used the term loosely.

    For the rest, my skepticism about the cabinet mission plan remains. The plan institutionalized communal and religious identities as the fabric of the undivided Indian state. It was a framework for the existence of two nations within one state. I cannot imagine that the formulators of a constitution based on the CMP would have veered away from the jostling between the nations to find huge common ground based on high humanist ideals, uncolored by communal rivalry and disagreement between the nations. I don’t see that legislators working under the CMP would have set aside communal and religious perspectives to get to the business of building a sound, robust secular democratic state.

    If there really were two nations based on communal or religious identity, and I am starting to agree that there were, then undivided India never had a future as a secular liberal democracy. The two nations would have been too consumed by disagreements and differences to agree upon universal principles that would transcend the religio-communal context of this state. The post 1947 states of the indian subcontinent have not worked out any mechanisms for cooperative co-existence. I can hardly expect that the nations within an undivided India (as defined by the CMP) would have been any more cooperative with each other than they were prior to independence, or their successor states have been since 1947.

    The present day dynamic between India and pakistan is pretty representative of the attitudes of the two nations towards each other in 1946. The CMP wouldn’t have diffused it. It would have just made the nations rub up against each other much more closely than they have had to. Partitioned, the nations are much freer to make of themselves what they can.

  35. bciv

    @Kaalket

    Jinnah did not fight any election to be GJ of Pakistan

    I didn’t know that there was some kind of election one had to win to be the GG in either of the King’s dominions. So what election did Mountbatten have to win to become India’s GG?

    The rest of your post deserves nothing more than to be left there as an exhibit.

  36. yasserlatifhamdani

    Bciv,

    Ha ha … This kalket fellow must be from the New Jersey’s famed Arun Gupta clan too. Only they can be as stupid as to make such a statement.

    Just to add to your statement… A GG is appointed like a governor … through the approval of His Majesty’s Government.

    But if there was ever an “elected” GG in the history of British Empire or commonwealth, Pakistan’s first Governor General would be it… in substance not form. Jinnah was not just the appointee of the majority party in the new legislature of the new state but perhaps one of the only two major politicians to hold this office by virtue of his stature as the undisputed leader of his people . It was unprecedented …except maybe in Ireland or Eire…and the British government was very reluctant in allowing a powerful politician become GG but had to accept.

    Jinnah was also the first GG of Asian birth (CR Rajagopalachari, Nazimuddin, Ghulam Muhammad and Iskandar Mirza were the others)…

  37. yasserlatifhamdani

    PS. Jinnah won every legislative election he fought between 1910 and 1947. Till 1947 he probably held the record of the longest serving parliamentary legislator in India…

  38. Hayyer

    PMA:

    You have put your finger on the nub, as always.

    “Sir, you as always raise pertinent questions. It is a fallacy that Pakistan, East and West, was created for the benefit of “ALL” Muslims of the British India. It was and is for the benefit of the Muslims as well as non-Muslims of the Muslim majority areas of the pre-1947 British India.”

    Perhaps-Jinnah thought so- and you may be right. But it is now generally agreed in India that the Muslims of the minority Muslim areas were deluded about what they were supporting-the Hindus and Sikhs of Punjab did not support Pakistan, and they were under no delusion-they left.

    “In spite of Pakistan’s current troubles, which will eventually pass,..”

    I hope they will. Please believe that all Indians are not enjoying the situation in Pakistan.

    “Pakistanis and Bangladeshis have tremendously benefited from the creation of Pakistan and Bangladesh. There is no question about that. We Pakistanis are better off having our own country – good or bad. The chapter is closed.”

    Not just the chapter, Sir, the whole book! My questions are a response to the article. The issues are raised by a Pakistani-not by me.

    “As for Muslims of independent India. We in Pakistan wish them good like we wish good to all other non-Muslims of India.”

    My reference to Indian Muslims was in the context of what the author said about murtads etc. If Indian Muslims do not fear why do Pakistani Muslims.

    “The bottom line is: You Indians take care of your people as we Pakistanis do the same for our people. Lets relegate history to the history books. Lets move on.”

    I entirely agree with you. But we are on a Pakistani web site responding to an article by a Pakistani.

  39. yasserlatifhamdani

    Pakistan as it was created may well have been that … But Jinnah’s concern was indian Muslims which is why he was not looking for a total separation.

    Pakistan- as one American scholar wrote- was demanded to camouflage the differences between Muslims of Muslim majority and minority provinces.

    *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***

  40. poke

    “Pakistani court bans ten internet sites for blasphemous content” Is this hijacking by mullahs?

  41. bade miyan

    “Pakistan- as one American scholar wrote- was demanded to camouflage the differences between Muslims of Muslim majority and minority provinces.”

    This one take the cake. For sheer ingenuity, nothing can beat this interpretation. I am sure even Jinnah would have completely lost it had someone suggested this reason to him. Apparently, as suggested by no less than Christopher Hutchins, Muslims were miffed at Gandhi invoking religious symbols that were primarily Hindu. I knew Muslims, as a rule are a bit touchy, but that touchy? Phew!

  42. bade miyan

    *takes the cake..

  43. yasserlatifhamdani

    If you could understand just how apt the statement, you would not be a satial budha now would you.

    For this you would have to educate yourself about Punjab v. UP views on 1916’s famous Lucknow Pact.

  44. bade miyan

    Harbir,
    “If there really were two nations based on communal or religious identity, and I am starting to agree that there were, then undivided India never”

    If that is the case, then should we consider the Muslims who are in India as a separate nation too. I guess, if you tell different ‘groups’ of people day in and day out as to how different they are, coupled with vitriolic propaganda, after a while, even the most sane among us would start thinking like that. If you remember, not so long ago, Sikhs thought the same too, and so did Gorkhas. Mercifully, that nightmare is over. It’s easy to find difference, but more difficult to build bridges.

  45. bade miyan

    Laitf Jee,
    I am marveling at the interpretation. I guess one can say, as a corollary, that Hindus were ganging up to beat the difference between Hindus from minority and majority provinces. Of course, this kind of stuff goes beyond my puny intellect.

    Hayyer,
    Very well written post.

    PMA,
    “It is a fallacy that Pakistan, East and West, was created for the benefit of “ALL” Muslims of the British India. It was and is for the benefit of the Muslims as well as non-Muslims of the Muslim majority areas of the pre-1947 British India.”

    No wonder that Muslims in my country roundly abuse ML and Jinnah. You really can’t blame them. They did everything and got peanuts in return.

    “As for Muslims of independent India. We in Pakistan wish them good like we wish good to all other non-Muslims of India. From what I see, other than periodic religious killings in India, most Indians of all religions have found a place in the Indian society. Which is a good news.”

    Thank you for your kind wishes. I really appreciate it. I am sure you understand that with more than a billion people, with all the problems imaginable, such things do happen. On the whole, mercifully **touch wood**, overall, we have been sane so far. Of course, India is still a work in progress, and Muslims along with other groups routinely face discrimination. It makes me sad, but hopefully, in future, things would be better.

  46. yasserlatifhamdani

    Yeh lo… Another chutiya has graced PTH with his higher “hindu” intellect.

    *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***

  47. ali hamdani

    @yasirhamdani. You should be tolerant enough to respect the views of all irrespective of their religion. Religious tolerance is a big issue in our country. Why cannot we all live peacefully regardless of the geographic location we are from?

  48. nazir allahwalla

    we are all hindus but are afraid to admit it.
    we converted either by love or force or just for the fun of it.
    Now the big question has that conversion made us better in any way? Has anything improved? Have we dropped out of the list of a FAILED STAE?

  49. harbir singh nain

    @bade miyan

    Re. whether the muslims in India are a separate nation.

    I have not said that hindus and muslims are inherently separate immiscible nations. I don’t believe that any final and permanent answer to that point is possible. The only thing you may be able to say is how hindus and muslims regard each other in any given circumstance, whether in that circumstance they are behaving as two distinct peoples or not. In 1946, they were not.

    In 2010, the oneness of the Indian nation is not determined by the philosophical position that one might adopt but by whether hindus and muslims are behaving as a common people. Its an open question.

    This is what secular liberal democracy is all about. You can divide up people any which way you like based on religious, ethnic, and linguistic identities and each combination is potentially a nation unto itself. In the ideal, a liberal democracy is all about frameworks that enable all of these nations to exist and function cooperatively based on a social paradigm that supersedes religious and ethnic identities. If it works, you have one nation out of many.

    Is it working in India? I don’t know. We will have to ask the voters of all the micronations of India.

  50. harbir singh nain

    *In 1946, they were.

  51. yasserlatifhamdani

    I concur with Mr. Nain on his last post almost entirely.
    *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***

  52. Tilsim

    Col Jafri’s article is brilliant in it’s clarity and line or argument. I think it has tremendous merit. However, the fact is that many Pakistanis, the majority, have bought the Pakistan = Islamic state argument. The sort of Muslim majority Indian secular state that Jinnah envisioned Pakistan to be (and I and many other Pakistanis support) was not the idea that carried the day. There are many many reasons for this which helpfully have been outlined in article after article on this blog as well as others.

    Now, the question is what happens next. Do we win back support for that idea just now or do we focus on stopping the headlong persuit towards an Islamic fundamentalist state along the lines of Iran or Saudi Arabia? Or worse a Taliban state along the lines of erstwhile Afghanistan.

    My fear is that society in Pakistan is so thoroughly brainwashed and lacking in intellectual honesty that it just brings up the shutters when it hears the word secular. It does n’t understand the meaning of it in the first place – that has to change first. Ibn Rushd is one of the founders of the idea. How many muslims know about him?

    I see the immediate need to be develop societal values of honesty, integrity, tolerance (or better celebration) of difference, non-violence. We need to develop a society that is willing to question, understands the value of critical reasoning and the importance of evidence. These ideals are very much part of Islam but totally obscured by the Mullah and fundamentalist ideology. They are focussed on power, a claim to superiority (not supported by the condition of muslim societies), victimhood, death, and a zombie like submission to a particular idea of God. Pakistanis need to be weaned off this way of thinking which is wearing the garb of Islam. The audience is most likely to be receptive to arguments from within Islam itself. Our right minded intellectuals will have to grab and grapple with this key, other keys are unlikely to improve society just now as minds are so closed.

  53. yasserlatifhamdani

    Just to add to Tilsim: The door to main chapel in Princeton has a stain glass with Averroes on it. What is a believing Muslim Qazi doing at the greatest western centre of learning …

    *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***

  54. @bade miyan
    @harbir singh nain

    If we substitute Indian state for Indian nation, I’d say that Harbir Nain has got it exactly right. Which combination of ‘nations’ combine to make a state depends on a host of historical variables, events and circumstances. A close parallel to what we are undergoing in India is Lebanon. Look at the number of ‘nations’ that tiny state folds into its minute territorial space; it is remarkable how people can agree on a compromise and live in a viable state if they really want to. It is equally remarkable how quickly they can break apart once the magic is gone.

  55. Prasad

    YLH //Yeh lo… Another chutiya has graced PTH with his higher “hindu” intellect//

    Complete nonsense to include ‘hindu’ there. You are no more than those lakhs of intolerant bigots

    The problem is irreversible.

  56. yasserlatifhamdani

    Prasad dear friend pray tell what you think is the role of quotation marks in English grammar. Does it signify derision or even agreement with the said categorization or is it perhaps a response to an earlier comment where the said “Hindu” intellect referred to me in communal terms or so I perceived it to be.

    If my English grammar is weak and I am indeed wrong on the matter then I shall withdraw my comment with due apologies. As the leading Kafir and Super-Wajib-ul-Qatl in the land of the pure ghee… I did not mean for it to be a sign of derision for the Hindu community.

  57. P. Vengaayam

    Kashif:”Pakistan was never conceived as a theocratic state for Muslims only. Had that been the case, all the religious parties (barring Ahmadis and Ismailis) would not have opposed Pakistan to the maximum.”

    Kashif,
    The reasoning you provide above is flawed. The above reasoning assumes that religious parties only cared about establishing a theocracy in Pakistan, but that is not true. Let us recall that at the time these debates were in progress, the religious parties considered the possibility of turning the entire subcontinent into a theocracy, and from that standpoint, only establishing theocracy in a small part of the subcontinent (Pakistan) was a lesser prize for these religious parties.

    All available evidence points to these religious parties wanting to extend the theocracy to the entire sub-continent, as opposed to the part they managed to acquire in the end, i.e., Pakistan.

    So it is fallacious to claim that the religious parties were against the creation of Pakistan and this action implies they did not want to establish a theocracy in Pakistan — in logical terms, it is a non-sequitir.

    Best Regards.

  58. swapnavasavdutta

    So religious parties wanted to bide their time and
    Jinnah was coming in between that goal by
    relegating muslims to the periphery thus making
    their goal/task much more difficult and distant,
    hence their ire against Jinnah?

  59. PMA

    swapnavasavdutta (June 24, 2010 at 2:17 am):

    1947 division of Punjab and Bengal are done deal. Save few, most Punjabis and Bengalis have accepted it now even if they did not do so initially. East Bengal now Bangladesh has no wish to rejoin West Bengal. In 1947 Punjabis butchered each other mercilessly. The wounds are still fresh. There is no desire on either side to reunite. But Kashmir is a very different case. Kashmiris on both sides of the Line of Control do not accept the forced division of their homeland. Even if Pakistan did not play its hand in Indian occupied Kashmir, India will still have trouble in the valley. There is no indication that Kashmiris want to be part of the Indian Union. Kashmir is an Indian problem and will continue to be for a long long time. Pakistan simply tends to exploit the problem to her own advantage and will continue to do so as long the problem exists. It is for India to solve the problem to the satisfaction of the Kashmiris and not to the satisfaction of Pakistanis.

  60. Kaalket

    Almost 98% of Pakistani population is Musalman then why is it considered undesirable that Sharia should not be the law of the land. Historically Muslamans have always protected the minority kaffirs living among them.Any fear of persecution is unfounded . Islamic parties of Pakistan are on right moral ground in their demand to apply the rule of Shariat in the country and it might serve as a welcome part in establishing internal peace as well equal ,respectful relation with the rest of the world. Secured in Islamic identity and anchored in Shariat like Saudi Arabia ,Sudan or Iran it wont have to worry about any cultural, social domination from the Eastern side and charter its own civilizational course toward its ancestral land/s in CAR and West Asia and lead the whole humanity as duty and reward of its Pure Spiritual Practices as symbolized in its name itself. indians must wish them well in this endeavour of theirs and not try to supress the aspiration.

  61. PMA

    bade miyan (June 24, 2010 at 10:51 am):

    I don’t understand. How could Muslims of Independent India say that they got “peanuts”. In 1947 millions of Indian Muslims entered Pakistan with just a shirt on their back. They were all received by the Pakistanis with open arms. Today they have been completely absorbed by the society in general. Many of them have risen to the highest positions in the land. And those who chose not to migrate are also equal citizens of their native country. If today there is a Muslim non-Muslim problem in India then shame on India and not on Pakistan.

  62. yasserlatifhamdani

    Because …there are 73 versions of Sharia and no two Muslims agree on everything.

    And Pakistan’s minority statistics are underreported… Pakistani Christians and Hindus constitute about 8-10 percent of the population according to any estimate. We are not even counting forced minorities or even smaller minorities like Sikhs of Punjab and NWFP.

  63. swapnavasavdutta

    PMA, agree, it is for Kashmiris and Indians to
    solve the problem. All I am asking is for Pakistan
    to accept LOC as IB and stop providing moral,
    diplomatic, etc. support.
    If it tomorrow happens that Kashmir separates
    from India, that is fine but stop “exploiting the
    problem” (as you said) and move on to focus on
    its development.
    Is that too much to ask?

  64. Kashif Jahangiri

    @ P. Vengaayam

    Let me understand your point in more clear terms, please. Do you want to say that while the religious bigots wanted to turn the entire sub-continent into a theocracy, the agenda of the Muslim League was to create a theocracy in only a small (relatively) part of India? In other words, are you implying that Mr. Jinnah wanted Pakistan as a theocratic state and that is what he and his Muslim league were aspiring for?

    Could you please confirm or clarify the above, as it will help me understand your perspective.

  65. Tilsim

    @ swapnavasavdutta

    As you well know this unfinished business of partition is such a mess. It has poisoned the relationship between our countries from the start. A poison that has had a profoundly negative impact on Pakistan and on Kashmiris in particular and as PM Manmohan Singh says holds back India reaching it’s full potential. Are the public really holding our respective leaderships to account for their failure to find a settlement or are we also part of the problem?

  66. Hayyer

    “Kashmir is an Indian problem and will continue to be for a long long time. Pakistan simply tends to exploit the problem to her own advantage and will continue to do so as long the problem exists. It is for India to solve the problem to the satisfaction of the Kashmiris and not to the satisfaction of Pakistanis”

    That is completely right.

    But not so the following;

    “Kashmiris on both sides of the Line of Control do not accept the forced division of their homeland.”

    Kashmiris live almost all, on the Indian side of the LOC. Kashmir is not divided, the state of J&K is. A bus service between Muzzaffarabad and Srinagar is sometimes without a single passenger. Kashmiris are the people originating in the valley of Kashmir whose mother tongue is Kashmiri, whether Pandit, Muslim, or one of a tiny number of Sikhs.
    Residents of the state who do not belong to the valley of Kashmir, or are not descended from families that originated in Kashmir do not refer to themselves as Kashmiri. Similarly non Kashmiri speaking people living in the valley of Kashmir, such as Gujjars, Paharis, even Punjabi Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs do not refer to themselves as Kashmiris.
    There are Kashmiris settled outside the valley in large numbers but that is in parts of Poonch and Doda districts adjoining the valley of Kashmir.
    I don’t think there are large numbers of Kashmiris in PAK though there are in other parts of Pakistani Punjab.

    The ‘forced division’ is that of the state, not of Kashmir. The LOC divides people of Rajouri and Poonch, Uri, Keran and on both sides of the Kishen ganga (Neelum) river from their relations. The language here is the Potohari Punjabi dialect not Kashmiri.

    If the Kashmir issue is ever ‘solved’ I very much doubt that it will happen without more divisions. The state is a relict of the Sikh empire and has continued only under the enforced tutelage of the Dogras. Had it not been for Gulab Singh and the Treaty of Amritsar the British would have probably colonized Kashmir; Jammu and the hill belt would have been tacked on to Punjab. Ladakh could have reverted to Tibet, and Gilgit and Hunza treated somewhat like the settled areas of FATA.

  67. PMA

    Hayyer (June 24, 2010 at 7:11 am):

    The presents problems of Pakistan are a result of the fall over of the Russian invasion of neighboring Afghanistan in the seventies. At that time India was an ally of the USSR. Pakistan, USA, and Saudis got involved, each for its own reason. What we are witnessing are the aftereffects of the initial Russian invasion. USSR is no longer and Americans too will be gone from the region most likely before 1012 elections. Eventually it will be back to the Afghanistan-Pakistan-India triangle. In the post-USSR and post-USA the three players will come to some sort of regional understanding with other players being at the periphery. As you know nothing remains the same. Things will come to a new equilibrium, sooner or later. Stay tuned.

  68. P. Vengaayam

    Kashif:

    “Do you want to say that while the religious bigots wanted to turn the entire sub-continent into a theocracy, the agenda of the Muslim League was to create a theocracy in only a small (relatively) part of India?”

    Hi Kashif,

    No, please re-read my comment — it says the exact opposite of your above reading. Note that I mention their agenda was the “entire subcontinent” which subsumes India and Pakistan.

    “In other words, are you implying that Mr. Jinnah wanted Pakistan as a theocratic state and that is what he and his Muslim league were aspiring for?”

    No, you have misread the comment since I was only referring to the ML as the main actor, as it had the real influence over the muslim polity at that time. Besides, the Muslim League was never “Jinnah’s Muslim League” as the ML held the real influence over ordinary muslims in the subcontinent and Jinnah stayed in London during this period for long periods and could not have developed the kind of influence of the ML’s constituency.

    Jinnah, as historically recorded, was a westernized and non-religious person who openly did not follow the tenets of Islam (ate pork, drank alcohol, etc.), so any push for a religious agenda came from a consensus within the ML and not because it was pushed by Jinnah himself.

  69. PMA

    Hayyer (June 24, 2010 at 11:15 pm):

    Sir, you have raised an artificial question: Who is Kashmiri and who is not. Try to apply the internationally accepted standards of domicile and citizenship, and you will find the correct answer. You been on PTH for a long time now. You need to come to my Pakistan and stay here for a while. You will find out who is a Kashmiri and who is not. If I go with your logic half of Pakistani Punjab’s population will be classified as ‘non-Punjabi’!

  70. Kashif Jahangiri

    @P. Vengaayam
    So you think that apart from Jinnah, the ML was a party of religious minded people and majority of the leaders of the ML were those Muslims who were looking for a theocratic state in Pakistan?

    In other words, you think Jinnah was a dissenting voice in the ML, which was otherwise a party dominated by fanatic Muslims?

  71. bade miyan

    Harbir Singh Ji,
    First of all, a very well written post.

    “..circumstance they are behaving as two distinct peoples or not. In 1946, they were not…

    You are right. In 1946, they were not. But, what, I may ask, brought about that fissure, and then, whether that fissure was permanent, or irreconcilable? From what we know about the history of that time, it was peddled as essentially, a co-existence of two different nations. While one can suggest a solution or an idea from a bird-eye’s view of a problem, one should also be cognizant as to how an idea is going to play out in the mob. For example, as you have said, theoretically, India is composed of different sub-nationalities. I do not consider it such a negative trait. However, do we have some essential similarities or goals as a nation? I would say yes, and this idea has been re-enforced over years by a combination of different factors. It may change in future. As you said, no one knows. There may be an entirely new construct to group people. What we can say with some certainty is that there is an idea of Indianess in 2010. That is also a function of different factors, past, present, or future. For example, our experience with partition: now, very few people advocate further division of the country even though there are problems that go deeper than that in 1946. Sufficient time has passed by for a bulk of people to get accustomed to a democratic set up and have faith in it.

    “… whether hindus and muslims are behaving as a common people. Its an open question….”

    That can be asked about different ethnic groups as well. In fact, I would say that the problem is more acute on the ethnic and linguistic lines rather than on communal lines.

    “This is what secular liberal democracy is all about. You can divide up people any which way you like based on religious, ethnic, and linguistic identities and each combination is potentially a nation unto itself. In the ideal, a liberal democracy is all about frameworks that enable all of these nations to exist and function cooperatively based on a social paradigm that supersedes religious and ethnic identities. If it works, you have one nation out of many….”

    I concur with you entirely. In this respect, the constitution of India is a valuable document in this regard and provides an excellent template for

  72. Girish

    Kashif,

    The ML was an amalgam of a number of different groups. It included the feudal elite, wanting to protect their privileges against a likely socialization campaign by the Congress in independent India, an educated elite, partly motivated by fears about domination by the Hindu majority in jobs and professions (not due to discrimination necessarily, but even sheer numbers) and religious and even fanatical elements as well, particularly during the latter part of the campaign for Pakistan. It would be hard to make the case that the AIML minus Jinnah unanimously wanted a theocratic state in Pakistan, but it would be hard to dismiss a significant constituency that did and that the remainder of the ML found hard to resist. The adoption of the Objectives Resolution exemplifies the power that this group had over the party and polity as a whole.

  73. PMA

    swapnavasavdutta (June 24, 2010 at 10:58 pm):

    In international politics rivals always exploit each others problems and weaknesses. That is the nature of the beast. You are probably too young to remember; India did that in then East Pakistan in 1971. Kashmir Line of Control was establish by Pakistan and India by the use of violent force. It could not be an International Border. If use of force could solve the problem, it could have been done by now. The way forward for all involved is a Peace Agreement. It will happen when India is good and ready.

  74. swapnavasavdutta

    PMA, as I see, you are not ready to move on.
    Why not let Indians and Kashmiris deal with each
    other.
    India and Pakistan partition happened with much
    more violent force, let us not unleash that again.
    Pakistan tried focussing on Kashmir for last 60
    years with not much change, it should give a chance to not worrying about Kashmir for another 60 years, I think it will bring +ve changes.
    Give it a try.

  75. swapnavasavdutta

    PMA, I do not understand why you say India and
    Pakistan are rivals. What is the rivalry about?
    You do not think India and Pakistan can be
    like USA and Cananda?
    Pakistan should stop exploiting disagreements
    between Indians and Kashmiris and conflict will
    disappear. You should at give it a shot.

  76. bciv

    swapna

    not extending moral support would be immoral, would it not? morals can be subjective, of course. india might consider meddling in her internal affairs what pakistan might consider only doing her moral duty. although, considering what has been going on in pakistan, it hardly is in a position to take the moral high ground on any issue.

    not to indulge in illegal acts, is a different kind of demand altogether.

  77. bciv

    ..as far as strict legality is concerned, india’s crossing over the int’l boundary in east pakistan was illegal. that pakistan had offered india the opportunity on a plate, is another matter.

  78. P. Vengaayam

    Kashif:”In other words, you think Jinnah was a dissenting voice in the ML, which was otherwise a party dominated by fanatic Muslims?”

    Kashif, No.

    But first, you mention the phrase “fanatic muslims”, a phrase I have not used. I have been referring to the Muslim League’s behaviour without passing any judgement on their behaviour, though you have done that above.

    Secondly, Jinnah and the ML worked together as they had a common interest in pushing what they considered “muslim interests” in the subcontinent and negotiated with the INC and the british for achieving their end which resulted in Pakistan’s creation. Jinnah’s vision was secular because of his western background but the ML’s vision was not since they were a conservative religious group, but both of them wanted a separate homeland for muslims. Since Jinnah and the ML had a common goal which required them to cooperate, the question of dissent does not arise.

  79. PMA

    swapnavasavdutta (June 25, 2010 at 12:21 am):

    The 1947 division of the British Indian Empire happened as a result of an act of the British Parliament and not due to the violence. Punjabis, particularly Sikhs resorted to violence due to the division of the Punjab; their homeland was split into two. Violence followed the division and not the other way around. Kashmir on the other hand is an Indian problem. Only India can solve that. Is anybody stopping her from doing so? If Kashmiris were happy with India, there is nothing Pakistan could do to persuade them away from their happiness. Take the initiative away from Pakistan. Solve the Kashmir problem. It is that easy. The alternative…..well you know it…..half a million Indian troops tied up in the valley. Now who is not willing to move on.

  80. Kaalket

    To be honest, i did not know there are 73 versions of Sharia but as one of great Muslaman scholar in India called Kaleem Kwaja mentioned that Musalman rulers of India from QASIM to Bhadur Shah applied a real enlightened form of Shariat in which minority Muslamans and majority kaffirs were treated justfully. Pakistani being the descendant and inheritor of Mughal blood and traditions can take cue from there or just simply invite Ulema from Holy Mosques cities for clarifying , endorsement purpose or even appoint a Asharaf from Quraish clan in SA as nominal head of state like Queen of England. There are many way to skin the rat ,so soultion is not that hard to settle daily fasad.

  81. Girish

    PMA,

    An inherent assumption in your post of 12:55am on June 25th is that all violence only started after partition. That is simply not the truth. (I will ignore the part that singles out Sikhs as particular perpetrators of violence, except to say that it is again simply not accurate). Further, the high levels of violence that had already taken place and prospects of even further violence was at least one of the important considerations behind the formulation of the partition plan itself and its acceptance by all leaders concerned.

    bciv: I cannot speak for the original author of the post, but the term “moral support” in the context of Pakistan and the Kashmiris typically has the word “moral” in quotes. Too much water has flowed under the Jhelum bridge to warrant an extensive discussion on this, but it suffices to say that the support was anything but moral.

  82. swapnavasavdutta

    Girish, Thanks, yes, I meant to put moral in “”
    and was going to post it but I see you posted it
    already.

  83. bade miyan

    Vajra,
    “A close parallel to what we are undergoing in India is Lebanon. Look at the number of ‘nations’ that tiny state folds into its minute territorial space;”

    I am not sure if I can agree with you on that one. Sometimes, one may be guilty of looking too much into things that are tangentially related. Some people say that events in pre-Partition India were influenced deeply with the Czech Crisis. There is always a danger of wholesale importation of such kind; it can lead to problems where none existed. The religious separation in Lebanon has been exacerbated due to extraneous factors and possibly due to the easy groupings of Muslim and Christians territorially. The separation in India is more complex and intertwined. In Lebanon, the center is too weak to hold; in India, I doubt if that is the case.

  84. swapnavasavdutta

    PMA, millions of mohajirs, punjabis, bengalis
    crossed border to have a better life.
    Nobody would stop Kashmiris from crossing the
    border from Indian side to Pakistani side if they
    are unhappy under Indian rule, actually it is
    kashmirs ruling kashmiris, I really do not see
    what problem kashmirs have except that
    majority of Indians are Hindus.
    Anyway, last post from on this time, this is an
    endless discussion. Thanks.

  85. bade miyan

    PMA,
    “If today there is a Muslim non-Muslim problem in India then shame on India and not on Pakistan.”

    You are right. What I meant to say is that present day Muslims in India carry the unenviable tag of opting for Partition(even though they probably didn’t), and by implication, their loyalties are always subject to stricter test. It’s unfortunate but it is what it is. Things have improved with every generation but there is still some way to go. I meant peanuts in that context.

  86. bade miyan

    yasser,
    “Yeh lo… Another chutiya has graced PTH with his higher “hindu” intellect”

    Aise alfazoon ki koi zaroorat nahin hai. I don’t remember calling you communal names. It was actually quite funny.

  87. Girish

    I was looking at the debates of the Constituent Assembly of India and in the process reread the Objectives Resolution of the (combined) Indian Constituent Assembly. It was moved on the 3rd day of the first session of the Assembly on 13th of December, 1946. I noted the following part in particular

    “(3) WHEREIN the said territories, whether with their present boundaries or with such others as may be determined by the Constituent Assembly and thereafter according to the Law of the Constitution, shall possess and retain the status of autonomous Units, together with residuary powers, and exercise all powers and functions of government and administration, save and except such powers and functions as are vested in or assigned to the Union, or as are inherent or implied in the Union or resulting therefrom; ”

    What was interesting is that the Objectives Resolution included an important concession to the Muslim League and a significant departure from the stated position of the Congress – i.e. that constituent units of the Union would be autonomous and would retain residuary powers. In other words, other than powers that were specifically granted to the Central government, every other power would lie with the constituent units.

    This provides evidence contrary to the oft-repeated assertion of many on this website that the Congress, by rejecting the Cabinet Mission Plan caused partition. The Objectives Resolution showed that the Congress was, even in December 1946, willing to discard its stated objectives and concede some of the League’s demands.

    I would submit that the process of formation of the Interim Government and its working was instrumental in convincing the Congress leaders that there was no sense in continuing to insist on political unity. That any variant of the Cabinet Mission Plan would lead to partition in any case and hence it was better to swallow the bitter pill sooner rather than later.

  88. Tilsim

    @ bade miyan

    Sorry to nit pick and I have made many a spelling and grammatical error too. With that qualification, the plural of lafz is alfaz. Not alfazon. In the interest, of higher standards for all of us.

  89. Hayyer

    PMA:

    Your post of 11.45 pm 24 June brings up front such fundamental questions that I seek prior pardon for the prolixity of my response.

    Why is it an artificial question? I made a factual statement. All permanent residents of J&K are not Kashmiris. Perhaps they call themselves that in PAK to distinguish themselves from Punjabis, but not on this side of the LoC where identities are rather sharply defined.
    In Pakistani Punjab the Punjabi identity is probably a diffused one. You have a number of ethnicities merging or merged in the main identity. Kashmiri and Pakhtun have merged or are in the process of merging with the Punjabi. But I don’t suppose such a broad view of the Pakhtun identity would be allowed in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, or of the Baloch in Balochistan, or of Sindhis in Sind where the Pakhtun and the Mohajir maintain their separateness. ‘Kashmiri’ has a precise meaning in Kashmir much as ‘Pakhtun’ does in Pakhtunkhwa. In Kashmir a Gujjar or a Pahari would never even want to call himself a Kashmiri, and if he did he would be an object of amusement.

    Kashmiris are insular folk, and like the Bengali bhadra lok of Kolkata inclined to think of themselves infinitely superior to the surrounding non Kashmiri groups. They used to be rather intimidated by Punjabis but not anymore. The Gujjars have fought and obtained a special legal status for their community in J&K, and the Paharis (which means the people of Uri, Rajouri and Poonch who are not Gujjar but mainly Rajput or even Punjabi in origin) are fighting for it. All these communities are Muslim by the way. In other words Muslims in our part don’t call themselves Kashmiri unless they happen to be ethnically Kashmiri. There is nothing artificial about it. It is just and natural and would be artificial if it were what you say it should be.

    So, Kashmiris don’t feel divided by the LoC. There is no longing among Kashmiri speaking Muslims to have non Kashmiris, even if they are Muslims, to come permanently into the valley. What Kashmiris do like is the knowledge that they are the most important community of J&K, and they like the feeling of having political power over the entire state including the parts now in Pakistan. That is only natural, after centuries of deprivation.

    The infinite splitting into sub nationalities is abhorrent to a certain kind of sub continental nationalist but there is no getting away from it. You may not want to legitimize these sub nationalities but you cannot avoid dealing with them where they exist.

    Which brings me to the next part of your comment,

    “Try to apply the internationally accepted standards of domicile and citizenship, and you will find the correct answer.”

    The official name of the state is Jammu and Kashmir. But it is actually Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh and Baltistan and Gilgit and Hunza and so on. The term Azad Kashmir is only as old as 1947 when as a result of the impending of the country the Muslim revolt in Poonch against the Maharaja led to the setting up of an Azad Kashmir movement based in Poonch. The state of Jammu and Kashmir is an artificial entity, created in 1846 because the British were not ready to take over all of Ranjit Singh’s empire. It is in fact a small empire on its own and could never have survived the end of Sikh empire but for the artifice of Dogra rule.

    The legal term for residents of J&K is Permanent Resident of J&K. Kashmiri is recognized as a national language in India but so is Dogri. ‘Kashmiri’ in India means a Kashmiri speaker originating from, or resident in the Kashmir valley. It has no other statutory meaning. To be precise, Kashmiri does not mean a resident of J&K; the term is not analogous to J&K as, say, Punjabi is to Punjab.

    Punjab has had Kashmiri migrations from whenever. The last great migration was in the two famines of 1880s and 1890s when floods and famines drove Kashmiris in large numbers to the plains of the Punjab. Perhaps they maintain their separate biradiris or they may be be Punjabized, I have no idea, but in J&K the lines are pretty firmly drawn and they would never accept Muzzaffarabadis and Mirpuris as Kashmiris should they dare presume to claim that identity.

  90. PMA

    swapnavasavdutta (June 25, 2010 at 12:35 am):

    I do not believe that you are so naive. Pakistan and India are rivals. Just look around. The rivalry is about desire of greater influence and regional domination. I know Indians will love to see Pakistan as their “Canada”. But that is not going to happen. Welcome to the real world. India can not control Pakistan just as Pakistan can not control India. There is no sense asking Pakistan “stop exploiting disagreements between Indians and Kashmiris”. Remove the Kashmiri grievances and Pakistan will become irrelevant. Otherwise the conflict will not disappear, Pakistan or no Pakistan. You should give it a shot.

  91. bciv

    hayyer

    “they would never accept Muzzaffarabadis and Mirpuris as Kashmiris should they dare presume to claim that identity.”

    kashmiris in muzafarabad and elsewhere in azad kashmir (if they are ‘unfortunate enough’ to have to live there) and wherever they happen to be in pakistan, never accept their neighbours in muzafarbabd or elsewhere dare presume to claim the kashmiri identity, as they look down their noses at them. they have to be ever so slightly diplomatic, in comparison with kashmiris of the actual valley, but they make their reluctance as obvious as possible. they are quite keen and quick to point out to outsiders like us that the rest do not and cannot even speak their language.

    i’ve seen kashmiris upholding their separate identity, from azad kashmiris, even when living in islamabad and karachi. in peshawar, and to a greater extent in lahore, the identities are relatively more diluted. other than the length of time the kashmiris have lived there, it says something about the comparison between ancient cities like peshawar and lahore and newbies like karachi and islamabad, too.

  92. swapnavasavdutta

    PMA, now you are being naive. You think Pakistan
    will stop “fishing in trouble waters” even if Kashmir
    grievance is removed?

  93. PMA

    Hayyer (June 25, 2010 at 2:04 am):

    From your rather lengthy response it appears that India has devised a complicated system to divide and sub-divide and then sub-divide Kashmiris some more to keep its hold on Kashmir. It appears to be an Indian caste system all over. But your explanation is more about culture and ethnicity, while Kashmir is a political problem. May be India hopes to diffuse Kashmir Problem by chopping up Kashmir into many mini-Kashmirs. It reminds me what Golda Mayer once said: There is no such thing as Palestine or Palestinians. May be after occupation of another sixty years there will be no such thing as Kashmir or Kashmiris except those who live in ‘jordan’

  94. Tilsim

    @ pma

    “Pakistan and India are rivals. Just look around. The rivalry is about desire of greater influence and regional domination. ”

    This rivalry is the source of misery.

  95. harbir singh nain

    “‘Kashmiri’ in India means a Kashmiri speaker originating from, or resident in the Kashmir valley. ”

    More importantly thats what to the ethnic kashmiris. They would be the last to regard mirpuris and other muslims of J&K from outside the valley as true kashmiris.

    I am startled to by statements from pakistani writers about how punjabis feel ethnic and historic affiliation with kashmiris. Any affiliations that punjabis have with J&K wallahs is with people living at the fringes of the punjab, not with the true ethnic kashmiris.

    I keep encountering pakistanis from “azad kashmir” who not only believe that they are kashmiris, they are almost always under the impression that the people in the valley are just like them. But “kashmiris” of Pakistan as as different from ethnic Kashmiris as they are from the Uighurs (some exaggeration for effect there, but not much).

    Having lived in kashmir and being married to an ethnic kashmiri, I find it so WEIRD, even surreal, to find punjabi or pahari type people believing they are kashmiri. its as if I were going around believing I was a bedou.

    The most striking example of this was a gentleman who longs for his grandmother’s home in kashmir which he never saw, but when asked where in kashmir, he said “Jammu”. Startling, but not surprising. The Muslims of jammu are much closer to the muslims of “azad kashmir”, than either is to ethnic Kashmiris. by a mile.

  96. Tilsim

    One thing the people of the subcontinent love to do is to pull each other down. ek doosri ki patloon giratay rahtay hain. It’s a cultural thing. Wonderfully exploited by outsiders.

  97. Hayyer

    PMA:

    It is no Indian trick. The western world is used to calling it the Kashmir problem, and saying that Kashmir is split between India and Pakistan. Usage in western media creates the factoid. There is no Kashmir except the one comprising the Valley of Kashmir.
    Kashmiri exceptionalism is not a post colonial invention of devious Hindus and their abominable caste system.

    If in some hopeful future the denizens of your part of J&K ever visit Kashmir they are going to be greatly disappointed. They just don’t know Kashmir.

    The only thing being subdivided here is a misconception. Are all Britishers English? Are the Scots and English different? There is greater difference between the Kashmiris and Muzzaffarabadis than there is between the Scots and the English.

    I must tell you that the folk claiming to be Kashmiri in PAK are in for a great disappointment when they come into contact with the genuine article.

  98. shiv

    @ swapnavavasadatta
    I do not understand why you say India and
    Pakistan are rivals. What is the rivalry about?
    You do not think India and Pakistan can be
    like USA and Cananda?
    Pakistan should stop exploiting disagreements
    between Indians and Kashmiris and conflict will
    disappear. You should at give it a shot.

    Sir a fundamental fact is that if India wants Pakistan to do X, Pakistan will ask India to do Y.

    When you demand that “Pakistan should do blablabla” you are only asking for the reply “No. India should do blablabla”

    So the first rule in international relations is not to expect anything from any other country that you cannot force them to do.

    Pakistani leaders were sensible enough to understand this when they tried to annex Kashmir. Once Kashmir was in Pakistan, it would have been a fait accompli. and Indian leaders would have been doing the begging about Kashmir that Pakistani leaders now have to do.

    There is nothing to discuss here. History is perfectly clear
    1) Hari Singh dithered about accession of J&K
    2) Pakistanis took the initiative, but sent rapists rather than army who lost time raping, allowing Hari Singh to call for Indian help
    3) India got Hari Singh to sign on the instrument of accssion and formal war started. The war ended at teh current LoC with UN resolutions
    4) No power on earth has been able to make India do what it is claimed to have promised (plebiscite)
    5) No power on earth could make Pakistan withdraw its troops before plebiscite as per the document
    6) Ayub Khan tried again in 1965 and failed
    7) Pakistan shot itself in the foot in 1971. India had a ball
    8) Musharraf tried to get Kashmir again and failed again in 1999
    9) From 1990 to 2010 Pakistan has tried covert war initially against Indian troops in Kashmir and later against Indian civilians to either cow India down, or give up Kashmir or generally punish India. India is such a fucked up nation that a few thousand deaths from Islamic terrorists do not count for much. One Bhopal did more than Pakistan did in 63 years. And Indians are shrugging that of with a few howls.

    Do we all want peace between India and Pakistan? Yes.

    Do we want peace on our respective terms? Yes

    Is India going to allow peace on Pakistan’s terms? Balls.

    Is Pakistan going to allow peace on India’s terms. Balls.

    Therefor there will not be peace. Both countries must arm themselves to fight each other.

    Is India suffering from spending too much on arms? That is for Indians to decide. Pakistanis spend a lot of time pointing out that India should spend less and feeds its starving billions – but why do Pakistanis want Indians to be well fed? Better for them to starve no?

    Is Pakistan suffering from spending too much on the military? I don’t know. That is for Pakistanis to decide. As per my observations Pakistan is doing quite well spending on defence and being ready to take on India.

  99. swapnavasavdutta

    Shiv, I agree. I too feel there is no solution to
    the Kashmir problem to the satisfaction of all three
    parties.

  100. Kaalket

    There is one solution for bringing peace in Kashmir valley. Let all those who want to move to Pakistan go there and all those who wish to come to Indian side move to india.
    Then onlee one issue will remain to be settled i.e claim of Indian Muslims over their portion of Pakistan and its proper usage per their wishes.

  101. shiv

    @swapnavasavdutta

    Shiv, I agree. I too feel there is no solution to
    the Kashmir problem to the satisfaction of all three parties.

    Sir? What 3 parties?

    There is only one party and that is India. Do you have any disagreement about that? Perhaps some people might want to dispute that. I can dispute Brad Pitt’s hold on Angelina Jolie.

    But as long as violence is introduced from outside into a dispute there will be nothing to talk. Violence must go. And since India sits in Kashmir, Indian laws apply and the Indian state is the only entity that is legally allowed a monopoly on violence. Otherwise we have a Pakistan on our hands. And Pakistani interference must be dealt as it needs to be dealt with.

  102. skyview

    shiv wrote:

    “2) Pakistanis took the initiative, but sent rapists rather than army who lost time raping, allowing Hari Singh to call for Indian help”

    Pakistanis sent both – rapists/pluderers AND army into Kashmir on the 20. Oct. 1947 and thus introduced both violence, terrorism and rape into Kashmir. Jinnah was told about it and he merely said: “Don’t tell me that. I have heard nothing.”

    There are many Kashmiris now living in Goa.

    Even if India gives Kashmir to Pakistan on a golden platter the muslim ummah (even the part in India) will always find some “reason” to run down and hurt and even bleed India/hindus. This began in 710 AD – and its not going to end ever.

    In 710 AD the “reason” was: Some arab women were kidnapped by pirates on the Makran coast. That was “reason” was enough to sent “peace loving” followers of the “religion of peace” to attack and kill the hindu king of Sindh. The religion of the pirates is unknown – but they were probably also muslims. Hindus are generally not a sea-faring people.

  103. yasserlatifhamdani

    That is not what he said. He was informed late and he turned around and said allegedly – don’t tell me anything. I want my conscience to be clear.

    This according to George Cunningham who heard it from someone else… Iskandar Mirza actually… I think. Hardly the world’s best source.

    According to Fatima Jinnah however … Jinnah knew nothing about invasion Kashmir. Jinnah had sent three major leftist stalwarts to win over Shaikh Abdullah so it is highly unlikely that he would want to stab his own effort.

    But then in the lala land of Ishtiaq Ahmed’s imagination everything is possible.

  104. Raza

    “Once religion, more so Islam, is mentioned in any context no one would dare say even a word remotely at variance with it. They (ulema) would prevail upon the innocent masses in the name of Islam and dictate their diktats to the extent that the religion will overshadow the governance in its all spheres. ”

    This para was so true and brilliant. This is what I believe. My article published here on PTH titled as ” How Reluctance to Debate Religion Has Resulted in a Total Quagmire” tried to make the same point

  105. skyview

    Jinnah did not know about the Kashmir invasion on the 20. Oct 1947. That is (or may be) true.

    But what did he do after he came to know about it? Did he order the pak army back? Did he undo the rebellion against the maharaja in Gilgit?

    One cannot know everything right at the outset – but what does one do AFTER coming to know?

    This is where Jinnah failed to give a good example of decent, honest, dignified politics to his people/nation.

    Nehru took the Kashmir problem to the UNO – that was at least an ATTEMPT to be decent and sincere in solving the conflict.

  106. yasserlatifhamdani

    Your ignorance of events is funny and idiotic.

    Jinnah should have moved the Pakistan Army …he backed down under threat from General Gracey. He should have told the asshole to take a hike.

    Read my article “Jinnah’s folly and Kashmir”.

  107. Bin Ismail

    Out of the 194 countries of the world, we are the only “nazariati mumlikat’ (ideological state) with a nazaria (ideology) that was invented a decade after the birth of the country, and an ideology that was known, not even, to the founder of the country himself.

  108. PMA

    Hayyer (June 25, 2010 at 8:07 am):

    Sir, you have defined ‘Kashmir’ and ‘Kashmiri’ in extremely narrow ethnolinguistic and perhaps in racial terms. By your definition territorial Kashmir is limited to the Valley and perhaps the Valley Walls. Your definition totally diminishes Kashmir as a geographical political entity. Is this a prelude to some Indian proposal for the ultimate solution of the Indian Kashmir problem? If presented perhaps Pakistan will take it. But have you tried to sell this definition to the inhabitants of the Indian occupied State of Jammu and Kashmir? And if so did you find any takers?

  109. Bade Miyan aka AKASH

    Yasser ji,
    I read your article “Jinnah’s folly and Kashmir”. It’s not quite convincing. Sounds more like old wives tales. I doubt Fatima Jinnah would have said anything against Jinnah. Maybe, you are right, but it’s just hard to believe that he had no inkling. It’s not like the war got over in 3 hours. Likewise, it’s hard to believe that Nawaz Sharif had no idea about Kargil and BB had no clue about the infiltration in Kashmir. Actually, I liked Jinnah’s decisiveness. It was just poorly executed. I don’t think you need to tie yourself in knots trying to defend him. This one is weak. We needed someone like him in 62 war against China.

    Tilsim Bhai,
    correction ke liye shukriya. Badi meharbani..

  110. Bade Miyan (EDITOR's NOTE: BADE MIYAN is AKASH, AMAN, TATAR CHIEF and host of other nicks including "Female Pakistani Neurophysician")

    Skyview,
    “In 710 AD the “reason” was: Some arab women were kidnapped by pirates on the Makran coast. That was “reason” was enough to sent “peace loving” followers of the “religion of peace” to attack and kill the hindu king of Sindh. ”

    That is not actually correct. Behind all that story, the real reason was Caliph’s desire to secure the sea-trade route. The Caliphate like most civilizations was heavily depended on trade. Contrary to what is popularly circulated as gospel truth that Muslim rulers/civilization survived on war booty, Muslim civilization in most areas of world was essentially urban, banking heavily on trade and manufacturing.

  111. yasserlatifhamdani

    Bade mian I don’t quite give a damn what you think now do I?

  112. Chote Miyan

    yasser,
    It was IP address that gave away..no? Dang! Should have used a proxy. hehe..
    Btw I am **NOT** Female Pakistani Neurophysician…

  113. Girish

    George Cunningham is a more reliable source than Fatima Jinnah, who can hardly be relied upon to be unbiased.

    The fact remains that Jinnah, “the Constitutionalist” had the opportunity to do the right thing. Instead, he did what he demonstrated repeatedly that he was good at – “keep his conscience clear” while others did the dirty tricks. A repeat of August 1946 in that respect. And something the likes of Narendra Modi seem to have learnt from him.

    The key lesson from this episode of “keeping one’s conscience clear” is that of plausible deniability – a policy the Pakistani state has followed ever since and to this day with respect to state support for terrorism.

  114. yasserlatifhamdani

    Cunningham did not claim it. He claimed that Iskandar Mirza told him that. So there get the argument right first.

  115. yasserlatifhamdani

    And calcutta thing is absolute hogwash. Enough material is out there to show that Indian accusatuons against Jinnah are not backed by any history.

    3 times as many Muslims were killed in Calcutta. Only a prejudiced mind would blame Jinnah for calcutta …after the material that is available.

    Only a prejudiced mind would compare someone like Jinnah to Narendra Mody.

    B

  116. Girish

    3 times as many German soldiers than Allies were killed in World War II on the Western Front. Hence, the Germans could not have been at fault, eh?

    Leave that aside. All I am saying with respect to Narendra Modi is that the absolute dregs of Indian society such as this man seem to have learnt from Jinnah this lesson of “keeping their hands clean”. Of not letting the criminal act be traced back to them in a purely legal sense.

  117. yasserlatifhamdani

    Suhrawardy was also one of the most secular minded leaders in the subcontinent.

    Girish mian,

    Your point would make sense if there was some actual basis for it. The source which Cunningham uses …iskandar mirza… Is not necessarily reliable. I believe in Fatima Jinnah who was an honorable person.

  118. skyview

    to ylh

    “Your point would make sense if there was some actual basis for it. The source which Cunningham uses …iskandar mirza… Is not necessarily reliable. I believe in Fatima Jinnah who was an honorable person.”

    With such sentences you are not going to win your private and public dispute against Ishtiaq Ahmed.

    Fatima Jinnah stood under the compulsion to protect her brother’s reputation. Iskandar Mirza was a lout – but (or hence) had no qualms about spilling the beans. He (a farsi-tongue iranian with a supremacy complex vis-a-vis the darker-skinned panjabi-sindhi pakistanis) was no Jinnah loyalist. So more likely that he communicated the truth.

  119. yasserlatifhamdani

    Disputes are between equals. I don’t consider Ishtiaq Ahmed equal to my left testicle frankly pardon my french. Ishtiaq Ahmed is a liar and a crook and an anti-ahmadiyya bigot.

    Anyone who reads history with an open mind can see just how many times ishtiaq ahmed twists the truth for his own nefarious designs.

  120. yasserlatifhamdani

    Weak analogy sadhna. The analogy lies in number of dead and preparedness not in what Suhrawardy said …

    Only a prejudiced mind unwilling to accept the facts would say the things you say.

    Btw why are you so obsessed with me. I saw your pathetic little blog targetting PTH. Flattered to say the least but also worried about your mental health.

  121. skyview

    to ylh

    I actually wish that you and Ishtiaq Ahmed could work together. It is damaging to Pakistan if there is rivalry/animosity between you two. He is different from you, but your (potential) ally all the same.

  122. yasserlatifhamdani

    He is an anti-ahmadi bigot. I don’t want anything to do with crooks like Ishtiaq Ahmed who have ruined this country.

  123. Ahmed Nazir

    We are unconsciously projecting our own opinion onto Mr. Jinnah. What Mr. Jinnah said and did is interpretable in either way Islam and Secularism have values in common.
    America has a system called “Democracy” and wants to see it being practiced worldwide. For a Muslim to come out with the slogan of “Secularism” implies that either he/she is unaware of there being a guidance that God has provided to all humankind as to how a Government should run or he/she believes that God-given Guidance is inferior to secularism.

    Islam is based on justice and merit. Islamic Government would treat every individual as a respectable citizen of the State, would guard everyone’s basic rights and provide equal opporunity to all. Power should be in the hands of God-fearing, justice-abiding who, besides having expertise in their respective field, would possess correct knowledge of Islam.

    Dr. Ahmed Nazir

  124. yasserlatifhamdani

    Atleast you’ve admitted to your true identity after lying about it earlier.

    Strange. Raza Rumi doesn’t reciprocate your feelings. He thinks you are a scoundrel and has personally endorsed the view that you nor any member of your family should be allowed to post here. Nor ironically do you follow some of his other websites… Or makes blogs about his more famous Rumi’s world or Lahorenama…

    I am not flattering myself…I am merely stating that you are obsessed with me… It was so on chowk…then here.

  125. yasserlatifhamdani

    Erratum “make”

  126. PMA

    skyview (June 25, 2010 at 7:20 pm):

    “Iskandar Mirza was a lout……He (a Farsi-tongue Iranian with a supremacy complex vis-a-vis the darker-skinned Punjabi-Sindhi Pakistanis)…..”

    Iskandar Mirza was eighth generation descendant of Mir Jaffar (real name Syed Mohammad Najafi, 1691-1765) of Plassey fame. As the name implies Mir Jaffar’s grandfather, Syed Hussain Najafi who first came to Delhi was an Arab from Najaf, Iraq and not a Persian from Iran. The family lived and ruled Bengal and Murshidabad till 1948. Along the way each generation picked up numerous Hindu and Muslim wives from the Sub-continent and beyond. Iskandar Mirza himself was ethnically Bihari/Bengali of a light brown skin tone typical of the Muslims of that region. He was born in Murshidabad and was a domicile of then East Pakistan. He and his family members spoke Bihari Urdu, Bengali and English and not Persian or Arabic.

  127. Chote Miyan

    Dr. Nazir Saab,
    “Power should be in the hands of God-fearing, justice-abiding who, besides having expertise in their respective field, would possess correct knowledge of Islam.”

    When I read the above comments, I honestly felt that you should, in larger interest of humanity, relinquish that honorable title ‘Dr.’ that you attach to your name. Quite obviously, you do not know what it represents.
    “Neem Hakim Khatre Jaan..”

  128. Hayyer

    PMA:
    Re: your post of 4:38 pm

    “Sir, you have defined ‘Kashmir’ and ‘Kashmiri’ in extremely narrow ethnolinguistic and perhaps in racial terms. By your definition territorial Kashmir is limited to the Valley and perhaps the Valley Walls. Your definition totally diminishes Kashmir as a geographical political entity.”

    I define it as I know it and I know it from what Kashmiris. Kashmiris do not consider the people who do not originate in the valley and whose mother tongue is not Kashmiri to be Kashmiri. That is a simple and accurate definition of Kashmir and Kashmiris.

    Further, the people of Jammu, Udhampur, Rajouri, Poonch, Doda, Kargil, Kathua and Ladakh do not consider themselves to be Kashmiri. They refer to Kashmiris as something separate from themselves just as the Kashmiris refer to these people as something other than Kashmiri. There are Kashmiris who have made their home outside Kashmir, some for many generations, but they generally continue to use the Kashmiri language as their first language and continue to be called Kashmiri by everyone.

    I cannot make it clearer than that. I asked you about Pakhtuns, Sindhis and Baloch. Would a Punjabi settled in Peshawar claim to be a Pakhtun? If he did as Raj Kapoor was fond of doing what would a Pakhtun think of him? Are the Baloch living in Sindh Sindhis? I am not taking a narrow ethno-linguistic view. It is what it is.

    I have heard Kashmiri Muslim representatives returning from international conferences on Kashmir actually mock the pretensions of representatives from PAK to represent Kashmir.

    There is a newspaper in Srinagar started around 1993 called Greater Kashmir. A greater Kashmir is the fond dream of many Kashmiri nationalists. In this they include all the Muslim majority areas of the united state of J&K, including Gilgit and Hunza. Amanullah Khan of the JKLF as you may know belongs to Gilgit but is not a Kashmiri and no one calls him that in Kashmir. Mirpuris displaced by the Mangla dam like to pass for Kashmiris in Britain. Jammu has Hindu and Sikh Mirpuris settled there after 1947 but not one of them has claimed to be Kashmiri. They look upon themselves as Mirpuris, not as Dogras, and not as Punjabis which they mostly are.

    Your own government, being aware of the fractured nature of J&K set up a quasi state for the Northern Areas of J&K, a legally unsound decision but a forerunner of other splits that await J&K, notwithstanding the greater Kashmir enthusiasts.

    “Is this a prelude to some Indian proposal for the ultimate solution of the Indian Kashmir problem? If presented perhaps Pakistan will take it. But have you tried to sell this definition to the inhabitants of the Indian occupied State of Jammu and Kashmir? And if so did you find any takers?”

    Some years ago I was asked to write a piece on the nature of J&K state for a pretentious Kashmiri political journal run by an former militant. It was an elaboration of the current argument here on this thread and the political consequences of the fractures that run deep in J&K . Will you believe that it was quoted extensively and approvingly by the self styled intellectuals of Srinagar including separatists; I was even asked to do a rewrite on the same theme for another similar journal.
    In other words the idea is not invented or novel or just my own. It is authentic. I know very many Kashmiris, many more Muslims than Hindus, and our discussions on Kashmir have been wide ranging and frank, including all of what I have said above and much more. Never ever has anyone thought it worth an argument; it would be absurd, unless one lived in cloud cuckoo land

    But I must, for the sake of a complete elaboration of the issue mention that small minority of not so well informed Kashmiris, who taken in by talk of an “Azad Kashmir” had come to believe that the people of Muzzaffarabad were Kashmiris like themselves. This group is quite disconcerted to learn that Azad Kashmiris are similar to the people of Uri or Poonch.

  129. Hayyer

    Second para-first line:-

    “…I know it from what Kashmiris know it as.”
    Sorry

  130. Hayyer

    Raza: (At 1:36 pm)

    “ ‘Once religion, more so Islam, is mentioned in any context no one would dare say even a word remotely at variance with it. They (ulema) would prevail upon the innocent masses in the name of Islam and dictate their diktats to the extent that the religion will overshadow the governance in its all spheres.’

    This para was so true and brilliant. This is what I believe. My article published here on PTH titled as How Reluctance to Debate Religion Has Resulted in a Total Quagmire tried to make the same point”

    I don’t entirely understand. I had opposed the idea behind your article on debating religion. If religious debate infests politics secular politicians are silenced permanently. The role of religious reformers is outside of politics. The religious virus once introduced will infest the whole body.

    The Colonel doesn’t seem to be advising a debate on religion. I had asked why Muslim politicians in India are not afraid of the Ulema as they seem to be in Pakistan. Is it because your politicians and establishment built up the Ulema into a monster and then armed them, in a sense? How do you get out of it now?

  131. Bin Ismail

    @Hayyer (June 26, 2010 at 6:35 am)

    “…..I had asked why Muslim politicians in India are not afraid of the Ulema as they seem to be in Pakistan. Is it because your politicians and establishment built up the Ulema…..”

    Essentially, it’s because in India, to begin with, there was a “secular constitution” in place, a document which the clergy could not exploit, for political blackmailing.

    Although, along other dimensions of political activity, the religion factor may have influenced statecraft, but the constitution did not lend support to such influences. So, in India, it became apparent to the clergy that they would not be able to blackmail the system by means of the constitution.

  132. yasserlatifhamdani

    In India … Even the Hindu politicians are afraid of the Mullah.

    If not then what was the Shah Bano fiasco all about …and Imrana issue …and Satanic verses (india banned the book before Pakistan) and the issue with Taslima.

    I am sorry but I don’t accept Hayyer’s view.

  133. Bin Ismail

    @yasserlatifhamdani (June 26, 2010 at 8:50 am)

    “…..what was the Shah Bano fiasco all about …and Imrana issue …and Satanic verses (india banned the book before Pakistan) and the issue with Taslima…..”

    The issues you’ve cited, and some that you’ve not, are exactly what I pointed out towards in the following words of my previous comment: “…along other dimensions of political activity, the religion-factor may have influenced statecraft…”. However, the Constitution of India had little to contribute to this “awe of the clergy”.

    Constitution of India aside, one sad fact that needs to be recognized by our Indian friends is that there has been a relationship – not tacit but open – of mutual support and loyalty between the Congress and the Mullah.

  134. Chote Miyan

    @Hayyer (June 26, 2010 at 6:35 am)

    “…..I had asked why Muslim politicians in India are not afraid of the Ulema as they seem to be in Pakistan. Is it because your politicians and establishment built up the Ulema…..”

    Is the sheer diversity of Indian population also not such a big factor behind the loose hold of Mullahs and Sankracharyas over Indian politics? I remember when Shabana Azmi taunted Imam Bukhari of Jama Masjid with the suggestion that the Indian government should parachute him to fight alongside the Taliban, he derisively referred her as some “nachne gaane wali”. Immediately, there was a firestorm of protest across the spectrum. Bukhari has not been the same since. The constitution can only work as long as the people supposed to safeguard it are willing to.

  135. Chote Miyan

    Bin Ismail,
    “Constitution of India aside, one sad fact that needs to be recognized by our Indian friends is that there has been a relationship – not tacit but open – of mutual support and loyalty between the Congress and the Mullah.”

    you forgot to add that Congress has also been in bed with Hindu fundamentalist as well as various caste based groups. It’s just politics. They, along with various parties, would sleep with a dog if it guaranteed them victory. Not to be outdone, the various third front parties, including the communists, routinely flaunt viciously obscurantist Mullahs as their mascots. There was a Samajwadi party MLA or MP who fixed a ransom on the Danish cartoonist head. After a threat of criminal case, he promptly withdrew. At the root of all this, is the failure civil society; if we elect chimpanzees, what can we expect. It’s a Utopian dream to expect that religion would be completely separate from politics, and that no one would exploit religion for political gain. We can, at best, corral it. It must be remembered that even in US, the President’s faith is a widely discussed feature of their campaign.

    Shah Bano case was a worst case of political opportunism by Rajiv Gandhi, a very secular and cosmopolitan man. And it was in his rule that the Babri Masjid was unlocked to, opening another Pandora box. As for other cases, well, we are not at a point where there is a complete freedom for the artistic expression. The Right to expression in India comes with certain caveats. Taslima’s case is unique. In her case, the various leftist groups, due to some bizarre concoction of political correctness shy away from supporting her fully. It’s always touted as hurting minority sentiments, and has less to do with the Mullahs.

  136. Hayyer

    YLH:

    Politicians in India try to maximize their vote catching potential. They are not afraid of being called murtads with killers sent after them. Shah Bano’s case happened 25 years ago and it was a one off. It was a disaster for Rajiv Gandhi who was most ill advised on this by his Hindu advisors, but mainly Arun Nehru, and it led to the resignation of his minister Arif Mohammad Khan who opposed giving in to orthodox Islamic opinion. Arif Khan did not fear the Mullahs as most Muslim politicians do not. I have never known a Muslim politician in India pay the slightest attention to a bigoted Mullah. The Mullahs say their funny things and politicians and the public ignore them or criticize them as they like. Once a year or so some absurd fatwa makes its way into the press, is mocked in the media, and forgotten. Occasionally a mullah in politics may become a minister and make the news but he has hardly any audience.
    Being in a minority perhaps the Mullahs themselves are less aggressive-I can’t say.
    The legal affairs of the Muslims have been left to the All Indian Muslim Law Personal Board, a moribund body mired in timid orthodoxies. A Hindu majority government feels incompetent to reform Muslim personal laws but the Muslims on the board seem not to be able to get on with it either.

  137. yasserlatifhamdani

    I think barring the constitution bit…same thing holds true here.

    But after Zia the constitution gives Mullahs a pre-eminent place …in a state which had already decisively committed itself to Islamization in the original 73 constitution.

    Before 1973 Pakistani situation was analogous to the Greek and Argentine positions and therefore under control. It was not out of place to find politicians railing against the Mullahs till the end of the 1970s… Bhutto especially did make a lot of noise on that count.

    *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***

  138. Hayyer

    Taslima Nasreen is allowed to live in India. She was asked to move her residence out of Calcutta because the hypocrisy of the Indian Communists who can be relied upon to bend backwards to accommodate hard line Muslim opinion. Tasleema uses the writers license to provoke orthodox Muslim and is hailed by the Hindu right, but notwithstanding the fact that she is not much of a novelist (in English anyway) she has the right to speak her mind as long as public order is not affected. Government of India’s difficulty was not the reaction of Indian Muslims so much as India’s relations with Bangladesh. There were a few organized demonstrations in Kolkata and on her visit to Bangalore I recall but her visa is validated every time.

    The Rushdie affair is a different matter. It more essentially concerns freedom of speech. I was one of the many ‘liberal’ Indians who supported the ban, because I thought the book was gratuitously blasphemous, and because of the law and order implications. Today however, having read a bit more about Islam than I had then, I would be concerned still for the law and order implications as for the limits of artistic license. Muslim votes vary between nil and thirty percent in various parts of India. There are even Muslim majority constituencies. I can see the politicians point of view. What does it say for freedom of expression? Only that India is not as advanced as Europe and the US- but then, our riots are much deadlier too.
    All religions are make believe and all can and should be criticized if it could be done without affecting public order. That, alas, is more difficult in India than it is in the West, but there too, a virus killed off a century and more ago has re-entered from Asia. The West is rather a fragile environment and needs to be quarantined from the lesser breeds. Unfortunately we need them, they don’t need us.

    I do not recall the Imraana case too well. Was she the one raped by her father in law and then the Ulema and AIMPLB suggested that she was now her husband’s mother in law? I don’t recall what happened eventually. I think a rape case was instituted and the rapist prosecuted, but the story fell of the front pages.

    India is a country of many absurdities. People learn to live with them when it can’t be helped. Currently we have the Khap panchayat nonsense. The degree of consanguinity allowed in marriage is the stuff of Totem and Taboo. The tribal mind set can still be found in Indian villages. The Jats of Haryana want the law amended. Haryana’s CM also a Jat, and like the good politician he is, sympathized with the delegation that called on him, but he wasn’t so stupid as to recommend such a thing to the legislature. Jats dominate Haryana politics but there are boundaries which even Indian politicians dare not cross.

  139. @Chote Miyan
    June 26, 2010 at 11:10 am

    Taslima’s case is unique. In her case, the various leftist groups, due to some bizarre concoction of political correctness shy away from supporting her fully. It’s always touted as hurting minority sentiments, and has less to do with the Mullahs.

    The left has been as communal, as conscious of vote-bank politics, as any other party in India. In Bengal, it consciously cultivates the Muslim vote. To its credit, it has given leadership positions to some sound mid-level politicians and kept communal strife out, to its discredit , it has openly encouraged mass immigration from Bangladesh and helped the newcomers to gain citizenship papers in order to build up its vote-banks.

    That only changed in recent civic elections. It became clear that all sectors had reasons to do with good governance for disillusionment with the left. In addition, due to the Government’s infamous behaviour in the Rizwan ur-Rehman case, they had lost the confidence of even those, Hindu and Muslim alike, who saw them as bulwarks against communalism. Their vote-banks are bare and empty now, and they have no clue about what to do about it.

    Tasleema was caught up in this vote-bank cynicism. Some mullahs, and communalists, the kinds who in all religious groups are ‘sensitive’ to insults to their religion, were informed by their Bangladeshi counterparts that Tasleema was ‘wajib-ul-qatl’ because she had insulted Islam in ‘Lajja’.

    The book was about the slaughter of Hindus in 71, and had nothing to do with Islam per se, but the Jamaat in Bangladesh, which may have killed more Bangladeshis than died at the hands of the military, took it personally. These al-Badr/Razakar elements identified themselves with Islam, and took all criticism against their murderous ways as criticisms of Islam.

    The Calcutta mullahs took to the streets. They had had nothing to say earlier. When they got this hint from the Jamaat, they started agitating. To the everlasting shame of the leftist government, they prevailed. The government had to smuggle Tasleema out of Calcutta to Rajasthan, and took the stand that Tasleema’s staying in India was a decision of the Central Government, and she could live anywhere except in Bengal, due to law and order problems. This was among the most extraordinary capitulations to communal forces, but thankfully was bloodless.

    The left still lost their contests in Muslim majority areas. Abe Lincoln was right after all.

  140. Girish

    What made this comparison with India easier in the past was that in economic terms, Pakistan used to be marginally ahead of India all the way from the 1970s (after the poorer and more disaster prone Eastern half was separated) into the 1980s. Pakistani visitors to India regularly commented on how roads, airports etc. on the Pakistani side were better and that you saw much greater poverty on the streets in India. Many of those things have changed and seemingly to Pakistanis in a dramatic fashion. Hence, there is less talk about India’s shit now. But it hasn’t completely gone away.

  141. Hayyer

    Expressing the Indo-Pak dynamic in scatological terms doesn’t improve our understanding of it.
    This is a Pakistani site. Pakistanis can talk about whatever they like without bothering about officious Indians. How thick can we get?

  142. Girish

    Talking about officious Indians – have you looked into the mirror today?

  143. Hayyer

    I don’t tell the Pakistanis what they should talk about, that keeps me out of the officious category.

  144. Chote Miyan

    Shiva,
    “The reality of India is that it is not that far ahead of Pakistan. Pakistanis who see this are”

    I totally agree with you. I was actually quite shocked that a suicide by a rickshaw puller family in Lahore made such a huge news in Pakistan. Such news don’t even make it to evening dailies in our country unless the person in question happens to be an item girl or something of that sort. Someone should tell the dimwits at the ISI that the millions they spend to send some rascals across the border to kill and maim is thoroughly wasted. I mean how many they manage to kill? 100s? Poof! 10 times that number die in heatstroke and it hardly breaks a sweat with our asinine ruling class.

  145. shiv

    @ Chote Miyan
    Someone should tell the dimwits at the ISI that the millions they spend to send some rascals across the border to kill and maim is thoroughly wasted

    I suppose you do know that when someone blows himself up in Pakistan it is now called the “IED-ology” of Pakistan with I.E.D. being “Improvised Explosive Device” – an Indian army term for what Pakistani saboteurs used to set up in beloved Kushmeer

  146. yasserlatifhamdani

    Then why don’t you dimwits (shiv and chote miyan and arun gupta clan) concentrate on bringing down those people who protect and harbor Islamists like the ISI and the right wing types… instead of attacking “liberal Pakistan” as you say.

    But you don’t …and here is why: for scoundrels like you Pakistani Islamists make sense and the world makes sense. It is “liberal Pakistan” that goes up your rear orifice like Danda.

    This is precisely why you are allied with the likes of Kashifiat etc against PTH.

  147. Syed

    There was a natural alliance between Nehru’s Congress and ‘Islamic’ religious parties of India – both opposed tooth and nail to Jinnah’s pro-minority politics.

  148. Chote Miyan

    ylh,
    “This is precisely why you are allied with the likes of Kashifiat etc against PTH.”

    That is a little bit over the top. I understand if you said Pakistan, but PTH? I wish you well.

  149. yasserlatifhamdani

    No you don’t asshole. Most of your time is spent driving down the liberals.

    Indian ultra-fanatics like you are basically an insecure bunch…kinda like our counterparts…to whom only Bal Thackerey makes sense.

  150. shiv

    @ yasserlatifhamdani

    Then why don’t you dimwits (shiv and chote miyan and arun gupta clan) concentrate on bringing down those people who protect and harbor Islamists like the ISI and the right wing types… instead of attacking “liberal Pakistan” as you say.

    But you don’t …and here is why: for scoundrels like you Pakistani Islamists make sense and the world makes sense. It is “liberal Pakistan” that goes up your rear orifice like Danda.

    This is precisely why you are allied with the likes of Kashifiat etc against PTH.

    I am not against liberal Pakistanis. I am just an internet terrorist. I don’t discriminate.

    More seriously Pakistani liberals will need allies to bring “bringing down those people who protect and harbor Islamists”. But those allies are not going to do that job directly – or at least they cannot do it.

    A long time ago a niece of mine described an intercollegiate music festival where they had gone to ogle the boys. When they saw the type of boys there they wished there was a huge “loser magnet” that would lift up all the losers from the crowd leaving the winners.

    If friends of Pakistani liberals had a bomb to take out the “bad people” they would still have to have some way of figuring out who is good and who is not. I believe iy will be the job of Pakistani liberals to help identify and sift the wheat from the chaff.

    More on this some other time.. I have actually written some stuff on issues similar to this.

  151. Kaalket

    What and who is defined as liberal in Pakistani mileu? Are we talking about social,political,finnancial or spiritual liberal? I mean , it must be clear and not obscure like such Pakistani claim that Islam is against killing innocent peeple and all kaffirs are guilty because they dont purify their rooh as taught by Prophet Muhamamd(PBUH). IOW, a social, political liberal doing dancin, drinking and singing but eager to gain spiritual reward by slicing Ahmadi neck cant be considered a real liberal in real world .

  152. Chote Miyan

    ylh,
    If you consider honest disagreement over issues as efforts to brow beat liberals, I am afraid, you are a way off target. Liberals disagree within themselves too. If I agreed with you on everything, why would I be here. It would help if you don’t tar everyone with the same brush. Today’s issue of the Daily times carries an article by Mr. Talpur. I am sure you wouldn’t agree with him. But would you go so far as to paint him being in bed with Islamists? Airing honest disagreement is a sign of respect rather than looking down on someone. No way it implies that one doesn’t appreciate your efforts. Sometimes, the tone may go awry. It happens.

    Above all, you have to understand our predicament too. There is an islamist group that we detest. For them, we are wajib-ul-katl or whatever nonsense you call it. No one can debate them; it’s pointless. On the other hand, it’s you guys who take any disagreement as scotching the voice of liberals. It’s such a catch-22 situation.

  153. yasserlatifhamdani

    kalket,

    You are a crook. Do you think PTH stands for spiritual reward for killing Ahmadis?

    You people are dishonest and disgusting.

  154. yasserlatifhamdani

    Mian muhammad ali talpur – scion of a third rate princely dynasty and a part time commie- is quoting Ishtiaq Ahmed the anti-ahmadi bigot…what surprise.

    You Indians don’t understand the complexities of Pakistani political discourse. That you would agree with a third rate article by a fourth rate person leaves major doubt about your reasonableness in my mind but I excuse you as per the first line of this article.

    Calling ishtiaq ahmed “professor emeritus” is no argument when his article turned out to be a deliberate lie and he even grudgingly admitted it in his last article.

  155. Chote Miyan

    “You Indians don’t understand the complexities of Pakistani political discourse….”

    You are right. In some sense, it’s true for anyone who doesn’t live there and is commenting about the political affairs in Pakistan. That can be true locally as well. For example, I am an Indian, but does that mean that I can accurately comment about what is happening in Kerala. Probably not. Sometimes, in fact, that is an advantage. It enables one(I am not such an egoist to include myself) to see things that is missed by the local populace. We wish you all the best in constructing an exemplar secular and a liberal society. The reality, however, would be, in my opinion, closer to what I read in an article titled “The Mehran man.” That again is not to disparage your efforts, just a recognition of what may happen. No one would be happier than us if it doesn’t and Pakistan becomes thoroughly modern in every sense of the word. To see the ruins of Taxila, Mohenjo Daro and Thatta is my childhood dream and I would love to fulfill that asap.

    “That you would agree with a third rate article by a fourth rate person leaves major doubt about your reasonableness in my mind”

    To doubt is a good thing. Only egomaniacs can be sure about themselves all the time.

  156. Chote Miyan

    Vajra,
    “The left has been as communal, as conscious of vote-bank politics, as any other party in India.”

    I agree with you totally. When I used the word “leftist”, I meant our “liberal” chatterati(especially Arundhati and her cohorts) who work themselves into a lather every time something like Hussain controversy comes up, as a sign of impending Hinduvta domination. Curiously, they keep quiet when there is an issue like that of Taslima. To talk about political left would be to recycle muck.

  157. Chote Miyan

    Hayyer,
    “That, alas, is more difficult in India than it is in the West, but there too, a virus killed off a century and more ago has re-entered from Asia. The West is rather a fragile environment and needs to be quarantined from the lesser breeds. Unfortunately we need them, they don’t need us. ”

    That may not be strictly true. In US, at least, they are still wrestling with theory of evolution and creationism. That was not an import from Asia. US, on the whole, is a deeply religious society.

  158. @Chote Miyan

    Much though it hurts, you are accurate in your description of liberal Indians and their surrender to both religious bigots from minority sections and terrorists from the Maoist sections. I don’t agree with your singling out Arundhati Roy – every individual, every group is entitled to his/her opinion, or their expressions of their point of view – but it is despicable that any particular set of opinions should condemn one incident but not another. If Muslims act like bigots, they should be called bigots; hesitating to do so because the Hindutva brigade are also calling them bigots is a major surrender dictated by political correctness of the most incorrect sort. So too with Maoist violence; they are guilty of what Lenin called left wing extremism – an infantile disorder.

    These asymmetric consciences are a major weakness in the liberal case.

  159. ishfaq

    A brilliant article from an ex-soldier. As one who was commissioned in the PAF and had his training and grooming in Pakistan (66-71), Dooms Day scenario into which Pakistan had been sliding, gives me a lot of pain. However, my country – Bangladesh tends to follow Pakistan in its journey into the Black Hole. I, along with some others, are just trying to stop the slide. Click on the link below to see an article of mine that appeared some time back in leading daily.

    http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=68715

    Ishfaq

  160. Hayyer

    chote miyan:

    The virus is not religion but fighting over religion. It is also racial, linguistic and cultural discrimination. This lingered on in Ireland but is on the way out. It is still found in parts of Eastern Europe in the treatment of gypsies.

  161. Bin Ismail

    @Hayyer (June 27, 2010 at 5:36 pm)

    “…..The virus is not religion but fighting over religion…..”

    Well said.

  162. Kaalket

    YLH,
    Not PTH but many well educated Pakistani hold this kind of spiritual view so it require clarification. Discussion with party having cultural expression like Wajibul Katal in religious, social discource calls for extra caution/explanation.

  163. PMA

    ishfaq (June 27, 2010 at 5:11 pm):

    Dear Commodore Choudhury:

    Welcome to PTH. As recommended by you I have read your article “Two-nation Theory”. [Air Cdre. (Retd) Ishfaq Ilahi Choudhury is a freelance contributor to The Daily Star]. I have been curious to learn what does the breakaway province think about the so called theory now that it is no longer part of the larger country. Your article provides one point of view with possibly more. I believe that the Two-nation Theory of All India Muslim League was a political counterpoint to the One-nation Theory of the Indian National Congress. It is on the basis of this ‘theory’ that the Muslim majority East Bengal became East Pakistan and then Bangladesh otherwise what is the justification of Bangladesh as a country separate from West Bengal? It is true that without the Two-nation Theory there would be no Bangladesh. Please do share your views on this subject if you are still on this board.

  164. ishfaq

    Dear PMA,

    Thanks for the response. Bangladesh would not have been there, if there was no Pakistan and there would be no Pakistan if there were no British India – this could be an unending story. Let me state that the Bengali peasantry led by AK Fazlul Haque and the middle-class led by Suhrawardy were instrumental in the Pakistan movement. But it was mainly the peasantry that filled the ballot box – peasant revolution against the mainly Hindu zamindars. To the peasants two nation theory had no meaning, because socially the Muslim peasant was at par with the Hindu fisherman, just as the Muslim elite was in the same league as the Hindu zamindar. The Land Tenancy act of 1948 dissolved all zamindaris and the Hindu zamindars left for Calcutta, soon to be replaced by new elite class from UP and West Pakistan. Neither Haque nor Suhrawardy had any respect or allegiance for the 2-Nation theory. While Haque was a rustic, jack fruit and Hilsa lover Bengali from remote Barisal, Suhrawardy represented the urbane, upper-class, whiskey-loving, party-hopping Calcatian. By 1950s all rationale for the two nation theory had ceased to exist which was proven in the total defeat for the ML in the first election held in East Bengal. Pakistani nationalism was replaced by Bengali nationalism which was essentially secular. Of course, there are many in Bangladesh who would still believe in 2 Nation theory, there are those who believe in the rule of the Sharia, just as others who believe in a Marxist state. However, as shown in the election in Dec 2009, the Bengali nationalism is still going strong.

    Ishfaq

  165. PMA

    ishfaq (June 29, 2010 at 8:53 pm):

    Dear Commodore Choudhury:

    Thanks for the reply. True, the Muslim peasantry of Bengal stuffed the ballot boxes against the political and economic domination of the Hindu landholders of Bengal in favor of Pakistan at the urging of the Muslim Elites. It was a Muslim-Bengali vs. Hindu-Bengali class warfare. But this was all done under the banner of the so called Two-nation Theory and not as an expression of Bengali Nationalism. Bengali Nationalists on the other hand did not want a division of Bengal. Bangladeshi Nationalism, which is essentially Bengali Muslim Nationalism is something very different from Bengali Nationalism. You may not wish to acknowledge it but Bangladeshi Nationalism is a post-1947 phenomenon and is a byproduct of the so called Two-nation Theory. In my opinion the One-nation Theory of the Congress was a political ploy and the Two-nation Theory of Muslim League was a maneuver of political expedience. But there is no denying that we were all involved in political gamesmanship. Also in my opinion, the so called One-nation Theory was defeated in 1947 and the so called Two-nation Theory expired the day the Empire was divided into two.

  166. Hayyer

    Can the sage who dwelt, once upon a time, in the forest tell us whether there ever, was a Bengali Hindu nationalism too, and what the real background of the partition of Bengal in 1905?

  167. douglas

    Hayyer wrote:
    “The virus is not religion but fighting over religion.”

    But fighting over religion is ordered and glorified by some religions.

    Every religion has a certain level of arrogance. It culminates into wars wih some religions being more war-eager. Originally it was about robbing women and food. Later it “develops” to become the ideology of a state. The founder(s) of these state are seeking glory for thenselves. That is their real understanding of paradise – to be glorified on the earth after their deaths.

  168. @Ishfaq

    Haque was a rustic, jack fruit and Hilsa lover Bengali from remote Barisal

    Forgive me for going completely off-topic; Bangals have a reputation for emotional response to stimuli, which I must honour as a grandson of Kulokati and a son of Dhaka.

    It was painful to read your description of Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq in terms of a jack-fruit and Hilsa-loving Bengali from ‘remote’ Barisal. This jack-fruit was a Presidency College student, took a triple-Honours in his degree, and was the second Muslim to take a law degree. He was Ashutosh Mukherji’s junior in his law practice. It is apparent that you are very knowledgeable in the history and the politics of the time and need no reminding of his contribution to Bengali politics, later, to Pakistani, ultimately Bangladeshi politics.

    The great PMA addresses you as Commodore, and further enquiry revealed that it is short for Air Commodore. Your aviation background may perhaps remind you that the first aviator of naval flag rank on this sub-continent, former Alize pilot and former CO of Vikrant, was also a son of Kulokati (since you already know Fazlul Huq Saheb was Barisali, you also know he was from Jhalukati).

    In my respectful and humble opinion, the slighting reference to Barisal was wholly superfluous, and stinging; your points are very well made without them.

    ‘Kulokati dauhitra’
    (my nickname is from Vajrayogini in Bikrampur, the village next to my ancestral village)

  169. Giri

    This may be off topic, but who was the Barisali CO of Vikrant? I was unable to find the reference using a google search? Pardon my ignorance and inability to find the information on my own.

  170. Hayyer

    douglas:

    I am not a believer-in any religion. But, if people would practice their faiths in private and not comparatively all would be well. You believe your bull shit and I’ll believe mine. No problem.

  171. @Hayyer

    There are no wise men in this neck of the woods, but if a substitute will do, might I try an answer?

    bonobashi, if he were here, might have told us about the social ferment that created a political ferment. There was a strong Hindu revivalist sentiment in Bengal which British rule fostered, as that rule first stripped away the primitive, barbaric vestiges of superstition and tortured religious thinking, and then offered Bengali youngsters growing up in Calcutta (especially) the opportunity of a release into a new world.

    One young enthusiast was noticeably anti-Hindu in his views and expressions; he was asked what would happen if he was forced to a Kali temple by his parents; “I will greet her politely, naturally, with ‘Good morning, Madam’.”

    Another, taking to drink (this was one of the signs of Anglicisation; the other was eating beef) very early, finally went all the way, and converted to Christianity, and returned from exile in Madras to write the first Bengali poem of any length in blank verse. Its subject, Meghnad Badh, has some personal fascination for me, as you will readily understand.

    A second stream of revolt and change led to the reformed sect known as the Brahmo Samaj. The poet Tagore’s father was one of the most important figures in this sect, much to his hugely rich and hugely orthodox grandfather’s horror; being ‘Pir Ali’ Brahmins, they had much to live down.

    A third was the orthodox Hindu stream of opinion, which fought British intrusions into society tooth and nail, opposing everything and anything that smacked of innovation, from widow remarriage to female education to English education itself, though that last was the first bastion to crumble; the pickings were too rich to resist for long.

    However, this third stream was the first to take advantage of the new freedom to think unruly thoughts, to start wondering if British rule was such an undiluted blessing. Incendiary plays, some about the practice of indigo plantation as it was done, and books like Bankimchandra’s Ananda Math, written with an eye to sales among the Hindu revivalists, contributed to an undercurrent which did not go unnoticed.

    All this happened in the frontier town of Calcutta. All these events were in the second half of the eighteenth century, when Calcutta itself was less than a hundred years old. It was a nouveau riche town, and everyone was intent on establishing his credentials in society, as orthodox old guard, or reformist, or breakaway Hindu sect, or converts. Muslims, the Jews, the Armenians, even the Greeks, all played parts in this, but side roles; the main ferment was in comprador Hindu society.

    The inevitable result was that some Bengalis starting thinking that they were actually superior to the others, somewhere between the mass of other Indians and the elevated galleries of the white masters. They started putting on airs. They started competing in the civil service exams, and winning places. When they were kept out after winning, they sued and got in again. When they were thrown out after all for being ‘uppity niggers’, they took to politics. Surendranath Bannerjee, for instance, did these exact same things and set up the INA, the Indian National Association. There were town hall meetings, assemblies, speeches and articles in Bengali-flavoured English on the racism that was everyday life in those days.

    This was not very popular with the sahibs.

    All this happened in the final three or four decades of the nineteenth century, from soon after 1857, when the Muslims came under British suspicion, and the only game in town, in Bengal Presidency, was the Bengali Hindu. In 1883, Bannerjee published an article which was found in contempt of court, and got himself arrested. Protests and hartals broke out all over the Presidency, not just in the Bengali bits but also in the up-country towns of Faizabad, Agra, Amritsar, Lahore (that’s when it started, young Yasser) and Pune. No, not popular at all.

    The fringe elements were becoming the lunatic fringe, to the nervous eye of the post-Mutiny British.

    The British themselves were not a homogeneous bloc, as we tend to assume. There was a democratic, liberal element, which stood for reform and greater roles for the Indians; a coterie of crusty conservatives and outside racists from government, business and the plantation interest; and the small segment of Teutonic efficiency experts headed by Curzon the viceroy – I am George Nathaniel Curzon, a most superior Purzon – as the Oxford doggerel put it.

    It would help to remember that Bengal Presidency itself was five Hindi-speaking states in the west, the old Oudh state, and some more, as well as the real frontier, the Assam state then under conquest and undergoing expansion (Younghusband was still 10 years away, so India’s problems with China were still far away; Tibet had given up any claims to suzerainty over Nepal long years ago, and was keeping a nervous eye on the West; Zorawar Singh was only killed in 1841, after all). It made administrative sense to Curzon to split it into two. Assam could be opened up and developed better (shades of Chhatisgarh); the Muslim peasantry given greater access to education and self-government; and, not a small fringe benefit, the oversmart Bengali Hindu could be swiftly but effectively kicked in the butt. Most satisfactory end, just in time for the port and cigars.

    So, dear Sir, Bengali nationalism came first; then Partition, and the Muslims found to their puzzlement that all that was good for the Bengali Hindu middle classes was not necessarily good for them, nor vice versa. At this point, a divide took place.

    The battle to reverse Partition was more a Bengali Hindu, in a broader sense, an INC battle; the Muslims stayed out, and slowly began to wonder what they would do if the country got away from British rule. Would they get the same number of seats as then prevalent, compared to the smart Bengali Hindus? Would the government jobs and the professional positions, the lawyers’ perks, the doctors’ prestige, the clerk’s positions in the mercantile houses, ever be their’s? In the proportion of the population? Or in the proportions then prevalent, 100 Hindus to 0 Muslims?

    This then is why Partition 05 happened: due to a cocktail of desire for administrative efficiency, colonial greed, and old-fashioned racist resentment of what Kipling had already described as the ‘bandar log’, sitting and talking incessantly in great assemblies which did nothing but sit and talk ceaselessly.

    [There is a gentleman on PDF who actually calls India bandarstan, though I doubt that he knows who Kipling was; if asked, he might consider Kipling to be a verb.]

    And there is no doubt that after this, Hindu and Muslim sentiment started diverging. Veer Savarkar had started his organisation in Bombay; the Indian National Congress had started in 1885; at least three terrorist outfits were launched in the struggle for reversing partition, and the Muslim League was soon to start, as the Nawab-bari of Dhaka reacted to this Hindu militancy with alarm and nervousness, and rallied the Muslims to the cause of preserving their right to progress.

    Time, I think, to let the old man go back to the forest.

  172. @Girish

    Vice Admiral M. K. Roy, PVSM, AVSM, IN (retd.). Retired as FOCinC Eastern Command, earlier served as DNI during 71, served as CO Vikrant, served as CO of Brahmaputra, flew in 310 Squadron, the Cobras, Alizes. Rumor has it that he and his friend Raja Ramanna may have combined their expertise, naval and nuclear, on a particular occasion.

  173. yasserlatifhamdani

    Yawn. Ok loser. I am not sure why Indians like you are so bloody obsessed.

    If you think we are wrong leave us to our fate. Why must you act like a crook?

  174. yasserlatifhamdani

    I didn’t delete any of your posts so far or anyone else’s. . But I will delete every single one of your post tomorrow morning … So keep barking …

  175. PMA

    Vajra (June 30, 2010 at 12:13 am):

    Hayyer:

    This is what I mean. If this damn Vajra ever stops writing I might finish that book. But then Aitzaz Ahsan pretty much sums up the same way, though in fewer words, what Vajra has outlined above. Bengali Nationalism, a sub-variety of Indian Nationalism, was mostly a Hindu phenomenon to which Muslim Bengalis reacted and in due course joined Muslim League to safeguard their own economic and political interests. The post-1947 Pakistani variety of ‘Bengali Nationalism’ is in fact a Bengali Muslim Nationalism, a sub-variety of Indian Muslim Nationalism (or Pakistani Nationalism) re-branded as ‘Bangladeshi Nationalism’. Bangladesh is a nation undergone two subdivisions. First Muslim and then Bengali. There is no room for West Bengal Hindu Bengalis in Bangladeshi Nationalism. The wise man of the forests knows it too well.

  176. @Hayyer

    though in fewer words,

    Ouch! That hurt! Do you mind telling that maniac not to keep waving that damn’ pin about?

    If this damn Vajra ever stops writing I might finish that book.

    Yeah, right. Somebody‘s reading about a sentence a day because he’s staying up all night busy drinking in my deathless prose. Gimme a break.

    Bengali Nationalism, a sub-variety of Indian Nationalism, was mostly a Hindu phenomenon

    Nope. Not what I said, not what I described either. What happened was Bengali nationalism came first; then Partition, and the Muslims found to their puzzlement that all that was good for the Bengali Hindu middle classes was not necessarily good for them, nor vice versa. At this point, a divide took place. And it wasn’t physical.

    in due course joined Muslim League

    Not exactly. They set up the Muslim League, having found out that there was nothing in either the Surendranath Bannerjee Congress or the Pulin Das/Jatin Mukherjee terrorist factions for them. They brought the Hindustani Muslims on board as allies, the Muslim League was set up in Dhaka, when 3,000 Muslim delegates had come to attend the All India Muhammadan Educational Conference, to celebrate AMU, and promptly hijacked by what a great man called Alavi described as the salariat.

    All great men in Pakistan are Alavi, give or take a vowel, except for those who wear uniform the whole day long, and a handful of others, the Bhuttos, the Sharifs, the Hamdanis, and their damaads; this handful doesn’t really matter. And before you start quibbling, just remember this: in Pakistan, it’s not numbers that matter, it’s quality, one Alavi (with the ‘a’) is worth ten of the others. Who won 65, hanh? Oh, sorry, wrong forum, wrong thread.

    Just to round off things on a satisfactorily dissatisfactory note, when the AIML disappeared around the corner at a high rate of knots, travelling west (or was it east? I’m not sure I’m a great enough man, someone better read a book and tell me ), some jackfruit (from Barisal, a remote place in the South Sea Islands) started the Krishak Praja Party.

    The rural Muslim cared two hoots for the INC or for the AIML, he adored his jackfruit, as did most Bengali Hindus except a section of the bhadralok in Calcutta, and cultivated his garden. The urban guy went partying to the 300 Club, and had to be rescued from a violent crowd by a kindly policeman (Dhaka this time). He got so mad that he took advantage of Jinnah’s satyagraha on Direct Action Day to level scores. Actually, rather more than scores.

    This was the same wise man for whom women serving in government were divided into PPM and Not PPM. Ask a nearby great man what that means.

    Since you evidently don’t read books a sentence a day, you wouldn’t know, but that was a parable. One based on fact.

    Bengali Nationalism, a sub-variety of Indian Nationalism, was mostly a Hindu phenomenon to which Muslim Bengalis reacted and in due course joined Muslim League to safeguard their own economic and political interests.
    [snip]
    The post-1947 Pakistani variety of ‘Bengali Nationalism’ is in fact a Bengali Muslim Nationalism, a sub-variety of Indian Muslim Nationalism (or Pakistani Nationalism) re-branded as ‘Bangladeshi Nationalism’.

    _________________________________________

    Pure bulbul.

    In the educated east, we use this word to describe a pair of male cows (normally not et except on very festive occasions, like east meeting west); as we are all linguists here, for lack of reading, we all know that in the confused west, this substantial agglomeration of flesh becomes a bird.

    It’s called something fancy Law in linguistics, but don’t bother with it: just remember, west = avian, east = bovine. As simple as A – B; for the sakes of the non-bookreading audience that we have to keep in mind, we left out the extra alphabet. And remember that this doesn’t apply to the Punjab, east or west. No, Victoria, there are no books in the Punjab; there was one but Hamdani took it away.
    _________________________________________

    Hayyer, boss, with the number of subs you have in there, you don’t need aging history students, you need the whole Indian Navy.

    No, not the Pakistan Navy, they don’t do subs, they don’t do much, actually, they only do Dwaraka, which the very unkind PAF told them is actually Bombay; the PN gave their maps away to lots of people, and one set landed up at Bombay, thinking they were going to Sydney, and started running around and firing off Kalashnikovs when they found themselves surrounded by Indians and lost their heads. The PN also forgot to tell them that there were more Indians in Sydney than in Bombay, studying hotel management two hours a day, driving cabs eight hours a day and partying the other eighteen hours. These are mainly Sardars, so the extra hours doesn’t get noticed.

    There is no room for West Bengal Hindu Bengalis in Bangladeshi Nationalism

    Ho! We’re getting subtle now. Kulokati, Vajroyogini, Jhalukati are all West Bengal now. Trouble with the great men of Pakistan is that they never figured out the difference between east and west, and need to read books a sentence a day to find out what it is.

    The wise man of the forests knows it too well.

    Actually, close, but not accurate, like much else; There are no wise men in this neck of the woods, they all went west – or was that east? I’m a great man, so I don’t know whether I’m coming or going. Somebody give me a book!

  177. yasserlatifhamdani

    Yawn. Loser.

  178. ishfaq

    Dear all,

    My God, I never thought that I would start a turf war.

    Just to clarify some points that came up. First of all, my reference to AK Fazlul Haque was more out of admiration than anything else. The guy was down to earth – he could pull his Lungi up to cross a river, also could attend Queen’s dinner in DJ. But his political career is full of twists and turns. He surrendered to ML leaving Krishak Praja Party, but ML punched him below the belt at every opportunity. I admire Barisal too – my mother-in-law’s place. The culinary tradition is simply unmatched.

    There is no doubt the young Bengalis in 1940-47 were fired up for Pakistan, so much so that they forced a referendum in Sylhet, then a part of Assam. My old man, a Sylhetti, then in his twenties, worked for referendum; Pakistan Army gunned him down in 1971 as a payback.

    Bengali nationalism in Bangladesh is essentially confined within the territorial limit, but then there is, as there always was, a greater Bengali identity; just like there has always been a Punjabi identity. In fact, Punjabi identity is probably far deeper than the Bengali one despite all the bloodshed they had in 1947.

    Bangla and Bengaliness is thriving in Bangladesh, despite challenges from the Islamists, funded by the ME . From the time they bombed the Pahela Baoishakh celebration, the flood of people into the programme just became too huge. More they try to attack, more the popular resistance. In Bangladesh, we are in a struggle between secular Banglaees versus Islamic Khelafatis. The tragedy is that despite being minority, the Islamist are better organised, well funded and more visible. A lot depends on who ultimately prevails.

    Anyway, just last week I was in Bikrampur, had lot of Roshogulla, saw the ancestral home of that great scientist Jagadish Chandra Bose. Beautiful place. Thanks..

    Ishfaq

  179. @Ishfaq

    Dear Commodore Saheb,

    Thank you for your very warm-hearted post. I say this with my tongue well away from my cheek, unlike last time, and with genuine thankfulness. I was just playing the fool about your references to Barisal, without any very serious intent. People on this site know that my bark is worse than my bite. Sorry if it took you by surprise.

    Sincere regards.

  180. PMA

    Vajra (June 30, 2010 at 6:26 am):

    “the Bhuttos, the Sharifs, the Hamdanis, and their damaads”

    “for the sakes of the non-book reading audience that we have to keep in mind, we left out the extra alphabet……And remember that this doesn’t apply to the Punjab, east or west……No, Victoria, there are no books in the Punjab; there was one but Hamdani took it away”

    Those who don’t know better may think that you and I are a tag team. You had me laughing all the way. Actually that extra “a” only shows up in speech and pronunciation and hence in Latin script. In Arabic script which we use in Pakistan the name is spelled only one way. Just like ‘Hamdani’ and ‘Hamadani’ is written the same way in Arabic script; the “greatness” is in there, with or without “a”.

    On a serious note. I have never met a Hindu Bengali in person but I have many friends among Muslim Bengalis. Actually in the pre-1971 world, as Pakistanis we were schooled together and enjoyed great comradery. In my practical life we have kept the friendships. I have great admiration for Bengalis, East or West.

  181. Hayyer

    Vajra:

    That was almost brilliant. Almost, because I keep getting the feeling of a late night out and the consequent WUI.
    Congratulations.

  182. Bin Ismail

    @ ishfaq (June 30, 2010 at 12:46 pm)

    “…..Bangladesh, we are in a struggle between secular Banglaees versus Islamic Khelafatis…..”

    May the “secular Banglaees” win. Amen.