Why Do We Reject Our Past?

#188, Yes, and they went right from the Airport on Drigh Road directly to Ratan Talao to take over the Hindus` belongings. Is that why they had to build all those new colonies out in the desert because they didn`t have any of those nice yellow colored buildings and quarters?

Salim#187:

Salim saheb, Mohajirs started landing in Karachi even before Pakistan was formed, starting with the new messiah, Mohammad Ali Jinnah.

#186, DM Sahib, {``it was hard not to partake in maal-e-ghaneemat back then ...``}

DM Sahib,
Let`s be logical. Do you think that the maal-e-ghaneemat would have waited for the Mohajirs to arrive all the way from Gorakhpur? Don`t you think that the ``Pisser-e-Zameen`` would have long taken the loot with both hands? Just think about it.

Salim:

``I am not aware of Urdu-speaking Mohajirs participating in any massacres, looting, killing, and rapes of Sindhi Hindus. Please check your facts, sir. Thanks.``

I did not say that they participated in massacres (as far looting, they may have dipped their hands in behti ganga; it was hard not to partake in maal-e-ghaneemat back then). I do not know the facts but their role then might have been akin to that of the hindus in E. Punjab who did not kill themselves but were not behind any other group in the bloodlust, most of the killing in E. Panjab was done by Sikhs.

#184, Jang, {``its nothing to do with war, it means big or rusty. ``}

LOL :)

Jang,
Don`t be too harsh on this niswar-chewing violent ``pisser-e-zameen.`` He is not civilized like the ones we have in UP in Rohilkhand (Rampur, Bareilly, Shahjahanpur), Badayun, or even Malihabad. He is not even intelligent like the Bhopali ones like A. Q. Khan. No, not even Aamir Khan and Salman Khan.

#181 abe jang is my real name, not just a nick. its nothing to do with war, it means big or rusty.

needless to say that your answer was very unsatisfactory. you professed a wholesale hatred for hindus and are giving a very confused reasoning. for such a strong hatred, i would think an easy to articulate reason would exist, and i suspect it does, but either its not apparent to you or you are not saying it deliberately.

Manto mian
You can be happy in your dream world. It won`t impact me. Feroz K, and HP proved all your theories wrong and you are still dancing a victory dance. How dumb you can be? Your students stripped you naked on chowk, and you are talking of me making strawman. Your tantrums with Kabuli were on chowk for all to see and you believe that no one will know.

Earlier it used to be ``have to read for exams``, than it became ``mummy``, and now it is ``high court``. You were kicked out of school, than from news paper, and soon you be our of that clerical job at high court. Mark my words.

#180, Dost Mittar {``Salim, ...They lost the pristine Urdu in India for a ``Punjabised`` Urdu in Pakistan. Gosh, even I, a Punjabi, am amazed at the Urdu accent of the sons of Lukhnavis in Pakistan.
But it is also true, I believe, that there were no riots in Sindh until the Mohajirs arrived there. ``}

DM Sahib,
The brutal massacre of Urdu is not the only bloodshed suffered by Mohajirs at the hands of Pakistani Punjabis. I agree with your perception that many Mohajirs sound just like the people they rag on - just look at Mushy`s accent and Shaukat`s is almost as bad.

As for riots in Sindh, this is news to me. I am not aware of Urdu-speaking Mohajirs participating in any massacres, looting, killing, and rapes of Sindhi Hindus. Please check your facts, sir. Thanks.

Jang at 172:

Thinking Indian is also tribal and primitive. Start opening up a little. For a start,, change your Chowk name to ‘Aman’ or ‘Shanti’.

;-)

Salim:

I think that the Mohajirs as a group are probably the worst affected people by the partition; they lost one country without gaining another. They are still ``mohajirs`` in Pakistan and in India they are frequently called ``Pakistani``. They lost the pristine Urdu in India for a ``Punjabised`` Urdu in Pakistan. Gosh, even I, a Punjabi, am amazed at the Urdu accent of the sons of Lukhnavis in Pakistan.

But it is also true, I believe, that there were no riots in Sindh until the Mohajirs arrived there.

Dost Mittar #166 ... Interestingly, I met a couple of Pakistani Hindus from Peshawar in India. They were full of praise for their city and its people, even those who are sympathetic to Taleban. OTOH, I also met a few Sindhi Hindus who talked about how difficult life is for them in Pakistan (I should add here that they complained more about the Mohajirs than their Sindhi brethren). ``}

DM Sahib,
Do you have any indication or proof of massacres, rapes, burnings, mutilations, or looting of Hindus perpetrated by Urdu-speaking Mohajirs?

Have you met any Hindus or Sikhs from West Punjab? Perhaps they can share their experiences from 1947 and how they feel about their treatment at the hands of Pakistani Punjabis. Thanks.

Dear Abdullah

Thanks for your very interesting article. While I applaud your sentiments i think that your argument is inherently flawed in one major respect. You are correct when you argue that History as it is taught is flawed and denys the subcontinents influence in the creation of the pakistani identity and yet you believe that you can reconcile it with the creation of pakistan.

I would argue that the creation of Pakistan necessiated the production of a history to justify its existence. All nation states do that; national anthems, symbols, poets et al are all part of a process where a cultural heritage is produced and valorised. Denying ``Indic`` civilisation is a part and parcel of the two nation theory. One cannot be without the other.

Btw, Indians do not see the taj as a product of their Islamic heritage but of what is called INDO-ISLAMIC heritage. The Lodi Tomb, the Taj and other monuments reflect the development of a design form that was unique to the subcontinent. A design form that was rooted in composite culture.

Aditya

Dear Abdullah

Thanks for your very interesting article. While I applaud your sentiments i think that your argument is inherently flawed in one major respect. You are correct when you argue that History as it is taught is flawed and denys the subcontinents influence in the creation of the pakistani identity and yet you believe that you can reconcile it with the creation of pakistan.

I would argue that the creation of Pakistan necessiated the production of a history to justify its existence. All nation states do that; national anthems, symbols, poets et al are all part of a process where a cultural heritage is produced and valorised. Denying ``Indic`` civilisation is a part and parcel of the two nation theory. One cannot be without the other.

Btw, Indians do not see the taj as a product of their Islamic heritage but of what is called INDO-ISLAMIC heritage. The Lodi Tomb, the Taj and other monuments reflect the development of a design form that was unique to the subcontinent. A design form that was rooted in composite culture.

Aditya

Re: # 175

I agree Ballu bhai. Ahmedzai sahab (#171), you have got it completely wrong. I can`t say about such mindsets in Pakistan, but in India this just doesnt work. The Indian Muslim mind does not subscribe to such straitjackets. In fact it is absurd to say the least. I have said this earlier too and I repeat, the Ummah is a myth. Some people try to legitimise the existence of such a community but the fact is that a grouping like the Ummah is just not possible.

``He / she thinks in terms of religion Islam versus the opponent (Muslim mind immediately converts Indian opposition into Hindu opposition, American and western forces into Crusaders, Soviets into infidels, etc.) . There is a difference in mindset. ``

No need to repeat your official propaganda on this site. You display a typical madarassa educated mindset which a large part of educated muslims in this part of sub-continent do not share............that is the difference between the people across the border........you are by default communal.......whereas IM-s are by and large secular................

Dear Friend sahab,

Thank you for your kind but in my view wholly inaccurate observations and misplaced advice.

For one thing several chowkies have been trying to unravel my arguments for over 6 years and so far I don`t believe it has happened. Why? Because my arguments are based on fact and also because you don`t show any real effort to understand the nuances that exist. For one thing - when you brought up the HP/Ferozk issue on the Savail board, HP slapped you silly by showing you that you had misunderstood what he was trying to say. Infact, both those gentlemen take what is commonly known as the Ayesha Jalal view of partition which I have forwarded for 5 years.

But perhaps deliberately or out of some genuine reading disability - you fail to understand plain English- for example when the Mughal Empire bit was H V Hodson`s analysis not mine nor did I say I particularly agreed with it - it was quoted because Ferozk had spoken of a psychological Mughal imprint... when I said ``accident`` I said very clearly just like every nation state is ultimately an accident of history... but you and your proxy mohar11 chose to interpret it in terms most easily comprehensible to you. That is your prerogative.

Now as far as your claim that ``my students exposed me``. As far as I can recall the person claiming to be my student said that I was not a real Muslim because I said Namaz could be said in English and that Eid was not an important festival. Pray tell what that exposes- when I have always stood by this view? Also, I am not sure which ``NJ Friend`` exposed me - but we could revisit the issue if you were to produce this particular post? But what does your desperate post prove? Quite the opposite of what you claim, you seem quite ruffled and unravelled... which is why you are clutching at straws and strawmen. I sympathise with your state of mind. I would have penned a more detailed response in order to ameliorate your suffering, but I have several cases pending in the High Court and various adminstrative tribunals.

Regards,

-YLH