Drama of Succession - Pakistan People’s Party

YLH,

Please do not continue. At some stage you have explain the impact of MAJ in terms of the reality of pakistan today and in some way you have to link it to the founding ideals of TNT, not in terms of the personality traits of MAJ and what some wolpert has said about him.

Every one of the political leaders that pakistan produced have follwed the idea of TNT as I have said here. Many leaders have come up in india, the latest being abdul kalam who is being respected probably as close as possible to gandhi.

The most popular pak leader, ZAB was a true follower of a more acute version of TNT where he did not concede any political power to the bangalis and led to the creation of bangladesh. His crowning acheivement of making teh ahmadias non-muslim is consistant with TNT.

Then you have nawaz, another polular leader and his sharia laws wrere defeated by one vote in pak senate. Then you ahve another popular leader zia, again hoododdd ordinace is consistant with TNT.

At some stage you have to accept that TNT has moulded pakistan, a TNT of my version, and not that of yours.

None of your argumants help explain the reality of pakistan, it is simply incoherent, and please stop this attempt to white wash the reality of TNT.

Please stop quoting, give me one example of a pakistani law that is secular, give me one example that is not consistant with TNT of my version. Give me the name of one secular pak leader.

Bulleya writes on why people still love Bhuttos:

“i think the reason is that pakistan is, primarily, a feudal/pir society....the hierarchies of society are accepted by the rural populace.....if someone is a feudal/pir, the common rural folk allow him/her a lot of room in being corrupt, incompetent and most of all, unfair to them....”


This again reflects your deep-seated ignorance. Those who revere the name of Bhutto (particularly among the non-Jiyala) do so for economic and social reasons. ZAB came in with the slogan ‘roti, kapra, makan’. It was under his government that the MEANS for achieving the basic needs were met. Before him, passports were seen as the symbol of the elite. In the 1970’s everyone could get a passport. Hundreds of thousands were able to fly off to the Middle East to become laborers and send billions back home in remittances uplifting their families helping them move up on the economic ladder. ZAB is particularly popular among the rural class – especially the rural class not under the tutelage of feudal lords. This is because he instigated policies that cause the prices of crops (other than wheat) to be in parity with international prices. This caused a massive influx of cash for the small farmer.

While he was a feudal himself, his policies benefited both his feudal buddies and the common man whom he convinced he was fighting for.

In short, the common man saw real results. Concrete results. Something no government has been able to replicate since.

Your persistent fauji-loving mentality is incurable. ZAB did not play a noble role in the 1971 Civil War. But it as Faujiz of your ilk who were the disease, the cancer that cause everything to come to that sorry end. Just as the 1970’s saw real policies that benefited the common people, the 1960’s ensured the East Pakistanis would forever separate due to the Army rule.

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.

The Pakistan Army has committed the greatest crimes against the people of Pakistan (and against the integrity of Pakistan by consistently losing territory – be it under Ayub, Yahya or Zia) but it gets away scot free. No General has been thrown in prison or executed by the people.

Bhuttos and Zaradari have suffered for their misdeeds – real or unreal – yet they do not run away.

Pakistan Army Officers are the symbols of cowardice. Ironically, the feudal Bhuttos, who have allegedly amassed billions, suffered assassinations, remain committed to the country. They are the symbol of courage.

If you were not so ignorant, you would realize therein lies the ultimate reason for the love for Bhuttos. Their feudal lineage is a ‘miniscule’ reason for their popularity.

Everyone respects and loves acts of courage – even if the persons are criminals. We all mock and ridicule cowards – even if the persons are angels.

Finally, as Manto points out, Benazir is obviously the greatest leader [West] Pakistan has produced since Jinnah. As pointed out, ZAB only lead for 10 years. Benazir, for 30. She was the only threat to the Pak Army - the only threat. And she suffered for that.

Manto,

I do appreciate your enthusiasm about MAJ, but at the same time I cannot stand watching you wasting your energies on the topics which are not that important anymore. But again it is your own choice.

Instead of going back in history, and reproducing all the comments about secularism of Jinnah or communalism of ghandhi is not going to help a bit in current situation. For last sixty years, there was no Ghandhi among our ranks in Pakistan. So, it would be much better, if you channelize your energies on the problems of contemporary Pakistan. Let us talk about the cancer of Jihadism, militarism, lack of domocracy, deprivation of small provonces, lack of power and drinking water, mounting poverty and unemployment and the list goes on and on.

But again, the choice is yours. I just could not stand the wastage of an otherwise fine young man....

Khalid Bhatti

Jayp,

I will attempt to educate you once again:


The central issue is the definition of secular. Are we assuming precluding Muslim identity and politics around it as inherently non-secular or are we speaking of secular or non-secular in terms of the influence of religious doctrine itself. If we accept the former, it may be said that from the point Jinnah quit Congress and took up the role of Muslim spokesman, he said good bye to secular politics - till the time he made that famous speech on 11th August. But I think this former definition is bonkers given the situation of the subcontinent on the ground. The reason why I call Jinnah secular ... infact more secular than any other politician in the subcontinent is because of the latter. Sure he paid lipservice to Islamic ideals etc but Jinnah was very careful about not ever touching dogma and doctrinal issues. Had he not been so he would not have been able to unite so many Muslim sects under one flag. And if Jinnah was not secular for putting up a Muslim demand... Kemal Ataturk of Turkey sounds like a pure Jehadi in the Turkish War of Independence where he fervently invoked Islam.

Accordingly to the convoluted logic put forth by Sanatani and Sadna, people like Jauhar, Shaukat Ali and Azad, despite their repeated declarations that those who separate religion and politics are evil, are secularists simply because they were willing to accept Gandhi's edicts. Meanwhile Jinnah is a communalist despite the fact that he always spoke on secular issues like political representation, education, economic uplift both for Indians in general and later on Muslims in particular.

Lets make no mistake about it. It was Gandhi who made the communal identities non-negotiable. Jinnah on the other hand had been encouraged by Congressmen to join the League in 1913 to make it a nationalist anti-British organization and to bring it closer to the Congress. Jinnah had always within the Muslim community advocated the adoption of joint electorates (and had opposed separate electorates when they were introduced through Minto Morley reforms) but his was a minority opinion and since the Khilafat movement, politicians like Jinnah were forced to fight pitched battles with the new entrants i.e. Mullahs for the leadership of the Muslim community. Since the national leadership doors were already closed by Mahatmafication of the political discourse, compromising on the separate electorates was the only answer.

Furthermore... Sadna's ignorance about the Khilafat movement is appalling. The Khilafat and Turkish question was accepted as a main concern of Sunni Muslims and all political leaders endorsed it, including Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah though Jinnah repeatedly described it is a foreign policy issue. However the Khilafat movement that Gandhi launched with Ali Brothers was opposed by Jinnah on the grounds that it was using Mullahs and releasing religious passions.

It is in this context that one should consider the following:

Achyuth Patwardhan, one of the Socialist stalwarts in the Congress, has given a remarkably candid and self critical analysis of the Congress Party vis-a-vis Khilafat:

’It is, however, useful to recognise our share of this error of misdirection. To begin with, I am convinced that looking back upon the course of development of the freedom movement, THE ’HIMALAYAN ERROR’ of Gandhiji’s leadership was the support he extended on behalf of the Congress and the Indian people to the Khilafat Movement at the end of the World War I. This has proved to be a disastrous error which has brought in its wake a series of harmful consequences. On merits, it was a thoroughly reactionary step. The Khilafat was totally unworthy of support of the Progressive Muslims. Kemel Pasha established this solid fact by abolition of the Khilafat. The abolition of the Khilafat was widely welcomed by enlightened Muslim opinion the world over and Kemel was an undoubted hero of all young Muslims straining against Imperialist domination. But apart from the fact that Khilafat was an unworthy reactionary cause, Mahatma Gandhi had to align himself with a sectarian revivalist Muslim Leadership of clerics and maulvis. He was thus unwittingly responsible for jettisoning sane, secular, modernist leadership among the Muslims of India and foisting upon the Indian Muslims a theocratic orthodoxy of the Maulvis. Maulana Mohammed Ali’s speeches read today appear strangely incoherent and out of tune with the spirit of secular political freedom. The Congress Movement which released the forces of religious liberalism and reform among the Hindus, and evoked a rational scientific outlook, placed the Muslims of India under the spell of orthodoxy and religious superstition by their support to the Khilafat leadership. Rationalist leaders like Jinnah were rebuffed by this attitude of Congress and Gandhi. This is the background of the psychological rift between Congress and the Muslim League’.


To be continued.

Masadi is right, pakistan really needs encouragement for their domestic industry, by what ever means.

Can any pakistani believe that teh ballot boxes for teh coming elections are made in china. That is pathetic.

Can any one believe that nearly 70 percent of the clothes sold in pakistan are second hand imports. Most of teh domestic production is exported. How many more people can get jobs and the industry can flourish if the more of domestic production is locally consumed. By teh way, the exports are made viable due to govt subsidies, and the new term is " research grants" for the textile sector which is a subsidy acceptable under WTO.

I really wish more people post about pakistans economic policies rather than about ibn sina and other irrelevant long dead muslims.

YLH,

Think my friend , think. Do not believe wolpert or ayesha jala, do not parrot their words that Jinnah was more secular than Gandhi.

A man who created the TNT, which essentially means that muslims cannot live with the hindus, and created a new country in the name of islam, and which drove out the hindus with in few months of it formation cannot be secular. This is despitre the fact that he was eating pork and drinking gin, which are prohibited in isalm. It only proves that he it was a sharade to be in the good books of the british. At the heart any one who can create TNT and campaign for it all through his life and remain silent at the masaccre cannot be a secular person.

He was relishing his success on his death bed.

Mohar,

I meant Arjunm on the other board. I did not name you.

Ananth

Re 178

Momins of the sub-continent changed their faith, not their ancestors.

Regards

Caste predates any religion

I used to chat with a pakistani muslim who was proud of his mohyal brahmin ancestrors…..

Romair,

Re: 175

(as i will own the land of his shrine and will be able to gather the alms paid at his shrine.....and will get a million or so disciples...... )

As a fringe benefit, I understand you will also get to perform some brahmacharya with your lady disciples as well, no?

Regards

Romair,

Re: #173

Although caste system is not practised in Pak, it is quite interesting that the only chowkies using words like "chamaar", "bhangi" "choora" and "achhoot" are invariably Paki Momins, rarely Hindoos.

Besides I think even apart from the veneration of Syeds a bit of caste system exists in Pak villages for eg the Mastoi- Gujjar fracas which led to the Mukhtaran Mai episode.

But I suppose this residual casteism of Paki Momins wud be explained as an Hindoo influence imported by Mahatma Maudoodi, a disciple of the notorious Deobandi Ulema Maulana Mohandas Gandhi.

Regards

there are certain pirs, whose, "gaddi" is unclaimed, i.e. they have no living descendant who can claim it, and it belongs to the people or to the govt.'s auqaf department......

the biggest one would be data ganj baksh......his shrine, "data darbar" in the middle of lahore must be the largest attraction for pakistan's sufi followers......if he had a direct descendant, today, that guy would be a millionaire and would not lose an election in lahore, as he would have many disciples as his voters......this shrine must get millions and millions of dollars per year in charity, alms etc. from pakistanis......

another one is bulleh shah.....he has small, less visited shrine in qasur.....but does not have a descendant who claims it......his poetry indicates he was a syed, though he detested this title and, himself, became the diciple of a commoner (arian) gardener......

if my attempt at software business does not work out (and my attempt in the indian film industry doesn't work out either), i am thinking of claiming the bulleh shah gaddi, sometime in the future and declaring myself his descendant and thus a syed with lineage to the prophet......after which i will also become a millionaire, as i will own the land of his shrine and will be able to gather the alms paid at his shrine.....and will get a million or so disciples......

Romair,

Wouldn't population shift change the electoral arithmetics with urban and dynamic areas gaining population and feudal areas losing. How frequently is constituency delimitation done in Pak?

Regards

ananth07: "Have these people become a super-caste in a society which still follows the caste system ????"

technically, pakistan does not follow the caste system......as it is not allowed in the islam.....however realistically, pakistan does follow it to some extent......in case of one family being superior to the other......though only in a limited fashion......based more on economics than caste.....

however, in certain rural areas, a distinct caste system exists......this is based on certain people's interpretations that descendants of the prophet are allowed superiority in islam.......

hence all these pirs (primarily shia), have somehow or the other convinced their populace, over many generations that they are direct descendants of prophet mohammad......i once sat down with one of them and he seemed to agree that it was mathematically impossible for mohammad to have so many direct descendants in south asia.....

but as he indicated, the gravy train is running, so why stop it.....

these guys are high-level syeds.....and each has a historically famous pir from which they claim descendancy.....this pir, is then hooked onto some arab ancestor and the lineage is traced to prophet mohammad.....

the initial pir, in many, if not all cases, was some sort of a sufi guy, who served the people......however, his descendants are now, generally, politicians, who have hundreds of thousands of disciples, who touch their feet, and do all kinds of funny things for their pir......you really have to see it to believe it.......you can say they are ultra-brahmins.......people pick up the dirt from their car and rub it on themselves........take their bathwater and use it, etc.......

piri is now big political business......as an example, the head of ppp punjab, shah mehmood qureshi is a descendant of bahauddin zakaria (i think), and is a big pir.......the sind head of ppp is amin fahim and another descendant of a pir (not sure which pir).......the no. 3 guy in ppp is a yusuf raza - descendent of southern punjab pir musa pak shaheed.......

pakistan, perhaps, claims to have more direct descendants of prophet mohammad than mecca and medina combined......

majumdar #: ...whenever i am in india, i discuss indian domestic politics with indians there.....interestingly, they point out exactly the same corruption, incompetence, dislike etc. for indian politicians.....it is almost 100% identical to pakistan......yet i have yet to meet an indian who does not support the electoral system, as a whole......

i would say the main reason is the absence of the feudal culture.......

while military rule is disliked by anyone who supports democracy, in case of pakistan, a lot of the civilian rule is disliked also......the two differences this time around are the support for the judiciary and the anger against the military cooperation with usa in bombing various parts of pakistan........this has totally discredited musharraf......

however, feudalism is on a slow decline in pakistan......it has, totally, disppeared from urban centers.......lahore, karachi, pindi etc. elected urban leaders.....

nothern punjab and kashmir are rural but non-feudal.......much like india.......

the main feudal areas are rural sind and southern punjab.....these are both feudal and pir.....and the main tribal area is baluchistan, which is almost totally tribal......nwfp seems to be a mix.....

in any case, the next pm of pakistan will either be zardari or amin fahim.......the former is a small time feudal, married to a big time feudal - benazir.....the later is a big time feudal and a big time pir (doubly dangerous)......

however, the good point is that nearly every party now, other than ppp, is led by non-feudals - pml-n by nawaz and shahbaz, pml-q by chaudhry cousins, mqm by altaf bhai, anp by asfandyar wali, pti by imran khan, ppp(s) by sherpao etc.

out of these asfandyar is from a (small??) landlord family - not sure about sherpao.....

in any case, the only true blue feudal/pir leadership is now only ppp.......and also the tiny baluchistan tribal parties and the small leghari-led millat party.......leghari used to be the no. 2 of benazir, and is an oxford educated big-time tribal leader, who left ppp......sherpao was the number 3 of benazir and left ppp........no. 4 was faisal saleh, a big time southern punjab pir, who also left ppp, and formed another ppp.......amin fahim is no 5 of ppp...........

altaf bhai was a pharmacist, nawaz's dad was a labourer, chaudhry's dad was a police constable, imran khan was a cricketer.....

so i suppose things are improving....once the ppp loses its dynastic feudal leadership and is taken over by more sensible people like aitezaz ahsan, pakistan should be able to step out of feudal politics........but i don't see the ppp changing soon......maybe after bilawal........

“specially the pirs, who are considered the descedants of prophet mohammad.....”

Have these people become a super-caste in a society which still follows the caste system ????