Understanding Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto

#69 by stuka on December 2, 2006 11:40am PT

---

Taikonaut:

I agree. In honesty, I think we agree more than we disagree at least on contemporary events. On history, I don`t think it is possible for Indiand and Pakistanis to agree.

---

Well thank you.

Indians and Pakistanis can in fact agree as you demonstrated so eloquently. A pre-req for this agreement? ``Leave your religiosity and other prejudices at the door``.

Our history is shared and it is the same. It should not be butchered in the name of religion as this act of butchery does more harm than good.

Taikonaut:

I agree. In honesty, I think we agree more than we disagree at least on contemporary events. On history, I don`t think it is possible for Indiand and Pakistanis to agree. What I said about Bhutto wrt 1971 was true, to the extent of the facts I have read about. Rather than judging my opinion based on the fact that I am Indian, pass jusgement on the opinion itself. You also have Urstruly on this board saying the same thing though he is an Islamist and my complete opposite.

Anyways, here`s an interesting article that provides context....

Monday, Sep. 19, 1977
``An Evil Genius``

Bhutto is in deep, deep trouble

The head of Pakistan`s new military government was shocked and saddened. When he saw Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in Rawalpindi two weeks ago, General Mohammed Zia ul-Haq confronted the deposed Prime Minister with several charges of crime and misconduct. As Zia told the story later, ``I said to him, `Sir`—I still called him that—`Sir, why have you done all those things, you whom I respected so, who had so much?` He said only that I should wait and he would be cleared. It was very disappointing.`` So disappointing, in fact, that Zia approved a court order calling for his onetime leader`s arrest and transfer to a Lahore jail.

Bhutto, who was unseated by a military coup last July 5, is in deep, deep trouble. The most serious accusation against him is, in effect, murder by proxy. He allegedly ordered his paramilitary Federal Security Force to get rid of a troublesome opposition politician, Ahmed Raza Kasuri. During the second of two attacks on Kasuri in 1974, gunmen sprayed the politician`s car with bullets; they missed Kasuri but killed his father. According to government sources, five security-force officials have testified that they were acting on Bhutto`s orders at the time.

If convicted on that charge, Bhutto could conceivably be sentenced to death by hanging. As of last week, this was but one of a torrent of serious accusations that were swirling around the former Prime Minister. In a separate case, four policemen confessed that in 1972 they had murdered another opposition member of the National Assembly, Dr. Nazir Ahmed, after the Prime Minister complained to aides that he was losing sleep over Nazir Ahmed`s anti-Bhutto speeches.

In addition, Bhutto has been accused of: 1) detaining some of his political enemies illegally, telling one of them, ``You will pass your life in a detention camp and will die a slow and miserable death``; 2) instructing the security force to fire on an opposition political rally in 1973, which resulted in the death of 20 people and the injury of 100 more; 3) misappropriating government funds; and 4) ordering the torture of Jalaluddin Abdur Rahim in 1974, after the 71-year-old career diplomat complained that the Prime Minister had insulted his dinner guests by keeping them waiting until midnight for his arrival.

Western observers discount the possibility that the charges against Bhutto, once a national hero, are part of a smear campaign by his opponents. Rumors of official misconduct had circulated widely in Pakistan while Bhutto was in office. Moreover, there is little reason to believe that General Zia, who was named army chief of staff by Bhutto a year ago, has any grudge against his former boss. The diffident general, who now calls Bhutto ``an evil genius`` and ``a 1977 Machiavelli,`` seems determined to remain impartial and let the law take its course. Before his arrest, Bhutto predicted ``a crisis of jurisprudence`` if he should be handcuffed or jailed. Zia insisted: ``No person can be above the law.``

Will the military government proceed with its plan to hold national elections on Oct. 18? ``By jingo, yes,`` declares Zia, ``unless the heavens fall.`` Despite Bhutto`s incarceration, his Pakistan People`s Party announced last week that it would contest the elections; it called on party members to turn their grief ``over the arrest of Party Chairman Bhutto into an enthusiastic campaign.`` The army still talks as if it expects to go back to the barracks by the end of October. But if the election results are inconclusive, the soldiers may yet decide to delay their departure.

Re: # 66 stuka sez

---

Muslims in India versus Hindus in Pak? Quick? Who is the ethnic cleanser?

---

ethnic cleansing is the ``badge of honor`` for both the Hindians and Pakistanis.
In Punjab both sides cleaned up the minorities.

In UP, Bihar, Hyderabad, and Sindh the evil deed of killing minorities was much more selective.

Interesting article from the day Bhutto was hanged...also a video of the BBC report.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/4/newsid_2459000/2459507.stm

``hahah! A bihari yem yen preaching Hinglish to a Pakistani. Wah bhai wah! ``

Abey Muhammad kee Aulad, I am more of a Punjabi that your three generations put together.

What is a ``Pakistani`` any way? An Arab settler or a dalit convert? U are going to give me explanations about belonging to the land that was our for generations to come?

``Sh. Mujib`s attitude was no democratic either. Again Hindi-Bindi hypocrisy leads you to support a separatist in E. Pak but you scoff and threaten Kashmiris with ethnic cleansing.

``Nothing new from Hindi Bindi potatoes` two faced approach.``

Ullu key Pathey Angrezi samajh nahi aati hai tau Hindi Urdu meu smjhata hoon. Tey unjh vi samajh nai aandi tey Punjabi ich gall karedy aan...

I did not support Kashmiri ethnic cleansing at all. I supported ethnic cleansing of minorities in Jammu and Ladakh as an exchange of ethnic cleansing of minorties in the Kashmir Valley.

Gandhi days have come and gone...we believe in treating Muslims as Muslims treat non Muslims. Where was Pakistani crocodile tears when Hindus were cleansed from the valley?


``Before 1947, E. Punjab Muslim farmers and land owners = more than 75%
After 1947, E. Punjab Muslim farmers and land owners = 0%``

You are either stupid or a liar. There is a Muslim majority district in E. Punjab called Malerkotla. Where is a single Non Muslim district in W Punjab?

``Then you accuse us of ethnic cleansing. Pot calling the kettle black.``

Muslims in India versus Hindus in Pak? Quick? Who is the ethnic cleanser?

#63 by stuka on December 2, 2006 10:40am PT

---

May I suggest Rapidex English Course to increase your comprehension of the English language?

---

hahah! A bihari yem yen preaching Hinglish to a Pakistani. Wah bhai wah!

It was a sarcastic response to your ``Damn I will!`` statement. The purpose was to show your lack of knowledge about E. Pak and your hypocrisy towards Pakistan and Pakistanis. And you took the bait and uttered the following nuggets.

---

if the Valley Muslims vote for seperation (where they are a majority) I am all for their leaving and joining PAKISTAN AS LONG AS IT IS ACCOMPANIED ON OUR END BY THE COMPLETE ETHNIC CLEANSING OF MUSLIMS FROM Jammu and Ladakh.

---

Sh. Mujib`s attitude was no democratic either. Again Hindi-Bindi hypocrisy leads you to support a separatist in E. Pak but you scoff and threaten Kashmiris with ethnic cleansing.

Nothing new from Hindi Bindi potatoes` two faced approach.

Before 1947, E. Punjab Muslim farmers and land owners = more than 75%
After 1947, E. Punjab Muslim farmers and land owners = 0%

Then you accuse us of ethnic cleansing. Pot calling the kettle black.

Typical Hindi Bindi head in the sand.

``1. it was a Panjabi Hindu named Lala Lajpat Rai who gave the idea of partition in 1920s. This was long before any Muslim League leader ever talked about partitioning British-India. In fact Muslim League leaders took almost 30 years to even accept (let alone propagate) Lala Lajpat Rai`s ideals. When Rai was trying to convince C.R. Das about partitioning British India, Mohandas was sucking up to Azads and Joahrs. So blaming Mohandas is a R$$hite ploy as well.``


This is hearsay by Punjabi Mussulmaans. Regardless, if Lalaji did say it, it did not translate into a nationwide realitry. Whereas the same idea propagated to Muslims became a nationwide best seller where every Muslim Paan wallah in Old Delhi thought his mohalla would be Pakistan.

``2. Prominent Sikh leaders like Baldev Singh, and Giyani Kartar Singh were all happy with Jinnah. The only exception was a Hindu convert called Master Tara Singh of Akali sect. However Bindis will continue painting all Sikhs as anti-Muslims.``

Khotey dey Puttar, what makes a Sikh leader prominent? A certification by a Musla? BTW, all Sikhs, including Guru Nanak, were Hindu converts. Talking of Sikhs as Anti Muslims is a straw man...what about Muslims as anti-Sikhs. How pro-Sikh was Aurangzeb?

``3. Jinnah never accepted or followed the idea of complete separation from Bindis.
However there were a lot of Bindis who even back in 1920s had been planning to stage a coup against Mulsims.``


Oye Jinnah hamara daddy hai? What is it about Indians and Pakis that we have to listen to one fucking Gujju lawyer or the other?

``A lot of Bindis``??? What the fukk does that mean? 20, twenty thousand...two million? Besharami kee hadd hai. So there were Hindu fanatics like bro Sanatnai here throwing around the idea of Hindu seperatism. Was it a Hindu mass movement? No. But your daddy Jinnah starts a movement where communalism infects the body politic at a national level.

Consequence:

``Pakistan is the fort of Islam`` sending Ghazis to die in Afghnaistanand Kashmir. In India, the sons of Leagueies in Delhi and Bihar drive tongas and open butcher shops.

``#61 by taikonaut on December 2, 2006 10:27am PT


#60 by stuka on December 2, 2006 10:12am PT
Damn right I will. If a party stands for elctions and wins power, it should absolutely be given power.
Sure you will. I trust your honest commitment to, and support for separatist movements in Hindustan.
``

Taikonaut:

May I suggest Rapidex English Course to increase your comprehension of the English language?

Bewakoof Aadmi, I said I support democratic principles. that does not translate into supporting seperatist movements. Haan, if the Valley Muslims vote for seperation (where they are a majority) I am all for their leaving and joining PAKISTAN AS LONG AS IT IS ACCOMPANIED ON OUR END BY THE COMPLETE ETHNIC CLEANSING OF MUSLIMS FROM Jammu and Ladakh. Fair is Fair. We would only do what the Pakistanis did to us and what the Bangladeshis do to Biharis.

Sanatani Ullu key Patthey:


````Bhutto was a ba^^stard. Though Zia fingered India, he was at least more sincere as a person. Bhutto was a thoroughly corrupt individual. Morally bankrupt and deserving of his fate``

Spoken like a true Punjabi cok sucker. So Zia is nice even though he caused immense harm to India because he is a Panju. And Bhutto bad because he is a Sindhi.``

``Nice`` here is not my personal judgement on the man. It is my opinion based on what is appropriate for his own country, his own community. Why the fukk should I have any expectation from a Pakistani to begin with..I take it as a given that he will try to screw us. I take it as a given that Indians should and do try to screw the Pakistani state...this has nothing to do with morality, it is statecraft. But u are so involved in your own outrage your puny mind does not expand beyond that.

#60 by stuka on December 2, 2006 10:12am PT

---

Damn right I will. If a party stands for elctions and wins power, it should absolutely be given power.

---

Sure you will. I trust your honest commitment to, and support for separatist movements in Hindustan.

``So tomorrow Kashmiri party gives 6 point agenda to you, and you mr. Stuka will gladly accept all those. Not only that you would hand over over control of Kashmir to this ``democratically`` elected party.``

Damn right I will. If a party stands for elctions and wins power, it should absolutely be given power. The fact that for you guys democracy is a managed operation to begin with is the reason you have not managed to a cohesive identity for so long.

Let the damn Hurriyet stand for elcetions. But no, they would rather take the help of ISI to kill political opponents.


Zeemax: Dhoti ich muttar karey tera pyo.

#54 Santani shows the deep divisions in Bindi society. He will even go to great lengths and discredit Mohandas Gandhi (by calling him Madar Das - whatever that means).

Every Bindi writer treats Hindustani history as a Lakhnawi Bihari whore. Every Bindi historian wants to bring his own prejudices against minorities (Muslims, Xtians, Dalits, and you name it) or against secularists.

What else can you expect from these pseudo-historians or neo-R$$hites who are the champions and keepers of the caste system.

Few corrections though.

1. it was a Panjabi Hindu named Lala Lajpat Rai who gave the idea of partition in 1920s. This was long before any Muslim League leader ever talked about partitioning British-India. In fact Muslim League leaders took almost 30 years to even accept (let alone propagate) Lala Lajpat Rai`s ideals. When Rai was trying to convince C.R. Das about partitioning British India, Mohandas was sucking up to Azads and Joahrs. So blaming Mohandas is a R$$hite ploy as well.

2. Prominent Sikh leaders like Baldev Singh, and Giyani Kartar Singh were all happy with Jinnah. The only exception was a Hindu convert called Master Tara Singh of Akali sect. However Bindis will continue painting all Sikhs as anti-Muslims.

3. Jinnah never accepted or followed the idea of complete separation from Bindis.
However there were a lot of Bindis who even back in 1920s had been planning to stage a coup against Mulsims.

In summary, the only group strongly in support of dividing British-India was the group of R$$hite pipsqueaks. Too bad we all let them succeed in their nefarious objectives. Funny how the same Bindi R$$hites turn around and blame everyone including Mohandas and Jinnah while completing hiding their own dark past.

#54 sanatani

Ama yaar, we have covered this ground before. I realize that you and your family suffered directly from the partition so your angst is understood. But that does not justify painting communities wholesale with brush when the reality is otherwise.

There still are pockets of ignorance everywhere – including in the land of the free! If there are places in the American South where political racism takes place even today – it does not make racial apartheid justifiable. The same holds for India. If there are (Indian) Muslims who subscribe to religious separatism – and I respectfully insist that such observations not be made into generalizations – the answer is to deal with those people using the right tools – the double-edge sword whose one edge is education and exposing of their political opportunism and the other edge is to ensure that the minorities feel no different from the majority in terms of having a stake in the strength of the nation.

That is my opinion, anyway. The Indian nation charts its own destiny, of course.

We can not go back and revise the sub continental historical events, of course – but if we had that ability, what the peace loving pre-independence Congress leaders (not to be confused with their opportunist progeny which went about reinforcing religious segregation for political advantages) did – which was to insist on a secular setup and was directly opposite to what the Pakistani “leaders” (especially that demagogue Jinnah) did (conducting a wholesale ethnic cleansing (a topic on which the Pakistani “intellectuals” like the Manto go pee-pee every time I bring it up)) did – THAT was the right thing to do! The “end state” as we see it today in each case ought to remove the slightest of doubts from the eyes of any right-thinking individuals – but perhaps it will never do so with ALL individuals.

So how old will you be in 2061, and how likely will the thinking of the then generation be like yours?!

(Hint: Have you noticed any broadening in outlook and understanding of the world in India of 1961 and that of today?)

Zeemax,

The same set of laws currently but no conversion or proselytisation by Xtians and Muslims and in case of such interfaith marriage the person would have to renounce his parent rligion. One child laws for these people no propagation of their religion no new places of worship all education to be Hindu based special incentives for them to revert to th parent religion. In fact treat them exactly asn they treat non-muslims in a muslim land and those not accpeting will be expelled or executed. We must apply Maudoodis principles exactly in reverse. Political reeducation for macaulayites and marxists in the Hindutwawadi equivalent of the HANOI HILTON.

In other words Hinduise the nation. For us it does not matterwhether you believe in God or not but only those who answer to the call of Hindu ( to mean Sanatan Dharmi, Jain, Baudh, Arya Samaji, Sikh) will be 1st class citizens.

You may like this or lump it but the fact is:

1) What separates you and me is Islam.
2) I have lost appx 400 million brothers and sisters to islam and christianity (the appx population of Muslims and Xtians in the subcontient and Afghanistan) not to mention the extremities of what was my Pitrabhu and Punyabhu.
3) As if the loss of 400 million brothers and sisters was not enough this has caused the proliferation of 400 million enemies

I refuse to lose more. For this their is no price and I repeat no price too high to pay for this. Since I cannot destroy this sick and murderous ideology called islam at least I must do what I can to spread its poison and the adherents who spread this poison.

Pity Hindu society never understood what Islam is the way the Xtians did and did not mount a Adharamyudh against it (Adharamyudh as muslims are beyond the pale of Dharam and should be dealt with priciples which they themselves practise) like the crusades of Kill some, Convert most and expel the rest.

Then Zeemax we would have sat down like Brothers and discussed the merits and demerits of the Visheshadvaita school with the Charvakh.

The sadness that pervades me (in a sense we are pagans and the only pagans with an unbroken sense of history of 7,500 yrs and not that we {to mean most Hindus and not me perse} have learnt anything from it). kisi ne kaha agar hamara desh ek hota to Inzamam aur Sachin kisi team ki kamar tod dete.

Aur humne kaha yadi hum pehle hi ekjut hokar Bharat mein Islam ki kamar tord dete to aisi baat kehne ki zaroorat he kya hoti. (And if you do not believe me read Bharatvani and Hamid Dalwai it may reeducate you on what I am saying is true or not)

Sadly
Your Ex Brother
Sanatani

sanatani,

V interesting posts. So you do not believe India should be secular and present strong arguments in support. Should it be then something like Pakistan where no laws can be in abhorrance of Sharia? Which book will you use in that case?

It is a serious question because the issues you bring up appear very real.

Re: # 47

``Bhutto was a ba^^stard. Though Zia fingered India, he was at least more sincere as a person. Bhutto was a thoroughly corrupt individual. Morally bankrupt and deserving of his fate``

Spoken like a true Punjabi cok sucker. So Zia is nice even though he caused immense harm to India because he is a Panju. And Bhutto bad because he is a Sindhi.

Also u imply Bhutto was corrupt any anecdotal evidence for the same and some eveidence of saintliness of the true Murshid and humble Momin zia

Wonder why you do not emigrate to the land of the pure since you ar an obvious admirer of the Islamic Amirat of the Panjab.