Is this Pakistan’s Democratic Revolution?

#32 by Yasser

No... achieving all this would mean that Indians had already become the masters of their destiny... if only the logical course could have been followed.

The independence which did not come to us till 1947 despite such unrest throughout India for a good 20-30 years, would have come about through Jinnah`s petitioning? I always knew you were a bit dense, but I didn`t think it was so bad.

... which is strange because don`t you guys boast about American investment in India day in and day out...

Money doesn`t have color. We couldn`t care less if it came from Burkina Faso, but you guys are so hung up on pride, you wouldn`t understand that even if your lives depended on it. In any case, the way America bombs you guys at will, even that pride is a thing of the past.

Manto mian,

(The ``revolution`` that I am speaking of is not mass uprising or throwing regime out over night... but a permanent revolution vis a vis the independence of judiciary... which has come about. )

Fully agree with you. Democracy is meaningless without enforcement of laws, whatever these laws may be. And if the judiciary (in Pakistan or elsewhere) has the courage to implement the letter and the spirit of the law it is a matter of time that arbitrary things like PCO, dual office (COAS + Prez) etc. would be questioned by the Pak SC.

But the question is assuming that the judiciary and the legal fraternity in Pakistan suceeds in trumping Mush, would that be a permanent revolution. Mush could easily come to the conclusion that the next CJ should be an extremely discredited ruffian and arrange likewise.

(It goes without saying that India would have achieved Swaraj, had British not gotten the excuse of unrest...)

And what was Britain’s motivation in denying India a dominion status.

Regards

Harish mian,

Your understanding of freedom perhaps is grounded... rightfuly so... in the fact that India atleast has capitalised on that very constitutional development ... while Pakistanis did not. The point was that Indians would have achieved all that and then there would be no need of the independence of 1947 because we would be free... which was merely the British Empire`s re-evaluation of the global order. Would 1947 mean anything minus those rights?

The lack of an indigenous bourgeoisie (Pakistani bourgeoisie in 1947 consisted only of Mohajirs) fomented local rebellion against migrant politicians from India in form of civilian-military bureaucracy aided by the Punjabi feudal elite. However this is now changing because we have a local bourgeoisie ready to take charge.

Maybe you have another view... but the bone of contention for all Indian leaders was political rights of their constituents... most of them were ready to be part of the British Empire as equal British subjects... All hatemongering aside... the roundtable conference came about ... when Jinnah persuaded Gandhi, Motilal and younger Nehru to meet Irwin to discuss parliamentary self rule...

Dear Majumdar,

Well ... the current CJ if restored would remain Chief Justice till 2011 or 2013... so who knows what will happen till then?

As for your other question... it was more of a clash between liberals (and later on the labour) and conservatives ... In the 1920s Stanley Baldwin was the Prime Minister... the conservatives obviously did not want the Indians to take over because that would make it much harder for various interests in Britain to utilise it... in many ways, India might have become a cost center instead of a profit-making venture... see for example the bill Jinnah got passed which called for Rupee tenders instead of Pound sterling ...

Ultimately the British would have given the dominion status for India... but they wanted to slap around the Indian politicians in the meantime... World War 2 changed all that.

Re: # 36

Can we move beyond historical revisionism and 1947?Its 2007 for pete`s sake...

Re: # 38

Why don`t you tell that to those who started it on this board. Wasn`t me...

``We couldn`t care less if it came from Burkina Faso, but you guys are so hung up on pride, you wouldn`t understand that even if your lives depended on it.``

Dear Harish pai... My point was that the issue the colonial subjects had with the British had to do with political rights and not an arbitrary hatred for the British (Except for a few tribes in the North West like Fakir of Ipi`s followers) ...

Must everything crash against your thick skull...

#40 by Yasser

Dear Harish pai... My point was that the issue the colonial subjects had with the British had to do with political rights and not an arbitrary hatred for the British (Except for a few tribes in the North West like Fakir of Ipi`s followers) ...

And dear Yasser pai, my statement was in response to your point that we make a show of American investment. I thought you just looked dumb, now I know you are.

BTW... breaking news:

Pakistan`s hero Rana Bhagwan Das is back... and he is acting very judicially... by not responding to reporters questions....

Re: # 41

My comment oh genius was that since you mention so proudly American and western investment in India... this ``independence`` thing must be about political rights and not some arbitrary hatred for the white race.

#42 Good news. This is Das`s chance to join the rest of the lawyer community and show greatness by standing up to the general if fighting for the rule of law in Pakistan.....Let us pray, for the sake of all Pakistanis, that he lives up to this challenge.

#43 by Yasser

Once again, I must compliment your dad for such foresight. You display the true traits of the animal in question. Where in my post did you find any hatred for the White race? If anything, over 65% of your countrymen hate Americans and everything European, so you must question that. But since you neither have economic independence nor political independence (being that you depend on periodic infusions of western aid, without which Pakistan would be a sinking ship and because the US bombs Paki soil without bothering to say sorry), you would clutch at any straw floating in the vicinity.

Re: # 45

Now you are losing focus again- I suppose everyone has his or her own limitations.

The rights that constitutionalists were fighting for i.e. right to be officers in the army, Indians making India`s budget, law making, self rule etc were what the ``independence`` was all about... and they would have gotten these rights much earlier had the half naked racist casteist fraud Gandhi not showed up at his masters` behest to give the British an excuse to delay these rights.

By admitting that it was not some arbitrary hatred for the white race but these fundamental issues that constituted freedom, you`ve answered your own question about the viability of the notion that Gandhi somehow magically got Indians their freedom.

#46 by Yasser

The rights that constitutionalists were fighting for i.e. right to be officers in the army, Indians making India`s budget, law making, self rule etc were what the ``independence`` was all about... and they would have gotten these rights much earlier had the half naked racist casteist fraud Gandhi not showed up at his masters` behest to give the British an excuse to delay these rights.

Coupled with the right to walk, the right to sit, the right to go fishing, the right to play, the right to breathe, the right to eat and so on...so how long do you think this would have taken genius? Would we have been free by at least 2700 AD? Moron!

By admitting that it was not some arbitrary hatred for the white race but these fundamental issues that constituted freedom, you`ve answered your own question about the viability of the notion that Gandhi somehow magically got Indians their freedom.

Trying to act smart are we? By your definition even Tibet is a free country, ain`t it pal?

The `petitioning` crook would certainly have taken a couple of hundred more years to win us freedom, Gandhi led us (well at least the Indians) to it a lot earlier. But when the old TB-ridden crook realized that independence was inevitable, he made sure he got his share to rule over, thus making himself the `constitutionalist` dictator of Pakistan. Those fools (which includes the fool I`m responding to) who blame everyone under the sun for their problems with democracy, must first look at the authoritarian founder of Pakistan, the TB-ridden Vampire who was no less than Mushy is and Zia was.

Musharraf will stay in power untill one of the following things happen

1. There is a coup and some other power hungry general takes over (with US support of course)
2. He is Ziafied
3. There is a mass movement like the anti emergency movement of 1975 where students, housewives, farmers and workers join forces with agitating lawyers and politicians.

I am betting that the 3rd scenario is the one that is least likely to come true.