Protestants and Catholics

A slightly modified version of this article was first published in the Daily Times on 20 September 2010. Pakistan’s future, especially with respect to our finest aspirations,  can only be safeguarded by working the democracy and not allowing the temptation of quick-fixes and military coups to get the better of us.

By Yasser Latif Hamdani

In his famous August 11th speech, Jinnah quoted, as an example, the Protestant-Catholic conflict in England and how that country overcame religious strife and conflict. It was a most revealing statement and one that is not often commented upon by biographers of the Quaid-e-Azam. If they would have done so they would have perhaps found it easier to reconcile the idea of a separate Muslim state in the subcontinent to the clear prescription of secular democracy that Jinnah gave for his people on that August day. Perhaps a lesson in English parliamentary and ecclesiastical history would be instructive.

This past weekend, as I sat down to write these lines, the Pope was making his way to Westminster Hall (the first visit by a pontiff) in the famous Pope-mobile along with the Archbishop of Canterbury to speak to the who’s who of British politics, including four former British prime ministers. This is the same place where the Catholic martyr, lawyer and politician Saint Sir Thomas More was tried and where he was sentenced to be “hanged, drawn and quartered” in 1535. The struggle by the reformists against papacy and its excesses had taken a violent turn under the chief minister-ship of Thomas Cromwell, the iron-willed English statesman who was instrumental in the UK’s break with Rome. In their evangelical zeal, the pallbearers of liberal Christianity that Protestantism was took to burning papists and Catholics in England. In this they were helped by the love interests and an insatiable mania of the grand Tudor king, Henry VIII. What followed was a continuous tussle between Catholic mainland Europe (with the exception of Germany) and the UK.

These are poignant lessons for the Muslim world. We are roughly at the same place in our evolution as a civilisation that Christianity was in the 16th century. Islam’s history is full of martyrs like Thomas More right from the early years to the times of Dara Shikoh. An echo of England’s religious policy in the early half of the 16th century can be found in the straitjacketed bigotry of Aurangzeb in the 17th century. The problem then is one of stagnation in Muslim thought.

It is somewhat ironic of course since the Shia-Sunni conflict predates the Protestant and Catholic divide by 700 years at least. However, the correct analogy of the Shia-Sunni conflict may lie between the Greek Orthodox and Catholic churches. It is not till Wahab’s simplified hyper-puritanism followed by the reform and revival movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries that Islam began to face the same kind of challenge to tradition that Martin Luther had posed to papacy. It is therefore premature to rule out the ability of a society like Pakistan, marred by continuous strife and conflict, to produce the same kind of organic movement towards reconciliation of secular rationality and religious faith. Indeed, one could argue that Pakistan more than any other country in the Muslim world has the potential to play the kind of pivotal role that England played in the evolution of the Christian west.

It would no doubt be fruitful if our brightest minds take a closer look at the events of Europe in that period and ensure that Muslimdom avoids whatever mistakes were made by Christiandom. It means foremost to emphasise substance over form. It means reconsidering seriously the religious justification for hudood laws and harsh punishments. For example, the Islamic Republic of Iran’s prescription of stoning for adultery, when none of the essentials of the law of evidence as prescribed by Islamic law are met (namely four eye witnesses of good character), is patently un-Islamic. Yet no one amongst Iran’s clerics has the courage or integrity to challenge blatant travesty. The same goes for Pakistan where all attempts by scholars to present a more humane and compassionate side of the faith is discarded for the straitjacket of evangelical Puritanism. Thus Sufis and the mainstream Barelvi Sunnis who form an overwhelming majority in Pakistan are increasingly the target of our own evangelical zealots. Just like the Protestants went after all rituals and stripped bare their churches of art and culture, so do our evangelicals persecute all creative expression in religion. Shias are Pakistan’s papists while Ahmedis in Pakistan enjoy a position similar to the position of non-Christians in King Henry’s England or under Ferdinand’s Spain: punishable by death for their belief.

They say that on a long enough time line the survival rate of everything falls to zero. Therefore, from intolerance must come tolerance and from chaos must come order. This has been the logical course that history has taken whether some people like it or not. After all, the great Westminster Hall, once the scene of sheer intolerance was also the cradle of one of the greatest ideas and aspirations of man: participatory democracy which stands on the foundations of tolerance and accommodation. This is what I suspect Jinnah was telling Pakistan’s first constituent assembly.

The writer is a lawyer. He also blogs at and can be reached at



Filed under Pakistan

161 responses to “Protestants and Catholics

  1. O J DEEN

    What is Required of an Ahmadi Muslims ?
    In order to keep this Community pressed to good works, the Promised Messiah (peace be on him) has said:
    “My entire Community that is present here or reside in their place, should pay heed to this last will that, having entered this Community, those who maintain a relationship of belief and discipleship with me should know that its purpose is that they should attain high standard in good conduct, good fortune, happiness and righteousness.
    Intrigue, mischief and evil conduct should not come anywhere near them. They should adhere to the five daily prayers at their appointed time. They should not tell lies. They should not harm anyone with their tongues. They should not be guilty of any wickedness. Thoughts of any mischief, unkindness or disorder should never enter their hearts.
    Kindness to all men should be their principle. And they should fear their Lord. They should preserve their tongues and hands and their motives from all filthy causes of violence and breach of trust.
    Impose the discipline of maintaining the five daily prayers on yourselves with great rigour. Refrain from cruelty, oppression, cheating, deceit and bribery, and do not cause loss to the rights of others, nor resort to lopsided unfairness.
    Do not sit in any bad company. It should be that you should never intend to cause or convey any harm or loss to any religion, or to any man belonging to any community or group.
    Be a faithful advisor and counsellor to everyone. Adopt the habit of forgiveness and of overlooking other people’s faults with tolerance. And work with patience and gentleness. Do not attack anyone in any inappropriate way and keep a check on your passions. If anyone deals with you in a barbaric manner, say ‘Salaam’, and walk away from such a gathering.
    It should be that your heart should be clear of deceit, your hands free of cruelty, and your eyes kept apart from all impurities. And, apart from honesty and kindness to creation, there should be nothing else within you.”
    Now, just see how beautifully the Promised Messiah (peace be on him) has elaborated upon the true teachings of Islam.

  2. Ibn-e-Maryam

    Pluralistic societies can only flourish when equal opportunities and respect of their sentiments are guaranteed. However, harmony and love in society can only flourish when both majority and minority insist on fulfilling their responsibilities and are willing to give up some of their rights. In the context of Shia-Sunni conflict, the reverse is true. People, here, insist on demanding their rights but refuse to act upon their responsibilities.

    A model to create harmony was proposed by the founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement in his book ‘Pegham-e-Sulah’. This was the last book he wrote, and it was published after his death in June 1908. In that book, he proposed that Hindus and Aryas should enter into a pact with Ahmadis that both groups will respect their Prophets and will never use abusive language against them. He also suggested that, if we do this then Ahmadis are even willing to give up eating beef, as a matter of courtesy to their Hindu and Arya brethren.

    This book lays the foundation for a new United Nations among people of different faiths and ideologies. Had his advice been heeded in 1908, the harmony among different groups of the British Indian society would have been exemplary for the whole wide world.

    There is still time for all sects to follow this advice and forgive and forget to create a harmonious society.

  3. O J DEEN

    Now, let us see what the Holy Qur’an says about a True Muslim. God Almighty has commanded us, in the Holy Qur’an, that a Muslim should enjoin what is good and forbid evil; and if you do that, in that lies your greatness.
    As God says,
    “You are the best people raised for the good of mankind; you enjoin what is good and forbid evil and believe in God…” (Holy Qur’an, Ch. 3: v. 111)
    Muslims Created For The Good of Mankind
    Now, as stated in the Holy Qur’an, you have been created for the good of mankind. So, it cannot be that a person should be created for the good of mankind, but nothing except mischief should come from him and mankind should suffer from him and be terrorized by him.
    In fact, God Almighty has taught Muslims to work for the good of mankind, to guide them towards that which is good, to invite them towards God, their Creator, and to fulfil the obligations that they owe to Him and His people.
    Everyone should benefit from a Muslim. And Muslims should stop those among them who are involved in evil and are causing loss and suffering to people, and are killing God’s creatures without any just cause. In this commandment, therefore, a Muslim has been made responsible for the good and the betterment of the entire mankind.

  4. Poke

    @ deen
    You write “and are killing God’s creatures without any just cause”. What do you mean by Just Cause ? has it been described objectively somewhere or are u leaving this open for interpretations ?
    I am sure taliban would come up with shocking list of Just Causes….

  5. Bin Ismail

    Yasser Latif Hamdani’s article opens with these thought-provoking words: “In his famous August 11th speech, Jinnah quoted, as an example, the Protestant-Catholic conflict in England and how that country overcame religious strife and conflict. It was a most revealing statement and one that is not often commented upon by biographers of the Quaid-e-Azam”. Let us examine the actual words of Quaid-e Azam. Jinnah said:

    “As you know, history shows that in England, conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the Nation.”

    One cannot help noticing the fact that Jinnah, as both, a statesman and a student of history, presents the classic case of England’s evolution from a state of mixed religion and politics to their segregation, as a prototype for Pakistan. The climax of this classic evolution, in Jinnah’s words is: “Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the Nation.” It was a replica of this desirable state of affairs, that Jinnah sought for the nation whose foundation he was laying, by saying:

    “Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.”

    In short, he clearly wanted the constitution, law and state of Pakistan to be blind and deaf with respect to the religious identity of the citizen. After six decades, we as a nation, still owe the fulfillment of this noble vision to Jinnah, to Pakistan and to ourselves.

  6. Feroz Khan

    @ YLH

    “What followed was a continuous tussle between Catholic mainland Europe (with the exception of Germany) and the UK”

    Yasser, just a few points of clarification.

    By this time, the reformation was going on in Germany and the princely German states, which made up the Holy Roman Empire, were engaged in a political battle of wills with Catholic Church. Germany was not an exception in this case; it was crucible of the struggle against the Catholic Church.

    Second; this is a historian’s esoteric comment. UK did not exist, as a state till the 1700s. In the 1500s, it was England.

    As to the rest of your article, I think it sums up the situation and dilemma in Pakistan perfectly. I am not a Jinnah scholar like you, but my own understanding of the August 11, 1947 speech is that Jinnah was making a very powerful case in favor for the respect of law.

    Unlike Europe, the English break from the Roman Catholic Church was a result of an act of parliament and so were all the subsequent laws, which made England a model of participatory democracy.

    Jinnah, the archtypical constitutional lawyer, would have stressed this and I think, he made a case for the process of law to be the solitary foundation of the new state – all the references in his speech come back to law and the supremacy of the law over personal interests, i.e. references to jobbery, nepotism etc.


  7. Talha

    We never took heed to the words of our founding father and follow his excellent plan.

    For these are the reason why Pakistan is in this difficult predicament that it is.

    Perhaps now we should investigate the reasons as to why Jinnahs plan was not followed. I am intrigued by the events surrounding the early years of Pakistan.

    Such incidents as Jinnahs ambulance not having adequate petrol when he passed away. The death of our future COAS Maj. Gen Akbar Khan in a plane crash. Assassination of Liaqat Ali Khan and the 1953 anti Ahmadiyya riots demanding removal of Sir Zafarullah Khan and other Ahmadis.

    These incidents need to be thoroughly investigated and used to understand who the culprit how we lost our nation.

    The 60’s was a good period and Pakistan did well but once the division of Pakistan occurred, Bhutto only capitalised on unnecessary issues to ascend and stay in power.

    To be honest with you, I am all for Ayubs Basic Democracies system whereby only the qualified vote. This system can be made non corruptible and be heavily monitored to make it fair.

  8. Feroz Khan

    @ Talha

    I disagree. Setting qualifications on who can vote is not a good idea. Universial sufferage is only way to go about getting fully civic particiaption and then, the question is who decides on the qualifications and who nominates them? Will be there an process of holding such people accountable and will it be fair?

    No system can be made non-corrptible. Corruption is societial symptom and is based on a personal choice to engage in such a practice. Corruption and its erdication can be legislated, but then again; how do you legistate morality?


  9. Fellow-Pakistani

    My dear Pakistani friends O.J. Deen and Ibn-e-Maryam, Bin Ismail, and Talha:

    You all belonging to Qadiani Community (and NOT to Lahori Ahmadiyya Community) are saying VERY WONDERFUL things here. But my question is how you can even think of encouraging muslim-brotherhood, fellow-pakistani-brotherhood when your spiritual elders belonging to Qadiani-Community have written and preached you the very opposite of what you are saying here???
    My dears how you can even be sincere in your intentions when your teachings are totally opposite to what you are preaching on this forum???

    1) “So whatever has been ordained in the Holy Quran about non-belief in a Prophet, the same applies in the case of Mirza Sahib [Mirza Ghulam Ahamd].” (Al-Qaul-al-Fasal, p. 33).
    2) “If we don’t believe in him as a Prophet then a dangerous flaw occurs (in iman [faith]) which is enough to render one a ‘kafir’.” (Haqeeqat-un-Nabuwwat, p. 204).

    3) “It is obligatory for us not to consider non-Ahmadis as Muslims.” (Anwaar-e-Khilafat, p. 90).

    4) “… and one who does not believe in the Promised Messiah, whatever his reasons for this non-belief, he is kafir.” (Zikar-e-Illahi, p. 22).

    5) “The third matter to which he (Maulana Muhammad Ali) calls my attention is the issue of ‘kufar and Islam’. He says the path of peace is that we consider non-Ahmadis as Muslims, but I say ‘the path of peace is that we accept the decision of the Holy Quran. The Holy Quran calls the non-believers in a Prophet a kafir, and the same Allah calls Mirza Sahib a Prophet’.” (Haqeeqat-ul-Amar, p. 17).

    6) “Is there any such irreligious non-Ahmadi who will marry his daughter to a Christian or a Hindu? You call them kafir but in this matter he is better than you in spite of being a kafir, but you even being Ahmadi marry your daughters to kafirs.” (Maliakatullah, p. 46).

    7) “We met a person in Lucknow who is a great scholar. He said ‘many of your adversaries falsely propagate about you that you call us kafir. I cannot believe that a person of your vast capacity would be saying so.’ Sheikh Yaqub Ali was talking to him. I told him, ‘you tell him that we in fact call him a kafir.’ On hearing this he was much astonished.” (Anwar-e-Khilafat, p. 92).

    8. All such Muslims who have not entered in the Baiat of the Promised Messiah, whether they have not heard the name of the Promised Messiah, are kafir and out of the pail of Islam. That these beliefs have my full concurrence. I readily admit. (Aaina-e-Saddaaqat. p. 35).

    His younger brother Mirza Bashir Ahmad, M.A., surpassed him when he wrote:

    “Every such person, who believes in Moses but does not believe in Jesus, or believes in Jesus but does not believe in Mohammed, or believes in Mohammed but does not believe in the Promised Messiah, is not only a kafir but a confirmed kafir and out of the pail of Islam.” (Kalamatul-Fasal, p. 110)


    Please read Mirza Mahmud Ahmad book Anwar-i-Khilafat. It is avilable on your jamaat website.
    Start reading from page 124 to 127:
    “I say there shall be thousands of prophets”

    “I say even now there can be a prophet”

    See on last page: “Even if someone placed a sword on my neck and ask me to say there can not be any nabi after Rasul Allah, I i will say youre a liar and nabi can come after and they will come.”

  10. Bade Miya

    “Indeed, one could argue that Pakistan more than any other country in the Muslim world has the potential to play the kind of pivotal role that England played in the evolution of the Christian west.”

    Hmm..I see. Well, why not Bangladesh? It seems like a better candidate for the pivotal role.

  11. YLH

    No. For obvious reasons. Don’t let your anti-Pakistan prejudice get in the way of clear thinking manjlay miyan.

    Bangladesh is not because of the same reason that Iran, Afghanistan, Indonesia and Malaysia are not going to play this role. Just like it was not Germany or France per se but England where reformation really took root in a political sense.

    There are two fault line countries in the Islamic world … Turkey and Pakistan.

  12. Chote Miyan

    “Don’t let your anti-Pakistan prejudice ….”

    ***rolling eyes*** It would help if you were not so paranoid.

    My Bangladeshi friends tell me the same thing that you have written in your article. As for Iran, let’s not forget, it has a population that is more than 85% literate. Just for the sake of reality check, for all the current cry out of an impending revolution in Pakistan, Iranians have had 3(?) major upheavals in the last 30 years, all of them predominantly secular protests. Pakistan has had just one, which, by your own admission, was a misguided one and did more harm than good. Maybe, you could explain things better as to why Iran wouldn’t be the candidate. My view favoring Bangladesh was mostly due to the quiet, steady way it has been making progress. True revolution occurs in small, incremental steps.

  13. YLH

    Your limited brain cell activity operates as an estoppel for you to make any sense.

    France went through the revolution not England. But then you wouldn’t know your head from your arse now would you.

  14. YLH

    For those who can make sense of things unlike chotay/baray complexed mian:

    Iran is an out and out Shia theocracy which by definition is the exact opposite of the protestantism I have outlined above. It could at best be an equivalent of what Byzantium was to Christiandom or perhaps Russia under Czars.

    Bangladesh is a state organised around Bengali linguistic identity and its secularisation is reflective of its linguistic nationalism…religion is not the point. Same goes for Malaysia where religion is an interplay of Malay identity and where a large non-Muslim minority keeps a balance.

    What makes Turkey and Pakistan unique in that sense is that Turkey was the seat of Caliphate- Islamic world’s equivalent of papacy- and while linguistic nationalism was an afterthought for Ataturk 1928 onwards, the ethnic definition as given by treaty between Greece and Turkey in 1923 based it on religion and not language…that is Hanafi Muslim (Turk) and Greek Orthodox (Greece).. In many ways Turkey is the Italy of Islam but one which dethroned the pope completely and did only not limit him to Vatican (as was once proposed by Ataturk vis a vis the last Caliph).

    Meanwhile Pakistan is officially an Islamic entity in the same sense that Great Britain is a Protestant state constitutionally … Both Great Britain and Pakistan are composed of many ethnicities a… Like Great Britain historically with Catholics and Protestants, Pakistan has Shia-Sunni conflict and conflict between Reformists, revivalists and traditionalists …

    Iran is homogenously Shia and of same ethnicity, Saudi Arabia almost entirely Wahabi and Arab, Bangladesh I have already explained above.

  15. YLH


    As a student of common law and British constitution… I am aware of the treaty of union which makes the UK typo even more unfortunate.

  16. moniems

    It is abundantly clear from the above that we are all discussing a plan of action which may take centuries before we start behaving like modern human beings. Why should our journey be a replica of the Christians’? If we had listened to Jinnah, our journey would have started from where Christianity is today.

    A much quicker way is to secularize our education system and make it universally applicable and compulsory, concentrating more on Humanism than Islam. That, of course, will take some doing! Application of some of the ideas of J. Krishnamurti should work. (By the way, only his name is Indian).

  17. due

    A religion that declares that a particular person is the last prophet or a particular book is the last guidance will end up as a fascism-totalitarianism in the name of this prophet and this book.

    Mankind needs new prophets and new books of guidance after every few (may be 3 to 4) generations (that is after every 60 to 80 years, may be even quicker).

    A god who does not realise this becomes the progenitor of a fascist, backward-oriented, totalitarian, primitive way of life.

    Don’t waste time in analogies, allegories, legends, fear-making etc.

  18. moniems


    Why not try this:

    “Nature is the only Allah and Humanism the only religion”.

    This will cut out all fighting in the name of religion.

  19. due

    to moniems

    Human beings have been so terrorized by those using the word god or allah in their own service (in the service of their own ideology) that one wonders why god (if he exists) allows that to happen. Is he a sadist-cynic? Does he enjoy some human beings manipulating others in his name?

    The 10 pakistani muslim men who were killing in Mumbai were being instructed (live and on-line) to act in the name of allah. “Kill them off, you will be soon in allah’s paradise, shoot the hostages, you are doing allah’s work etc.” That very word has become for me synonymous with unsufferable evil. I expect worse yet to come. From Pakistan. The boys throwing stones at indian police in Kashmir are also youth misguided in the name of this same god.

    The words god and religion are becoming hated words.

  20. Sharmishtha

    @due: Chhad de, yaar. Bore kar ditta sab nu.

  21. Talha

    @ Feroz Khan

    Let me argue the case for ‘Basic Democracies’.

    Pakistan as a nation was (is) not ready for full fledged democratic system owing to the large number of illiterate populace and differing communities.

    With our populace also being highly emotional rather than rational in their decision making. They can be easily manipulated by cunning and crafty politicians. Then there is the problem of land owners who run from their areas and their peasants (read slaves) vote them into office.

    These problems make it rather difficult for a democratic system to function. Thus we opt for a ‘Basic Democracies’ system whereby chosen representatives (non party affiliated) from individual areas vote in elections. These representatives have to be qualified personnel chosen for their skills in particular fields. The local populace will be allowed to vote for these appointed individuals and choose a few as their local representatives.

    Only the elected representatives can then vote in national elections to choose a leader for our nation.

    Such a system would fare better and perhaps save us from the difficulties of elections that plague this nation.

    As Ayub Khan said, “The curse of Pakistan is an intelligentsia which doesn’t understand its own country and its own conditions. We are called heretics if we don’t rigidly follow the Western system.”

    Sorry for any mistakes, I am using a mobile to write this.

  22. Talha

    @ Fellow-Pakistani

    Dont jump in with your inane conspiracies and fabricated quotes in this conversation.

    Write such stuff in your own Lahori Ahmadi blog where you will find like minded people who have a penchant for maligning others with made up quotes and accounts.

  23. Bin Ismail

    Forgive me if I sound cynical, but somehow I could not help noticing that “Fellow-Pakistani” and “due” made impressively smart moves to derail the discussion, as soon as the topic of secularization of Pakistan started to gain momentum. By the way, this is an interesting phenomenon. The moment you start talking about the prospects of a “Secular Pakistan”, some bloggers suddenly get jittery and start making desperate efforts to derail the discussion. Interesting indeed.

  24. moniems


    Thanks for noting my comment. I couldn’t agree with you more.

    God is a creation of man; a tool to carry his own agenda forward.

    A submission here. If we start regarding Nature as our Allah or God, it solves all problems.

    Those ten animals (were they human?) who were sent to Mumbai could not have been manipulated if Nature had been their Allah. And if, Humanism had been their religion they would not have gone to Mumbai.

  25. Feroz Khan

    @ Talha

    Pakistan in 1947 had all the rudimentary tools of a democratic system and only thing, which it was lacking was a stable political order. Our failure as a nation on the road to democracy started, when we ignored our political traditions, learned under the British, and tried to gerry-meander our politics at the cost of justice and transperancy; after Jinnah’s death, Pakistani politics became very esoteric and started to be dominated a process of political Machiavellianism instead of a due process of the law.

    It is a very disingenious argument to explain illiteracy as a drawback to democracy. The Pakistan people have never rejected the concept of one-person one vote idea. In a very pointed sense, the failure of politics in Pakistan has been a failure of the political groups and politicans to realize and understand the aspirations of the people and to make their policies accordingly.

    A literate population and a politically aware population are two very different things. With the spread of electronic media and the dissemination of news, illiteracy is no longer an an issue as the people are more politically aware and more aware of their rights and the issues of the days. More importantly, unlike the past when their access to their representatives was limited, the people now have to access to the forum of the media to highlight their problems and demand action.

    A politically aware person, who is illiterate can still recognize the symbols of a political party and affix his/her choice on to the ballot paper. Another way of making this system better is, perhaps, to include the picture of a candidate with the party logo.

    As to the different groups; they make democracy an imperative need. A society like Pakistan, which ehtnically and culturally a diverse community, needs to have its diversity accepted as a part of the national motif. To deny political representation to such groups would be tantamount of isolating and marginalizing them from the plitical discourse and creating a system of political apartheid.

    To deny political representation on the basis of emotionalism is a weak argument. The idea is to let the process of democracy work out its own wrinkles gradually and eventually emotionalism will yeild to pragmatism.

    Nationalism is a slippery slope and it is a matter of questionable merits, as to who defines nationalism. For too long, nationalism has been defined by the military in Pakistan and as a result, our sense of nationalism is based on the idea of a security state. Nationalism, based on the primacy of a law, which gurantees equal rights for all, is a far better propostion of instilling a nationalist sense of identity than having such an indentity super-imposed.

    Besides, the people of Pakistan do have a very strong sense of nationalism and which can be seen in times of natural disasters and when the nation pulls together to celebrate a sporting victory, for example.

    As to our representatives et al, the best remedy to that is through laws and procedures and not encouraging one-person rule in the form of some saintly political-philsopher king.

    The reason, why we as a nation have fumbled at the goal posts of democracy is that we have never been allowed to finish what we started. The process is a great educator and through trial and error and much suffering, we as a nation will learn.

    Political independence comes from the freedom to learn by making decisions and not by being lectured in a paternalistic sense of “a father knows best” approch.


  26. Khullat

    @ Bin Ismail (September 22, 2010 at 6:53 pm)

    //The moment you start talking about the prospects of a “Secular Pakistan”, some bloggers suddenly get jittery and start making desperate efforts to derail the discussion. Interesting indeed.//

    You’re right. It appears, some people cannot tolerate even a simple discussion on a topic that even points in the direction of a secular Pakistan. No dearth of bigots.

  27. Humanity

    @ Bin Ismail
    “Forgive me if I sound cynical, but somehow I could not help noticing that “Fellow-Pakistani” and “due” made impressively smart moves to derail the discussion, as soon as the topic of secularization of Pakistan started to gain momentum.”

    A difference between smart and cunning is that of intention.

    Rules of a meaningful discussion include sincerity, an open mind, a non-offensive and civil approach. Smart moves cannot be expected from people, who being devoid of reason and full of vanity have sealed their minds. They twist and turn words to malign the context and mutilate the underlying spirit.

    Wisdom lies in ignoring such closed minded people. As the saying goes, never argue with a drunk or a fool. Let them be.

  28. Tilsim

    @ Humanity

    “As the saying goes, never argue with a drunk or a fool. Let them be.”

    Sounds good enough for me. The delete button would be a useful facility.

  29. @Humanity

    Makes lots of sense. You have a point there. These are major trolls.

  30. I’m sorry, that last comment was addressed to Bin Ismail, relating to his post of 6:53 pm.

  31. Feroz Khan

    @ Due

    “The boys throwing stones at indian police in Kashmir are also youth misguided in the name of this same god”.

    Are you sure?


  32. Talha

    @ Feroz,

    I agree that we never used a system long enough to bear any benefits from it. But then again the ‘Basic Democracies’ system was cut short too in the late 60’s.

    The thing with the system in question is that it concentrated on social and economic development. Certainly Pakistan was in it’s best state during the use of this system.

    Similarly a politically aware populace has not really changed much in terms of their voting patterns in many parts of our nation.

    Do not get me wrong, I too want to see democracy continue in Pakistan so that eventually we reap it’s benefits in stronger institutions amongst other things and a better nation as whole.

  33. Fellow-Pakistani

    @Bin Ismail
    September 22, 2010 at 6:53 pm
    “Forgive me if I sound cynical, but somehow I could not help noticing that “Fellow-Pakistani” and “due” made impressively smart moves to derail the discussion, as soon as the topic of secularization of Pakistan started to gain momentum. By the way, this is an interesting phenomenon. The moment you start talking about the prospects of a “Secular Pakistan”, some bloggers suddenly get jittery and start making desperate efforts to derail the discussion. Interesting indeed”.

    Bin Ismail, it is mind boggling unless one knows the modus operandi of Qadiani community, to see person belonging to Qadiani community making above statement.
    Qadiani community is very proud of Sir Ch Zafarullah Khan (Pakistan’s first foreign minister). They present him as the prize of their community, especially when in discussion with Lahori Ahmadiyya Movement members.
    FYI: The most vociferous supporter of OBJECTIVE RESOLUTION that has resulted in Qadiani Khalifa to escape from Pakistan and Qadiani Diaspora can not live in the land which passed the same Objective Resolution, was Ch. Zafarullah Khan!!!

    It is interesting to see Qadiani friends practicing their famous doctrines:
    “Muslehat Kay Tehat”
    “Silsila Kay Mufad Mein”
    And they keep changing and making new rules in every situation in which they don’t feel comfortable.

    Suppose by some magic 99% of Pakistani population joins Qadiani Community and start hailing Ch Zafarullah Khan as their hero and stalwart of Qadiani community. Will Qadianis still like to make Pakistan a ‘secular-Pakistan’??? Did Qadiani community even practice Secularism in their city Rabwah??? Can Qadianis say ‘Rabwah was a secular city’??? What use to be punishment for those young Qadianis who use to sneak out of Rabwah and go to Chinot to watch Punjabi Movies in cinema, which according to Qadiani preaching were “Aurian” (vulgar)???
    When it serves Qadianis friends to live in secular land they want their country to become secular!!!

    I’m just calling a spade a spade. Trying to keep people honest on this forum.

  34. Feroz Khan

    @ Talha

    Political systems have to be organic to the society in which they exist and the problem with Basic Democracy, as a system, was that it was an artifically created system. It had no roots in the political culture of Pakistan and so, its untimely death could be considered as a fortunate abortion.

    Economic and social growth, without a viable political system, will be always be measured in spurts. Military rule does offer political stability for such a growth to happen, but such a growth never survives a military rule. Economic and social growth is an evolutionary phenomena and the most flexible frame work to accomodate such a growth is a process of politics, which cannot exist under a rigidity of a military imposed rule.

    I agree, with you that voting patterns have not changed too much, but they are in a process of flux. It will be interesting to see how these patterns reflect the political demographic realities in Pakistan once the movement from rural to urban areas gathers speed.

    There is no one set formula for achieving democracy. Our disagreement is only on the means and not on the end result! 🙂


  35. Prasad

    Although Due and Fellow pakistani have extreme views, some of their arguments need answers. For instance, Fellow makes a statement ‘if 99% pakistanis join Qadiani community……will qadianis still want a secular pakistan’

    He obviously refers to this historic dissent and wants to know what if it becomes an accepted practice and yet will the society remains secular….Its funny because Secularism looks so shallow within the society. I think the concept has just not sunk in.

    Probably we can conclude that modern education helps to a large extent to bring in secular outlook amongst people and help them to be tolerant. Pure theological education on the contrary can actually seclude the same people and incite fissures in the society because most of theology oriented education is all about one-upmanship isnt it??. If theology is not in moderation OR/ as a corollary if modern education is not abundantly encouraged by the state , society is doomed in the long run – HOW will you encourage secularism then? when people just wont understand the ‘live and let live ‘concept

  36. YLH


    I posed this question to the a great great grand daughter of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed of Qadian recently. The Ivy league educated lawyer told me that the essential of Ahmadi teachings allow for freedom of religion and conscience and that was what her ancestor’s true teachings were.

    Sir Zafrulla supported the Objectives Resolution just like all other Leaguers. It may also be pointed out that Objectives Resolution was interpretted differently by the sponsors than how it was used. Liaqat Ali Khan for example envisaged a non-Muslim head of state for Pakistan.

    OR was utterly misguided …but not sponsored with bad intentions. In any event it was envisaged as a guiding document and not substantive part of the constitution. When Zia mutilated it and made it the substantive part is when the problem started.

    The Supreme Court has restored the original version with the term “freely”. The advantage secularists and those people who want justice for minorities can derive from it is great …and as things settle down, we’ll see more on this.

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

  37. Fellow-Pakistani

    September 23, 2010 at 8:29 am Prasad,
    “I posed this question to the a great great grand daughter of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed of Qadian recently. The Ivy league educated lawyer told me that the essential of Ahmadi teachings allow for freedom of religion and conscience and that was what her ancestor’s true teachings were”.

    My dear YLH sahib,
    Qadiani friends always take advantage of ignorance of others. They blatantly DUPE them. Ask your Qadiani lawyer friend (please note Qadianis are different than Lahori Ahmadiyya Movement people): Where was their “freedom of religion and conscience” when staunch followers i.e. ‘Waqaf-e-Zindghi’ questioned the personal character, financial portfolio, policies and decisions of their “God’s appointed Khalifa 2, 3, 4, and now 5”??? Why those staunch followers were murdered, social boycotted, ex-communicated, their wives and children were made hostages in Rabwah and not allowed to leave the town, implicated in frivolous petty criminal cases???
    Don’t go far, just read book ‘Rabwah Ka Rasputin’ (Rasputin of Rabwah) by Tahir Rafiq. Buy it from Urdu Bazar, Lahore. Hopefully soon someone will start reading passages from it in YouTube videos. You can watch it their.
    Qadiani friends very easily start changing rules of the game when ever it does not go in their favour!!!

  38. due

    to bin ismail

    I wrote: “The words god and religion are becoming hated words.”

    And you are accusing me of derailing the discussion about making Pakistan secular. Are you in your senses or are you yourself the drunk one about whom you warn us?

    Actually I wanted to write: “The words god and religion are becoming hated words because of islam and muslims”.

    But I held myself back and wrote the shorter version.

    To Feroz Khan

    Do tell me why boys are throwing stones at indian police in Kashmir. Let us know your explanation. Do you know what happened to Poland in 1939 with Hitler to the west and Stalin to the east? Kashmir, with sunni-extremist Pakistan to the west and imperialist-expansionist China to the east, is in the same situation. Do these young-foolish stone-throwers realize that?

    Just as Nixon was not going to allow Allende to succeed with his progressive politics in Chile and had him encircled killed, similarly Pakistan was and is determined not to let India succeed in bringing prosperity and peace in a secular Kashmir. Nixon was a great friend of Yahya Khan.

  39. moniems


    Even at the risk of making enemies among my fellow Pakistanis I would advise Pakistan to forget about Kashmir. Firstly, we have no legal claim to it, and secondly it will be good for Kashmiris.

    Even if India handsover the Kashmir valley to us (Jammu and Ladakh are not muslim majority areas), it will take no time for Taliban to convert it into another Swat valley, and for Al-Qaida to move in. Kashmiris being Sufis, will have to be eliminated like those in Lahore.

    If we can manage to retain the portion which is with us, it should suffice.

  40. Bin Ismail


    Talking about modus operandi, the two of you are working in perfect unison, towards preventing a meaningful discussion, on the prospects of secularizing Pakistan. You seem to dread even the idea, let alone the talk.

    “due”, your juvenile logic, although amusing, is not likely to convince anyone beyond the age of 7. Yes, while you may be an agnostic/atheist yourself indeed, but for some reason known best to your learned self, a “Secular Pakistan” is something you obviously fear.

    “Fellow-Pakistani”, you too, seem to have become irreversibly unnerved by the onset of a discussion in favour of secularizing Pakistan. I’m sure, your apprehensions are not without reason. I’m also quite sure, you or whoever you represent, would certainly be having your reasons for being so hell-bent on creating a decoy, whereby derailing the discussion could become feasible. If this can be a source of any comfort to you, let me assure you that you are alone, neither in your thoughtless fears nor in your thoughtful slander.

    In all likelihood, even in future, whenever there is a debate on the possibility of a “Secular Pakistan”, “due” and “fellow-Pakistani”, perhaps with new pseudonyms, will be there to derail such a discussion at PTH.

  41. Feroz Khan

    @ Due

    I asked if you were sure of the reasons, why the Kashmiri youth were stoning the Indian police. Why don’t you give me your explantion to the situation first. Are you sure that this is the reason or there is another reason?

    Poland of 1939 is not Kashmir of 2010. Historical analogies are misleading. As to Nixon and Allende and Yayha Khan, we will come to them after you answer my original question.


  42. Prasad


    My view is that Kashmiri youth is disenchanted by lack of governance, lack of jobs and disengagement from the mainstream ie. no jobs for their youth even in Delhi and other metros.

    Across India wherever you have such situations there are far worse implications from the society. To name a few Chattisgad, W.B, Jharkhand etc in the form of Naxalism.

    The only difference in Kashmir, the issue apart from all the above is of secession from India which is routinely propogated by the Hurriyat without a clear vision of what they intend to do with their population independently that they are not able to achieve within the Indian framework…corrupt will end up being corrupt not sure of their strategy

    This cannot be accepted. Reason being there is no support from Jammu and Ladakh who are equally part of J&K. Another big reason being India in itself is a melting pot of multiple ethnicities and hence encouraging Geelani would result in encouraging Muiwa, kishenji and all kinds of jokers

    That apart, due has a point since state policies of Pakistan and China are well known towards kashmir

  43. due

    to feroz khan

    Kashmir of 2010 is very much like Poland of 1939 (in fact even worse). What do you think will happen in Kashmir if India withdraws?

    Those who “martyred” for Kashmir’s “independence” will demand their share. Pakistan will help them take over.

    Out of “eternal gratitude” towards the imperialist arm-twister China, Pakistan will hand over part of Kashmir to China (even more than what China asks for).

    A terrible persecution will be let loose by the taliban-types against “collaborators” of the indian rule and also the shias, hindus and buddhists. They (millions) will have to flee to India.

    Kashmir becomes an extension of FATA/Swat type talibanization…and so on…

    Youth in Kashmir throwing stones is the first step in the pakistani-muslim tactic of creating martyrs who are then used (as propaganda and justification) for the next armed “resistance” against “fascist-imperialist” hindu India…and so on..

    Kashmiri youth has no idea of what they are doing – Geelani knows and is waiting with his crocodile tears.

    The Allende/Chile case is very relevant. Pakistan is hell-bent that no development takes place in Kashmir and thus “expose” India as the evil. The resources which have been lost over 60 years could have made Kashmir into the richest state in the Indian Union. But Pakistan, esp. its army, knows that it must prevent such a development.

    The UN resolution clearly states that Pakistan must withdraw (from its part of Kashmir, incl. Northern Territories) before a referendum can be held under indian and UN supervision. That was why Musharraf was ready (even eager) to by-pass this resolution and offer a more tricky solution (with the fake appearance of Pakistan having let go its rigid stand). Fortunately the indian side did let itself be fooled by this scoundrel-dictator.

    Khushwant Singh wrote about the khalistanis that the sikhs were the most pampered community in India but the khalistani megalomaniacs wanted more and misled their youth to become “martyrs”. The case with kashmiri youth is similar. No wonder that the words Pakistan and Khalistan have the same meaning (Land of the pure).

    To bin ismail

    I request you not to use condescending language. I am not a kid or youth-age.
    Secularization of Pakistan needs a basic desire to be honest and that is what this arab religion suppresses in favor of flattery and self-glorification as a habit. Those who do not join the choruses of self-glorification are ill-treated.

  44. due


    “Fortunately the indian side did NOT let itself be fooled by this scoundrel-dictator.”

  45. Feroz Khan

    @ Due

    We can speculate what will happen in Kashmir if India withdraws, but till the event actually happens all discussions will remain mere speculation. What you are suggesting, will happen at the instance of an Indian withdrawal is also speculation.

    This is why, I said historic analogies are misleading, because though they might offer an understanding of the past, they are poor guides to the future, because the context, situation and reasons may not be the same.

    For that matter, is the American experience in Iraq similar to the American experience in Vietnam?

    As to Pakistan taking over Kashmir, it is pure rhetoric, because there is a difference between intentions and capabilities; between national limitations and national ambitions and a successful foreign policy is always a compromise between a nation’s ambitions and its limitations. By a similar token, what has prevented India from taking over the Pakistani Kashmir in the last 60 or more years? Good intentions or limited capabilities?

    Again, the question is if Pakistan is against development in Indian-held Kashmir, what has prevented India from resisting this Pakistan gambit? The point is are you making Pakistan a scapegoat for the failure of the Indian government to address the problems of Kashmiri youth?

    As to the Pakistani army withdrawing, it was agreed that both, India and Pakistan, will withdraw to their pre-war positions and the plebiscite will happen and the onus was not only on Pakistan as you are suggesting.

    With respect, you have valid points but those points are lost in your nationalistc hyperbole and as much as you may wish; there is never only side to the story. You mention the evil machinations of Pakistan and China in Kashmir, but you do not mention the evil machinations of India in Afghanistan.

    These are issues of perceptional differences and it does not mean one is right or wrong. It only means nationalism, like people, only sees what it wishes to see and ignores what does not fit in with its world views.

    Your views are more reflective of Germany under Kaiser Welhelm II and his demands that Germany be given “a place in the sun”.

    What is really interesting, in debating this issue with you, is the irony of your comments on Kashmir and Islam as as a tool of Arab imperialism. Just as you blame Islam for being antiquated in its views and its followers as being misled; you also seem incapable of thinking beyond the traditional arguments on Kashmir and seem misled in your single minded pursuit of rationale that suits your believes on Kashmir.


  46. Feroz Khan

    @ Prasad

    You have provided another reason(s) to the issue.

    Thank you for complimenting my comments to Due. This was exactly, what I was asking Due, whose analysis always seem to be strait-jacketed in a religious explanation.


  47. YLH


    Don’t you have toilets to clean or something at the Commonwealth Games?

    Your mahan shining bharat is getting quite the bad press…

    Heck …even one organiser said “we have different standards of hygiene, the west thinks urine is filthy, we drink it gladly”.

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

  48. no-communal

    due sb,

    How about a lecture on how cleanliness has varied among different religions.:-)

  49. due

    to ylh

    I am not in favour of any olympics and hence the whole thing flopping is good news for me. As regards cleaning toilettes – I do it happily. And I do it without taking any money for it. Whenever I go any place I do it voluntarily first. I like to do it. Never taken any money for it. I like cleanliness and always take the intitiative in such matters. Unfortunately you don’t know me personally and hence you try to make snide remarks out of it. I am very gandhian in this matter.

    I am happy that mahan shining Bharat is getting bad press. The one who criticizes is the real friend, the one who flatters is the enemy. I had written that earlier too – may be you forgot because of all your heavy duties defending and glorifying the quisling-megalomaniac Jinnah. That duty so terribly absorbs you and all your mental prowess.

    BTW, your prophet M. advised drinking camel’s urine, also as medicine. In old days people made use of whatever was locally available. In India they ascribe medicinal properties to cow urine. Some claim that modern research has confirmed these traits. Drinking human urine – I know someone who does it everyday – too needs to be scientifically investigated.

    In fact the publicly filthy behaviour of humans in India repeatedly proves the necessity and unavoidability of the caste system. caste and class are not oen and same. One may be high caste but low class or low caste but high class. A pakistani muslim told us that he borrowed some cups from a family and used them to give tea to the orchestra men who were playing at some ceremony in his house. Later he went to return the cups to this family and they refused to take them back saying “we saw, you used them for giving tea to the orchestra men”. So he had to buy new cups and replace them.

    to non-communal

    I don’t have time to answer every query on the PTH. Why don’t you do it? You also make the impression of being a “knowledgeable” man.

    To feroz khan

    you post of September 23, 2010 at 11:22 pm is rather weak in its theses. Calling something as speculation does not disprove it. Furthermore we cannot let things happen and then cry as to why we let them happen in spite of having known better. In fact the situation in Poland 1939 was better than in Kashmir 2010. The Poles knew they were militarily weaker than Hitler and Stalin but they were not ignorant of what the two planned. In case of Kshmir, the youth in Kashmir not only does not know that they are militarily weaker than the sunni-fascists who own and control Pakistan and the han-imperialists who rule over China but they are also ignorant of the intentions of these two. At least the Poles were not ignorant. Speculation that is based on solid evidence from history (long past and recent) has to be taken seriously.

    The UN resolution clearly tells Pakistan to leave Kashmir and India to hold a referendum. It does not tell India to leave Kashmir before that. The UN never thought it can administrate Kashmir on its own. The resolution speciafically wants India to remain there and hold a referendum. India rightfully argued that the referendum can be held only after peace fully returns to Kashmir. But Pakistan never allowed that to happen.

    As regards making Pakistan a scapegoat for the failings of India: that is in deed the reality of the past 60 years. If Pakistan had not played the Pinochet in Kashmir things would have been better. Pinochet’s role (assigned by the USA) in Chile was: “Don’t let Allende’s experiment succeed. Kill him if necessary. Assassinate his co-workers”. Similar was the islamically assigned role of Pakistan in Kashmir. “If Pakistan wants to rise up in the islamic ummah then Pakistan must prevent India from succeeding in Kashmir and must deliver Kashmir into the dar-ul-islam”. That was the test which the ummah placed (has placed) upon Pakistan’s shoulders. Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Egypt – all helped Pakistan in this course by various means. Let the facts come out.

  50. Feroz Khan

    @ Due

    My thesis was not weak; it is just that you did not agree with it.

    You quote in your post, dated September 24, 2010 at 4:30 pm, “If Pakistan wants to rise up in the islamic ummah then Pakistan must prevent India from succeeding in Kashmir and must deliver Kashmir into the dar-ul-islam”.

    Can you please reference this quote, so this statement can be verfied (please provide the URL if such a statement was taken off a website) and till it is verfied, I cannot comment on it as its veracity is questionable.

    Also you quote, in the same post, “Don’t let Allende’s experiment succeed. Kill him if necessary. Assassinate his co-workers”.

    Can you also provide references to this quote and from where you got it.

    The United Nations’ resolution on Kashmir asked both parties to withdraw to their pre-war positions and then the plebsicite was to be held under the United Nations mandate and not under Indian supervision. India was a party to the dispute and such it could not hold a referandum on Kashmir without its overall transparency being questioned.

    What is planned and what actually happens are two very different things and all the best laid plans to prevent an event in the future, will not survive its first contact with reality. Once reality intrudues, the plan or intention or a particular policy, has to be modified to reflect changes and secondly, when planning to prevent something in the future, the reactions of the opposition have to be accounted. The exposure of a policy to reality works on the Newtonian principle and its implementation will elict an equal and opposite reaction.

    This is why, all plans for the future are based on a speculative model of analysis and such plans, no matter how immaculately drawn, will have no basis in reality, because reality of a situation creates its own myriad dynamics. Once a policy is implemented, its original intent is subjected to the reaction to it and such, it has to be improvised continunally to keep it effective and the orginal intent is thus discarded.

    As to Poland in 1939, please read the official documents of the British Foreign Office, Nazi Germany’s foreign office documents, which were presented at the end of the war, during the Nuremberg war trials, and now are a part of the Bundesarchivs and the Polish documents of the period. They do not support your interpretation of the events of the Polish crisis in 1939.

    The Poles were aware of what the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany planned, because if you read the personal papers of Colonel Jozef Beck, the Polish foreign minister, and General Pilduski, the leader of Poland, the Polish policy was based on appeasement of Germany and not giving Adolf Hitler a pretext to invade. The Poles were even willing to discuss the option of the Danzig Corridor reverting back to Germany.

    The Poles are a very pragmatic people and they knew their history and how Poland ceased to exist as a nation in the late 1700s. The Polish government in 1939 was following a policy designed to prevent war and such, it knew what it was doing and was well aware of the situation in Europe in 1939. Given their historical relations with Russia and Germany (Prussia), the Poles understood their limited options and that in case of war, the defensive pact with Great Britain would be useless and was only a morale booster.

    The British promises to protect Poland against Germany was simply a declaration of a promise and had no realism to it. To actually help Poland repel a German attack, Great Britain would have to deploy its army, then composed of two corps – about 40,000 men against the Wehrmacht numbering over a million men – and all its equipment to the continent.

    If you look at a map of Europe, a potential military action against Germany, by Great Britain, was not possible. The British army deployment plans, made to support the France against Germany, would have seen the British troops disembarked in France and to reach Poland, where the actual fighting was taking place, the British would have to march across Germany to reach Poland!

    France was pacifist at that time and was also trying its best to avoid a conflict with Germany and therefore, it is doubtful that had the British army landed in France, the French would have given them permission to attack Germany from France and thus, invite a German attack on France.

    The other option, orginally suggested by Admiral Jacky Fisher during World War I before it was replaced by Winston Churchill’s Dardanelles plan, suggested British landings on the northern coast of the Baltic Sea.

    In 1939, such a plan was still on the cards, but the Baltic was controlled by the Germany navy and to risk a landing there, the Royal Navy would have to risk its capital warships, which would be needed to hunt German raiders and deal with the U-boat menance and provide convoy duties and maintain Britain’s links with the empire once the war started, from where the needed resources for the war effort would come.

    The Poles were aware of this and therefore, followed a policy of non-agression with Germany. The Poles knew what the overall intentions of Soviet Union and the Nazi Germany were and what were the realistic chances of a credible British military response to a German aggression against Poland.

    The reason for this long explanation was simply to show you that your contention that the Poles were ignornant of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany’s intentions in 1939 is disproven by the historic record.

    Due, one cannot learn anything from history, if one creates a fictionalized historic narrative and your version of history is fictional.

    You cannot learn from the past if the past never existed!


  51. due

    to feroz khan

    What I put in quotes are not exact sentences as spoken by someone but are my rendering of the events that took place and the thoughts that buzzed. Ciminals take care not leave behind any evidence as far as possible and very often they do succeed. There is a lot of material (most of quite sickening to read) about how Nixon behaved, spoke, the filthy language that he used etc.

    On a blog we do not have to write doctoral theses with long references listed. It is about indicating what happened or may have happened.

    Your description of the polish situation quite confirms what I had indicated. There is no real contradictions between what you write and what I wrote.

  52. moniems

    @Feroz Khan

    I am impressed. You must be one of few people in Pakistan who know so much.

    “Due” will most certainly benefit from this lesson, and then be more useful for all of us.

    I would love to know what you may be doing to save our drowning nation.

    Besides, I am keen to know what you think of my following comment:

    September 23, 2010 at 2:30 pm

  53. no-communal


    Some of what you say in your long posts are well- thought-out, bitter, but not unreasonable. However, in the short ones you sometimes overdo it. In these, the righteous anger displayed is somewhat misplaced; it should really be directed to, say, a fundamentalist Saudi forum (if there is one). Since you have a tendency to at times overdo it, mine was a little attempt at levity.


    “The United Nations’ resolution on Kashmir asked both parties to withdraw to their pre-war positions and then the plebsicite was to be held under the United Nations mandate and not under Indian supervision. India was a party to the dispute and such it could not hold a referandum on Kashmir without its overall transparency being questioned.”

    The UN resolution asks Pakistan to withdraw first. It asks India to begin to withdraw (in stages) only after it has been verified that the tribesmen and other forces from Pakistan are withdrawing. India should maintain a minimum force necessary to maintain law and order. On this due is actually right.

    While the plebiscite would be done under UN mandate, GOI is responsible for its successful conclusion.

    Here below is the resolution:


    1. The Government of Pakistan should undertake to use its best endeavors:

    a. To secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purposes of fighting, and to prevent any intrusion into the State of such elements and any furnishing of material aid to those fighting in the State;

    b. To make known to all concerned that the measures indicated in this and the following paragraphs provide full freedom to all subjects of the State, regardless of creed, caste, or party, to express their views and to vote on the question of the accession of the State, and that therefore they should co-operate in the maintenance of peace and order.

    2. The Government of India should:

    a. When it is established to the satisfaction of the Commission set up in accordance with the Council’s Resolution 39 (1948) that the tribesmen are withdrawing and that arrangements for the cessation of the fighting have become effective, put into operation in consultation with the Commission a plan for withdrawing their own forces from Jammu and Kashmir and reducing them progressively to the minimum strength required for the support of the civil power in the maintenance of law and order;

    b. Make known that the withdrawal is taking place in stages and announce the completion of each stage;

    c. When the Indian forces shall have been reduced to the minimum strength mentioned in (a) above, arrange in consultation with the Commission for the stationing of the remaining forces to be carried out in accordance with the following principles:

    i. That the presence of troops should not afford any intimidation or appearance of intimidation to the inhabitants of the State;

    ii. That as small a number as possible should be retained in forward areas;

    iii. That any reserve of troops which may be included in the total strength should be located within their present base area.

    3. The Government of India should agree that until such time as the plebiscite administration referred to below finds it necessary to exercise the powers of direction and supervision over the State forces and policy provided for in paragraph 8, they will be held in areas to be agreed upon with the Plebiscite Administrator.

    4. After the plan referred to in paragraph 2(a) above has been put into operation, personnel recruited locally in each district should so far as possible be utilized for the reestablishment and maintenance of law and order with due regard to protection of minorities, subject to such additional requirements as may be specified by the Plebiscite Administration referred to in paragraph 7.

    5. If these local forces should be found to be inadequate, the Commission, subject to the agreement of both the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan, should arrange for the use of such forces of either Dominion as it deems effective for the purpose of pacification.


    6. The Government of India should undertake to ensure that the Government of the State invite the major political groups to designate responsible representatives to share equitably and fully in the conduct of the administration at the ministerial level, while the plebiscite is being prepared and carried out.

    7. The Government of India should undertake that there will be established in Jammu and Kashmir a Plebiscite Administration to hold a plebiscite as soon as possible on the question of the accession of the State to India or Pakistan.

    8. The Government of India should undertake that there will be delegated by the State to the Plebiscite Administration such powers as the latter considers necessary for holding a fair and impartial plebiscite including, for that purpose only, the direction and supervision of the State forces and police.

    9. The Government of India should at the request of the Plebiscite Administration, make available from the Indian forces such assistance as the Plebiscite Administration may require for the performance of its functions.


    a. The Government of India should agree that a nominee of the Secretary-General of the United Nations will be appointed to be the Plebiscite Administrator.

    b. The Plebiscite Administrator, acting as an officer of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, should have authority to nominate the assistants and other subordinates and to draft regulations governing the Plebiscite. Such nominees should be formally appointed and such draft regulations should be formally promulgated by the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

    c. The Government of India should undertake that the Government of Jammu and Kashmir will appoint fully qualified persons nominated by the Plebiscite Administrator to act as special magistrates within the State judicial system to hear cases which in the opinion of the Plebiscite Administrator have a serious bearing on the preparation and the conduct of a free and impartial plebiscite.

    d. The terms of service of the Administrator should form the subject of a separate negotiation between the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Government of India. The Administrator should fix the terms of service for his assistants and subordinates.

    e. The Administrator should have the right to communicate directly, with the Government of the State and with the Commission of the Security Council and, through the Commission, with the Security Council, with the Governments of India and Pakistan and with their representatives with the Commission. It would be his duty to bring to the notice of any or all of the foregoing (as he in his discretion may decide) any circumstances arising which may tend, in his opinion, to interfere with the freedom of the Plebiscite.

    11. The Government of India should undertake to prevent and to give full support to the Administrator and his staff in preventing any threat, coercion or intimidation, bribery or other undue influence on the voters in the plebiscite, and the government of India should publicly announce and should cause the Government of the State to announce this undertaking as an international obligation binding on all public authorities and officials in Jammu and Kashmir.

    12. The Government of India should themselves and through the government of the State declare and make known that all subjects of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, regardless of creed, caste or party, will be safe and free in expressing their views and in voting on the question of the accession of the State and that there will be freedom of the Press, speech and assembly and freedom of travel in the State, including freedom of lawful entry and exit.

    13. The Government of India should use and should ensure that the Government of the State also use their best endeavor to effect the withdrawal from the State of all Indian nationals other than those who are normally resident therein or who on or since l5th August 1947 have entered it for a lawful purpose.

    14. The Government of India should ensure that the Government of the State releases all political prisoners and take all possible steps so that:

    a. all citizens of the State who have left it on account of disturbances are invited and are free to return to their homes and to exercise their rights as such citizens;

    b. there is no victimization;

    c. minorities in all parts of the State are accorded adequate protection.

    15. The Commission of the Security Council should at the end of the plebiscite certify to the Council whether the plebiscite has or has not been really free and impartial.


    16. The Governments of India and Pakistan should each be invited to nominate a representative to be attached to the Commission for such assistance as it may require in the performance of its task.

    17. The Commission should establish in Jammu and Kashmir such observers as it may require of any of the proceedings in pursuance of the measures indicated in the foregoing paragraphs.

    18. The Security Council Commission should carry out the tasks assigned to it herein.

  54. no-communal


    “The reason for this long explanation was simply to show you that your contention that the Poles were ignornant of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany’s intentions in 1939 is disproven by the historic record.”

    But that’s what due said, no?

    “In fact the situation in Poland 1939 was better than in Kashmir 2010. The Poles knew they were militarily weaker than Hitler and Stalin but they were not ignorant of what the two planned. …. At least the Poles were not ignorant.”

    I am enjoying this conversation. But now I am a bit confused. The two of you are actually agreeing on this.

  55. moniems


    Excellent ideas! Lot’s of thought must have gone into it.

    But, it lacks pragmatism. What is being suggested is not possible. It will never happen.

    Let us use common sense (even if it is the most uncommon commodity!). Musharraf and his foreign minister had reached an agreement on solving Kashmir problem.

    Pakistan should announce (for its own interest; and for heaven’s sake) it will go ahead with that.

    This must be done if Pakistan is mindful of the interests of Kashmiri muslims. Finish off with this and concentrate on saving Pakistan. We have so much to do, and our begging bowl is getting on the nerves of the civilized world.

    If Allah is watching all this He will help. L:et us pray.

  56. no-communal



  57. Feroz Khan

    @ Due (September 24, 2010 at 7:48 pm)

    If the quotes were your version of the events or what happened, then there are your opinions and not the historical fact. The whole point behind asking for references was to establish this fact; the veracity of the quotes. When you put something in quotation marks, it suggests actual words or statements and since quotes can be taken out of context, it makes sense to read the whole quote/passage before commenting on it.

    If the intention was to create a mythical conversation to prove a historical fact or to support your points, clarifications to the effect needs to be stated. Even, when the intention is to indicate what happened or may have happened, creation of mythical facts and statements is misleading and intellectually dishonest.

    I will take your post (September 24, 2010 at 7:48 pm ) under advisement and for future references, will understand that you will be debating not on the basis of facts, but on re-creation of events, which may or may not be historically true and are your interpretations, based on no particular documentary evidence supporting your claims.


  58. Feroz Khan

    @ no-communal (September 24, 2010 at 9:03 pm)

    There is a very slight variation, between what Due is suggesting and what I am arguing.

    Due was suggesting, using the Polish crisis of 1939 as an analogy to Kashmir in 2010, a pre-emptive response to issues of Islamic militancy and the role of Islam in Kashmir. In other words, the suggestion was that if India does not react to these threats, it will find itself at a disadvantage.

    My argument, in that rather long post, was that Poland was willing to be in a position of disadvantage and was not interested in a pre-emptive strike and therefore, the analogy is not applicable to the present situation in Kashmir.

    Due was using the historical example of Poland in 1939 in a manner, which was not historically and my objection was to this fact.

    As to disagreements with Due, I do not judge debates on disagreements or not, but how well can you argue your case. Learning takes place from disagreements more than it does from agreeing with some thing, but that does not mean we should stop asking for the proof behind the thinking. 🙂


  59. Feroz Khan

    @ moniems (September 23, 2010 at 2:30 pm)

    Kashmir, in its heart, is a domestic issue in both India and Pakistan. 😉


  60. Feroz Khan

    no-communal (September 24, 2010 at 8:36 pm)

    Question is still, would India have returned to the antebellum status in Kashmir if the Pathan tribesmen had withdrawn from Kashmir?


  61. no-communal


    Who knows. Pakistan would’t take the risk and we will never find out.

    If one goes by the population count, of course J&K should have gone to Pakistan. If it were officially a part of British India, it would have automatically gone to Pakistan. I read somewhere that Nehru and Patel both were reconciled to the fact that J&K would eventually be Pakistan’s. The problem started with the attack by the tribesmen and other forces. Now it is muddled with the accession and all.

    This was actually mentioned also in JKLF website, so hardly an Indian point of view. The last time I checked it, it was there under “History in Brief” in “Kashmir Issue”. However, I just checked it now, and “The page cannot be found”.

    BTW, you guys must have discussed J&K umpteen times. I didn’t want to start a debate on J&K on this thread.

  62. bciv


    If one goes by the population count, of course J&K should have gone to Pakistan. If it were officially a part of British India, it would have automatically gone to Pakistan.

    ..subject to a tehsil-wise partition of the state of J&K, you mean? like in the punjab and bengal. or do you mean the whole state?

  63. History buff

    @Feroz Khan:

    Just a minor point, unrelated to the main discussion.

    “France was pacifist at that time and was also trying its best to avoid a conflict with Germany and therefore, it is doubtful that had the British army landed in France, the French would have given them permission to attack Germany from France and thus, invite a German attack on France….”

    France sent a joint ultimatum (along with Great Britain) to Germany on Sept 1st, 1939. It jointly declared war on Germany (again at the same time along with GB) on Sept. 3rd 1939.
    The British army did indeed sent an expeditionary force through France after the declaration of war but was evacuated at Dunkirk after the fall of France.

    Thus, France’s intentions in 1939 are not an object of any speculation; its actions are a fact of history!

    Maybe you guys are discussing another war. 😉

  64. no-communal

    I mean the whole state.

  65. Feroz Khan

    @ History buff (September 25, 2010 at 12:58 am)

    A review of French politics prior to September 1939, will show that the French government was unsure on how to deal with Germany.

    In the years, and even months and days before the announcement of the British and the French declarations of the war, there was intensive internal debate taking place in British and French governments and military circles and the final outcome; the declaration of war was still uncertain. As the records of the British cabinet meetings make clear, Britain was still debating whether peace was an option with Germany or not; and would have accepted a peace deal with Germany if it had been allowed to keep its empire and the Royal Navy.

    This debate lasted well into June 1940, as both archival records of the British cabinet and the Hansard (record of British parliamentary proceedings) suggest.

    This uncertainty of whether to instigate combat operations against Germany or not is also shown in your post and your comments, “The British army did indeed sent an expeditionary force through France after the declaration of war but was evacuated at Dunkirk after the fall of France”.

    First of all, the British expeditionary force was withdrawn from France at the end of May 1940 – but before the defeat of France, as you wrongly alluded. France surrandered to the Germans on June 1940.

    The period from September 3, 1939 when Great Britain and France declared war against Germany till May 10, 1940, when Germany invaded France, is a period known as Sitzkreig, or the Sitting War or as press in the United States characterized it, as the “Bore War”.

    From September 1939 to May 1940, no major combat operations were undertaken by the British and French armies on the west bank of the Rhine and neither did they invade Germany, when as the post-war testimonial records of the German generals showed that the vast majority of the Wehrmacht, about 110 divisions, was still deployed in Poland and there was no more than a dozen or so German divisions in the west, who could not have resisted a determined attack by the French army and from September 1939 to May 1940, the biggest fear of the German Generalstab was a French attack and they were puzzled as to why it never materialized!

    The French did not want war with Germany and was doing its best to avoid a war that it knew it would lose. French pacifism was quite visible in the period of the Sitzkreig and a declaration of war and actually fighting a war different things.

    A review of the internal French political and military archives clearly shows French reclutence to fight. French politicans were reacting to French public’s mood which was anti-war and this anti-war mood of the French public opinion then encouraged the policies of appeasement in France.

    Original documentation and primary source material is always better than Wikipedia if you are history buff like me! 😉


  66. Feroz Khan

    (September 24, 2010 at 11:29 pm)

    The demographics of the princely state of Kashmir had nothing to do with Kashmir joining India or Pakistan. The last recorded census, under the British in an united India, was taken in 1941 and that showed the population of Kashmir at 4 million, with the majority being Muslims.

    The option of how Kashmir joined India or Pakistan, was documented in the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946. The popular fallacy is that the partition of India was supposed to happen on the basis of the population’s religion and this was true, but this principle did not apply to princely states in India.

    In case of the princely states, and Kashmir was one, the option was given to ruler to decide the state’s choice – whether to join India or Pakistan – regardless of the demography of the state. It was due to this caveat, that Kashmir with a Hindu ruler and a Muslim majority area opted for India, because its ruler, Sir Hari Singh, decided for India. Likewise, another princely state of Hyderabad, which had a Hindu majority population but a Muslim ruler, decided to join Pakistan.

    The British decision to give the rulers of the princely state the right to decide the fate of their states was undemocratic and down right Machiavellian. It ignored the basic tenets of representative electoral majority rule, because a single individual, on the basis of his own religion, could decide the choice for countless others who did not share his religion.


  67. no-communal

    Feroz Sb,
    You are right. I said “If it were officially a part of British India, it would have…” exactly for the reasons you stated.

  68. no-communal

    I am sorry my earlier message “I mean the whole state” was directed to you.

  69. Hola

    The Maharaja’s hand was forced when the Pak Army decided to invade J&K with the support of Pashtun tribals. He didn’t want to join India, knowing fully well the socialist ideals of Congress.

  70. History buff

    Dear fellow history buff:

    I hate to sidetrack you from your main discussion but I am not sure you understand my objection to your comments in the first place. Kindly let me reproduce your comments once again. You wrote:

    “…it is doubtful that had the British army landed in France, the French would have given them permission to attack Germany from France and thus, invite a German attack on France….”

    Am I wrong in assuming that you are actually expressing doubts about an occurrence in history, as if it was something that was hypothetical and had never happened? Incredulously, you also seem to be giving reasons why it could not have happened!!

    What is doubtful about the actual course of events as they happened in 1939?

    1. The Brits DID land troops in France!!
    2. The French not only gave them permission to do so, they JOINED them in issuing an ultimatum to Hitler on Sept 1st and later unhesitatingly DECLARED WAR on Germany.

    Expressing doubts about the intentions after the deed is done is like a drunk telling a highway patrolman that although he was driving under the influence, he had earlier told his wife that had no intention of doing so. 😉

    Well too bad; it does not get him out of a DUI ticket.

    Internal debates are irrelevant here. They are just that, internal; and in no way alter actions that take place after all is said and done; otherwise one could similarly argue that US had no intention of attacking Iraq by pointing to internal debates.

    Then you wrote:

    “In the years, and even months and days before the announcement of the British and the French declarations of the war, there was intensive internal debate taking place in British and French governments and military circles and the final outcome; the declaration of war was still uncertain. As the records of the British cabinet meetings make clear, Britain was still debating whether peace was an option with Germany or not; and would have accepted a peace deal with Germany if it had been allowed to keep its empire and the Royal Navy”

    However, consider the actions of just one participant, the supposedly meek France.

    1. Whereas British support of Poland was new, Poland’s alliance with the French had a long history. The first French efforts to support Poland against Germany dated back to 1921 when Raymond Poincaré, soon to become the president of the French Republic, stated “Everything orders us to support Poland: The [Versailles] Treaty, the plebiscite, loyalty, the present and the future interest of France, and the permanence of peace.” (Richard Watt, Bitter Glory: Poland and its Fate, 1919-1939 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1979), p. 176)

    2. France thus sealed a mutual assistance pact with Poland in Feb 1921. The Article Three of this stated that “If, notwithstanding the sincerely peaceful views and intentions of the two contracting states, either or both of them should be attacked without giving provocation, the two governments shall take concerted measures for the defense of their territory and the protection of their legitimate interests.” (Ruth H. Bauer, “Franco-Polish Relations, 1919-1939” (M.A. Thesis: Georgetown University, 1948), p. 30)

    3. In May 1939 Poland’s Minister of War, General Tadeusz Kasprzycki, visited Paris to clarify the terms under which France would assist Poland militarily. It was agreed that “on the outbreak of war between Germany and Poland, the French would immediately undertake air action against Germany. It was also agreed that on the third day of French mobilization its army would launch a diversionary offensive into German territory, which would be followed by a major military offensive of the full French army to take place no later than fifteen days after mobilization.” (Watt, Bitter Glory, p. 402)

    I have a lot more stuff on this topic but I doubt it would be of interest to many here. The point is that while no one is arguing that after the carnage of WWI, most European leaders had become somewhat war weary and thus cautious; after Sudetenland, most people knew that war was coming.

    I am not unaware of the British Cabinet discussions that you are alluding to. I am also familiar with the recent revisionist authors who for instance, point to certain remarks made by Churchill to Lord Halifax as a proof that he was ready to make a deal with Hitler in 1940.

    Again, all this is conjecture at this point. What is a fact is that Hitler offered peace, twice; first to France and GB on October 10th, 1939 and then to GB again on July 19th, 1940.
    Both times, he was refused…..

  71. Prasad

    Feroz //The British decision to give the rulers of the princely state the right to decide the fate of their states was undemocratic and down right Machiavellian//

    Not really…in a large poor landmass used to monarchy for hundreds of years, one suddenly cannot expect people to decide for themselves….Once British decided on division of India, every princely state in the subcontinent certainly mulled 2 options ie. independent rule ( fav option if achieved somehow) and be part of either India or pakistan (advised by British). Certainly politics then was chaotic.

    Rulers of Kashmir, junagadh, hyderabad had their own agenda of remaining independent and cling on to power. They had no option but to eventually decide where they would merge. Junagadh had to merge with India since we could not afford another communal conflict/migration etc. Hyderabad joining Pakistan did not make any sense as it was down south and people shared enormous cultural ties with Madras and Mysore regions

    Ultimately in both India and Pakistan, people of different cultures and ethnic groups have learned to live and govern themselves.

    Problem with Kashmir however is the lack of integration with mainstream even after 6 decades. Surprisingly Ladakh with predominantly tibetan ethnicity and Jammu with Hindu / Sikh ethnicity merged very well.

    Kashmiris have no option but to integrate with India. They are neither financially independent nor they have any muscle to manage state policies of China and Pakistan – eventually getting gobbled in the process. Hurriyat who claims to be the messaiah of Kashmiris could have actually stood in the elections, governed their people very well and can learn lessons from other fiercely proud regional parties like DMK, Shivsena, TDP. This could have actually ensured a right representation to the kashmiris in the Indian parliament, curtailed the power of wily abdullahs and done enormously well in getting projects and jobs for their youth. Hurriyat leaders have squandered this by their repeated claims for independence. Please understand in 1950’s such demands made sense since India was very weak in all aspects ( military, finance, general integration etc). However Hurriyat have remained stagnant on their stupid demands while India has grown by leaps and bounds.

    Hurriyat is solely responsible for putting the entire state’s growth in downswing and denying the people (whom they claim to represent) right of dignified life. Nothing will improvise. The Indian State has no option but to continue to bring in more draconian laws if Hurriyat and Muiwa ( in manipur) and Kishenji ( Naxals) continue with their agenda. There is no going back

  72. YLH


    I agree with your stance but historically and legally you are wrong.

    1. It wasn’t Hyderabad that decided to join Pakistan. It was Junagadh. Hyderabad the country the size of Belgium wanted to be independent.

    2. There is no question that the subsidiary arrangement in certain states did leave them sovereign and independent at the expiry of the Empire.
    What you call “undemocratic” was the only legally consistent stance whether people like it or not. How that state was internally run was a different matter.

    Patel, Nehru and Jinnah went about twisting the arms of princely rulers in pure machiavellian fashion and frankly there is nothing wrong with that given that every accession did happen through the document of accession. Kashmir however is a completely different matter for how the issue developed subsequently.

    The Kashmir issue then falls flat on several counts for India. First and foremost it is clear from primary source evidence that document of accession was signed by the Maharaja after the Indian Army had already landed in Srinagar which means that India’s invasion was illegal and its invasion was an incurable illegality. Maharaja of Kashmir like Hyderabad wanted to be independent.

    Secondly by going to the United Nations India paved the way for UN Resolutions which have rubbished once and for all the document of accession on which it was being claimed.

    Third by carrying out a plebiscite in Junagadh in Nov 1947, India laid down the precedent for plebiscite to resolve it and therefore India cannot argue document of accession anymore without first returning Junagadh to Pakistan legally.

    Fourth by invading Hyderabad and violating standstill arrangements with that state, India has in effect nullified whatever objections could be raised about Pakistan’s alleged invasion of Kashmir in October 1947.

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

  73. hayyer

    What is the legal status of oral consent given by the sovereign ruler who has not yet signed a document?
    Is a signature freely given after the event confirming an oral request or oral agreement void ipso facto? I ask this without accepting or refuting for the present the charge that VP Menon obtained the Hari Singh’s signature later not earlier.

  74. moniems


    Pardon my intervention in this rather pointless debate. The way it is going on with frequent and convenient use of the word “alleged” by both sides, it is of no use except in a court of law.

    Let us say a way is found to make India agree to hold a referendum. How can it be held? The only fair method acceptable to both will be to hold it separately in four parts of the state as follows:

    • In Pakistan occupied part including the area handed over to China.

    • In Indian occupied part of the Kashmir Valley.

    • In Jammu region.

    • In Ladakh region.

    Let us say UN management is present in all parts.

    What do you think the results will be?

    My informed guess is:-

    Pakistan occupied part votes for Pakistan, and all the other areas for India. If you take the whole of J&K the majority will be in favour of India.

    Let us be pragmatic. Not many in their senses will like to become a part of the present day Pakistan.

    It will be educative if we redirect the discussion towards this way.

    Let us all now give our informed guesses.

  75. YLH


    I am not the UN and I am not interested in hypothetical issues or a piss all debate. What I have written down are points of law and I am not interested in the politics of it or if you think it is useful or not. Clearly Kashmiris think it is and that is what matters. You ignorantly said that Pakistan had no legal claim on Kashmir and I just showed you how that is not true.

    Then you go on to drop this remarkable bombshell.

    “Pakistan occupied part votes for Pakistan, and all the other areas for India. If you take the whole of J&K the majority will be in favour of India.”

    Frankly this is just nonsense. Clearly you are out of touch with the realities in the valley. Far from informed. The Kashmir valley has a whole will vote for independence or will vote for Pakistan as a second option. Jammu probably will vote for India. As a whole J&K would probably want to be independent in the first instance or choose Pakistan. This is why India has not held the plebiscite which it readily carried out in Junagadh.

    In an earlier post you wrote: “it will be good for Kashmiris”.

    This is also a ridiculous view. Even if it were true, which Kashmiris think it is not…. there are many people who have argued that India as a whole would be better off if it stayed in the British Empire and did not seek independence. So your point is what?

    This thing called independence is always “Freedom to do our thing”… if one such claim is legal all such claims are legal. What is unfortunate for us is that people think that they hold the gospel truth and that their aspirations are necessarily the right ones. The march of history shows a different picture. You cannot force the hand of change. Each people must adapt and accept change on their own.

    Hayyer sb,

    Even if the Maharaja had signed it before … the rest of the points operate as an estoppel vis a vis document of accession.

  76. moniems

    Sorry. I seem to have touched some raw nerve. My apologies!

    You are welcome to your views and pursuits.

    “This is just nonsense. Clearly you are out of touch with the realities in the valley. Far from informed.”

    May I, most respectfully, submit that my in-laws are residents of the Kashmir valley (Indian part). I have visited my in-laws, and lived with them many times for extended durations, over more than half a century. Because I am an avid angler, I have also toured most parts of the valley, including Gurez, for Trout fishing, and mingled with the local people.

    In light of these facts, which you were naturally unaware of, you may wish to modify your above mentioned views. May I hope you will, very kindly, accord my comment the seriousness it deserves?

  77. YLH

    Frankly I can’t. I don’t care where your in laws are from but I know what the New York Times is saying.

  78. moniems


    Very well; please have your way.

    My best wishes will always be with you.

  79. due

    The fate of PTH strikes again!

    The theme was protestant-catholic and here we end up discussing Kashmir.

    I think in PTH we should only discuss what is in the indian subcontinent and not bring in any analogies from outside. They don’t seem to work at all. Just as Feroz dismissed my Poland analogy to Kashmir.

    Much to moniem’s consternation I will notch up
    the debate as follows:

    1) Islam was created in Makkah and Madinah and not in Kashmir and hence those who follow islam have no right to determine the fate of Kashmir and kashmiris. We don’t want any alien imperialist arab ideology from outside telling us what to do.

    2) The kashmiris should stop listening to the glorifications of this alien ideology and its biased history-writing.

  80. moniems


    Your views do not bother me, please rest assured.

    I wish your efforts were to bear fruit. But, tell me, do you think anyone in Pakistan or Kashmir will listen to you, leave aside accept the medicine you prescribe?

  81. due

    To moniem

    Thanks. My post actually brought forth its first fruit already!

    Apart from that: I believe that truth has to be told unvarnished. Sooner or later it strikes roots. We in India have this national slogan “satyameva jayate”.
    = Truth (satya) alone (eva) triumphs (jayate).

    I have to say what I think is right – whether others accept it or not is their problem. The creator-god (one god among many, as per hindu theology) is a sadist-cynic. He created mankind in order to satisfy his sadism-cynicism. I don’t expect truth to triumph actually (or quickly) but I keep fighting for it. The way is the goal. I am not doing it for personal gains so I am relaxed.

  82. moniems

    Well said “due”

    You seem to know everything, and I admire your perseverance besides the wisdom you posses. Now tell me if you have answers for the following:

    • How do you make a person see reason if she/he has been nurtured on FALSEHOOD for the whole life?
    • How do you save such a person from self-destruction?

  83. due

    To moniems

    We have to live among them. We have to be strictly non-violent (in words and deeds). We may have to wait till we have gray hair – hoping that they (for all their indoctrination and cruelty) do not kill older persons out of natural respect. And if we are killed when we have gray hair then it is good deliverance (why die on a bed in a senile infirm state? why wait that long?).

    Pakistan has been molesting its children by injecting in them hatred and false narratives of history. It has been a big on-going crime since 60 years. Yet I believe that even such children/youth have a natural respect for an old frail human being with gray hair.

    Neither you nor I live among them. So we are both disqualified.

  84. O J DEEN

    O ye who believe ! be strict in observing justice and be witnesses for ALLAH, even though it be against yourselves or against your parents or kindred. Whether he, against whom witness is borne, be rich or poor, ALLAH is more regardful of them both than you are. Therefore follow not your low desires that you may be able to act equitably. And if you hide the truth or evade it, then know that ALLAH is Well-Aware of what you do.
    (Holy Quran: 4:136)

  85. no-communal

    “Let us say a way is found to make India agree to hold a referendum”

    There were very specific guidelines given on how to hold the referendum (please see the UN resolution in my earlier post). Neither side is willing to comply. So unless there is a new resolution in the offing, this question does not arise.

    About the use of “alleged” by both sides, a careful reading of the UN resolution itself clarifies the then situation in Kashmir.

    The instrument of accession may have been signed a day earlier or later, but the UN resolution supersedes that. But the latter cannot be implemented. So where do we stand in “legal” terms? There is Simla agreement on respecting the status quo until a settlement is found by negotiations.

    About the situation is Kashmir today, the overwhelming majority wants peace return, whatever the modalities. They want their children back to schools, colleges, businesses reopen, and tourists return. That much was confirmed recently by Sitaram Yechury after his visit. One may choose to not believe him, but he is hardly an ardent supporter of the Indian govt. policies.

  86. Feroz Khan

    @ YLH

    Thanks for correcting my oversight!



    If I understood you right, and if Kashmiris had a better chance of gaining full representation in Indian parliament in 1950s, had they foregone their demands for independence, can you please explain why the “wily abdullah ” was foisted upon them in the first place by Nehru and the Indian government?

    This seems odd that the Indian goverment would harm its own interests in Kashmir. Can you, please, explain this?


  87. no-communal


    Prasad will have his own answer. Let me just make a minor comment. I hope you know this demand for independence is just a chimera. It’s a very recent thing as far as the Kashmir population, especially the sunnis are concerned. They wanted to join Pakistan. This burkha-clad lady, Asiya Andrabi, leader of Dukhtaran-e-Millat, doesn’t even claim she is Kashmiri. She claims she is a descendant of Mohammad and wants strictly arabic version of Shariat.

  88. Truthteller

    The 1949 UN resolution says:

    (a) All citizens of the State who have left it on account of the disturbances will be invited and be free to return and to exercise all their rights as such citizens. For the purpose of facilitating repatriation there shall be appointed two Commissions, one composed of nominees of India and the other of nominees of Pakistan. The Commission shall operate under the direction of the Plebiscite Administrator. The Governments of India and Pakistan and all authorities within the State of Jammu and Kashmir will collaborate with the Plebiscite Administrator in putting this provision into effect.

    (b) All person (other than citizens of the State) who on or since 15 August 1947 have entered it for other than lawful purpose, shall be required to leave the State.”

    Since the Kashmiri Sunni Muslims who want “Azaadi” chased away the Kashmiri Pandits, and in the latest round are chasing away the few remaining Sikhs, they themselves cannot in good faith ask for the UN resolutions to be implemented.

  89. Truthteller

    As to “interest in Kashmir” Pakistan also is a “stakeholder” in the outcome in Afghanistan. That does not give it the right to arm and aid the Afghan Taliban to overthrow the Afghan government, or to shelter Mullah Omar. If it does claim that “right” then there is no meaning to rights, jiski lathi usi ki bhains.

  90. Prasad

    No communal //I hope you know this demand for independence is just a chimera//

    I think we are just trying to shove issues under the carpet. Demand is on for decades – for whatever reasons. However India cannot grant this since it affects our very integrity. Logic is if Kashmir is granted independence, what is stopping India from granting the same to Tamils, Coorgis, Manipuris, Nagas on an immediate basis and eventually to Maharashtrians, Kannadigas et al

    Where will it end?

    Feroz //can you please explain why the “wily abdullah ” was foisted upon them in the first place by Nehru and the Indian government? //

    Sheikh Abdullah was wily and popular there is no denying that fact. Indian State just played ball thats all – they never ‘foisted’ abdullah. Yes he tried playing around and did nothing to integrate the region in true sense and hence he had to be dismissed, jailed, replanted et al. CN Annadurai, Karunanidhi and others have also gone through the same treatment. State couldnt have done anything could it?

    The propoganda is so deep rooted in Kashmir valley that it may take some years to undo the nonsense of the hurriyat. I am not for once contesting Kashmiris will to go with Pakistan in the 1950’s. Half the globe was re-orienting thanks to dissipation of British Empire. Today however it is too late. They have no option but go with the mainstream.

  91. Samachar

    More about American liberals than about Muslims, but still:

    By John T. Bennett
    Can we stop calling Islam a religion of peace now? The fairy tale has been tarnished by Islamic violence, and it’s undignified for children of the Enlightenment to go on repeating falsehoods.

    If Islam were a religion of peace, no one would be worried about violence resulting from the burning of Korans. If Islam were a religion of peace, then a Supreme Court justice would not have compared burning a Koran to shouting “fire” in a crowded theater.

    The liberal Rhodes Scholar George Stephanopoulos recently reported that “Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer told me on [“Good Morning America”] that he’s not prepared to conclude that — in the internet age — the First Amendment condones Koran-burning. … For Breyer, that right is not a foregone conclusion.”

    In discussing Koran-burning, Justice Breyer said of free speech, “Holmes said it doesn’t mean you can shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.” Not only did the Justice misquote Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ famous crowded theater quote, but he did so in a way that indicates his willingness to weaken the First Amendment in favor of appeasing radical Islam.

    Actually, Holmes wrote that “falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater” cannot be protected. The key word “falsely,” left out by Breyer, gave the phrase its legal significance. If you truthfully shout “fire” in a crowded theater, then that is dangerous but truthful, so it’s protected by the First Amendment. If you falsely shout “fire,” then that is dangerous and not protected. This is a very telling omission. If Breyer means what he says, then he is willing to give free-speech veto power to irrational and violent groups, regardless of whether one is criticizing — or shouting “fire” — falsely or truthfully. To give that power to radical Muslims would be a craven surrender of our rights and interest in open debate and criticism. It would also be an awful reflection on the hypersensitivity and inherently violent nature of modern Islam.

    J. Breyer’s botched invocation of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’s crowded theater phrase shows that he is just as careless about free speech on this issue as Holmes was. That quote comes from Schenck v. U.S., a 1919 case where Holmes agreed that a man could be criminally convicted for handing out leaflets opposing the WWI draft. Holmes’ ruling was awful; he dramatically changed his thinking later the same year, and Schenck was further altered in favor of free speech by Brandenburg v. Ohio. Breyer used a wretched example that stands for the proposition that speech can be curbed if there will be an irrational reaction to it.

    As a matter of free speech, J. Breyer’s remarks were sinister. As a reflection on Islamic violence and intolerance, Breyer’s comments were even more disturbing — but also a bit humorous. We just assume, correctly, that Muslims will explode upon slight provocations that would be ignored by every other religion. Yet we go on repeating the religion of peace mantra. We even make concessions — to include entertaining limits on our rights. One has to find amusement in such a neurotic and dishonest outlook. Only Islam benefits from such low standards.

    Burning a Buddhist sutra would be like yelling “fire” when you are alone in a theater; no Buddhist would kill and riot over the burning. Burning a Bible would be like passing gas in crowded theater; it would earn you contempt and not much more. But burning a Koran — that’s more like yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. We simply take for granted that a significant number of the faithful will erupt in violence — as they did in Afghanistan and Iran at the mention of burning a book across the ocean.

    Members of the ruling class like J. Breyer endanger and shame us all by accommodating the growing demands of radical Islam: Disney and Abercrombie and Fitch are being sued because they won’t let Muslim women wear their medieval headgear at work, where it doesn’t belong. The state of New Jersey fired a transit worker for burning a Koran while off-duty. An American cartoonist for the Seattle Weekly named Molly Norris has changed her identity to avoid Muslim death threats. On top of that, we have a president whose only response to Islamic violence is to lecture non-Muslims about bigotry.

    As a note on sensitivity, I use the phrase “Islamic violence” in the same sense that people talk about “male violence.” Referring to “male violence” is not to say that all men are violent. People should be capable of making the same distinction with the phrase “Islamic violence”. No reasonable person would take the phrase “Islamic violence” to mean that all Muslims are violent.

    Our president — in a twisted inversion of values and interests — is lecturing us when he should be lecturing the Muslim world. Unfortunately, he appears to have at least one Supreme Court justice who shares his supine and suicidal wish for therapeutic global acceptance.

  92. Feroz Khan

    @ History buff

    I am not expressing doubts about an occurance in history. Please re-read, what I was suggesting in my previous post.

    The British plans called for a deployment near the Beligian border and that is where the BEF went. I was refering to the west bank of the Rhine, where the BEF was not stationed. In 1939, before the attack on France, the only way to attack Germany in support of Poland, was an attack from the western bank of the Rhine or a British landing on the north coast of the Baltic Sea.

    Logistically, it was impossible to reach Poland, from the west without marching across Germany. France, during the period of the Sitzkreig, was not inclined to any action that might have resulted in a German attack on France and this is not historic revisionism.

    My point, which you misunderstood, was that BEF would not have been allowed to attack Germany, from the western bank of the Rhine, EVEN if it was in France. It was in this sense, that I said HAD the BEF landed to attack Germany, from the west bank of the Rhine, in support of Poland, the French would have refused them the permission.

    I am not disputing the actual landings of the British troops. They did land and were deployed on the Beligian border with France, in the region of the Flanders, and not on western bank of the Rhine.

    The discussion here is on the nature of BEF deployments in the west, near the German border, and not on the Diel Line in Beligum.

    Please explain, why there was no fighting on the western front, from September 3, 1939 to May 10, 1940 and why did the French army not attack Germany after it declared war on Germany?

    Please explain, why the British and French waited nearly 9 months after their declaration of war against Germany without attacking Germany from the west?

    Again, you seemed to be have misread, what I wrote. I am not denying the joint British-French declaration of war against Germany. I am only questioning the reasons behind the lack of combat operations by the British and the French in support of Poland after their declaration of war on Germany.

    Can you explain it?

    As to the French treaties with Poland, those did exist as you said from 1921 onwards.

    The question is what happened to those treaties and the French committments to Poland, between 1921 to 1939?

    Signing a treaty is not the same thing as living up to its obligations and from 1921, successive French governments ignored their committments to Poland. The reason was that France was gripped in an anti-war mood and the France’s pursuit of policies of appeasement had weakend its defences and as the 1930s came, with Hitler, France was increasinly insecure about about its military capabilities and whether it could measure up to its treaty committments.

    How do you explain France’s position vis-a-vis Czechoslavakia in 1938? France had a defensive treaty with that country too, so why did France allow Czechoslavakia to be taken over Germany?

    For that matter, why there was no French response to the German re-militarization of the Rhineland in 1936? France was committed under the Treaty of Versailles signed in 1919 to consider any German attempts to re-militarize the Rhine as a cause of war and was bound to attack Germany.

    Can you explain this French reaction? Or how about Austria? The French had a treaty with Austria too but that did not prevent Anschluss, between Germany and Austria in 1938 either?

    Can you explain this also?

    Can you explain the reasons, why the French refused the British request to mine the waterways of the Rhine after their joint declaration of war?

    Can you explain why Great Britain, despite its committments to Poland in 1939, refused Poland monies to buy weapons for protection against Germany?

    Can you really explain, why Great Britain went to war against Germany in 1939 and not in 1936 or 1938? Can you please explain the thinking behind the British declaration of war in 1939?

    The events leading to WWII are fascinating and I am always willing to discuss them, so if you wish; we can soldier on….. 🙂


  93. no-communal


    “I think we are just trying to shove issues under the carpet. Demand is on for decades – for whatever reasons.”

    While the confusion between the two demands has blurred the horizon in recent times, do you think the original invasion was for independence of Kashmir? And the “political, moral and diplomatic” support Pakistan has been giving is for an independent Kashmir? I don’t think Geelani, let alone Andrabi, has ever minced words about their intentions. But, recently, even he has been talking about “azadi”.

    But I think it is somewhat irrelevant for the reasons you stated.

  94. no-communal


    Would you please stop this mantra of imported arab god? When I hear a qawwali I don’t necessarily think of Saudi Arab. By your logic even Hinduism is imported. I hope you know there are strong parallels between Rig Veda and Avesta.

  95. History buff

    Dear fellow history buff:

    Thanks for taking the time to answer my post which is at the best a minor issue in this debate.

    The French and British strategy in the run up to WWII was a classic example of Von Clausewitz’s often quoted remark; war is continuation of politics by other means. Thus the assurance to Poland (and implied threat to Germany) was never limited to a specific battlefield defense of Poland. Rather it was clear warning to Hitler; the appeasement was over; now if he wanted to devour more neighbors, he would have to contend with the big powers. The idea was to make him think very carefully all that was at stake.

    You are right in that the West was not spoiling for a fight and that GB and France had indeed pursued appeasement till the very end. It was annexation of Czechoslovakia in 1939 that finally convinced the Western leaders that Hitler’s ambition was much bigger. The British assurance to Poland was thus a diplomatic warning, cross this border and you will face the might of the entire British Empire. It was not an unreasonable step. In the summer of 1939 the Wehrmacht was not yet at full strength and the German economy was still locked into peacetime production. Hitler’s generals urged caution.

    There is even evidence that the hard-line positions adopted by Chamberlain and Daladier had had some effect; Hitler had earlier planned the invasion for August the 26th but had to put his plans on hold when Mussolini hesitated. Yet Hitler was able to over rule his generals and convince his ally into what he felt was once again calling the British\French bluff. Therefore Hitler’s invasion of Poland was essentially a gamble.

    As a result, when the war came, both the western allies as well as Germany were ill prepared for a war in the west. It is because of these reasons that the phoney war came about while both sides were getting ready for the real war.

    But then, reading the very sophisticated arguments in your posts, I suspect you know all this and more; all along. 😉

    We understand each other, and I admire your own interest and grasp of WWII. I don’t want to distract you any more, please carry on.

    Best wishes.

  96. YLH

    A few issues here,

    Truthteller Samachar and many more avatars are all the Guptas of New Jersey. A shameless family no doubt.

    I note the use of “Kashmiri sunni Muslims”. This is just bullshit. All Shia leaders are part of the Hurriyet Conference and “Omar Abdullah” cannot be a Shia name by any stretch of imagination. So have some shame asshole at long last.

    I also suggest people read the Jamaat Ahmaddiya’s stance on Kashmir. All Kashmiri Muslims want independence from India not just Sunnis.

  97. hayyer

    Actually, today the Kashmir agitation whatever its historical background is specifically a Kashmiri Sunni problem.
    There are a few Shia associated with the Hurriyet notably Maulvi Abbas Ansari, but the Shia want neither Pakistan nor independence, which is not to say that they are fond of India.
    Also, while the overwhelming majority of the Kashmiri Sunni population want independence this is not true of the Gujjar Sunnis belonging to Kashmir, or the Sunnis of Jammu.
    I am not trying to create rifts between the two communities here, merely pointing out the nature of the problem at present.
    May I further add that if GOI were to make some reasonable and historically justified concessions to Kashmiris, the agitation would fade away, except to the extent that it is maintained by vested interests.

  98. YLH

    I am afraid this is just not true…given that Ashura e Muharram is always used to stage a protest against India. Kashmiri Muslims are not just divided along those lines. It is an old trick. Even during the Pakistan movement the Congress, entirely backed by deobandi Sunnis, tried to put up an unrepresentative Shia body “momin conference”, forgetting that Muslim League was traditionally Shia and was led by a Shia and had many Shias of a lot of credibility with it.

    Meanwhile in the modern context Omar Abdullah is a Sunni. His father is a sunni. His grandfather was a Sunni. So the issue of Shia-Sunni has been raised for the first time it seems on PTH in this context.

    While there are countless examples of shias in the Hurriyet and the freedom movement, can someone name a Shia leader associated with the pro-India sentiment?

  99. moniems

    The points raised by “no-communal” ( September 25, 2010 at 8:19 pm) are well taken.

    The subject of this blog, “Protestants and Catholics” seems to have been forgotten. I wonder why? Somehow or the other, we always land up in Kashmir and Hindu-Muslim conflicts, which may be just as well.

    I, for one, keep desperately looking for ways to solve the problems Pakistan faces, including those in respect of Kashmir. I am making an attempt to nudge my fellow bloggers towards thoughts on this aspect. Some ideas on actions needed are to be taken are desirable. “Paani sar se oopar jaane waala hai”.

    The debates going on in this forum, though mostly well-intentioned and educative, are not action oriented. We are all very good at scoring points against each other. Everyone appears to be out to prove what he says is the truth, and whatever the other person says is false. This is mostly true of historical matters. The best part is the way both sides use the word “alleged”! The end result is that we seldom know what the truth is, because there is no judge to give a final ruling.

    Even if we can find the truth, will that solve any problems?

    The situation is hopeless! (In my humble view)

    Do I give up?

    May be yes, but not just yet!

    Here are a few things we all know:

    • Pakistan cannot get Kashmir by force.
    • Pakistan will not get Kashmir by more Mumbai attacks.
    • Infiltration of terrorists into Kashmir is counterproductive.
    • International community is not going to help Pakistan get Kashmir.
    • No international mediation will ever happen.
    • Pakistan is gradually losing credibility (which, like virginity, once lost is never recovered!).
    • UN resolutions, botched up thoroughly, are no more taken seriously even by UN.
    • Pakistan is spiraling downhill economically, which will make it weaker progressively.
    • The floods are another curse the country is ill prepared to handle.
    • Economically, India’s stars are comparatively well placed.
    • India enjoys a comparative advantage in foreign affairs.
    • India has more friends and fewer enemies.
    • Etc.,Etc.,Etc.

    In my humble opinion, we must recognize our weaknesses and shortcomings before we can see our way forward. The tendency to brush weak points under the carpet is something we can ill afford.

    I quite realize that the intelligentsia I am addressing will include those who do not agree with me; can point out what I may have missed; can offer modifications to my views; have many more brilliant ideas, or are inclined to ignore me as some crack-pot out of his nut. I welcome all, except those who cannot be civil.

    Once we are of one mind on what our weaknesses are, we shall turn to our strengths.

    After this much, we will be in a position to choose the most appropriate plan of action. I hope and pray, by then some eminent and wise person, residing in Pakistan, will come forward and lead us all.

    May Allah bless Pakistan!

  100. Prasad


    Good post. However pls understand, we in India need to understand if LOC as on date can be deemed acceptable to people first. State will follow soon. If people are not convinced, billions will flow down the drain for years to come.

    Bonhomie is good. Resolving issues which have haunted us for decades is better way to sustain the bonhomie. Pakistan, India and China have had their shares of Kashmir which according to me will never alter for decades UNLESS one of them disintegrate……

    better to get a concurrence on this issue at the people level which hopefully, will resonate at the State level

    Hurriyat, i am afraid should join mainstream. Doesnt take much time to weed them out as they have proved disastrous overall for their brethren

  101. YLH

    “Simply because we were licked a hundred years before is no reason for us not to try and win”

    Atticus Finch in “To kill a Mocking Bird”

  102. moniems


    Thanks for your kind words, and your ideas.

    I compliment you on being the first to note my humble effort, and assure you that your views will recive the atention they so richly deseve.

  103. Prasad

    No Communal //do you think the original invasion was for independence of Kashmir?//

    I guess you have already noted my position about the 1950’s – confusion, ambition, integration played their part to a very large extent. Junagadh being part of India, Kashmir being perpetually disputed and further East Bengal becoming Bangladesh were all part of the historic ‘confusion’ and ultimately recognising their own intentions…

    if you see Junagadh never suffered extremism after the so called ‘forceful’ acquisition….very well integrated. Likewise with Hyderabad.

    However as regards Kashmir, it is not just the voice of the valley that matters but also the voice of Pundits who were forcefully evicted, voice of Jammu and Ladakh that count too…

    Valley has been influenced by State of Pakistan for decades as in Indian Punjab. Whilst we got over Punjab through the support of people, we havent been able to achieve the same in Kashmir.

    Punjab happened due to support of locals Late Beant singh ( CM) and legendary KPS Gill….unfortunately Kashmir is still waiting for sensible leaders who will have some sense that independence is a myth and will not do any good for their people. Hopefully Omar and Mehbooba Mufti will deliver.

    I certainly feel sensible Mehbooba would have been a bettter bet than the stylish but idiotic Omar

  104. Prasad

    YLH //“Simply because we were licked a hundred years before is no reason for us not to try and win” //

    Learned YLH ! time is running out…Z Bhutto had the same funda. Didnt work out in 1970’s…Not sure you are convinced your wishful thinking will ever work today…what we should be discussing on the contrary is recognising ‘as is where is’ and move on….I am convinced many of us in India think this way. We should settle and move on to build a stable subcontinent devoid of bitterness of yesteryears…

  105. YLH

    Prasad mian,

    You have no clue or idea what I am about or what I meant what I wrote…so I suggest you don’t address me or write such stupid posts as you did.

    Keep writing to Moniems and jerking each other off.

  106. Prasad

    YLH mian – f*ck off.. are you rahul gandhi of India for writing such stupid stuff…..if you arent, just f*ck off jerk…I guess you didnt get my message when I referred to Z Bhutto

  107. YLH

    I suppose English language is an impediment for most Indians.

  108. Prasad

    Thats wishful thinking again. You’ve proved you folks wont change forever

  109. Prasad

    YLH – I am not going to read Atticus Finch to decipher what you meant…you need to be simple in conveying your thoughts…the way you came across, it was only natural for me to respond…

    //Simply because we were licked a hundred years before is no reason for us not to try and win//

    resonates Z Bhutto’s 10o0 yr war nonsense…

  110. due

    to no-communal

    “Imported arab god” is not a mantra to be ridiculed.
    Hinduism was not imported into India but created in India (including in it ideas from the invaders and local people). The aryans became hindus after coming to India (the Sindhu river basin).

    India has accepted many imports (I have nothing against import of ideas etc. as such) but with the exception of Islam none led to a partitioning of the land, to visceral hatred against hindus, to a genocide of hindus, to a monotheism with totalitarian results, to a falsified hindu-denigrating narrative of history etc.

    Don’t behave like a quisling of quislings.

    (If anyone is using filthy-arrogant language then just ignore him)

    BTW, some shias in Kashmir are with the pro-pakistan separatists because these shias have right now no other choice (under the weight of terror that they see around them). They will become victims of violence if they don’t pretend to be with the separatists. This violence (and worse) awaits them later in Pakistan too (should Pakistan succeed in taking Kashmir).

  111. YLH

    Yawn at “you folk never change”. You “folk” need to get a life and realise that your point of view is not the gospel truth.
    Kashmiris are a brave people. And they will not give up. It has nothing to do with India or Pakistan or “us folk”.

  112. YLH

    Incidentally you would be reading Harper Lee not Atticus Finch but the general level of education amongst Indians like you makes me wonder if you would ever know the difference.

  113. due

    Not giving up can be a sign of being misled or a sign of just stubborn foolishness.
    A man hitting his head on the wall repeatedly and saying some day he will come through.

  114. YLH

    That is you Due with your nave idea that you’ll reconvert 500 million South Asian Muslims to Hinduism.

  115. due

    Convert to hinduism? No.

    Convert to an honest, open-minded, self-respecting, non-violent, violence-not-glorifying way of life. To not live as quislings of arab imperialism or as the agents of an absolutist-totalitarian ideology misusing the word god.

  116. YLH

    Precisely why Kashmiri Muslims don’t want to live with Hindu fascists like you.

  117. due

    Have their “brothers” in Pakistan and in other islamic paradises something better to offer?

    Hindu fascism is a reaction (a rather weak and disorganized one) to the successes of islamic fascism-imperialism in the indian subcontinent.

    Islam was not created in Kashmir. Hence liberation of Kashmir means its freedom from this alien ideology. Some kashmiris do understand this – but unfortunately many don’t because they are so totally drowned under this alien ideology and its propaganda tricks.

  118. YLH

    Due mian…

    I think you should see a shrink very soon.
    It doesn’t matter what their Pakistani brethren have to offer… (though it would probably be better than urine infested commonwealth games) … British had a lot more to offer India…why did India seek independence from Britain?

  119. due

    India did not seek independence from the british.
    Some lawyers, most educated in Britain, did.

    And it does matter what Pakistan has to offer to Kashmir. This is where the kashmiris are in a fool’s paradise. Kashmir (with Pakistan to the west and China to the east) is like Poland in 1939 (with Hitler to the west and Stalin to the east). Only some (too few) kashmiris realize that.

    How many human beings (esp. shias and ahmediyas) have been killed by the urine infested commonwealth games?

  120. YLH

    Less than those killed in Gujurat in a single day in 2000

  121. YLH

    Also as the product of an Ahmadi-Shia mixed marriage I can safely say I am quite prosperous right here in Pakistan and find the crocodile tears by Hindu fascists disgusting to say the least.

  122. moniems

    @”YLH” and “due”

    Array bhaee band bhi karo yeh nanga naach.

    Duniya dekh rahee hai!

  123. hayyer

    YLH: 12:47
    No the Shias do not use Moharram to voice anti Indian sentiment. For years the Moharram processions were not allowed because of the fear of Sunni Shia clashes. After many years of banning the Moharram processions they were allowed this year. Two or three processions were taken out in Srinagar city; the one led by Maulvi Abbas Ansari raised anti India slogans. You may be aware that each Aga and Shia Maulvi has his own set of mureeds. Abbas Ansari’s followers are by far the smallest group in Kashmir. Abbas Ansari cannot muster enough voters to win an election even in areas where Shias form a significant minority.
    There is no Indian trick here.
    The most prominent pro Indian Shia leader is Maulvi Iftekhar Hussain Ansari. He is a cousin of Maulvi Abbas Ansari.
    Other prominent Shias in favour of India are Aga Ruholla of Badgam the MLA (Member of the Legislative Assembly) and Aga al Moussavi from the same area who was formerly MLA.
    When the JKLF was finally rendered inoperative by the HM back in 1991 the Shias set up their own pseudo freedom organization called the Hizb ul Momineen. It served to protect the Shias from Jamaatis of the HM and was wound up when the danger lessened.
    Also all Kashmiri Sunnis are not anti India. Most are. It would suprise you to know that there is a small but steadfast communist cohort in Kashmir. These fellows residing in a Jamaat dominated area have been returning a Communist independent who is pro India to the Assembly. Of course the Kashmiri Pandits and the Sikhs are opposed to Azadi or Pakistani too.
    It is not an exaggeration or distortion to say that the present movement is a Kashmiri Sunni movement.

  124. YLH

    I am afraid this is just Indian propaganda to divide the movement.

    Shias do use the ashura procession and the very fact Indians would not allow it says a lot.

    A large section of the Hurriyet is Shia and I am afraid I am not going to accept what is simply Indian propaganda.

    Lest I be accused of using Moneims devices I am intimately involved with the Kashmir valley and I think I speak with authority on the matter.

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

  125. Feroz Khan

    @ Due

    “India did not seek independence from the british”


    Thanks for enlightening me to the correct historic facts of the Indian independence movement.

    Does this, then, mean that the British sought independence from India and finally being granted one, they left India in 1947?

    It now makes sense why Lord Louis Mountbatten left India in such a hurry!

    (Due, there is no need to comment; I am just being sarastic).


  126. hayyer

    You cannot possibly have better connections to the Kashmir valley than I.
    Firmly held beliefs are sometimes an impediment to true understanding.
    The Ashura processions were banned by the state government, both during Farooq Abdullah’s term, that of Mufti Mohammad Sayeed and at least for one of GN Azads two year term. Anti India slogans are common enough in Kashmir for twenty years now. The administration is not intimidated by slogan shouting crowds.
    Shia Sunni differences are not an invention of the Indian government, or unique to Kashmir.

  127. @Feroz Khan

    As usual, you have got it wrong, you pettifogging P. It was Pakistan that sought independence, and India found herself whirled along in the slipstream. Everybody knows that!

    And none of that imported, Arabian-sounding sarastic, please. We don’t hold with these alien things; at least not after we stopped being alien ourselves. And that’s different; that was some real time ago, not the niminy-piminy little fourteen hundred or so years you imports have been around. Depending on what we’ve had for dinner, we stopped being aliens between 40,000 and 180,000 years ago. Believe it or don’t believe it, as you like. This is known to all of us, and you should just accept it, give up worshipping that Semitic construct that you worship, and stop fighting. The Borgs were originally members of the Sangh Parivar from Pune.

  128. YLH

    The existence of Shia Sunni differences does not mean you deny that Shias form a major section of the hyrriyet.

  129. no-communal

    “Don’t behave like a quisling of quislings.”

    Due, you are portraying a whole community with a single word. That’s inhuman and fascist. Indian Muslims are as proud/ashamed of India as anybody else. In the 60s/70s the Naxals killed many in Calcutta. Does that make Bengalis quislings? Maoist leaders (leaders, not the tribals) are Hindus. Does that make you, a Hindu, quisling?


    Having a few leaders from a community does not define a movement in India. BJP has Muslim leaders on the ground. Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, Shahnawaz Hussain etc. are prominent nationally. That does not change its motto of Hindutva. Abdullahs are sunni. That does not make the Kashmiri sunnis pro-India. The present movement is mostly sunni. A few Shia leaders here and there does not matter. Thankfully in India that kind of polarization hasn’t happened yet.

  130. Chote Miyan

    “Kashmiris are a brave people. ”

    And they are pretty intelligent too. That is why they have steadfastly refused to join Pakistan.
    By the way, you could do well to look at the composition of new recruits to the armed forces from the valley. A bulk of them are Shias.

    You can go on and on about legitimacy of Kashmiri Freedom movement, something that few deny in India as well. As a proud, nationalist Indian, I feel pained when I see teens fall to bullets. Unfortunately, no matter what the problem is, there is not going to be another redrawing of borders. We know how it will end up if we allow that. We can contend with one Amir-ul-Momineen or a Tariq-ibn-Zeyad, but not with two of three of such lunatics on our borders. So keep dreaming. In another 15 years, god willing, if we keep up with the pace of economic reforms, this storm is going to pass.

  131. Bin Ismail

    @ Vajra (September 26, 2010 at 7:43 pm)


  132. no-communal

    Chhote Miyan
    “You can go on and on about legitimacy of Kashmiri Freedom movement, something that few deny in India as well.”

    CM, I do not particularly see it as a freedom movement. It’s not to end economic exploitation (there’s none), not to achieve equality of status with the “occupier” (status is more for Kashmiries in Kashmir anyway) and not the result of a consensus in the population (Pandits killed and driven out, Shias lukewarm, and Sikhs opposed, so much for Kashmiriyat). It’s a movement for an independent or a Pakistan-aligned entity based on a very specific religious identity. Gujarat may want it one day to declare itself a Hindu country without having to worry about the constitution. That will not qualify as an independence movement.

    That’s not to say that I don’t “feel pained to see teens fall to bullets.” But the solution has to be somewhere else as you point out.

  133. Feroz Khan

    @ Vagra



  134. @????

    No, let’s not get formal and stiff, this is a blog comment, after all, and the weirdest, random morons in cyberspace bob up and call you mate, out of the blue; just call me ?????

  135. Majumdar

    Yasser Pai,

    I am intimately involved with the Kashmir valley and I think I speak with authority on the matter.

    What are you referring to? Your illustrious ancestor who reverted most of the Valley folks? Or is it something more sinister- dont tell me you are reviving the famous Al Furqan force???


  136. hayyer


    Though the census does not record figures the Shia are believed to be about 15% of the valley’s Muslims. They are concentrated in the immediate west and north of Srinagar city with some pockets in and around Srinagar. It is difficult to find the Shia in the southern areas of the valley.

    The Hurriyet is not a political party with membership from among the public. It is an agglomeration of separatist organizations and its proper designation is Kul Jamaat Hurriyet Conference. The Shia Jamaat of Abbas Ansari is one of many organizations that are members of the Hurriyet. I cannot quote you the complete list of members without referring to source documents.
    It is well into double figures.

    Since the Shia in Kashmir tend to subscribe to the political beliefs of their religious leaders Abbas Ansari’s relatively small group of Mureeds may be considered as supporters of the Hurriyet. If other Shia leaders were to join the Hurriyet their followers would, I dare say, follow them into the Hurriyet too, but that has not happened till now.

    Maulvi Iftekhar Hussain Ansari for example despite having suffered loss of image facing criminal charges in court over corruption continues to be pro Indian. He had the largest Shia following, sustained no doubt despite the criminal charges, by the belief of divine intervention. He has survived three attacks by pro Pakistani groups, providential undoubtedly, because the bombs killed people in his immediate vicinity, the last time even as the bomb went off in his car.

    In these circumstances it would be difficult to conclude that the majority of Shia are with the Hurriyet.

    Chhote Mian:

    I don’t know where you got the figure that most recruits to the army are Shia. Could you quote the source.


    A very large majority of Kashmiri Sunni Muslims want independence. Beyond that as a second best choice, my own estimate, based on my knowledge of Kashmir and Kashmiris over long years is that the number wanting to settle with India on the original terms of accession far exceeds the number wanting Pakistan.

    Too much should not be made of this Shia thing. Kashmiris are very insular people and this aspect of their character overrides every other sentiment. All Kashmiris, Sunni, Shia or Pandit would much rather that outsiders left them alone. Their bete noir was the Punjabi, and the Punjabi Muslim was the most disliked of all. This sentiment underwent a temporary eclipse after 1953 as dislike of ‘Indians’ germinated. Indian is however a relatively new concept for Kashmiris. They always knew the outside world as ‘Punjab’.

  137. YLH

    The point I have been making is that the Kashmir movement is not divided along sectarian lines and this just amounts to wishful thinking on the part of the Indian administration and its supporters.
    *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***

  138. no-communal


    Hayyer Sb,

    “A very large majority of Kashmiri Sunni Muslims want independence.”

    How about S. A. Geelani then? Has he not advocating merger with Pakistan? I know he demands self determination rights, but is he not simultaneously opposed to independence? How is his influence vis a vis the moderates?

    “Maulvi Iftekhar Hussain Ansari for example despite having suffered loss of image facing criminal charges in court over corruption continues to be pro Indian. He had the largest Shia following..”

    Why is he pro-Indian? Is it due to Pakistan being majority Sunni?

  139. hayyer

    I don’t know where or when the Indian administration made such a claim.
    But broadly speaking the Pandits and the Sikhs are opposed to the movement. The Gujjars and Shia probably indifferent at best if not hostile. Gujjars are of course not Kashmiris. They migrate out every winter to Jammu and even Punjab. The sectarian dimension in Kashmir is a creation not of the GOI but of the HM. Sunnis do form over 80% of the population of Kashmir and it is meaningless to discuss the movement in sectarian terms given that such a large majority supports it. The divisions however are a fact.
    The editor of an English daily in Srinagar once summarized it to me after long discussion as a movement of Kashmiri Sunnis.
    It did not start out that way, and it did not become that because of the manipulations of the Indian government.

  140. hayyer

    I agree though that the movement is not divided along sectarian lines. There are Shia in the Hurriyet.

  141. hayyer

    no communal:
    It is difficult to give a full run down of the intricacies of political thought in Kashmir in a post here but I shall try to cover the essential point about Gilani.

    SAS Geelani is one of the originals of the Kashmir Jamaat e Islami. The Kashmir JeI says that it is not part of the Indian JeI but it is identical in beliefs, organization and methodology. It stands for accession to Pakistan. Geelani says that he prefers that to independence but will settle for the latter if accession to Pakistan is not possible.
    Geelani has been expelled from the JeI because some years ago he stopped toeing the political line of the Jamaat which wanted compromise, believing that Kashmir had suffered enough.
    Geelani even opposed Musharrafs reconciliatory approach to India.
    For years Geelani sought sole leadership of the Hurriyet movement, a status that was denied to him by its other leaders. The bungling and bumbling Omar Abdullah managed to give him that status in July.
    Geelani has made a good living out of the movement. He is one of those with a vested interest in its continuing and he sets conditions for talks that he knows will never ever be agreed to. That suits him very well.
    The solution, not to the problem of Kashmir, which is a larger subject, but to the current agitation, has been staring GOI in the face. Not just staring, it is being shouted from the roof tops. GOI as a Congress creature though has its fingers firmly wedged in its ears.
    Geelani won election to the Legislative Assembly in 1972, 77 and 87. He lost in 83. The Congress Chief Minister Syed Mir Qasim brought him and the Jamaat into the mainstream in 1972 when they won 5 seats in the valley. When Mufti Sayeed was trying to unseat Sheikh Abdullah in 1977 (as the Congress withdrew support to the Sheikh after Indira’s defeat) Geelani had agreed to become a minister in the Mufti’s proposed Congress Cabinet of ministers.
    If an election were to be held without a compromise over Kashmir Geelani and his supporters would not win more than a handful of seats. The Hurriyet itself is not a serious political organization, but it is symbolic of the Kashmiri struggle.

  142. hayyer

    I should have added that Geelani’s HM was responsible for the killing of Mirwaiz Farooq father of the current Mirwaiz, in 199o May. Geelani is also accused by Sajjad Lone of having his father, Abdul Ghani Lone, another prominent leader heading the People’s Conference, killed by HM in 2002 because the latter had started negotiating with GOI.

  143. Modra

    Specially for YLH,

    An old news about a Kashmiri Shia para in the Indian army killed by Punjabi terrorists from across the border.

    Kashmiri Shia mourn India patriot

    By Altaf Hussain
    BBC News, Dub, Indian-administered Kashmir

    The funeral north of Srinagar in Indian-administered Kashmir was just like those of countless others who have died violently over the past 20 years.

    A Muslim killed in the insurgency was laid to rest in his ancestral graveyard in the village of Dub, north of Srinagar, on Tuesday, surrounded by thousands of mourners.

    What made the ceremony unusual was that this was no militant who had died fighting the Indian army.

    This was a Kashmiri who served with the Indian army and died fighting the militants.

    Shabir Ahmed Malik was among eight Indian soldiers killed in a gun battle earlier this week with separatist militants in Kupwara.


    Over the past two decades, hundreds of Kashmiris have died while fighting for India.

    Among them are police officials and Ikhwanis, or “renegade” militants who have been persuaded or coerced – depending on who you believe – to abandon militancy and instead work for the Indian security forces. Most Ikhwanis were or are pariahs.

    But Shabir, 21, joined the Indian army after passing his 12th class examination. He studied at the Sainik (army) School at Ganderbal.

    Shabir’s family and neighbours are proud of his army service.

    “He has become a hero. He died an honourable death. I am so happy, although I am also pained at his separation,” says Mohammad Yasin, a neighbour and friend of the dead man.

    Mr Yasin says he still regrets not being able to join the Indian army with Shabir.

    “I too went with him that day. But only three boys were selected. I was not taken because I was over age. I still feel so bad about it.

    “Even now, I have a passionate desire to do something for my country like Shabir has done.”

    Mr Yasin says that the moving send-off given to Shabir has inspired many more youths in the village to join the army.


    “I am 28,” says Showkat Ahmed. “I have never in my life seen such a funeral. Such death is pride-worthy.”

    Such well-attended funerals are usually the preserve of militants killed by Indian troops.

    Shabir’s body was kept outside the “imambara” (Shia place of worship) and the villagers mourned beside it.

    They beat their chests but unlike at the funerals of militants there was no slogan shouting.

    The fact the villagers are minority Shia may in part explain their pro-India loyalties. Kashmir’s insurgency over the past two decades has mostly been waged by Sunni militants.

    Part of the Shia community has stayed away from the separatist campaign, although some leaders of the separatist movement do belong to the Shias.

    The coffin was draped in India’s tricolour before it was carried to the graveyard.

    Shabir’s brother, Ghiulam Mohammad, says: “I wanted him to become a doctor. But he had a passion for joining the army and was determined to complete his graduation so he could become an army officer.

    “He was patriotic from his childhood. He wanted to do something for his country. His ambition has been fulfilled.”

    The villagers have been sharing the family’s grief as well as its pride in what Shabir fought for.

    “Every family here is bereaved. Every family is mourning,” one villager said.

  144. YLH

    That doesn’t prove anything. There are Sunnis and Shias on both sides. My point is quite clear.

    Is Omar Abdullah Shia? He is a Sunni. Was his illustrious grandfather Shaikh Abdullah – the most potent symbol of pro-India sentiment in Kashmir- a Shia? No. He was a very religious Sunni. Omar and Farooq (Abdullah) are NOT shia names. Should we say then that all Sunnis are pro-India? No. Not any more than Mir Waiz Omar Farooq’s leadership means that Kashmir struggle is exclusively Sunni. On both sides you’ll find – inevitably- more Sunnis … Ghulam Nabi Azad, Mehbooba Mufti etc are all Sunnis. It is because Sunnis outnumber Shias in Kashmir… but the division in Kashmiri Muslims is along pro-India and anti-India lines… with a great majority of Sunnis and Shias favoring the anti-India sentiment.

    The point is that no such division exists … I have no doubt that once Kashmir is independent Shias and Sunnis will resort to killing each other… but right now they are united in their struggle for independence.

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

  145. YLH

    Ironically …the biggest showboy of this “Indian patriotism” was a Sunni Muslim aka Azad…and the biggest “devil” in Indian mythology is a Shia Muslim aka Jinnah.
    *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***

  146. Modra

    Jinnah will be eventually recognized as an Indian patriot, an Indian tragic hero who lost his soul in a futile brinkmanship…. ironically by BJP, the baddest fascist “devil worshipers” in Pakistani mythology.

  147. YLH

    That is not the point.

  148. Modra

    Don’t worry when sunni wahabism reaches fever pitch in Kashmir everyone will start seeing the light, maybe even sooner than you lot across the border.

  149. hayyer

    One can believe what one wants to believe. I was only discussing the question of whether Shias are allied with Sunnis over Kashmirs future. By and large they are not. And this is not an Indian trick.
    The Abdullahs are Sunnis of course as is Mufti Sayeed as is Azad and another wannabe, Saiffudin Soz. That says nothing. There is a Kashmiri Sunni General in the Indian army.

  150. YLH

    I have very good reasons to believe otherwise.

  151. YLH

    The number of Hindus and Sikhs killed in 1947 is much smaller than the number of Muslims killed in 1947 by Hindus and Sikhs in India. But then fascists like you never could be honest.
    *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***

  152. lal

    “”I have no doubt that once Kashmir is independent Shias and Sunnis will resort to killing each other…””


  153. YLH

    More nonsense by a total and complete idiot who is incapable of telling the truth ie Due.

    Due mian… Refer to my earlier post addressed to Hindu fascists like you. Meanwhile don’t post anymore because crooks like you are no longer welcome.

  154. @YLH

    That action was overdue, to coin a phrase.

    What took you so long?

  155. due

    ylh behaves on the PTH like the spoilt wayward son of some feudal pakistani landlord or Lt. General of the pakistani army, whom no one dares to tell the truth about his tantrums.

    He uses filthy language and accuses those who do not agree with him of being crooks and what not.

    How can a liberal forum tolerate that and instead edit my posts?

  156. T.S. Bokhari


    Very interesting discussion going on! Cannot be finished in one go or left unread. It would be convenient if the interacts are marked with numbers like they do in or still better if each interact is also given an option for reply under it like beenasarwar’s blog to enable the reader to mark the interacts read or replied to.


  157. @due

    Because you are a poison-spewing bigot with no merit in a single statement, and a sick mind, and he is none of these.

    Now f*** o**. Please. Or keep getting deleted. Whatever. It will have the same effect on discerning minds.

  158. Bin Ismail

    @due (September 28, 2010 at 12:14 pm)

    “…..How can a liberal forum…..edit my posts?…..”

    “Iss saadgi peh kon na mar ja’ey aye Khuda”[Ghalib]

    [For such innocence, who would not want to die ?]