Islam as a political weapon in Pakistan

Re: # 355 Yahya ,Tikka and Sahibzada were captured in North Africa.Thats why they were in camps in italy.Bose's INA guys were captured mostly in Malaya,Singapore and some in Burma.Bose was basically dealing with PWs captured by Japanese.Regards.

Re: # 331
The major intellectual destruction of India is carried out by moslems. Mughals were no exception. The land, which was pioneer in Mathematics, Science, Literature and Health Science is now the most backward section of the world ( Indian State UP, Bihar and Bangladesh and Pakistan). Islam is the best tool to destroy civilisation. Will Durant's writing will provide you nice perspective.

and may I add that this minset is most reponsible for us Pakistanis not evolving a wholesome concept of nationhood. This is also why we see so many varying views on national identity and the conflict-contradiction debate.
Cheerios

Re: # 352
HP, you lack patience and despite very good arguments become impulsive as much as I according to you become a romantic. Well I admit that my notions of soldiering are still very romantic and I continue to disagree with your sweeping theory. Let me elaborate. The regular army has suffered as much from these interventions as has rest of the nation. You just cannot get hold of a soldier/officer and blame him for all the ills. Now where to affix responsibility?

You and me agree on the mindset of 1935. This is where the story begins. This is where Pakistan does not have free and fair elections till 1970. I call this entire group of conspirators that include the politicians, bureaucrats, agencies and top military men, who tasted power as the mindset who have successfully bred generations into the present state of affairs. This mindset is influenced by the events of partition created from the perspective of the North and West and that perpetuate their interests. They still do. They may or may not comprise card players. It is in the present set up that I identify individuals who grew up playing Bridge together. I wish you had read the exchange between me and Agha in more detail.

A praetorian army gets its characteristics from the group that controls it. It does not imply that the entire organisation is politicised. Soldiering is a romantic affair and ROMANTIC SOLDIERS ARE MOST PREFERRED. They are in every army.

But you still need to respond to the Psy and sociological causes of conflict. One man's ideology may be the other man's chagrin. It is these two opposed perceptions that have always led to conflicts.

The present conflict in the war on terror is overshadowed by extreme degree of hate on both sides. The aspects of cool strategic planning are overshadowed by sentiments that fail to identify each other's logic. Hence; this killing on both sides. In this war of hate which I call Neo Clausewitzianism, the urge to use blatant force far outweighs employment of other instruments of policy. Because I call this war of hate, it is primarily contested within the sociological paradigm and therefore senseless. Therefore from the perspective of each contestant, it is irrelevant, what delivery means is used for destruction. Be they daisy cutters or suicide bombers.

Most, this war of hate does not suit Pakistan's security environment.

Urstruly:

"So Punjab and Bengal both were seething with hatered by the time war was at its prime around 23 March 1940. That was the one single reason that made up Muslim poulaces mind that the option of a separate homeland is worth its salt."

This is not very convincing. Why would the hatred against British rulers translate into a desire for a separation from the Hindus?

tahmed32:

Happy New Year to You, too.

There is a reason why Bose is, to this day, considered one of the biggest heroes in India and not a quisling. While the quislings of Norway, France, etc. were fifth columnists against their own indigenous government, Bose was a freedom fighter who was willing to sup with the devil if necessary to free his people from foreign rulers.

pavocavalry#349:

From what you write, it seems that these people - yakubzada, yahya, Tikka - were not amont those captured in Africa and not part of the POWs offered a choice to join Bose's legion. The BBC report which I alluded to clearly said that all prisoners volunteered to join the India legion.

On SEATO, as I recall from my memorising for the General Knowledge tests, it stood for South East Asia Treato Organization.

BTW, your posts are a breath of fresh air on chowk, even if one may not agree with everything you say.

#345 Posted by pavocavalry,

I GUESS THIS IS A QADIANI DOMINATED SITE.

Pavo ... merey bhai, this site is neither dedicated to qadianis nor hindoos nor christians.

What it IS dedicated to is demolishing Islam.

Believe me. I've been on this site since ten years.

Author had done a great job in presenting the big picture during the 70's. There is however one thing I can not understand. As it is very clear from the author's own assessments that Bhutto was a Modern Socialist at heart, and he only used Islam as the last resort to keep PPP in power. Then why is it that he should get the blame for whatever went wrong after 70's due to Islamisation of Pakistan.
I think JI should be the one at fault and the special hand behind JI. Since JI has never been a popular party in Pakistani Politics (as eveident by its week showing in ANY election in Pakistani History). It ay have street power but no legal parliamentary power. It has always tried to come into power on somebody else's expense.

I would like to see if someone can do an analysis for us on who is behind JI & what is their secret agenda. And how they have been gradualy taking over the Heart & Soul of Pakistan

#346 Posted by pavocavalry

“HP YOU UNEDUCATED MAN IN 1954 ARMY WAS NOT IN POWER AND PAKISTAN WAS A DEMOCRACY.CHECK YOUR FACTS BEFORE BLURTING ALL THESE DISTORTIONS OF HISTORY.READ SOME BOOKS.BE A MAN.ADMIT THAT YOU ARE WRONG.”

Screaming wont help your cause here. So stay away from using caps.

So Pakistan was a democracy in 1954…Hmmm. On this site only romair would agree with you on this piece of gem. Really it is you who needs some education abt the Pak army and its role in Pakistani politics. General Ayub Khan was the defense minister in 1954 besides being the CNC. I would recommend you read his own book “Friends, Not Masters” to get a better handle on Pakistan politics in the 50s.
You are seriously delusional.

#348 Posted by pavocavalry
Read gthe following from your own post.

“Zafarullah says since there was no time to get further instructions from Government of Pakistan, he signed the document with the following remarks: Signed for the purpose of transmission to the Government of Pakistan for it to take its decision in accordance with its constitutional procedures.71 These words do not appear in the published version of the treaty. On 19 January 1955 Pakistan ratified the pact and remained its zealous member in subsequent years."

Here is from your post
#299 Posted by pavocavalry

“Justice Court and without consulting the Paki Govt he on his own signed the SEATO Pact !”

From your own quote it is apparent that he did not sign the treaty but signed an advisory note that does not amount to signing the treaty as you had alleged in your post that I had challenge. Clearly you don't understand what is th difference in an advisory note and actually signing the treaty.
The treaty was formally signed in Jan 1955 and Zafarullah Khan had already retired in December 1954. So he never signed the treaty.

Do the fact check before posting nonsense.

Re: # 345 Pavocavalry,.... Sir , If you wtite about Jinnah and mr. Gandhi please be careful as there are few historians who have read most documents from that time like, Mr. Manto has written 1000s of pages on gandhi and jinnah and has done lots of eserach. Now average person like me who have no extreme interest or have to do regular things to work for get confused.
So I like you have given references. That is good practice.
Manto has written lot and will write lot in future and I think, guess many ( like me) have really not clear idea about both figures and confused lot as lots of water is flown which is mudded. Specially he has demolished gandhi. I will like yourself and check historical comments he makes are right or wrong about G and J.
It really helps to look at basic facts , looking without ficade or vernier thing some time look bare and stark.
I really study your statements and logical conclusions and many times you are looking at things like coroner.
Thanks for your contribution.

REFERRENCES FOR THE ABOVE:--

Zafarullah, Tahidth P.60. Servant of God, P.214
S.M. Burke, Pakistan's Foreign Policy, London 1973 P.168
Weekly Chattan Lahore 29 November, 1973 P.168
Servant of God, P.204
Shirin Tahir Keheli, The United States and Pakistan, Preager Publisher NY (USA) 1982, P.5
Tariq Ali, op. cit. P.75
Sir Zafarullah, Servant of God P.213
Servant of God P.217
G.W. Chaudhry India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Major Powers, P.89
AlFazl Rabwah, 23 April, 1955
Tarikh Vol XVII P. 496 and AlFazl Rabwah, 21 April, 1955
AlFazl Rabwah, 21 May, 1955
AlFazl Rabwah 6 May 1955

I DONT GIVE A DAMN IF ZAFRULLAH WAS A QADIANI OR A JEW OR A MUSLIM.WE HAVE TO SEPARATE FACTS FROM FICTION.


MORE ON ZAFRULLAH AND HOW HE SIGNED THE PACT REGARDLESS OF WHAT HE WAS TOLD:--

The SEATO provided guarantee against Communist threat only. Pakistan wanted to extend its scope to non-Communist countries also. Zafarullah says he discussed the issue with American Secretary of State Dulles, but of no results. They had special regards for each other. Both had a legal background and at the Japanese Peace Conference, Dulles warmly greeted Zafarullah on making the speech of the conference and in UN General Assembly Zafarullah returned the compliments by declaring that he had long admired the lofty views and noble concepts of Mr. Dulles. 70 The US Secretary of State regretted to take any action without the approval of the Senate. Zafarullah says since there was no time to get further instructions from Government of Pakistan, he signed the document with the following remarks: Signed for the purpose of transmission to the Government of Pakistan for it to take its decision in accordance with its constitutional procedures.71 These words do not appear in the published version of the treaty. On 19 January 1955 Pakistan ratified the pact and remained its zealous member in subsequent years. 72

Mauzam Ali, an eminent journalist says that he informed Bogra of the whole affairs of Manila Conference. He at once called a Cabinet meeting and sent a cable to Sir Zafarullah instructing him not to accept that clause of the Treaty.73 But Zafarullah, after signing the Treaty left for New York to attend the UN General Assembly Session.

Zafarullah also paved the way for CENTO. He visited Iran after the overthrow of Dr. Mossadeq Government by the CIA and held an exclusive meeting with the late Shah of Iran. 74 In September 1955 Pakistan entered into the Baghdad Pact. It was agreed to permit the armies of member countries to use Pakistan territory it circumstances demanded so. The US got the base at Peshawar, a valuable piece of real estate for its use and a US goal since 1954. 75 After a military coup in Iraq the Pact was renamed CENTO with Pakistan, Iraq, Turkey and Britain as its members. "The principle aim of the pact was to the Pakistan Army a mercenary force ready to defend United States interests in the Middle East." 76 It alienated Pakistan from the arab world and its foreign policy came under fire from Islamic quarters. It was called a pro West and an American ally representing Imperialist interests in the Asian region.

ASK ANY GUY FROM PAKISTANI FOREIGN MINISTRY.

ZAFRULLAH SIGNED THE AGREEMENT ON HIS OWN ! EVEN ARCHIVES SUPPORT IT.THIS IS 200 % CORRECT.

ALL THE IGNORANT ILLITERATE GUYS LIKE HP , MANTOLIVES PLEASE REFER TO TIMES SEP 20 1954 ISSUE :--

IT SAYS "Pakistan's bearded Sir Zafrullah Khan threw himself so heartily into the negotiations and signed the pact so casually that almost everyone forgot that Pakistan had come to Manila originally merely as an observer. "

HP YOU UNEDUCATED MAN IN 1954 ARMY WAS NOT IN POWER AND PAKISTAN WAS A DEMOCRACY.CHECK YOUR FACTS BEFORE BLURTING ALL THESE DISTORTIONS OF HISTORY.READ SOME BOOKS.BE A MAN.ADMIT THAT YOU ARE WRONG.


ALSO READ THE FOLLOWING FROM SAME REPORT OF TIMES :---

Over cocktails after the signing, the question arose as to what to call the pact. The word SEATO (variously pronounced "seetoe," "see-aytoe" or "saytoe") had been discarded from the first day of the conference, the feeling being that the word was too reminiscent of NATO—and this was no NATO. It envisions no common commander, or even, at this point, a secretariat. Official name of the pact is the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty; but how could anyone pronounce SEACDT? "Why not," suggested U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, "call it the Manila Pact?" And when Philippine President Ramon Magsaysay took up the phrase in a speech, this seemed to be the winning label.

The Manila Pact:

¶ Covers an area from West Pakistan to the Pacific Ocean, and as far north as 21° 30 min. (thus excluding Formosa, Hong Kong and Japan).

¶ Protects treaty members in the area, as well as any other nations in the area willing to join later and unanimously accepted. A special protocol extends "a mantle of protection" to the Indo-China states of Laos, Cambodia and southern Viet Nam (which are debarred by the Geneva agreement from entering military commitments of their own). ¶ Provides, in the key Article IV, that in event of aggression, each signatory will regard an attack as endangering "its own peace and safety," and will undertake in that event "to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes." The U.S. working draft had specified "Communist aggression." But Secretary of State Dulles was persuaded to take out the word "Communist" in order to render the agreement more attractive to the four "Colombo powers" (India, Indonesia, Burma, Ceylon—especially the last two) who had stayed away. In a separate protocol, the U.S. made it clear that it promised to react only to Communist attacks, in order not to get mixed up in brawls between non-Communist Asian nations—for example, a fight between India and Pakistan over Kashmir.

¶ Provides that in cases of political subversion from outside, which threatens to take over a member country, all signers will "consult immediately in order to agree on the measures which should be taken for the common defense." Though the wording is vague, the clause introduces a new kind of commitment in Asian affairs.