The Death of a Nawab

Re: # 247

Manto,

Let me begin with an ode to Zeehadi. He`s a time-pass jerk on Chowk.

Now:

>>>>>1. If I quote Romila Thapar, Sumit Sarkar, H M Seervai, Irfan Habib and other Indian scholars it is ``official history`` by a ``Paki`` and ``poison``... but if Sadna allegedly quotes Romila Thapar or Bipin Chandra which she doesn`t for the record... then it is an evidence of how academic she is. The point was that Sadna has never quoted them as you claimed she did ... you were caught red handed. Nor has Sadna claimed these fine people as her inspiration. One can certainly see the obvious differences between Sumit Sarkar`s honest extrapolations and Sadna`s nationalist distortions. <<<<<

The arguments are between her and you. I read the recent ones and I found some new insights. She has not distorted in the recent posts I saw.

>>>2. On the question of South Asian v. Indian.. I`ve already said that I am more interested in the facts and not labelling. A rose is a rose by any name. Frankly I have no problem calling South Asian History, Indian history... like I said, it owes its name to our main river. Infact... India should have been the copyright for Pakistan ... but that is another controversial issue which is best left aside. <<<

You said it all. Thanks.

>>>3. So you don`t see the bigotry in your claim that Mantolives is bad because he is a Pakistani- that all Pakistanis are bad? <<<<

Dont put words into my mouth.

>>>>4. Asoka`s Empire ranged from Kabul to Burma and included Sri Lanka. Here you`ve contradicted yourself again. So by the same token you should be calling the History of Afghanistan ``Indian History`` as well- no? Either that or you accept that by your logic Indian History pertains to British India, which then can logically be said to be a British conception.<<<<

I have not said that Asokan empire extended to Lanka and Burma. Indian history is the history of Indian subcontinent.

We do read that Indus Valley civilisation as ours...but no more it`s ours but still we consider it as our own. India was a unit during various phases of ancient, medieval times. It was an extended unit (with Burma & Lanka as part of British India for some time) under British. If you look at Muslim countries theoretically as one unit then Indian culture and influence extended upto Bali due to the the expeditions of south Indian kings. In fact Sanskrit was the official language of Brunie b4 it became an Islamic kingdom. Indian influence was far and wide but as a unit - with some variations - is what it was under British.

>>>>5. You write: ``Did I burn Garham Staines? It was an RSS criminal and he`s in jail now. BTW, who started the fire in Gujarat? The events in Gujarat are interlinked and dont look a few incidents in isolation``

Excuse me.. your claim was that since you were an Indian, you were tolerant to all faiths. Now are you suggesting that those who burnt Graham Staines were not Indians. Similarly assuming that it was the ``Muslims`` who started the fire in Gujurat... are Muslims, by virtue of being Muslims, not Indian or Indian citizens. Or is it that great definition of a ``great soul`` that in order to be a true Indian you have to be a Hindu? <<<<


Every country had criminals and hard-core criminals, terorists et al. How can I deny that even Dawood Ibrahim was an Indian? This line of arguments displays your childishness or lack of elemantary understanding of national identity. You started the argument with a slant that it was Hindu Vs others. So I gave you a clue about a possible counter-argument from that angle. If you like it or not the town of Godhra has 42% Muslims and some of them are ISI`s paid-agents. Some are true Indians by heart.

Further extrapolation is your petty argument.....I leave it as your weakness to pursue this line. Being an Indian is an Indian. For bigots like you it boils down to religion.

>>>>I am afraid you`d have to come up with better answers my friend. By the way, I am very interested in knowing the cause of your aversion to Hindi and Urdu... since even in your preferred language, you seem quite hardpressed to understand simple things. <<<

I dont know what Jhagra means....You need schooling outside Pakistan, may in the US to know the basic things....

Lastly, I admire your ability to cling on to Pakistan despite the people like Zeemax & others calling you a non-Muslim and other spitting on your face.... Pakistan is lucky to have people like you. I mean it.

Cants reply for a week.

Tata..bye bye..

zeemax #242- By PML, I mean all seven or eight versions of PML (Q,N,S,J,C etc.)........Basically PML and PPP are one and the same..........their members regularly change loyalties.........as an example, from Jhang, Abida Husain was PPP, then joined PML(N), then broke off into PML(Q) as a founding member and supporter of Musharraf......Her nephew (?) and competition, Faisal Saleh, was the number four in PPP (after BB, Leghari and Sherpao)........He then became no. 2, after Leghari and Sherpao defected.......Faisal, as a PPP canadidate, beat Abida.......Faisal was forced to leave PPP and join PML(Q), by Musharraf.........Now Abida has left PML(Q) and joined PPP, since she could not win.......She is now a staunch opposer of Musharraf and PML(Q) - a group she herself founded! In addition, Yusuf Raza (previous no. 5 in PPP) is now no. 2 in PPP, alongwith Amin Fahim, since all the others have defected.........He has been in jail for five and half years, since he refused to defect........Ironically, Musharraf jailed him, through NAB, on very controversial cases, which were originally drafted by Abida Husain, when she was in PML(N)! Abida is now a subordinate of Yusuf in PPP!

Interestingly, Yusuf Raza`s whole family are the die-hards of PML, from 1947 days till today! He started his career from PML and then left PML to join PPP in the 90s. The rest of his family is still in PML!

So, PPP/PML are the feudals. In addition, they also have a lot of Pirs and their families as their members. Individuals like Faisal Saleh, Yusuf Raza, Amin Fahim, Pir Pogaro etc. are, according to their families descendants of pirs and are worshipped in their constituencies.......In addition, this group has commonalities with tribal sardars like Legharis, Bugti, Marri, etc. who are landowner tribals (though not pirs).........then there are the normal feudals like Benazir who are not pirs or tribal leaders, however someone in their family was more dynamic politically and they became the chief of feudals politically.........

The above group, as a whole, covers the secular and center of Pakistani politics............They have recruited amongst them saavy urbanites like Aitezaz Ahsan, Raja Zafar, and some student leaders etc. But those guys don`t have much influence........The Sharif family runs PML, but they were placed their by Zia.......Otherwise the main historical powerhouse in PML is Pir Pogaro.........

A friend of mine was publishing a book, and he asked me to assist him as a ghostwriter. So I actually had a chance to discuss these things with some of these individuals, personally..........

The one conclusion I made was that all of the above are sh//t scared of two things: Army and America..........And I mean really scared.........I was totally surprised.......These politicians actually have limited power. They are not the all powerful badmaash politician that I thought they would be. The average MNA can get kicked around by an Army ISI Colonel. Some of them have been beaten up in cells by Majors......Even when in power, they had so many stories of how every decision had to pass through the COAS or Corps Commanders..........To give you an idea, the whole PML(Q) was created by one of Musharraf`s serving Maj. Generals! And the whole NAB (the current parallel judiciary of Pakistan) is run by a serving Lt. Gen. He can and does put any of them in jail and takes them out when he wants..........as per Musharraf`s discretion.........

The Army has played these groups one against the other..........They, themselves, are generally massively corrupt and thus couldn`t offer much resistance............The one huge advantage the Army has is that its leadership (retired and serving) is internally very loyal and cohesive.......So even if it does something wrong, everyone sticks with each other........They never send each other to jail..............While the politicians are always sending each other to jail and trying to get each other to defect..........The Army has used this weakness against them, again and again............

While I always knew the Army was dominant, I never realized how dominant it was in politics. As well as how intimidated all political leaders are of the Army.............even when the Army is not in power.............

#239 by zeemax

That is why these monkeys yearn to get back their lost real appearance and try to look like the tail-less-red-assed macacas they are ...

Pakis are a lucky lot. They don`t even have to try, they look the part.

Re: # 243

Harish,

Why dont you reply these dudes with Musharraf photo - who looks like an uncle of a monkey? It`s difficult to distinguish between a monkey and Musharraf.

BTW, the guy being carried is a border guard, not our army jawan. Indian army jawans evoke awe. These border guard killings happened on both sides. BTW, It`s the Indian army that gave them Bangladesh. It doesn`t need a day to defeat Bangladesh by Indian army.

IT NEEDS THE GREEN SIGNAL OF SARDAR MANMOHAN FOR THE INDIAN ARMY TO CREATE BALOCHISTAN, MUCH LIKE WHAT HAPPENED IN BANGLADESH. CONVERSELY THEY CANT LIBERATE KASHMIR FROM INDIA. Though an LoC, India fenced it. They cudnt do a shit about it...coward Punjabi army of Pakistan. India is constructing a dam on Indus...they cant do another shit....what they can do is hit and run type terrorist tactics by proxy...they dont gave guts to face war with Indian army. They were beaten to pulp thrice....

(If you want good photos of how Bengalis kicked the arses of these guys pl Google it. You have lots of those photos on the Net).

VRV

#241 by bulleya

Good analysis. Thanks. But you haven`t mentioned PML (N) as to where it falls in the three pillars of political leadership i.e. military, feudals and maulvis?

Appreciate a clarification. Or is PML (N) a fourth pillar?

People seem to be having a tough time deciding whether the killing of Bugti by Musharraf is good or bad. That, in itself, highlights the biggest tragedy of Pakistan – a crisis of leadership. It is hard to find any country, outside Africa, that has traditionally had poorer leaders than Pakistan. Barring Jinnah (and maybe Liaqut), the rest were far more harmful to Pakistan, than helpful. I was able to get a close look at the current leadership in the past six months, and am extremely disappointed at what I saw and whom I met……….

There are three pillars of political leadership in Pakistan at the moment – military, feudals and maulvis. All three are extremely harmful to the social fabric of Pakistan. Maulvis dominate the religious sphere. Feudals/tribals dominate the secular (or less religious) sphere. And the army dominates the gap in between, switching from one to the other, depending on the beliefs of its COAS. Economically, feudals represent the rich, maulvis the poor, and the army the middle class.

Ethnic groups like ANP and MQM etc. have influence also, but only in a limited geographic area………

Anyone who has any kind of hopes from any of the three leaderships in Pakistan is going to be hugely disappointed. I am now more sure of it than ever before, having met and seen up close quite a few of the military and feudal leaders in my last trip (didn’t get a chance to see too many of the maulvis). The details are too long to describe here, but I got my information from various horses’ mouths. It is in fact the removal of all three of these leaderships from the political fabric of Pakistan that is the solution. Not the dominance of one over the other.

So basically, military, PPP, PML, MMA all have to go. And some fourth force has to emerge. However, it is the previous three groups that are the all and all of Pakistani politics. They have successfully kicked each other out. But who (and how) are they all going to be kicked out. I don’t see anything on the horizon that can do so……….

It is within this context, in my opinion, the death of Bugti has to be analysed. He was one of the most important political figures of Pakistan, since its birth. He had held every powerful elected position, in the country, other than Prime Minister and President. He controlled the politics of one whole province. These aren’t small things. Like him or hate him, he was an extremely important part of the political set-up of Pakistan.

It isn’t everyday a person of such political importance is killed by its own military, in any country. Musharraf is an unelected military dictator, who has now greatly overstayed his welcome. One could make a good argument that he was welcomed for three years (as I did). But I am quite convinced that he is now a liability to Pakistan. Unfortunately to hang on to power (perhaps sincerely), he has made every compromise in the book. The military has now completely institutionalized corruption and is running Pakistan openly as its own fiefdom. Recently an ISI major kidnapped a retired Brigadier who was one of Pakistan’s biggest war heroes, along with his family, over a personal dispute. If this Brigadier isn’t secure, imagine how insecure everyone else is.

In addition, Musharraf’s leadership is now more beholden, and drives its strength from the USA than from the views of the people of Pakistan, at the moment……..

Musharraf controls the executive. He has set up his own judiciary called NAB. It is through NAB that he has set-up the legislature. In fact, it was a serving Maj. General who designed the PML(Q). Many, if not most, of its PML(Q) are scoundrels who were threatened of jail, if they did not switch parties. As were its PPP and MQM members. The second most corrupt family in Pakistan, the Chaudhry’s is the political head of Musharraf’s. Ex-PPP walas like Faisal Saleh Hayat, Sherpao (no. 3 and 2 of PPP behind Benazir) switched parties, to get NAB cases dropped. Altaf Hussain is wanted for murder, as is the current governor of Sind. However, they are now important parts of the govt. Musharraff dropped all cases against anyone who supported him……..

On the other hand there are individuals in jail, who refused to support him. Javed Hashmi of PML has been in jail for around two to three years. Yusuf Raza (current no. 2 of PPP, after the defection of Faisal and Sherpao) has been in jail for over five years! All on NAB cases, which are not being allowed to be heard by higher courts. At the same time, a convicted man like Admiral Mansoor was never sent to jail……..Nor have the Chaudhries been to jail, who have much larger cases against them.

So, in this scheme where does Bugti fit in. Did he do anything more grandly corrupt than the Army or the politicians in the assembly? Basically, an unelected leader has killed an often elected leader. Bugti was fighting an unelected leader, both militarily and politically. At the age of 82, he led a militant struggle for his people of Baluchistan, from its hills and died. Talk about dying with your boots on! Sounds like the stuff of epics……..

However, a closer look reveals something else. Though I haven’t met Bugti, his reputation seems to be of a person who was in it for himself, and not for his people. Baluchistan being the most backward area in the world. Not only in South Asia but in the whole world. It has the lowest female literacy at 3.1% in the world. And one of the lowest male literacy rates. While it has some of the most powerful tribal leaders. The ideal definition of leaders keeping their populations backwards, while themselves prospering. The Legharis (also Baluchis, though geographically in Punjab) are another good example of this. Leghari being the ex-President of Pakistan. Makhdooms of PPP etc. are another good example………Benazir also falls into this group………

So whose side should one take. Bugti’s or the Army’s. Had Bugti killed Musharraf, the argument would have been the same………..This is the dilemma and the tragedy. And this is why Pakistan is not going to progress. There are no good powerful guys, when it comes to political leadership (and it has nothing to do with religion or secularism as is naively and unstoppably debated on this site)……….I am now surer of it than ever before in my life……..

Har shaakh pae uloo baitha hae
Anjam-e-gulistaan kiya ho ga……….

Re: # 241
Umair, interesting analysis..
If you think back for a minute why Musharraf staged the coup, his job was in danger. It was not a selfless act of saving the country. It was to save his career and possibly his life. Viewed in this context, anyone threatening his hold on power leave alone his life, is liable to be punished and that`s hardly surprising.
While a representative government, popularly elected, is not an answer to all ills, it does have the effect of distributing power a little more broadly and mollifying various competing interests.
I am privy to some of the ugliness in the so-called democracy we have in india. We do have representative governments at the local, regional and national levels, but what we don`t have is a strict rule of law, something the white man has managed to invent, improve and instill. In india we have thugs, murderers and generally unsavory characters for politicians and so long as they are in charge rule of law is not possible. It is the desire for rule of law that brings in military rule as the military is seen as strict disciplinarians, enforcers and intolerant of civilian misdeeds but the military, as you have been finding out, has its own set of problems.

Miss sadna,

I suppose the following post refers to my `challenge`. But do appreciate I cannot wait around for you to post something so I can acknowledge it.

#190 by sadna
I was challenged on one of my points in #113 that the Waziristan rebellion undermines the writ of the Pakistani state more fundamentally and dangerously than Nawab Bugti ever did and so Musharraf`s personal enmity with Bugti is the key factor in his killing not any purported threat from Bugti to the writ of the state.I have replied comprehensively to that challenge and the fact that posters are too dishonest to acknowledge that is not my problem.

Now how does this post defend your comparison of Waziristan and Baluchistan?

You know by now that the Pak Government has NO writ over Waziristan, so it is free to choose any kind of governance it wants. They have already chosen Taliban.

Pakistan`s military involvement in FATA was only for war-on-terror purposes by using the disputed Frontier Crimes Regulation act which is unconstitutional and has been challenged in courts, and NOT to prevent them from forming any particular type of Government. The political agents are appointed there to protect the Government`s interests and keep cordial relations with the Maliks and nothing further than that.

If the Pak Government wants to prevent anything from happening in FATA which undermines its position, it has only two options i.e. negotiate through political agents, or throw out the constitution and invade FATA. It is so far following the former course.

On the other hand Baluchistan`s case is an insurgency. I hope the distinction is clear.

In fact, what you state is not dissimilar to stating that California and Puerto Rico are the same thing.

#178 by ahmer23

You really need makeup to make you all uglier? hasn`t God already done enough as it is?

No Ahmer, God hasn`t done enough. That is why these monkeys yearn to get back their lost real appearance and try to look like the tail-less-red-assed macacas they are ...

#236 by zeemax

What a beyghairat bhadwa ......

Aray Zee bhai, what happened? Why is your tail on fire? After all, stuka hasn`t been half as abusive as you were on the other board where you were talking about godot and hamidm2`s daughters and other female family members. Take a chill pill.

#235 by zeemax

Only goes to show that you Pakis are even more cowardly than these bunch of Bengalis..after all no self-respecting Army would run like cowards and leave its dead men to rot..

Is that Amjad Khan`s pic on stuka`s profile?

What a beyghairat bhadwa ......

Nothing beats THIS .....

Aaah .. this wild boar will make nice roasted lunch for some B`Deshis (Or is it Nagas?)

164 by VRV on August 30, 2006 7:49am PT
Re: # 159

``Manto,``

VRV

``I`d like to spar with you as well but I am in the middle of some assignments (Uni) now. Let me be brief, though. ``

Sadly that is always your excuse. However... no one here has time to kill per se. So this is hardly an excuse.


``1. Accuation that I being a bigot. This has no basis.``

Really- all that time ... Mantolives is bad because he is a Paki. Paki this Paki that ... Pakis evil evil evil. Don`t you remember your own posts buddy? It is never Manto is bad because he is Manto... he is bad because he is a Pakistani. And then... don`t let me start on how you tried to color the whole thing anti-Indian

``2. History of India and Pakistan is not the history of South Asia (u need Burma, Afghanistan added to SAARC countries). BTW, there is no coomon history for all. ``

India under the Mughal Empire extended to Kabul as well.. why is Afghanistan not Indian history.

``3. South Asia do not have a common history but British India do i.e India+Pak+Bangla.``

So you are saying that Pre-1947 India`s unity was only a British conception. No jhagra there dude.

``4. You keep saying that Pakistan was created for South Asian muslims. NOPE. It was for Indian Muslims. Indian Muslims meant, muslims from Bihar, UP or Bengal & other provinces PLUS Muslims in Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan & NWFP as well. If u say about South Aisna Muslims, then that`s a lie. That rounds up the subject. ``

There was no subject. I have no objections to calling this Indian History... besides the name India comes from Indus... Bharat hardly has a claim on it. My use of the word South Asia or the Subcontinent is merely to avoid confusion that we are not talking of post 1947 India.

``5. I am intolenet as a person is a percetion, not a reality. Being born and brought up as an Indian makes me tolerant towards other faiths. ``

Your tolerance is there in your posts. Besides could you tell me why if being an Indian means tolerance .. was say Graham Staines burnt alive for being Catholic or so many Muslims burnt alive in Gujurat. Such ridiculous comments with no roots in reality should be avoided.


``All other soap you added need no reply. I would join you after 3 weeks. Sorry if I cudn`t do it more now. Have a nice time. ``


``I am really proud of this gal.``

Well she is an auntee not a gal... but ok. Good for you.

``She`s giving you good repartees with good historical quotes & backing. Her understanding is bolstered by the works of Bipin Chandra, RS Sharma, Romila Thapar, Sumit Sarkar, I guess (the way she approaches the subject makes me think like that). She is a gem. Harish gives you masala replies at a different plane but Sadna`s replies are academic.``

Ha ha ... you`ve just burst your own bubble... While Sadna quotes a lot of stuff (which almost never backs up her assertions which is why all quotes are really obfuscation and nothing else)... she has to the best of my knowledge never quoted Bipin Chandra, Romila Thapar or Sumit Sarkar and I have followed most of her posts.

What she quotes (or should I say misquotes but that is a matter of perspective) have been Transfer of Power Papers and other primary sources to extrapolate her own point of view.... the other people she has quoted in the past Durga Das, Ayesha Jalal, Wali Khan and Stanley Wolpert... with the exception of Wali Khan, who for obvious reasons was partisan and against Muslim League, she disagrees with the ``extrapolations`` of all the rest
by her own admission.

The point is that YOU`VE just proved that YOU`VE never READ a single one of Sadna`s posts... and you were being clever by half by naming a few liberal Indian scholars... who ironically, I have quoted more than Sadna has.

Re: # 234

Manto,

I cant flinch. Let me reply:

>>>>Sadly that is always your excuse. However... no one here has time to kill per se. So this is hardly an excuse. <<<<<

Here I am.

>>>Really- all that time ... Mantolives is bad because he is a Paki. Paki this Paki that ... Pakis evil evil evil. Don`t you remember your own posts buddy? It is never Manto is bad because he is Manto... he is bad because he is a Pakistani. And then... don`t let me start on how you tried to color the whole thing anti-Indian <<<<

Your posts and my posts are contextual. Even Pakistanis use this word Paki. Why it sounds like an abuse, I dont understand. You must be proud to be called a Paki. After all this is what you fought for. Paki means pure, means a Muslim, thats what you called yourselves. Becoz of the guilty feelings of some guys here I desisted from using this, but after watching even Pakistanis using this, I find it no more objectionable. Nevertheless my use of this word is very minimal.

>>>>India under the Mughal Empire extended to Kabul as well.. why is Afghanistan not Indian history.<<<<

When you write about freedom struggle, it doesn`t include Afghanistan. If you insist, what about Sri Lanka and Burma?

>>>So you are saying that Pre-1947 India`s unity was only a British conception. No jhagra there dude. <<<

I cant answer some points with Hindi/Urdu. Pl give it in English. India was one unit even during Asoka`s time.

>>>>>There was no subject. I have no objections to calling this Indian History... besides the name India comes from Indus... Bharat hardly has a claim on it. My use of the word South Asia or the Subcontinent is merely to avoid confusion that we are not talking of post 1947 India. <<<<

Confusion is in your mind. BTW you guys avoid this word India as far as possible. It`s a well known fact.

>>>>>Your tolerance is there in your posts. Besides could you tell me why if being an Indian means tolerance .. was say Graham Staines burnt alive for being Catholic or so many Muslims burnt alive in Gujurat. Such ridiculous comments with no roots in reality should be avoided. <<<<<

Did I burn Garham Staines? It was an RSS criminal and he`s in jail now. BTW, who started the fire in Gujarat? The events in Gujarat are interlinked and dont look a few incidents in isolation.

I understand that you want me to stand responsible for the individual acts of some cranks in India. In the same token you should stand responsbile for all acts of your cranks. Is that alright?

>>>>Well she is an auntee not a gal... but ok. Good for you. <<<

I dont know her age but I am okay to call her a gal. Any probs?

The point of quoting Indian scholars is a matter of understaing the subject...not a quote from them per se....any student who goes to this level of academic arguments need grounding and the scholars I mentioned are the authentic sources and they are the official sources of history in India. That answers your point.

On the otherhand your offical history is best considered as poison.......

Tata....

#195 by ahmer23

Oh just one last thing, why is it that you guys are the meakest, nicest most polite to the point of being scared around us Moslems but as soon as u jump in cyber-space u guys r hercules, wassup with that? Why are yo all so scared in real life, i mean we are not crazy, i take an offense to your submissivnes

Abay Ahmak, is that why 93,000 of your brave soldiers surrendered like meek lambs in 1971?



Is that why your soldiers tucked their tails in between their legs and ran away leaving their dead colleagues to rot on the mountain peaks of Kargil?