Drama of Succession - Pakistan People’s Party

bulleya:

"on the other hand, someone in tamil nadu, who was least affected by partition, may have different opinions......"

People in Tamil Nadu did not participate in the movement for a new country, so their opinion does not count. I was talking about the people, not even all Muslims, who wanted Pakistan. And I am describing the emotional atmosphere that prevailed at that time that was reflected by the slogans raised by the awaam at that time, not of armchair theories and hypotheses.

pewresearch, manto:

Thanks for that piece of information.

bulleya:

"if pakistan is a threat to india, then india - a country eight times larger than pakistan - is a much bigger threat to pakistan....."

Surely, you are not serious. This has got nothing to do with the size but the status quo. India is a status quo country; Pakistan wants to change this status quo, hence the threat.

I should add however that things have changed for the better. It was not Pakistan's non acceptance of status qro that was the problem but its unwillingness to rule out the use of force to change the status quo. I think that Pakistan is no longer seriously thinking of using that opion.

#227

“as i keep saying, it is the job of the majority to give security to the minority......if it cannot or does not want to do that i.e. if its attitude is, "that ain't happening," then how can it complain if the minority wants out of the federation........

what is the minority supposed to do....forcefully live in an insecure environment? “


Hindus did not fare all that well under Muslim rule in India……… Did Muslims expct better treatment from hindu majority …when hindus were to get power after the brits left ????/

I can't help it if you missed the underlying point.

#228 Posted by MantoLives on February 13, 2008 8:52:19 pm

forget turkey and israel...pakistan is a theocracy...you said so yourself...

Romair,

(a country eight times larger than pakistan - is a much bigger threat to pakistan.....)

Only psychologically and even then Canada doesnt feel threatened by USA. Surely you and most educated Pakis wud know that India wudnt want to invade Pakistan and end up with 150 million more reluctant Muslim citizens. Besides with the nuke issues, India is no more a threat, but Pakistan with its steady export of jihadis is.

The real threat to Pak comes from its NW border and from within (complete lack of modern institutions). But if they choose to ignore that and focus on fake enemies, what my father goes?

(if that ain't happening, then i think south asia will remain stuck where it is......)

While I am no Shining India protagonist, there is no denying the fact that if the current 8-9% growth continues for another 20-25 years, India wud be a qualitatively different nation. As far as rest of South Asia is concerned:

Nepal- Hopeless case
B'desh- 50% of it wud be under the sea
Maldives- Make that 100%
Sri Lanka- Depends on how it resolves the ethnic conflict.
Bhutan- Wud remain tribal.

That leaves Pak, which has a future but has to invest heavily in instituion building and putting the army back to barracks.

Regards

Re: # 215


Yes. That is an undeniable fact of history which neither Jinnah-bashers nor Quaid-e-Azam's self proclaimed latter day bearded followers can deny.

As for Mohar's question: whether a nationalism based on an apparently religious identity can be secular ... certainly western historians and authors familiar with European and world history seem to agree that it can be. See for example (from memory) Karen Armstrong's History of God Chapter "Death of God" where she described Zionism as a completely secular movement based in a cultural identity informed by religion.

Similarly it is often forgotten that the Turkish nationalism (before it was reinvented on the basis of language as late as 1928) throughout the war of independence was based entirely on the Muslim identity of the inhabitants of Anatolia, which including not just Turkish speaking Muslims but also Kurds, greek speakers and even Arabic speaking Muslims. The treaty of Laussane was entirely based on religious identity... whereby Greek speaking Muslims became Turks and Turkish speaking "infidels" became Greeks.It would surprise people that in 1932 the very secular republic of Turkey, under Kemal Ataturk, forbade 30 major trades/professions to members of the Greek Orthodox Christian community by law. (Such a thing would be unthinkable in both the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Islamic Republic of Iran).

I ofcourse don't condone this but this underscores my point that the opposite of secular is theocratic and not communal, which is a very perceptive Indian writer (Bipan Chandra was it? ) from a nationalist point of view came up with the term "secular communalism" or "liberal communalism".

Communal is the opposite of National.

To be continued:

dost-mittar #: " for most ordinary Muslims, the matlab of Pakistan was a land of the pure, by the pure, for the pure..."

i think people are highly influenced by the psychological scars of their past......you had to migrate from punjab to india, as a child, and one can see how this has affected your line of thinking.......you will always remain convinced of the statement you have made above....even if facts indicate otherwise......on the other hand, someone in tamil nadu, who was least affected by partition, may have different opinions......

........the original idea of pakistan was the cabinet mission plan......so there should be no argument on what the leadership wanted.......

.......onto the people.....the areas where muslims were in a majority never really wanted pakistan - sind, punjab, nwfp, baluchistan........why?......if the aim was to create a land of the pure, these guys would have been the most enthusiastic supporters........they weren't too pushed, because they felt secure as a majority......

on the other hands, the areas where the muslims were a minority, wanted pakistan......why?......because they felt insecure.......and the more influential ones from there migrated out and got their security, leaving behind many of the less influential ones......

having said that, there were only two (if you count kashmir, then three) provinces that split - punjab and bengal......so the partition was of two provinces, not of india.......the people of these two provices felt the brunt of the impact, and will always remained scarred by it.......

if, every pakistani wanted a land of the pure, there would be a large movement in GTA and mississauga.......but they feel secure there and are not demanding it.......

as i keep saying, it is the job of the majority to give security to the minority......if it cannot or does not want to do that i.e. if its attitude is, "that ain't happening," then how can it complain if the minority wants out of the federation........

what is the minority supposed to do....forcefully live in an insecure environment?

#224 Posted by bulleya on February 13, 2008 8:40:42 pm


then i think south asia will remain stuck where it is


yes..south asia will be stuck where it is...with india achieving more than 9% growth for years and booming economically..and with pakiland's aid pumped economy floundering and with pakiland in civil war..

hmm...this is a bad thing for indians(other than the usual koolaid drinkers), why?

#218 Posted by dost_mittar on February 13, 2008 7:27:04 pm



This does not show Indians to be very bright, does it? they continue to support a system which continues to throw up the most incompetent rulers election after election. They seem to be so drunk on the democracy intoxicant that they couldn't care less if produces the worst form of governance.


indians don't bitch about democracy because if their government isn't doing what they want, they have noone to blame but themselves...unlike your pals, the pakis, indians actually have a real choice...

majumdar #: "that ain't happening. That is not until Pakistan stops being a threat to India and rest of the world..."

if pakistan is a threat to india, then india - a country eight times larger than pakistan - is a much bigger threat to pakistan.....

in any case, no geographical area can improve until the largest country in the region is not viewed as a threat by the smaller countries.....this is what is called leadership.....if that ain't happening, then i think south asia will remain stuck where it is......i.e. there will a certain % of people whose living standards will go up, in all countries - more in some and less in others - but the majority will remain in ancient times.......

The Lahore resolution said:

That adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards shall be specifically provided in the constitution for minorities in the units and in the regions for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights of the minorities, with their consultation.

This clause of the Lahore resolution was violated when the Objectives Resolution was passed and the constitution of 1973 was adopted. They were not passed by the consultation of the minorities.

As for equal rights... it was expressly stated in every Muslim League session from this period on wards and even Gandhi confirmed this to Rajagopalachari when he said that Jinnah's conception of Pakistan is that of a perfect democracy with equal rights for all.


More over all the constitutions of Pakistan have in principle committed themselves to equal rights for minorities. Lahore resolution is clearly arguing for something above and beyond that. To quote the fundamental rights chapter (which was more or less same in 1956, 1962 and 1973) :


25. (1) All citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law.


(2) There shall be no discrimination on the basis of sex alone.


(3) Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the protection of women and children.


...

20. Subject to law, public order and morality:-
(a) every citizen shall have the right to profess, practise and propagate his religion; and

(b) every religious denomination and every sect thereof shall have the right to establish, maintain and manage its religious institutions.


and

22. (1) No person attending any educational institution shall be required to receive religious instruc tion, or take part in any religious ceremony, or attend religious worship, if such instruction, ceremony or worship relates to a religion other than his own.


(2) In respect of any religious institution, there shall be no discrimination against any community in the granting of exemption or concession in relation to taxation.


(3) Subject to law:
.
(a) no religious community or denomination shall be prevented from providing religious instruction for pupils of that community or denomination in any educational institution maintained wholly by that community or denomination; and
.
(b) no citizen shall be denied admission to any educational institution receiving aid from public revenues on the ground only of race, religion, caste or place of birth.


(4) Nothing in this Article shall prevent any public authority from making provision for the advancement of any socially or educationally backward class of citizens.


and

25. (1) All citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law.


(2) There shall be no discrimination on the basis of sex alone.


(3) Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the protection of women and children.


26. (1) In respect of access to places of public entertainment or resort not intended for religious purposes only, there shall be no discrimination against any citizer. on the ground only of race, religion, caste, sex, residence or place of birth.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.

27. (1) No citizen otherwise qualified for appointment in the service of Pakistan shall be discriminated against in respect of any such appointment on the ground only of race, religion, caste, sex, residence or place of birth. Provided that, for a period not exceeding [forty] years from the commencing day, posts may be reserved for persons belonging to any class or area to secure their adequate representation in the service of Pakistan: Provided further that, in the interest of the said service, specified posts or services may be reserved for members of either sex if such posts or services entail the performance of duties and functions which cannot be adequately performed by members of the other sex.

(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall prevent any Provincial Government, or any local or other authority in a Province, from prescribing, in relation to any post or class of service under that Government or authority, conditions as to residence in the Province. for a period not exceeding three years, prior to appointment under that Government or authority.


28. Subject to Article 251 any section of citizens having a distinct language, script or culture shall have the right to preserve and promote the same and subject to law, establish institutions for that purpose.


and

the main article: 4

4. (1) To enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is the inalienable right of every citizen, wherever he may be, and of every other person for the time being within Pakistan.

(2) In particular :- (a) no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person shall be taken except in accordance with law;

(b) no person shall be prevented from or be hindered in doing that which is not prohibited by law; and

(c) no person shall be compelled to do that which the law does not require him to do.


Lahore resolution clearly envisaged a situation above and beyond this where minorities would have a final say in all constitutional and legislative matters affecting them.

DM sahib,

We can opt for a dictatorship but it if we do, it is not necessary that we will end up with a Pinochet or a Deng or a Lee. We cud end up with a Kim or an Omar or a Pol Pot or a ZAB. Just think about it.

Regards

majumdar#219:

Why should bangladesh and pakistan be the only models? China is a large country but it has decided to emulate Singapore, which, despite its very small size, is very similar to India in terms of being multicultural, multiethnic, multireligious and was as socially backward as India when Lee Kuan Yiew initiated his authoritarian democracy.

And Paksitan, too, was doing very well under Ayub until he was misled by the demagogue Bhutto into his misadventure in Kashmir in 1965.

majumdar#219:

Why should bangladesh and pakistan be the only models? China is a large country but it has decided to emulate Singapore, which, despite its very small size, is very similar to India in terms of being multicultural, multiethnic, multireligious and was as socially backward as India when Lee Kuan Yiew initiated his authoritarian democracy.

And Paksitan, too, was doing very well under Ayub until he was misled by the demagogue Bhutto into his misadventure in Kashmir in 1965.

DM,

Re: 218

(they continue to support a system which continues to throw up the most incompetent rulers election after election.)

The problem is that the alternative isn't very bright either. Two neighbours-Pak and B'desh have had long spells of dictatorships but they aint much better are they? And at least democracy provides some psychological support to people. And also guards against massive swings in policies which can blight things. Besides, progress has been made since 1991 and in spite of occassional blips momentum will remain towards privatisation and openness. Hopefully, things wud be better in another 20-25 years time.

Regards