Drama of Succession - Pakistan People’s Party

Mantolives#196:

"It also envisaged states where Non-muslims would have have equal rights."

This raised my curiousity. Would it be possible to reproduce the exact wording of that statement? Thanks.

Mantolives#196:

"It also envisaged states where Non-muslims would have have equal rights."

This raised my curiousity. Would it be possible to reproduce the exact wording of that statement? Thanks.

That depends... I am not very familiar with those two situations.

If you consider the implications of what I have written in 198 you will see that religion alone cannot make such a nationalism relevant but the claim has to be broader and must include other historical and political factor.

For example... the TNT was unconcerned about the personal faith or belief... it included cultural Muslims, hereditary Muslims and even heretics. Thus the various sects amongst Muslims worked with each other despite thinking the other was out of the pale of Islam.In one of my articles I wrote about my discussion with a colleagues who considers Ahmadis Non-Muslim but culturally Muslim.

My guess is that after the departure of Bengalis Pakistan began to emphasize Islam instead of Muslim nationalism as the founding myth of the nation state.

Manto,

I hope your Commie friends consider the Tibetan Buddhists and Uighur Muslims to be distinct nationalities from Han Chinese on grounds of faith and significant cultural components.

Regards

Yes. Ofcourse the argument put forth by Muslim League as well as the communists was that Muslim and Hindu identities were not just religious issues... but there were significant cultural components to these identities as well as political and historical baggage.

The issue was not that they could not live together in one country but that if they live together the smaller national group should not be dominated by the larger national group by sheer numbers.

Manto,

Re: 196

I guess it would depend on whether a religion being considered a nationality is considered secular or not. Nationalism on the basis of race and language has not been deemed unsecular anywhere. Now whether the same can be extended to the principle of nationalism on the basis of religion is something that we can debate till cows come home.

Regards

Re: # 193

Ref: our discussion. If the first definition of "secular" (which I reject) is adopted then the whole Muslim national project was non-secular.

However, the Lahore Resolution made no reference to religious doctrine or theological issues. It simply stated the Muslim national demand in clear political terms. It also envisaged states where Non-muslims would have have equal rights. And it makes no reference to Islam but refers instead to Muslim national demand.

Ananth,

Re: #194.

Quite right. Pakistani politics and politicians (incl. military rulers) are far more interesting than Injuns. Indira was the last exciting Injun politico.

Regards

what I have noticed in Chowk is that mainly pakistani personanities starting from MAJ to Mushy are discussed, and the only Indian discussed here is Gandhi.

May be Gandhi is discussed here .... because gandhi is part of the TNT story.
India has been building its institutions … so that personalities have become less relavant today….. not so with Pakistan…… Pakistan has failed to build any institution other than the military …

Manto mian,

Was there anything in the Lahore Resolution of 1940 which precluded the possibility of a Islamic state or a non-secular state in general. I presume you wud consider LR-1940 as the moral and ethical basis of Pakistan

Regards

Agreed. But I am disputing the artificial link being made between our current state of affairs and the complex events that led to the creation of Pakistan.

I agree with you that the current Islamic constitution deems Islamization a preferred goal and as I have already said this constitution was adopted in negation of the very principle on which Pakistan was founded.

Manto,

Re: 189

You may be right. But the point is you can't force today's Pakistanis to hold on to TNT for all times to come. If the majority wishes to have an Islamist constt they can't be forcible prevented from doing so by holding up 8/11 or TNT. Especially as there is nothing in the Constt of Pak which wud deem Islamisation as violation of the basic tenets of the Constt. By contrast in India, an attempt to Hinduise the state wud possibly attract charges of violation of the basic tenets and get struck down by SC.

Regards

“Hence ... everything that you blame on TNT is actually the denial of the basic principle that TNT put forth right from Sir Syed to Jinnah”

… what is holding Pakistan together now ? is it the military ? is islam holding it together ?

or just “fear of the unknown” ? … of what will happen if a province separates from Pakistan ?

Jayp,

Now consider it from the factual position:

The two nation theory in so far as its impact is concerned merely suggested that a permanent majority cannot dictate to a permanent minority by sheer numbers.

Everything that is happened in Pakistan since 1949 is the negation of this principle. Objectives Resolution was passed despite all minorities voting against it. 1973 constitution was passed without getting the approval of representative Non-muslim Pakistanis.... 1974's constitutional amendment declaring Ahmadis (who were Pakistan's biggest supporters) was passed without the consent of Ahmadi members of the Parliament.

Hence ... everything that you blame on TNT is actually the denial of the basic principle that TNT put forth right from Sir Syed to Jinnah.

Today the pak ambassador to afghanistan is kidnapped, paklistan has again flexed its military might to warn the afghans and teh US that it could be nuked, by firing another missile.

The surrender of the nato forces in afghanistan is imminent. It is bewildering how the paki minds work.

Bhatti sahib,

(For last sixty years, there was no Ghandhi among our ranks in Pakistan. )

True. But MKG being a wily, spiteful Hindoo delivered a parting gift to Pakistan in the form of his disciple Maulana Maudoodi who faithfully passed on the Gandhian thoughts to the people of Pakistan.

Rozaiba,

(Finally, while we can blame the Bhuttos for their crimes, no other family has suffered as much as they have. If they were criminals, they would not continue to fight for a stake in Pakistan.)

It seems deja vu all over again. I have heard reams about the alleged sacrifices of the Gandhi-Nehru family for India too. Btw it is not about billions of dollars it is about power and prestige. If Bhuttos and Gandhis just give up on India/Pak and live it up in Switz. or elsewhere do you think foreign dignitaries wud be making a beeline for them. Have you heard of any foreign dignitary pay a courstey call to the successors of Bokassa or Mobutu although I presume they wud be very wealthy people.

Regards