Do Pakistanis deserve a democratic system?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

if a democratic system of government enables pakistan to take steps to become independent using its own resources and not use aid and help from western and other countries like it has with past leaders then there is no reason why there shouldnt be a democratic government. One of pakistans major weaknesses has always been its economy and in order to overcome that problem it has used relations with other countries for help economically, in order to become more stable pakistan needs to look in itself and not at examples of other countries, sure democratic systems work well in western countries, but, the same system of government may not work as well in pakistan. trying to modernise pakistan like countries in the west and india has done and is doing, has already made so many alterations to our thinking and culture and now if we keep modifying our thoughts and way of life to that which is similar to countries in the west soon we will just be doing the opposite of what Chaudhry Rahmat Ali aimed to do when he thought of forming pakistan, we wont be preserving Islam by being part of pakistan, changing our ways of thinking and modernising everything like westerners is just slowly taking us further away from our previous islamic lifestyles. before deciding what type of government we need take a look at our society, its thoughts, its religion and its needs and how we can be seen as more stable and independent in the eyes of other countries and the only way of doing that is to look to at the needs of our own communities so that we can modernise our communities but still preserve islam in them aswell.

Manto mian,

(Majumdar and the rest,

I responded to your rants on the Nehru board. Please do read. )

I have not even made my appearance on this board and you have heard my rants.

But do tell me what you want me to read. Anything for my fave chowkie.

Regards

{``Do Pakistanis deserve a democratic system?``}

NO

Re: # 248

Rough Treatment for 2 Journalists in Pakistan

Article Tools Sponsored By
By CARLOTTA GALL
Published: January 21, 2007

My photographer, Akhtar Soomro, and I were followed over several days of reporting in Quetta by plainclothes intelligence officials who were posted at our respective hotels. That is not unusual in Pakistan, where accredited journalists are free to travel and report, but their movements, phone calls and interviews are often monitored.

On our fifth and last day in Quetta, Dec. 19, four plainclothesmen detained Mr. Soomro at his hotel downtown and seized his computer and photo equipment.

They raided my hotel room that evening, using a key card to open the door and then breaking through the chain that I had locked from the inside. They seized a computer, notebooks and a cellphone.

One agent punched me twice in the face and head and knocked me to the floor. I was left with bruises on my arms, temple and cheekbone, swelling on my eye and a sprained knee.

One of the men told me that I was not permitted to visit Pashtunabad, a neighborhood in Quetta, and that it was forbidden to interview members of the Taliban.

The men did not reveal their identity but said we could apply to the Special Branch of the Interior Ministry for our belongings the next day.

After the intervention of the minister of state for information and broadcasting, Tariq Azim Khan, my belongings were returned several hours later. Mr. Soomro was released after more than five hours in detention.

Since then it has become clear that intelligence agents copied data from our computers, notebooks and cellphones and have tracked down contacts and acquaintances in Quetta.

All the people I interviewed were subsequently visited by intelligence agents, and local journalists who helped me were later questioned by Pakistan’s intelligence service, the Inter-Services Intelligence.

Mr. Soomro has been warned not to work for The New York Times or any other foreign news organization.

Sorry guyz for the distraction, dont read this if u like Chowk administrators:

If u like these Chowk Administrators, pl dont read this.

---

We are fed up with these niggers.

For those who dont know: Two posts were made on boards
1. Wife beating 2. Pakistan`s Democracy. None of the msgs was abusive.

That means no violation of any guidelines. The words didnt contain any abusive words which we normally see them here and the posters were normally overlooked.

---

Sample: By HP 232 on India`s Foreign Policy board:

``Abey bhootni kay apni maan kay khusam say gaand mara.``

---

We sent several emails b4 this to Chowk Eunuchs. Now we sent another on the same subject. It may look silly but it looks like that Chowk Chutiyas are deaf-cum-blind or rank Eunuchs.

---

Quote:

I dont know if it`s a person or a group of persons:

We had been asking for termination of our IDs for good but u guyz never responded to the emails.

We want our IDs both VRV and Folio to be terminated for good.

Emails were sent and u were sitting on them.

Shameless chituya(s).

Mard hai to terminate kar, yah if u dont then confirm that u are eunuch(s)!

Mard(s) or Eunuch(s)??????????????

Unquote

Chowk Administartor(s) Chutiy(s).

P.S: This is no way meant for the guys who founed this site and I feel that founders and administartors are not the same.

---

Read this about Jinnah house on wiki.. There is a photo too..
..Jinnah House was the residence of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan; in Mumbai, India. It was built in 1936 at a then exorbitant price of 2 lakh (200,000) rupees when Jinnah returned to Mumbai from England to take charge of the Muslim League. Now worth £ 15 million, also refer[1](actual worth around Rs.2000 crores!), the house is the subject of a dispute between India, the government of Pakistan and Jinnah`s daughter. The bungalow is located on Mount Pleasant Road (now Bhausaheb Hirey Marg) in the upmarket Malabar Hill area of South Bombay. Its opposite neighbour is the residence of the Chief Minister of Maharashtra.

Designed by architect Claude Batley in the European-style architecture, the sea facing palatial bungalow is constructed using exquisite Italian marble and walnut woodwork. Specially imported Italian stone masons were employed for its construction with Jinnah personally supervising the construction ``brick by brick``. The property encompasses an area of 10,000 square metres (2.5 acres). The mansion, with its pointed arches and impressive columns, is currently in a dilapidated state, and much of the walnut panelling has rotted


``it`s a small house fit only for a small European family / refined Indian prince``.. yeah right, what a racist b****** .. this house should be used by the Mumbai slum clearance board..

``Sri Prakasa, don’t break my heart. Tell Jawaharlal not to break my heart, I have built it brick by brick. Who can live in a house like that? What fine verandas? It is a small house only for a small European family or a refined Indian prince. You do not know how I love Bombay. I still look forward to going back there,`` Jinnah had said.

Right.. Jinnah`s logic is this.. ``my land is my land.. and your land is my land too``..

Mantolives:

Jinnah by comparison to all these gentlemen remained committed to bringing Hindus an Muslims together... secularism and protection of minorities all his life... it was this commitment that led him to ultimately struggle for Pakistan ... and it was this impulse which was consistent when he spoke all through out that last year for minorities and travelled from Lahore to Karachi to Peshawar to Quetta to Dacca ... emphasising the protection of minorities at all costs.

Yeah yeah right.. if only Jinnah was alive ahmadiyas would have got a better deal as the new ``minorities``.. and that too the honor of being the neo-Dalit-Muslims.. :-)

bjkumar:

what`s that you are smoking?.. smells good.. :-)

Majumdar and the rest,

I responded to your rants on the Nehru board. Please do read.

Dear VRV,

1. I agree that Pakistan and India are made up of many more nations... than either country is willing to accept.

2. The Governor General of both Pakistan and India had the same powers under the Independece of India Act 1947 read with Government of India Act 1935.

Let me restate what you`ve been trying to say:The problem that you`ve been trying to notify is that by Jinnah`s choice of the office of governor general, in the common eye the office of the governor general became more important than that of the Prime Minister. Now this might be true, but that simply is a question of executive powers... a strong presidency v. a strong PM ... Now unless you are suggesting that countries with strong presidents i.e. France, US, Turkey etc are not democracies... this does not have a bearing on the argument per se.

The truth is that Jinnah was the first Governor General in the British government of Asian and non-British background. Through out his life- and this even his worse opponents accep-he had beaten the British at their own game. The British aristocrat mind was too racist to accept Jinnah as an equal to their Lords and Sirs of noble British birth... so it was a bitter pill for them to swallow and they spread a lot of garbage about it.

#240 PewResearch: Are you unaware of the spite and hate that flows from your countrymen on chowk day in day out? So if you come to me with your ``pessimistic`` view of the future of Pakistan based on the usual flimsy excuses that Indians come up with on chowk (some crime report picked from a Pakistani newspaper, something negative said about Pakistan in some western press), why do you expect me to take you any more seriously than the rest of your countrymen?>

bye bye. End of Discussion too.

tahmed is busy calling someone hateful for posting what various people have said on NPR and other media about Pakistani policy in Afghanistan. How can it be hateful to discuss public policy of Pakistan which affects millions of nonPakistanis

#235 PewResearch: Sure we have a problem with the military usurping democracy in Pakistan, and you can no use that as an excuse for Indian hatred for Pakistan (excuse, Pakistani leaders and ``elite``).

But Pakistan had a democracy between 1947 and 1958, and again in the 1970`s and again in the 1990`s - and I dont recall any change in tone depending on the political situation within Pakistan. So excuse me but your tender concern for democracy in Pakistan does not ring true. The hate and spite towards Pakistan has deeper roots.

Re: # 237 Tahmed32

``Sure we have a problem with the military usurping democracy in Pakistan, and you can no use that as an excuse for Indian hatred...``

You are one confused and highly insecure individual:

1) Even when I pointed out that the source material was PBS and American/Afghan experts you react to `Indian hatred`. The messenger (assuming that I am Indian, of course) looms larger than the message!

2) Connecting the dots between `military usurping democracy in Pakistan` and the cancerous growth of Taliban/Al Qaeda are tantamount to `hatred`? (and `Indian` to boot!). (do you even know what DNI Negroponte told Congress last week?)

3) My 3 or 4 posts from the last few days are somehow part of a `between 1947 and 1958, and again in the 1970`s and again in the 1990`s`. And this from someone who wrote in #195, ``I think you should be looking towards the future``. You disingenuous man!

4) My concern for democracy in Pakistan is right now limited to containing the spillover of scum that regularly pours out of Pakistan`s borders on murderous missions (whether it is the shoe bomber, London tube bombings, 9/11 -- heck, PBS even details all the links to Pakistan: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/pakistan/). Nowhere did I contend that I convey `tender concern for democracy in Pakistan` in any other context.

In all of this discussion of peripheral issues, you have ducked and parried from engaging in the question that you yourself raised in post #195, ``I think you should be looking towards the future``. Huh?

No wonder your country (being led by morons and with the sympathy of individuals like of you) will remain in the dark ages.

End of discussion.

#235

Bravo!!!

Agreed 100%

Re: # 236

Zeena:

May be you should visit Pakistan more often. You seem are more aware. Congratulations for the burn center you set up. Write about your experience of accomplishing it. I for one would like to know.

#233 The people (of Pakistan or any other place) may be irrelevant to you, but to me people are what its all about.

As for your dislike of Pakistani leaders and its ``elite`` (your term, and a meaningless one it is) - you are welcome to them. The future is not determined by your dislike for Pakistan, and you are merely clutching at straws in hoping that your ill-wishes about Pakistan come true. Make sure you have a good book to read while you wait for your ill-wishes towards Pakistan come true. Bye.

Re: # 234 Tahmed32
The people of Pakistan are irrelevant because their opinion does not count with your government - your government is adept at manipulating elections. You can feign sympathy for them all you want, but the fact remains that your government does not listen to them, and you dont care.
You have confirmed my hypothesis that Pakistan`s most educated and its elites do not care about what really happens to Pakistan. If you did, you would not be trying to score petty debating points. Your affection for Pakistan is exceeded by your desire to defend Musharraf, the ISI and its policies. You can`t see the contradiction.

#231 Pew Research: Ok, more seriously forget about ``elites`` (wrong word, btw) like me. The vast majority of Pakistanis are ordinary people, like people in every country. So - is it just a dislike for the ``hubris of the elites`` (whatever that means) or is it some kind of a reflex conditioning that causes you to see Pakistan as not merely another place where people live but as some kind of an evil monster?

btw, I dont think prayers have any effect anyway, it just makes the indivdiual feel better about things....but that is another story.

Re: # 232 Tahmed32
``...is it some kind of a reflex conditioning that causes you to see Pakistan as not merely another place where people live but as some kind of an evil monster?...``
By `Pakistan` I imply its irresponsible government and its President-General who lords over you all while being cheerlead by folks like you. (I was speaking after all about Pakistan`s foreign relations and its adverse impact on prospects for domestic growth). The people of Pakistan are largely irrelevant in this discussion, but the `elites` who support this government are just as culpable. Your hopes for a better future will come to nothing as long as your duplicitous government continues to mortgage your future in the name of `strategic depth` and `confrontation with India`. Read the PBS interviews, and you will understand what I mean.

PewResearch: I am awed at our ability to check my blood pressure over the internet. If you say it is high, then it must be so and I shall cut down on my salt intake and exercise even harder than before. Thanks for the timely alert, doc.

When you write `` just confirms my fears that your country is headed into a morass.`` then all I can say is that in that case I hope you also pray that Pakistan goes forward full steam ahead and does not get stuck in any morass (or in any lessass either, for that matter).

I am also glad that you think our Great Leader Musharaff is smarter than I am, that it is re-assuring that the President of Pakistan is smarter than me (although I must confess I dont consider it to be a big challenge to be smarter than me).

Cheers!! (dont forget to pray that Pakistan does not get stuck in any morass). :-)

Re: # 230 Tahmed32
``I hope you also pray that Pakistan goes forward full steam ahead and does not get stuck in any morass ``
I would have prayed if prayers would have made a difference. But, alas with the hubris exhibited by`elites` like you, I dont think prayers alone will have any effect.

dekant #218 Like I said, it took you Indians 60 years of hating Jinnah, but finally you have come around to what we Pakistanis have been saying all along. Better late than never :-)

PS: Do you plan to stick around on chowk year after year as well to assure us Pakistanis that you dont want to have anything to do with us as well (like some of your illustrious countrymen)?

Dear Sole Spokesman,

I dont think that this address is offensive.

``1. The history I put up here is at complete variance to the official history promoted by the Pakistan government.``

---

glad abt it but confluence of urs and ours is the ONLY way forward for our two countries (I dont use two nations as India`s made up of many nations and so is Pakistan).

---

``2. You have flip flopped. First you alleged Jinnah`s actions as GG were undemocratic....``

---

OK, I wud make my point again; I guess cogently.

India`s GG had no such powers as the powers of GG in Pakistan. Jinnah got them tailored to suit his ` thoughts/plans` for Pakistan in a paternalistic way (though I had different view of his actions vis-a-vis his powers as GG). His actions bode no good for democracy in Pakistan.

---

Dear Sole Spokesman, I dont expect u acquiesce to what I gave as my analysis but I made no extraneous points other than what it was mentioned in the ToP documents/papers. Since I am not reading the ToP but bought the book God Delusion by Dawkins......I cant give more quotes unless u provoke me into going back to reading more documents on the Transfer of Power.

Have a Good day.

#225 by zeemax

Ok ok ... so Muslim sub-continent then? What else could it be ...

Going by this logic, Israel is the rightful occupant of the territory it sits on right now. Wonder why Muslims squeal in agony complaining about Israeli ``occupation``.

#224 by VRV

``...division of the British sub-continent .....``

Ok ok ... so Muslim sub-continent then? What else could it be ...

Re: # 225

Zee,

If u dont WANT to use the proper noun...alright. carry on. I cant make you use the proper noun. It`s in ur mind...leave it.

The author has beaten around the bush to reach the following conclusion ``Democracy is a good thing but under present circumstance we did not have an alternative to Musharraf`` which every other tom, dick and ``enlightened moderate`` already believes.

If our `political commentator and historian` justifies his ``enlightened moderate`` beliefs in this manner, why do we have an objection when our semi-literate fanatic uses selected anecdotes or sayings to justify his beliefs.

``#221 by ranjit on January 17, 2007 0:23am PT
I have an even better idea. How about we demolish/convert that Jinnah house in Bombay to build a brand new Ram Mandir there? Forget about Ayodhya, Jinnah`s house is the real sacred place for all hindus, since he is the real savior of hindus in the subcontinent. Yeah, Ram Mandir on Jinnah House!!! ``

no ranjit...don`t do that. i have seen jinnah house personally at malabar hill (by bribing the gaurd outside since entry is prohibited). all credit to jinnah...its a beautiful house, though not maintained well by the present govt. but i must confess that the old man had good taste in not only selecting a great design, but also the best location in bombay to make his house.

i recommend restoring it as it is and making it into a monument for jinnah. i also recommend that the president present the bharat ratna to jinnah posthumously in that house.

rgds,

devkant.

Re:devkant

[..someone had said jinnah for bharat ratna. no jokes...this award is given to people who have done great service to india and who better than jinnah should get this award. ....]

Amen to that!!

I have an even better idea. How about we demolish/convert that Jinnah house in Bombay to build a brand new Ram Mandir there? Forget about Ayodhya, Jinnah`s house is the real sacred place for all hindus, since he is the real savior of hindus in the subcontinent. Yeah, Ram Mandir on Jinnah House!!!

#216 by VRV

What unassailable proof can be provided now? However the fact that even though Jinah sold his Delhi residence outright, he insisted on not only retaining the Bombay residence but on renting it out only to a small European family who would maintain it properly, plus the fact that Nehru prevented it from being declared as evacuee property at Jinnah`s request, should be sufficient proof.

Refer the following conversation:

``Sri Prakasa, don’t break my heart. Tell Jawaharlal not to break my heart, I have built it brick by brick. Who can live in a house like that? What fine verandas? It is a small house only for a small European family or a refined Indian prince. You do not know how I love Bombay. I still look forward to going back there,`` Jinnah had said.
Sri Prakasa, India’s first high commissioner to Pakistan replied, ‘``Really, Mr. Jinnah! I said. ‘You desire to go back to Bombay. I know how much Bombay owes to you and your great services to the city. May I tell Prime Minister that you want to go back there?’ He replied: ‘Yes, you may``’ writes Sri Prakasa in his memories Pakistan: Birth and Last Days. This conversation took place on July 30, 1948.

Jinnah’s sentiments were immediately telegrammed to Nehru and in accordance with his wish, to allot his house to any foreign consulate, permission, was sought from Jinnah who replied that not due to any racial feeling but because his house was built in European style he wanted it to go to a European family. He was formally offered Rs. 3000 for a month but he left the ball in India’s court to decide on fixing the rent as Indians prerogative. Jinnah while replying to a letter to Sri Prakasa had professed to look forward to meeting him on his return to Karachi, but, unfortunately, he could not do so as he died before that.

Nehru, on his part decided not to declare Jinnah House as an evacuee property and in a note to the Cabinet on March 7,1955 had said. ``I think we should further be prepared to make a gift of it to the Pakistan government,`` as documented in Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru. But, Nehru could not get approval from his cabinet.

The House Jinnah built.

Facts like this raise many questions as to whether Jinnah really wanted Punjab/Bengal partition and the resulting violance, rather than an amicable division of the British sub-continent into India and Pakistan. While yourself and other Indian interactors tend to believe the former, it appears to me Jinnah`s intent was the latter but was somehow thwarted by Nehru/Patel and the British.

Re: # 219

Zee,

Thanks for the details but in the face of Jinnah`s advanced TB wudnt have made it possible. As far as I read from other books Jinnah had no such plans. As a Muslim Bania (Ismaili Khojas are Banias) he wanted to keep his property by requesting Nehru for that. He`d no empathy for the millions of such cases on either side of Radcliffe Line.

Now, how can we interpret the conversation between Sri Prakasa and Jinnah? Hold on! WTF he`s anything to do with India which he destroyed with his rigidness? What he`ll do here? He must be a split personality. I know that Jinnah was a psychopath but he`s a split personality as well!

``...division of the British sub-continent .....``

How does it read? What British sub-continent? U guyz must be from a nether world! U guyz believe in the non-existent Ummah but dont believe in the recent past/history?

Zee, u better stick to Ummah issues and economic analysis.

``#203 by tahmed32 on January 16, 2007 5:57am PT
I have one interesting news for you though: Based on what you two write, using ranjit`s Excel (enhanced model) calculations and the fine reasoning by devkant, 99.9999999 % Indians now agree that Jinnah was right all along!! And by the same token, that Indian Congress and muslim maulvis and others who were opposing Jinnah were wrong. It took you people 60 years, but I am glad that you have finally seen the wisdom behind what we Pakistanis have been saying all along. :-) ``

sirji,

jinnah was right to have the partition and i am happy that all he got was a moth eaten pakistan. had india remained united, a bloody civil war would have followed and we indians would have lost much more of our land.

this 8% growth that india is achieving today would not have happened if we were united. it is we indians who are emotional fools who used to think that we had something in common with pakistanis. but now the truth has dawned on us and we are thankful that we are separated from you guys.

long live india and long live pakistan....peacefully of course.

someone had said jinnah for bharat ratna. no jokes...this award is given to people who have done great service to india and who better than jinnah should get this award.

rgds,

devkant.

``Failed state``

Yes, Pakistan has failed on a number of fronts. Maybe more often than India has. Maybe much much more often than US has. States are not always able to attain what thy set out to do. In the co ntext of south asia, the states have failed against illiteracy, poverty, ignorance, stupid rites and rituals, obsessions with medieval mindsets, controlling domestic ingrown terrorism, exporting terror (one country in particular), obsolete police systems, crime against women etc.. The list is long. and is common to all south asia. In this sense both India and Pakistan are ``Failed states``.

However, mainly Pakistan has failed utterly in its ``attempts ???`` to evolve a proper POLITY where India has succeeded quite well.

The unfortunate fact is that Pakistan continues to have a primitive polity which has not been given an opportunity to develop. The feudal eco-social system ensures that the political class continues to remain hopelessly feudal and correspondingly corrupt. The total weakening of the moral fabric of the politicians, the army and the society at large has resulted in a stage where it would be futile to expect a decent set of democratic leaders. The army despots, especially the current one is found acceptable to a vast majority- including most of our intelligentsia. The most frustrating part is that even though the universal truth ``democracy rox, army sux`` should be applicable to Pakistan in equal measure-- but in the short term, democracy (choice between the BB & the Sharif) only scares Pakistanis away. In the long run, however, democracy can be the only solution.

Why do these pakis in US ``wannabe Indian``? All these Paki girls are giving semi nude pics in Indian magazines and hanging with Hindus at NJDesiClub and admitting that they are more Indians than Low class conservative mullah creatures from Land of Pure .... Check New Jersey Desi hangout clubs.

PewResearch #210 On the economic front - India has as much a stake in peace as Pakistan does. So, here again, Pakistan does not need to prove anything to India as you were indicating.

And a ``failed state`` is a meaningless term that can be used to mean anything - as you have just done. if it is a ``failed state`` why is India, 35 years later, not just talking about peace but no longer talks about Kashmir being an ``atoot ang`` of India (the stock phrase used by Indian politicians from back then)? Pakistan is a ``failed state`` only in the dreams of Indians who cant get used to the idea.

I didnt discuss the future because, while agreeing that this was the right way to look at India-Pakistan relations, you slipped back into the old Indian habit berating Pakistani leaders and Pakistan. When you are willing to discuss something other than berating Pakistan, then you can come back and tell me I have a chip on my shoulder. But you cant have it both ways - have nothing but negative things to say about Pakistan and then complain that someone has a chip on his shoulder for setting the record straight.


btw: 1971 was hardly a military achievement given the situation (you wont find this easy to accept, and I am too tired to explain, so you are welcome to disagree), and it is sad that Indira Gandhi herself (as I recall hearing her say in her radio speech back then) needed to point this out as being ``revenge`` for a thousand years of defeat at the hands of muslims!!

Re: # 212 Tahmed32

Your blood pressure is getting high and you are having trouble thinking coherently. Unbelievable? How about this:

``And a ``failed state`` is a meaningless term that can be used to mean anything - as you have just done.``

I went back to my postings and never did I use the term `failed state`, but the massive chip on your shoulder had you reading words that I did not type! Infact, you were the first to use it in our interaction (post #209). Ha! Are you gaming me in some weird way? Or did the words just sputter out involuntarily and subconsciously as you were thinking of Pakistan!!! Since you used the term first and then went on to state that it `is a meaningless term that can be used to mean anything` you just prove to me that you have lost your marbles! Anyway, you figure this out!

What the fck does `atoot ang` have to do with this anyway? Why are you so fixated on what India thinks? Worry instead about about Negroponte and the PBS experts are saying instead of coming with your wild-ass asinine responses. Did you read the interview by the Head of Afghanistan`s National Security Directorate (NSD), the country`s intelligence service, Amrullah Saleh?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/interviews/saleh.html

A delectable quote: ``There is [a connection] between Pakistani extremist groups and Afghan Taliban. The breeding ground for insurgents is the militant madrassas of Pakistan, so it requires a very strong political will to crack down on all those networks, which [is] not happening. For example, if you look at the pattern of propaganda in the Pakistani media against Afghanistan -- and some of the papers are state-sponsored papers -- they clearly try to undermine the Afghan government.``

So, before you comment on `Indian habits`, you might want to check with your Afghan neighbor first! Also, check with Negroponte about what he told the US Congress last week, you enraged wounded bull!

And then again you bring up `71 and the ghost of Indira Gandhi and some forgotten radio speech out of nowhere - to what end? You are incapable of thinking clearly and just confirms my fears that your country is headed into a morass. In front of you, Musharraf does indeed look like a genius!

Re: # 214
Correction:

`I went back to my postings and I was not the first to use the term `failed state`, but ...`
instead of
`I went back to my postings and never did I use the term `failed state`, but `

PewResearch #208 You assume that Pakistan needs to demonstrate its innocence and good intentions etc. to India - rest assured the only thing Pakistan needs to demonstrate is a few well timed missile shots and a few well timed nuclear explosions. That was all the demonstration India needed for BJP honchos to come running to Pakistan to assure Pakistanis that Pakistan was here to stay. :-)

If you want to have a serious discussion on India-Pakistan politics, then wake up from this dream-world and realize that India is not exactly the US and peace will only come when Indians stop their pretense of moral or military or intellectual superiority and learn to respect neighboring countries.

As for ``strategic ability``, I think Pakistani leadership has done quite well. Notably: 1. Given the ``brilliant`` maneuvering whereby India`s ability to overrun Pakistan through sheer numbers has been replaced by India`s projection of military power being stopped where the Pakistani border begins, if this reflects lack of strategic vision by Pakistani leaders as you say, then that is fine as far as Pakistan is concerned. 2. Going further back, given the ``brilliant`` maneuvarings of Indians in pre-partition days (e.g. the Quit India movement), Pakistan came into existence while Indian leadership waited for Pakistan become a failed state (and, while Indian leaders seem to have given up on that hope after 60 years, that hope is alive and well with a number of Indians on chowk obviously).

Like I said, with enemies like BJP and other Pakistan haters, Pakistan doesnt need any friends - or strategic military thinkers. As the guy being chased by a bear said to the other guy - all I need to do is run faster than you. Thus, in terms of strategic thinking, all we Pakistanis need to do is think more clearly than Indians - which so far has proved to be a no-brainer. :-)

So, perhaps Indians need to develop some ``strategic ability`` if India is to play a role in the region that is as influential commensurate with its population size. As the brits used to say in colonial days ``Big empires and small hearts dont go together``. That would be the first step towards this strategic ability. I hope Manmohan Singh has it, and of course i hope Musharaff reciprocates as well. So far they are doing better than any past leader - Indian or Pakistani - that I can think of.

Re: # 209 Tahmed32

`Intellectuals` like you have confirmed my worst fears - that Pakistan and its elite is still fighting the last war:) The new front is an economic one, but the massive chip on your shoulder lets you see the world only one way - explosions and missile strikes! Ha:) That chip also makes you think that I spoke under a `pretense of moral or intellectual superiority`. Nice try when objective evidence is hard to find. Not that I want to debate the past since you yourself in your post #195 appealed to look towards the future (which is what I was inviting you to do)!

``As for ``strategic ability``, I think Pakistani leadership has done quite well...while Indian leadership waited for Pakistan become a failed state ``

Yup, Pakistan failed as a state in `71. (Need I remind you? not that it gives me any pleasure). Just thought that I might mention to puncture your assertion. All your ranting about BJP and stuff - who cares? How is that relevant here? Calm down - have some sherbet, pal. Have a nice day! Try to make up your mind where you want to look towards: past or the future?

PewResearch #205 Time will tell I think. WHile I thank you for posting the PBS interview, the fact is that the guess of these ``experts`` is no better than your guess or my guess or anyone else`s guess. No one can say for sure (not even musharaff or singh) if the current peace offorts of India-Pakistan will bear fruit, e.g.

While there is truth to the military meddling in politics in Pakistan (which is what the interviewee focuses on), that by no means is the only factor in play - more fundamental forces include global economic and technological changes as well as changing regional realities (economic stakes, military stalemate, increasing middle class), and these are definitely geared to push the two countries towards peace. If one is to make forecasts beyond the horizon of a few short months, then one cannot ignore these more fundamental fators in play.

Re: # 207 tahmed32
I am not as optimistic as you are for the reasons that are borne out in the PBS interviews. I do not think (as you appear to) that `changing regional realities (economic stakes, military stalemate, increasing middle class), are definitely geared to push the two countries towards peace`. While peace would be a desirable outcome, it is by no means the ONLY possible outcome. There are many ways to do this wrong and only a few ways to get it right: Pakistan is still demonstrating that its commitment to GWOT is superficial. Building successful nation states is not an easy thing to do and Pakistani leadership has not demonstrated a strategic ability to do that. Further, a lack of wholehearted commitment to GWOT raises an existential issue for Pakistan`s viability - not something that I will wishfully disregard. I do not share your pollyanish optimism that things will be automatically OK. Things can get a WHOLE LOT worse as they have previously in Pakistan`s history. You ignore this possibility at your own peril. Questioning the credibility of PBS interviewees at this grave hour comes across as recklessly ignoring warnings that are flashing all around you.

#202 by VRV

Yeah but Congress agreed too on the appointment PLUS his award being final ... i.e. agreed to whatever Radcliffe`s award eventually turned out to be IN ADVANCE!

Therefore my comment on UP that Jinnah appears to have been outwitted by Nehru and Patel, to which Manto`s opinion is that Jinnah was an upright and principled person, and not wily like the above two.

Still it is a mystery to me as to what was all the hurry in this boundary award business, why the job was given to someone who had never been to India before, and why his award was agreed to be final by both parties in advance.

As for Jinnah`s wish to live in Bombay after retirement, that is true. He never sold his mansion in Bombay precisely for that reason upon which Dina Wadia now has claim.

Re: # 204

Zee,

I need an unassialable proof abt assertion of Jinnah wanting to settle in India.

(I knew that he wanted to visit his home and this was corroborated by the account of a Congressi girl who shot an angry letter to Jinnah abt division of the people of India. BUT NOWHERE IT`S SAID/MENTIONED THAT JINNAH WANtED TO ``SETTLE`` IN BOMBAY. Moreover he knew that he`s having advanced TB disease which wud consume him too soon. Then why he`d come to Bombay to settle?? I need proof Dear Zee!)

As for Bounday Commission, it was an arbitration. It`s binding on all parties. If some Tom/Dick were given the job and that guy too gave a similar verdict, u guyz were going to say the same thing.

The terms of ref were known. Any guy with average intelligence cud make his own guess as to his/her district wud be part of India or Pakistan. Jinnah said it very clearly that MIGRATION HAD TO TAKE PLACE when partition is affected i.e even b4 the Bounday COMMISSION WAS SETUP. The writing on the wall was very clear abt the turn of events....

As for opinionated sentences like Nehru and Gandhi were villains but Jinnah was a saint...eh, there cant be another funnier description! Yasser can keep such `belief` to himself.

``Still it is a mystery to me as to what was all the hurry in this boundary award business, why the job was given to someone who had never been to India before, and why his award was agreed to be final by both parties in advance. ``

---

Radcliffe used the pencil of peace to partition India. It`s meant to the pencil of peace but
to me, it`s Reaper`s pointed tail......

---

P.S: for the sake of record I need to reproduce this sentence on Nehru from Pakistan`s official biography of Jinnah written by Hector Bolitho: page 49:

---

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the MORE SCHOLARLY of the three..........

---

(The Jinnah`s biographer was mentioning abt Jinnah, Gandhi and Nehru).

Re: # 211

typo corrections:

#211 by VRV on January 16, 2007 6:33pm PT
Re: # 204

Zee,

I need an unassailable proof abt the assertion of Jinnah wanting to settle in India.

(I knew that he wanted to visit his home and this was corroborated by the account of a Congressi girl who shot an angry letter to Jinnah abt division of the people of India. BUT NOWHERE IT`S SAID/MENTIONED THAT JINNAH WANtED TO ``SETTLE`` IN BOMBAY. Moreover he knew that he`s having advanced TB disease which wud consume him too soon. Then why he`d come to Bombay to settle?? I need proof Dear Zee!)

As for Bounday Commission, it was an arbitration. It`s binding on all parties. If some Tom/Dick were given the job and that guy too gave a similar verdict, u guyz were going to say the same thing.

The terms of ref were known. Any guy with average intelligence cud make his own guess as to whether his/her district wud be part of India or Pakistan. Jinnah said it very clearly that MIGRATION HAD TO TAKE PLACE when partition is affected i.e even b4 the BOUNDARY COMMISSION WAS SETUP. The writing on the wall was very clear abt the turn of events....Jinnah knew what shud happen when his Pakistan is created. He `preferred` migration of non-muslims.

As for opinionated sentences like Nehru and Gandhi were villains but Jinnah was a saint...eh, there cant be another funnier description! Yasser can keep such `belief` to himself.

``Still it is a mystery to me as to what was all the hurry in this boundary award business, why the job was given to someone who had never been to India before, and why his award was agreed to be final by both parties in advance. ``

---

Radcliffe used the pencil of peace to partition India. It`s meant to be the pencil of peace but to me, it`s Reaper`s pointed tail......

---

P.S: for the sake of record I need to reproduce this sentence on Nehru from Pakistan`s official biography of Jinnah written by Hector Bolitho: page 49:

---

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the MORE SCHOLARLY of the three..........

---

(The Jinnah`s biographer whilst mentioning Jinnah, Gandhi and Nehru...an unexpected burst of frankness.....).

ranjit/devkant: In your eagerness to deny any interest in having anything common with pakistan, you overlooked that bjkumar wasnt saying that to begin with!! re-read carefully the question i mention in #195 i had for him to see what bjkumar was saying before condemning him for not keeping up with the herd.

I have one interesting news for you though: Based on what you two write, using ranjit`s Excel (enhanced model) calculations and the fine reasoning by devkant, 99.9999999 % Indians now agree that Jinnah was right all along!! And by the same token, that Indian Congress and muslim maulvis and others who were opposing Jinnah were wrong. It took you people 60 years, but I am glad that you have finally seen the wisdom behind what we Pakistanis have been saying all along. :-)

Dost Mittar,

Actually it was the other way around. By 1944, Muslim League had ditched the Unionists which was the main feudal party. The shortlived agreement referred in history to Sikandar-Jinnah pact in 1938 was Muslim League`s need of the hour... as Sikandar and the feudals were thought to be key to Punjab. Sikandar had entered into the pact because it was the only way he thought he could keep the main League leadership out. Congress mind you was never a threat to the Unionists. The Unionist Ministry thus carried the Muslim League banner during Sikandar Hayat`s regime. However... Sajjad Zaheer and the Communist Party were thrilled to find the Muslim League in its corner... after Unionist betrayal.

The point is not whether Congress had in its ranks the feudals... but who did it support in Punjab i.e. the true mass movement of the people aka League-Communist alliance or the British bureaucracy and Unionist conservatives. The answer was the latter and it significantly dents the tall claims made by Congress vis a vis ``anti-imperialism``. In 1947 was the situation was completely reverse of the situation in 1944. BTW your speculation that in 1947 ML-Unionists might have been together actually goes against the evidence that you`ve posted as evidence of Muslim communalism trying to bring down the Khizer Ministry.

-YLH

BTW the joke of the century: BJKumar, the follower of hindu supremacist exclusivist racist casteist fascist and misogynist Gandhi preaching about liberalism and calling people like Jinnah who dedicated most of their lives to Hindu Muslim Unity names. Wah bhai. Enough said.

``#199 by ranjit on January 16, 2007 0:01am PT
Since BJ is so infatuated with Pakistan these days, and the pakis like Manto are howling about 1947, how about we take BJ and his state Bihar and present it to Pakistan as a compensation for Nehru`s perfidy? It would be our humble gesture of goodwill and a confidence building measure. Who know, it might even raise the average IQ on both sides!! He He!!``

there was a joke on this i had heard in my college days in pune. it went like this....

gen mushy comes to india for kashmir negotiations with AB Vajpayee. gen mushy being a tough guy, none of the indian politicians know how to deal with him. laloo comes in and says that he is willing to talk to mushy.

laloo and mushy go into a room for discussions. 15 mins later mushy runs out and declares to the world press.....it is confirmed. kashmir stays with india. pakistan will vacate the occupied parts of kashmir too. pakistan demands nothing in return except for return of peace and friendship with india.

everyone is shocked with this reaction. laloo is asked about what he discussed with him that mushy had such a change of heart.

Simple....says laloo....all i said was that if you want kashmir, you will have to take bihar too!!!!!

rgds,

devkant.

Re:devkant#198

[..bj, are you nuts. have you taken leave of your senses...]

I think he has decided to formally become a chela of Laloo Prasad Yadav. Now that Laloo has turned around Indian Railways, I guess all biharis have decided to make him their role model.

Since BJ is so infatuated with Pakistan these days, and the pakis like Manto are howling about 1947, how about we take BJ and his state Bihar and present it to Pakistan as a compensation for Nehru`s perfidy? It would be our humble gesture of goodwill and a confidence building measure. Who know, it might even raise the average IQ on both sides!! He He!!

#190 by bjkumar on January 15, 2007 4:37pm PT

bj, are you nuts. have you taken leave of your senses.

i was one of those fools that used to think that the partition of india was the biggest mistake of the 20th century. but looking back, i think it was the best thing to happen in the 20th century.

without partition, we would have become something like lebanon or nigeria where the govt cannot make any policy without christian and muslim agreement. they cannot even hire a peon without looking over at quotas of muslims and christians. in undivided india, muslims would have held a similar gun on the govts head.

plus if india would not have been divided, there would have been a civil war far worse than lebanon or any other country has seen. even though partition was sad, it was good and necessary because it saved more lives than it killed. jinnah, nehru, gandhi and patel should be thanked for it.

monto...why are you crying over partition. we indians accept you guys as citizens of the soverign state of pakistan. isn`t that enough. why are you digging graves of dead people. we are happy the way we are, please try and be happy the way you are. if you have any problems, address it your leaders, why are u dragging indian leaders in all this. they did what was best for india.

rgds,

devkant.

Re:tahmed32#196

[..Did you use some enhanced version of MS Excel (i.e. the one that comes equipped with the Mind Scanner) to achieve this level of precision? :-)...]

Not exactly.To date, BJ seems to be the only Indian I have seen who openly pines for Akhand Bharat. Even the hardcore anti-pakis like arjun2 or mohars have zero interest in that. That means a 1 out of 1000 interactors. Assuming that the Indian crowd on chowk is many orders of magnitude more jingoistic than regular Indian population, a phenomenon that is acknowledged by everyone, my estimate is not too far off the mark. :-)

ranjit #191 I am glad to see that you have measured the innermost feelings of 1 billion people in India to the 7th place of the decimal. Did you use some enhanced version of MS Excel (i.e. the one that comes equipped with the Mind Scanner) to achieve this level of precision? :-)

bj #190 Thank you sir for your considered response. In response to my question on why you think future generations of Pakistanis will consider Pakistan to have been a folly, you response and my comments to your response are as follows:


1. You say: Because its cost was tremendous!

Agreed that the cost was tremendous. But for future generations this is a ``sunk cost``, and so not relevant to them. This is not to belittle the terrible cost of partition (see my post to ylh below).

2. You say: And because it was fully avoidable! The person who was most in position to avoid it was the (vamp) Jinnah.

Strong words generally reflect a weak argument, and by calling historical figures names and affixing labels to them you are not impressing anyone (ylh calls gandhi casteist, you call jinnah evil - and both of you merely make your posts seem insubstantial as a result.

On the substance: Is there any certainty that if there had been no Pakistan law and order would not have broken down anyway, and a hindu-muslim struggle for supremacy started? As I note to ylh - a good deal of carnage took place at railway stations where, if either government had a will, they could have easily prevented some of the worst excesses.

In any case, this point is irrelevant to the specific question I had for the same reason as in 1.

3. You write: The act of partition drove an irreversible wedge among people who are essentially the same people (but are now saddled with the baggage dumped by recent history).

This is not the reality today - as can be seen in the warmth with which Indian visitors to Pakistan have been received. As for being the ``same people`` - that is a meaningless thing I think. All of mankind is quite similar, and any other basis for similarity is very superficial and temporary (when measured in generations). Language, ethnicity, economic status, language, race, nationality may seem permanent, but are in fact rendered washed away and replaced by new structures within just a few generations. Hamidm`s Herrenvolk relatives notwithstanding.

There is some truth to what you say in points (a) through (d), but they do not add up to any convincing response to my above-mentioned question. I think the reason is that you assume that the average joe cares for the glory of belonging to a large empire rather than a smaller nation. These things are important only to the the glory-seeking jokers of history (Alexander the Grape, Hitler the Herrenvolk Guy, and so forth. Do belgians envy indians because india is a gazzilion times bigger than belgium? i dont think so. 1947 is already history for Pakistanis and Indians. Water under the bridge. All that remains is to pin down some lose ends, most notably the great human tragedy of 1947 where the justice of history remains to be served (per my post to ylh below).

I think you should be looking towards the future - and I think the future is very exciting indeed!! The progress in peace talks between the Indian and Pakistani governments gives one hope of better days ahead in India-Pakistan relations. That is what is going to be relevant to future generations, while the events of 1947 will steadily recede as just another historical event.

Re: # 195 Tahmed32
``I think you should be looking towards the future``

Well said and yes, indeed!

`` - and I think the future is very exciting indeed!! The progress in peace talks between the Indian and Pakistani governments gives one hope of better days ahead in India-Pakistan relations. That is what is going to be relevant to future generations, while the events of 1947 will steadily recede as just another historical event.``

I am not so sure that there will be much progress in the days ahead unless Pakistan gives up its irredentist position over the `K-word` territory. Ditto for using Afghanistan for `strategic depth`. I would like to think that Musharraf is a strategic thinker, but unfortunately, he is not. In a long list of Pakistani generals, he is a tactician, but not a strategist. The objective evidence points towards no fundamental change in Musharraf/Pakistan`s positions on these basic issues. If you don`t believe me how critical these are to Pakistan`s successful emergence as a viable state, then check out this remarkable recent set of interviews on PBS` Frontline site (2006)*. Specifically, read the interview by Christian Fair at the US Institute for Peace (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/pakistan/fair.html):

``QUES: Do they (ISI) want to (dump Taliban and militant assets)?

ANSWER: I don`t think they want to. If you look at Pakistan`s strategic compulsions, it has no other set of options but to support militancy in Afghanistan and in India. … Pakistan likes to call India its peer. India is not its peer. India is a vastly larger state with far more national assets that can be converted into national powers than Pakistan will ever have. Pakistan needs to resign itself that it`s not India`s peer and it`s going to be, over the near term, a significantly less important player in South Asia.

Pakistan cannot resign itself to that fact. Nor can it resign itself to the fact that Afghanistan can be a neighbor. Instead, Pakistan wants Afghanistan to be a client state. So until Pakistan can resign itself to its geographic realities, it`s going to continue to face incentives to engage in this, I guess what you can call proxy misadventures. …``


Also read this interview by Peter Tomsen who served as President George H.W. Bush`s special envoy and ambassador to the Afghan resistance from 1989 to 1992:

EXCERPTS

QUES:So that all of Afghanistan would be a client state of Pakistan, a large Muslim resistance to Indian encroachment?

ANS. Hindu Indians, that`s right. And that has been, of course, the major geopolitical goal of Pakistan since partition is to confront India.


Also read this interview excerpt by Pulitzer prize winning -Steve Coll of The New Yorker

EXCERPTS
`Musharraf belongs to a generation of officers in the Pakistan army who remember the frontier as a problem because of its leftist Awami League, secular tribal leaders, some of whom were subsidized by the Soviet Union. He has an, in my view, irrational fear of secular politics in some of these parties. But he needs these parties even if they`re going to make his life more difficult in Islamabad. He needs them to consolidate unity in Pakistan and to control the frontier. He can`t do it without them.

QUES: Is he going to allow political organizing in (NWFP,Pakistan)?--

ANS. No, he shows no signs of having a political strategy that would advance these goals.

So the mullah stays in power?

The mullah stays in power, and he continues to try to manage that equation as best he can by some combination of force, cooption and negotiation. But he has been trying this approach since 2002. Here we are in 2006. It ain`t working.


*for the overall site http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/


In short, I am not suggesting at all that Musharraf alone is the issue (even if Musharraf goes, his replacement is unlikely to budge from the above stance). For these reasons, unless there is a FUNDAMENTAL re-evaluation of Pakistan`s national strategy with regards to India and Afghanistan and in turn how the Pakistani leaders allow political breathing room within the country, I do not have hopes for the future. I would like to hope for the better, but the objective evidence is simply not there. Even the Americans are now losing confidence in Musharraf and publicly calling out Pakistan`s double game in the GWOT (last week DNI Negroponte told Congress that Al Qaeda is regrouping and re-strenghthening in Pakistan. That only drew loud howls of official protest from Islamabad). Unwillingness to confront the inconvenient truth is not a recipe for a turnaround. Good luck!

Re: # 205

I meant to write, `Unwillingness to confront the inconvenient truth by Islamabad
is not a recipe for a turnaround. ` Did not mean to imply ‘by Tahmed32’

ylh #177
I had not heard of Francis Mudie, and only vaguely recall the name Iftikharuddin Ahmed before reading your post - so obviously your knowledge of the details in 1947 greatly exceeds mine. I think though that you have not discussed all the issues I raised, nor addressed convincingly the ones you did discuss. So, let me try to restate a bit more clearly:

1. During the round table conferences, to the best of my knowledge, no one anticipated the massive dislocations and bloodshed of 1947. Muslim League, Congress and the British Government were all party to those conferences. Are you aware of the question of maintaining law and order during this transition period being discussed. In retrospect, the brits should have borne the responsibility of maintaining law and order while the new governments came up to speed.

2. Is there any written record of Francis Mudie coming to the conclusion that he had to send all Hindus to East Punjab after a certain point to save their lives... but even this he reported to Jinnah would be a temporary situation and they would be allowed to come back once the dust settles..`` Wouldnt a more practical way to save lives have been to offer police/military protection, have curfews, shoot curfew violaters on sight? Some of the worst carnage was done on railway stations in both India and Pakistan, where fleeing refugee families provided easy targets to bastards on both sides. Was it really that hard for the Indian or Pakistani government to put a small detachment of police in key railway stations where the killings took place? Shouldnt people like you who are experts on that era be persuing such questions and bringing them to light ?

Re:bjkumar#190

Tahmed, before you lash out at BJ and roast his sorry as$ for his `akhand bharat` delusions, let me assure you that BJ is not just in a minority, he is in a micrority for those absurd views.

99.9999999% Indians are quite happy with the way things turned out to be.

#170 by tahmed32

[bjkumar: I await patiently, bj, for the answer to my question on why exactly the creation of Pakistan was a folly.]

Note: I am saying very few things here which I have not said before!

Tauheed Sahib, thank you for your patience. Here are my (simple) views on why the creation of Pakistan (i.e., the partition of India) was a mistake.

Because its cost was tremendous!

And because it was fully avoidable! The person who was most in position to avoid it was the (vamp) Jinnah. But he chose not to. Which makes him, in my view, nothing other than sheer evil – hence the term “vamp” that I use to describe him!

I am of the view that if pre-partition India had stayed united, things would have worked out – not necessarily smoothly – but they would have worked out nevertheless – just like they appear to keep working out for the remaining parts – of what is currently called India.

The act of partition drove an irreversible wedge among people who are essentially the same people (but are now saddled with the baggage dumped by recent history).

It is my opinion that – in a United India:

(a) There could have been a relatively strong minority presence in several present-day Pakistani provinces – perhaps obtaining a voting clout similar to the way Muslims do in certain Indian ``heartland`` states. Because there would not have been a ``transfer`` of populations.

(b) There would have been a more liberal Muslim general population in present-day Pakistani provinces due to (1) exposure to ``minorities``, (2) absence of indoctrination by state, (3) better system of checks and balances, (3) more stability and fewer unstable regimes, (4) less room for demagogues to operate through cultivating the psychology of fear.

(c) There would have been virtually zero chances of the armed forces stepping in and grabbing power, partly because of the size of the country and partly because the British Army psychology would have prevailed like in India, and partly because there would not have been a power vacuum due to the death of any single individual political leader! (Remember, Pakistan used to be a relatively secular country (in practice) until General Zia got into the act! And Mullahs by themselves can never do any damage until the army empowers them!)

(d) There would not have been many of the post partition events that widened the gulf further – imagine (1) no Kashmir problem, (2) no Bangladesh problem, (3) no war-1, no war-2, no war-3, no Kargil, no ISI – none of that ``exciting`` stuff.

Use that imagination a bit! Imagine the most populous country in the world! Also, the most diverse country in the world – multi-religious, multi-ethnic, multi-languages, multi-talented, multi-you-name-it! Do you think ANYBODY would even ask silly questions like the eligibility for a permanent seat at the UN security council?

We – the victims – can only imagine what it would have been like! Would it really have worked out? Could it really have worked out? My own guess – based on little more than common sense and gut feeling is that it would have.

But unfortunately, we shall never know. Because those same leaders – led by the vamp Jinnah – never gave us a chance to try to live together.

Perhaps many of us do not see the folly of our ways. Many in the present generation certainly don`t. The poison of indoctrination – especially of the religious kind – and the type that fanatics enjoy – it goes very deep and numbs the senses and it numbs better judgement!

Perhaps someday, our children will be able to see that folly! Those who are left in the old country, that is!

I am done with this board.

#187 Hamidm2

Mian H2, it is easy enough to respond to this interact. All I need to do is to re-present the following interact from a past board.

Therefore, peshe-khidmat hai!

Listen H2 – the light-gas, actually you are as much, if not more, one of the “homies” of Allah as the Zee.

You share the same damn characteristics of liking all the wrong things – like liking the TB-infested vamp Jinnah, like liking his prejudice against Hindus, like liking his screwed up sense of Muslim supremacy and like liking his apartheid of making a distinction among people based on whether they are Muslims or not!

You have the same crappy attitudes, the same crappy perverted “Muslim” prejudices and the whole crappy shebang that goes with it!

With one important exception!

Unlike the Zee and the Boomer and the Truly and even wolf Naqshi – who are open with their Islamic prejudice, you are trying to cover your modesty by giving the airs of a liberal!

You are no darn liberal – you are as much of a fraudulent liberal as the Manto is and as the dead man Jinnah was!

For anybody who truly believes in “all men are created equal” will NEVER turn around and malign Hindus with such pleasure to the point of ultimate self-arousal, as you do!

And like all the dishonest Pakistanis here, you try to use very limited cover to hide your “modesty” - like Draupadi trying to cover herself after her own mian (like your Jinnah) had gambled it all – and lost it all – such a moron!

There is no Krishna for your rescue, you fat cat!

The nakedness of your hypocrisy shows to everybody more plainly than the green fraud the Mushy keeps stuffing into the rears of the Pakistani awaam on a day in and day out basis. And for your information, the closest the Kashmiris will ever come to “unification” with the land of the Pure will be when courtesy of the Indians, Kashmiri apple or some other fruitcake gets stuffed into the same location!

Which the Pakistanis have no choice but to “enjoy” – just like they enjoy the painful experiences from the Mushy presently!

Re: # 189

bj,

..... you really are a very tormented man ! .......... get over your delusion that there ever was a united india - there never was .......... first the muslim rulers from persia and central asia and wherever kept it `together` and then the british took over to create an administrative unit for their own convenience ........ if the british hadn`t shown up on the scene ,your india would have been fifty independent states and principalities run by fat little hindu rajas and even fatter (but bigger) muslim nawabs .......... so please give up on this notion of the mythical indian (hindu) empire and accept reality for what it is ............. all we are asking is that you fulfill nehru`s promise to the kashmiris - is that too much ?

#180 by Mantolives on January 15, 2007 6:55am PT


Yes... the Bengali count is still on.. the body count in that goes up every year.But it turns out that your Indian scholar Sarmila Bose went around proving that the figures were simply an exaggeration.


What did Sarmila Bose write about the prosecution of paki armymen(or lack thereof) for all those killings?

bj,

...... please don`t insult me by claiming to be `my people` ....... i have already admitted that great grandpa gopinath was a horrible hindoo, but since then we have tried to bleed out the bad genes by marrying pathans, germans and even an english laundry woman ......... that is why we call ourself pakis - those of pure blood .......... what do we have to do to convince you guys that we don`t want anything to do with you ? ......... all we want is for ya`ll to settle the unfinished business of kashmir so that we can all get on with our lives .......... is it that hard to understand ?

....... by the way, thanks for introducing me to the hon adolphus towns - the man is incredible and i am seriously thinking of having a fund raiser for him in detroit !

#184:

BTW, Jinnah would also have a more practical reason for stopping communal riots in Karachi during 1948. Gandhi`s assasination had brought communal peace in India but communal killings in Karachi would have had the potential of re-igniting communal riots in India and causing another mass exodus of Muslims, which Pakistan could ill afford at that time. Whether or not this was a motivation for Jinnah, he ought to get the credit where credit is due.

........the impact of partition violence on pakistanis and their next generation was (is) significantly higher than that on indians.........one cannot even remotely compare the two.....

......the reasons are simple......india, as a whole, really didn`t get divided.......only punjab and bengal did (and kashmir)......punjab and bengal constituted a very small fraction of the future indian population.........while they constituted nearly all of future pakistan`s population........

......in addition, another major pakistani community, i.e. muhajirs literally migrated from india and hence were the worst affectees........

.........it will thus be common to find pakistanis whose families were, in some way affected by the partition and its violence......while it will be difficult to find indian families........on this site alone, i am quite sure, nearly every pakistani had someone close to them who was directly affected, as most of the pakistani here are punjabis and muhajirs.......yet i doubt too many indians on this site had anyone who was directly affected........only punjabi and bengali indias - a tiny % of overall india - would have had someone affected.......

...........both my parents came in from india......one by ship and one by road.........my wife`s grandmother lost two of her siblings........they have never been heard from since........my grandfathher left his life`s earnings in kashmir and migrated, including a fully furnished house........

........this will be very common for pakistanis.......% wise, around 80-90% of pakistan`s population was directly affected, as it was in punjab and bengal...........while probably less than 10% (?) of india`s population must have been affected......

..........community-wise the largest affect must have been on sikhs..........they were affected more than even muslims - culturally, physically, religiously, socially etc..........and i can understand their complains.........actually the largest affect would be on kashmiris, as they are still suffering..........

having said that.........i cannot figure out why sikhs did not accept jinnah`s offer of an autonomous state, when they would only later go and fight for one in 1984.......

needless to say that the affects of partition and reasons behind it are not what they are taught in india and pakistan.........one needs to keep an open mind and look at historical facts and figures and then reach conclusions.........

on the whole, indians (barring sikhs and dost-mittar etc.) were hardly affected by the partition......as nearly all of india remained geographically isolated and intact.......pakistanis, were devestated by the partiiton, at a personal level........since punjabis, bengalis (and to a smaller % muhajirs) were a gigantic % of pakistanis........

Hi Manto:

Although I respect Wolpert as a good researcher, I have a built-in preference for primary sources over secondary sources and multiple lines of evidence over single evidence. Therefore, I pay more credence to Hira Gulrajani`s letter or Jenkin`s words than to what comes from secondary sources. It is clear from Gulrajani` letter as well as other sources of information -for example Sri Prakasa`s account- that Jinnah did, indeed, try to protect minorities in Karachi during 1948 (I believe that Karachi remained more or less calm during August 1947). However, this was like bolting the barn after most of the horses had literally left through the other door.

That Suhrawardi and Sarat Bose had explored the idea of a united Bengal has been frequently mentioned elsewhere also (however, so little is said about this that I suspect that it was not something seriously pursued beyond a casual conversation or two). Moreover, this seems to come generally from secondary sources; I never read anything from Sarat Bose himself on this issue although I was quite an adult when Sarat Bose was alive and still active in Indian politics (I believed he was involved in the Forward Block). I also know that whenever this issue is discussed, the only name that gets mentioned is that of Sarat Bose, so I suspect that he was perhaps a loner who did not have the support of the Hindu masses, and unlike his famous brother, Sarat was not a very prominent figure in Bengal.

I have not read Zaheer`s account but it stands to reason that the communists would support any party opposed to feudals, and Muslim leagues was perhaps the only party opposing the feudal-led Unionist. I am not well versed in the Punjab politics of that era but I think that by 1947, ML and Unionists were together and the Congress, with all its faults, was not a party of the feudals. Since you consider the Congress to be a hindu party, Hindus were not the feudals in the Punjab and the earlier Congress support to the Unionists could only be of a tactical type, just as the communists and other leftists join the Congress against the common enemy, the BJP, in India today although they disagree with most of its policies. BTW, regardless of the stand of the communists in Punjab, none of the Hindu communists stayed behind, unlike Muslim communists in India or that famous Sindhi Hindu communists (I forget his name) who carried on his fight for workers in Pakistan and refused to go to India despite the efforts of the Pakistani police to urge him to leave.

#182 Lapdog

Go Screw yourself!


#170 Tauheed sahib

I will get around to that answer soon. Right now, got to do some household chores. :(

... even injuns agree he`s a plagiarist ... do check out the thread on UP ...

Good night.

#170 by tahmed32

You`re expecting a reliable answer from a known plagiariser?

#174 by Mantolives on January 15, 2007 6:21am PT



Jinnah by comparison to all these gentlemen remained committed to bringing Hindus an Muslims together


Yeah..Pakiland brought them together..into the muslim fold...that is why Pakiland is 97% muslim..



emphasising the protection of minorities at all costs.


Duh..he should have emphasized the protection of majorities too..when a whole bunch of bengalis were killed in 71, with the body count being more than have died in India in the last 60 years, the bengalis were a majority...

BTW: we`re still waiting for you to give us some links on successful paki women like Indra Nooyi...public information please..nothing from the PIOMPA list...

Re: # 178

Yes... the Bengali count is still on.. the body count in that goes up every year.But it turns out that your Indian scholar Sarmila Bose went around proving that the figures were simply an exaggeration.

However... the way we treated our Eastern Brothers was exactly the way Hindus had treated Muslims in United India... and had we acquiesced to their demands ala 1940 Resolution... everyone would have been spared a lot of embarrassment.

Dear Tahmed,

Please read 168 again.

It confirms what has been noted in several books on the issue... Jinnah ordered the shooting of Muslim rioters who were attacking Hindus and it was done. This did not happen once but several times.

Good that you acknowledge that the other side didn`t do anything to bring the perpetrators of violence to justice. As for Jinnah- who was morally a much higher person than Gandhi or Nehru- bringing those responsible to justice... let us forget that after March 1948, Jinnah was bed ridden almost till his death later that year... it was impossible to bring killers to justice when entire communities on both sides were involved.

What we should be looking at is the efforts of government functionaries... Jinnah, Sir Francis Mudie and Mian Iftikharuddin come out as sterling heroes for the way they brought order to chaos a