Rest in Peace Pakistan (1947-1974)

Re: # 1092
[...Luckily or unluckily as naive and clueless a Hindu as Nehru rejected that...]

it was ``luckily``... and Nehru, the cunning bania was not naive or clueless. he took the correct decision of rejecting CMP... sure, it did some damage, but it prevented a later catastrophe...

Like I said - nobody believed hindus and muslims are ``the same``... neither did gandhi... the opertaing words are ``unity in diversity``... nobody says blacks and whites are ``the same`` in US - but as a nation - they have the same destiny... peaceful co-existence...

+++

[...look at Islam as Muslims themselves do WHENEVER NON-MUSLIMS ARE INVOLVED. ..]

An idea which is destructive has to be discarded... doesn`t matter how people may react to it... most people thought sun goes around earth and were ready kill to support that stupidity... but in the end, the ``some`` who knew otherwise persisted and won...

The key, Mr Kaal, is NOT to give in to stupidity, even if majority susbcribes to it... NOT to give excuses, NOT to be an apologist for islamic stupidity...

Ref kaalchakra #1081

[Have you Hindus never heard the concept of religion as race? Never heard of Tamils, Sinhalas, and Muslims of Srilanka? Never heard of .....well, so much much more.]

The Sinhalese of Sri Lanka are descended from Bengali immigrants...according to their legends. They do not call themselves a separate race because they are Buddhists but because Bengalis are not Dravidians, dark-skinned though they might be.

The Tamils of Sri Lanka are descended from the Dravidian Tamils of India. They don`t call themselves a separate race because they are Hindus...actually, some of them are Christians.

The Muslims of Sri Lanka are Tamil-speaking. But somehow they are a different race!

Explain that to me.

Cabinet Mission Plan or partition. Once Hindus could not accept CMP, partition became inevitable (since Hindus were unwilling to accept an openly Muslim minority rule over them again).

mohar, one may argue it is stupid, one may argue it is destructive and cult-like, but Islam as a separate race and ethnicity is a reality. The key, Mohar, is not to look at Islam using non-Islamic/un-Islamic criteria, but look at Islam as Muslims themselves do WHENEVER NON-MUSLIMS ARE INVOLVED. What ``some`` Muslims say or do is actually quite immaterial - Islam offers a great deal of freedom to individuals to do and say as they please given specific time and place and objective at hand, without endangering their eventual membership in Islamic race or ethnicity. As to internal fighting, Muslims have also ALWAYS fought among one another, and killed one another, but that doesn`t mean that Muslims think they are the same as non-Muslims.

Gandhi`s belief that Islam and Muslims were somehow ``the same`` as Hinduism and Hindus cost India much.

The two were incompatible, and NO POLITICAL solution between them was possible, except the Cabinet Mission Plan type of an arrangement. Luckily or unluckily as naive and clueless a Hindu as Nehru rejected that.

Re: # 1084
[... Intra-racial fights are one thing, inter-racial fights another...]

Killing bengalis were because pakis considered them an inferior ``race``... so it`s not ``intra-racial`` fight... it simply debunks the concept of all muslims as ``one race``...

Moreover - do all muslims agree that they are a separate ``race``?... some do, some don`t... many IMs consider themselves indians first and their religion is just another of their composite identity...

Even muhajirs have realized that - the foolishness of inventing a ``race`` out of religion... they are on record saying partition was a mistake... that was over-the-top, but the point is that, when religion super-imposed as the overriding criterion for one`s identity, it destroys everything... religion as race does not work... particularly with a cult-like religion like islam, it`s downright stupid to make a big deal out of it...

The example of pakiland clearly shows the stupidity of that concept... but for some reason, you are harping on that failed concept...

Re: # 1084 kaal
[...just regret that Congressites refused to accept Muslims as a separate race ...]

wrong... congress realized that muslims are a separate entity and agreed to partition...

Hindus in general have always taken muslims as separate entity [except for RSS, who keep harping on ``indianising`` muslims and what not]... hindus have given muslims complete religious freedom, complete cultural freedom, separate personal laws... right from the partition days, have taken extra care to be sensitive about their ``sentiments``... [which is what riles RSS]...

When somebody says - we are the ``same people`` - it`s to emphasize the need for peaceful co-existence rather than anything else...

Re: # 1086

This is the result of the state`s use of religious mercenaries during the Cold War.... and Pakistan Army`s interests which seldom conincide with Pakistan`s own.

And I`ve showed you that some of the secular nations in the world are states that were hyphenated democracies but secular in practice....

Amazing that millions of Muslims and Hindus have no problem living in the Anglican Christian nation of Britain... where the Queen is the head of the Anglican Church as well...

Jinnah`s Pakistan - as he expressed it- did not even have any such constitutional caveats ...

#1085


[The political theory of nationalism/identity/ethnicity places any and all of the following as basis for imagined identity:

1. Common education/language/culture

2. Common history

3. Common religious beliefs ]


I have no problem with people developing their identities as mushrooms, if they so choose.


[If you read the very quote that forms the basis of two nation theory ... you would see that Jinnah applied this test. Hence it was not as simple as ``we are of a different religion`` ... but all three of these on which Jinnah based his case. That there was an Indo-Muslim culture that had developed around persian and urdu... that there was a common history whereby Muslims` heroes were often the villains in Hindus` history.... and there were commonality of religious beliefs...

The point is where was Jinnah going with this?]

Yes, exactly. Where? Let`s see...


[By arguing this he was simply saying for most of the time that India was a multinational homeland of many nations... and that a constitutional solution should reflect that. It must be remembered that by recognising this principle, it did not negate but advanced democracy ... where by permanent majorities and minorities were reinterpretted as nations... this would have brought a greater consensus in society. ]

I think we have drifted far from the original argument.

This is what I wrote in my 1st post:

[#1062 by krishna_abcd

An ISLAMIC state by definition is undemocratic - regardless of whether the Islamic state is cooked up by ``the Quaid``, ``the Fonz`` or anyone else - the minorities are forced to live in an ``Islamic`` state where they would much rather live in a secular state. Pakistan was doomed for failure at its inception. As is ANY Islamic state.
]


I still stick to this point - that by calling a state an ``Muslim`` state (Muslim, Islamic are sysnonymous to me) he is by definition stripping religious minorities of their democratic rights as equal citizens.

That`s just how it is. If I as a Hindu citizen, am forced to live in a land labeled a ``Muslim`` nation, then for me, there is no democracy in the country - regradless of ANYTHING else.

Period.

Re: # 1085

{That there was an Indo-Muslim culture that had developed around persian and urdu... } Agreed. Yet on the other board the mullahs in Lal Masjid claimed that ``they are Arabs and that they love the Arabs``. How and when did this transformation happen? As the years go by are Pakistanis getting more confused?

Your valued thoughts, please. Thanks.

Dear Krishna,

The political theory of nationalism/identity/ethnicity places any and all of the following as basis for imagined identity:

1. Common education/language/culture

2. Common history

3. Common religious beliefs

If you read the very quote that forms the basis of two nation theory ... you would see that Jinnah applied this test. Hence it was not as simple as ``we are of a different religion`` ... but all three of these on which Jinnah based his case. That there was an Indo-Muslim culture that had developed around persian and urdu... that there was a common history whereby Muslims` heroes were often the villains in Hindus` history.... and there were commonality of religious beliefs...

The point is where was Jinnah going with this? By arguing this he was simply saying for most of the time that India was a multinational homeland of many nations... and that a constitutional solution should reflect that. It must be remembered that by recognising this principle, it did not negate but advanced democracy ... where by permanent majorities and minorities were reinterpretted as nations... this would have brought a greater consensus in society.

-YLH

Nahi, mohar, just regret that Congressites refused to accept Muslims as a separate race from all other Indians, a separate ethnicity, and Jinnah, who was otherwise an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity had no choice but to force the hands of ignorant Congressites...:(

A great loss to all then, and a great loss even now since Hindu minds have not changed one bit. Ignorance masquerades as liberalism and moralism even today.

---

Muslims killing Muslims is a non-issue, Mohar. That has been going on since the birth of Islam. Intra-racial fights are one thing, inter-racial fights another.

Re: # 1076 kaal
[...Once we accept Islam as a sufficient basis for separate race and ethncity...]

We did that already - 60 years ago... which is why pakiland was created... but it`s pakis who have damaged that concept... by killing the fellow muslims in millions... so what the heck are you ranting about?

Re: # 1079 kaal

Dude - are you planning to convert to islam?... your excuses for islamic stupidity is ridiculous... :)

I can now well understand the difficulties Jinnah must have had as he tried to create friendship and cooperation between Muslims and Hindus.

One puts before them basic things that are common and common knowledge among Muslims, and all Hindus go just ballistic.....

Have you Hindus never heard the concept of religion as race? Never heard of Tamils, Sinhalas, and Muslims of Srilanka? Never heard of .....well, so much much more.

If the brilliant and honest Jinnah cannot convince, if reality around the world, everyday and everywhere, cannot convince, then nothing may.....or may be behind all this denial and great rage.....there lurks an uncomfortable realization of the reality.

#1079

You can`t tell for sure on Chowk, with the way people assume other people`s identities, but you sound more like an Islamic nutjob (of the Indian variety) than the kaalchakra guy.

In any case, I said the following:

``I could care less how Muslims choose to define themselves.``

So why the fcuk are you writing:

``All we are asking, or anyone is asking, for is that they do not question Muslims` (may be of Jews as well) right to be a self-contained ethncity and race, separate from all others. ``

Huh? Smoking something? You and all other Muslims can define yourselves as a sub-species of mollusks, for all I care. Quit babbling.