Jinnah, My Hero

Re: #70

60 years later.... truth comes out...

www.time.com/time/asia/2006/heroes/nb_jinnah.html



Mohammed Ali Jinnah
Pakistan, the nation the Quaid-i-Azam founded, needs him and his values more than ever
By Mohsin Hamid

My earliest memory of Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Pakistan`s Quaid-i-Azam, or Great Leader, is from my childhood. The electricity had gone because of load shedding, and I was doing my homework despite my grandmother`s insistence that this was bad for my eyes. My textbook was part of the curriculum assigned to all primary-school students in Pakistan, and it described Jinnah as a young boy, himself reading a book by candlelight at his home in Karachi, a hundred years earlier. I had heard of Jinnah before, of course; his name was ubiquitous in Pakistan, a country otherwise unsure of its heroes. But it was the small miracle contained in the notion that he—a character in a book—and I—a reader in real life—were doing precisely the same thing that struck me most, and has stayed with me ever since.

In Pakistan, Jinnah is venerated because his struggles on behalf of the Muslims of India resulted in the establishment of the country. But Jinnah`s true claim to greatness as an Asian leader is more universal: he sought to protect the rights of minorities through constitutional law.

Jinnah was a secular, Westernized, British-trained barrister; himself a Muslim, he married a Parsi, spoke mainly in English and wore European clothes. In 1920, he left Mahatma Gandhi`s Indian National Congress, of which he had been a member for two decades, not because of his own faith but because he believed Gandhi`s use of Hindu symbolism would encourage religious zealotry in politics. As Asia emerged from colonization, among the most vexing problems facing the continent`s nascent nation states was that of their large minority populations. Jinnah`s preferred solution was a legal one: constitutional measures ranging from electoral safeguards to guaranteed representation in state institutions. It was only when his attempts to achieve these measures failed that he began to campaign for a separate state for the Muslims of the subcontinent.


Six decades later, Pakistan has drifted far from Jinnah`s vision of a secular democracy. President Pervez Musharraf, who invokes Jinnah`s values in speeches, has little patience for democracy. The religious opposition parties reject as un-Pakistani the concept of secularism. And the inhabitants of smaller provinces like Baluchistan find themselves lacking the protection for minorities that Jinnah made his life`s mission. If one believes in the rule of law, mistrusts religious zealotry and opposes tyrannies constructed in the name of majorities, one should find it easy to see oneself in Jinnah and to empathize with his struggle. Much of Asia could learn from his example, none more so than those of us who belong to the state he founded.

Mohsin Hamid`s second novel, The Reluctant Fundamentalist, will be published next spring

Nope that honor is reserved for imperialist racist casteist bigot Gandhi.

Jinnah was a Chalabi & Allawi of 20th century.

namaskaram godotji,
i hope chengiz khan does not become your ideal tommorrow.after all the man it seems inseminated women with such an iron will that 16 million illegitimates can proudly claim to be his progeny.

50 Years in TIME

TIME, December 23, 1996

http://www.rpi.edu/dept/union/paksa/www/html/pakistan/jinnah2.html



A TIGERISH MAN, ATOP A SECTARIAN TIGER

The chronicle of a leader and the passions he fanned into flames



By Carl Posey

Delhi in the spring heat of 1946 was not relaxed,`` TIME reported that April. ``It was taut with waiting, gravid with conflict and suspense. Two socialist lawyers and a former Baptist lay preacher from Britain had sat of 25 days in the southeast wing of the viceregal palace, preparing to liquidate the richest portion of empire that history had ever seen---to end the British Raj, the grand and guilty edifice built and maintained by William Hawkins and Robert Clive, Warren Hastings and the Marquess Wellesley, the brawling editor James Silk Buckingham and the canny merchant Lord Inchcape and by the great Viceroys, austere Curzon and gently Halifax. The Raj was finished.``

Finished, perhaps, but still difficult to put down. The Raj at the end was like one of the unexploded bombs still lettering postwar Europe, and it held the same promise: peaceful independence if you do it right, explosive civil war if you fail. ``The issue,`` said TIME, ``seemed to turn on one man---Mohammed Ali Jinnah.`` On Boris Chaliapin’s portrait cover, the metaphorical tingers of East and West Pakistan stalked the subcontinent.

TIME had watched Jinnah intermittently since 1930, first as an ardent articulator of Indian nationalism, then as a spark flashing perhaps too close to the subcontinent powder keg. ``Where the low, bare limestone ridges of Sukkur, Sind slope like unkempt stairs down to the banks of the Indus,`` TIME reported in December 1939, ``Indians who loudly object to fighting Germans in the name of Empire last week fought each other in the name of their various gods.`` Muslims had claimed a government building near the river as the site of an ancient mosque and ``threatened to hold it until nirvana-come. Whereupon Hindus swept the city, storming, looting, burning Moslem shops.`` It was a chilling preview of bloodbaths ahead.

``The leaders of the Moslems,`` TIME observed, ``usually thinks first about independence for Moslems and afterward about independence for Indians. His name is Mohammed Ali Jinnah, and he is probably the greatest single force for disunity in all disunited India.`` As TIME watched the inexorable progress of the cracks that would culminate in India’s partition, that view of Jinnah would be modulated, but it would not fundamentally change.

There was, in fact, a good deal to admire in Jinnah’s tough single-mindedness and the way he played his cards. Talking with TIME correspondent William Fisher in 1942, Jinnah said he would accept a national government that gave Muslims ``a fair break,`` but that he would stop cooperating if the British made peace with the Hindu-dominated Congress Party.

The April 1946 Jinnah cover story reported by Pacific bureau chief Robert Sherrod was more than TIME’s bittersweet obituary for the British Raj; it was one of the world’s first real close-ups of the man who would have Pakistan, in all his coldly tigerish colorations. Here was a charismatic leader who during Gandhi’s 1942 Quit India campaign had ``boasted that if his followers joined Gandhi’s pacifist program, the British would have 500 times more trouble ‘because we have 500 times more guts than the Hindus.’`` It was also a grim prophecy. ``The British Raj had given India a unified defense and a unified region of internal free trade,`` said TIME. ``Jinnah would destroy both ... Between mighty Russia to the north and the main body of India to the south, Pakistan would dangle like two withered arms.``

In August, Jinnah unleashed---perhaps inadvertently, perhaps not---an ugly sample of the horrors to come. Opposed to a British plan for Indian independence that did not also create Pakistan, he designated the 18th day of Ramadan as ``Direct Action Day.`` ``Though direct,`` TIME reported, ``the action was supposed to be peaceful. But before the disastrous day was over, blood soaked the melting asphalt of sweltering Calcutta’s streets.

``Rioting Moslems went after Hindus with guns, knives and clubs, looted shops, stoned newspaper offices, set fire to Calcutta’s British business district. Hindus retaliated by firing Moslem mosques and miles of Moslem slums ... By the 21 day of Ramadan, direct action had killed some 3,000 people and wounded thousands more.``

Interspersed with what TIME called ``musical chairs`` of negotiation, in which neither the Hindu side nor the Muslim side could be budged by British nudging, the killing went on and on. ``Perhaps, after all, there would be no independent India,`` TIME mused sadly in May 1947. ``Indeed, there might be no India.``

Pakistan was by then an idea nothing could contain. In August 1947 it became the world’s largest Muslim nation. The forces of hatred unleashed by Jinnah’s rhetoric, however, had acquired a life of their own. By late October 1947 the plague of enmity flared in Kashmir, where a Muslim majority lived under a Hindu maharaja who decided to throw in with India. ``In Moslem Karachi,`` TIME reported, ``Pakistan Governor General Mohammed Ali Jinnah raged at the news. He ordered Pakistan troops ... into Kashmir.`` But as the raiders pushed into the Vale, ``the blind butchery of neighbor by neighbor had reached Kashmir. Pakistan heard that 50,000 Moslems had been slaughtered by Hindus. British officials said that 100,000 fleeing refugees from Kashmir and nearby Jammu had crowded south into the still reeking Punjab.``

Jinnah, meanwhile, seemed to fade even as his discordant creation took form. ``Last week,`` TIME reported in early December 1947, ``after less than four months of independence, Pakistan was economic wreck, and serious social unrest was rising.`` The new country coul dnot afford to feed its millions of refugees; its checks bounced around the globe. As for the health of the seldom seen Jinnah, TIME added, ``The Pakistan Ministry indignantly said: ‘There is absolutely no truth in the rumors that Quaid-e-Azam [the Great Leader] is seriously ill.’``

In fact, as evidently only he was aware, Jinnah was dying.

``Out of the travail of 400 million in the Indian subcontinent,`` TIME wrote in September 1948, ``have come two symbols---a man of love and a man of hate. Last winter the man of nonviolence, Gandhi, died violently at the hands of an assassin. Last week, the man of hate, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, at 71, died a natural death in Karachi, capital of state he had founded.``

Enemies gave Jinnah his due, though. ``The Hindustani Times,`` TIME observed, ``devoted a page to an uncompromising attack on Jinnah’s motives and methods. However, it concluded: ‘A man of destiny, he was perhaps the greatest man of Islam since Mohammed.’`` But, TIME noted warily, his death ``raised the possibility that his political heirs might seek the final solution for insolvent, disorganized governments: war.`` Indeed, Jinnah’s chief legacy proved to be an eternity of discord

Jinnah: making of a myth

By Mubarak Ali

Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah had all the qualities and characteristics in his personality which go into the making of a myth. He was reticent, reserved, kept his personal matters secret, behaved coolly and proudly and was not warm towards anybody. Thus he created a halo of awe and fear around himself.

Sri Prakash, the first Indian High Commissioner to Karachi, in his book Pakistan: birth and early years gives an account of a reception which was given by the Governor-General of Pakistan, just after Independence to the diplomatic corps. It was also attended by the party leaders and bureaucrats. According to his version, Mr Jinnah was sitting at a distance alone on a sofa and called one by one those he wanted to talk to. He exchanged notes with each one of them just for five minutes. To the High Commissioner, he appeared a lonely man, averse to people. His serious and sombre expression made all those who interacted with him uneasy in his company.

This conveyed the impression that he was the final authority in every matter. The Muslim League and its leaders were merely rubber stamps. His image of being the sole spokesman of his party and people created a number of myths. For instance, the myth about his serious illness which is recounted by Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre in their book Freedom at midnight fascinates everybody and compels readers to take it seriously. The version of their story is:

``If Louis Mountbatten, Jawaharlal Nehru or Mahatma Gandhi had been aware in April 1947 of one extraordinary secret, the division threatening India might have been avoided. The secret was sealed onto the gray surface of a film, a film that could have upset the Indian political equation and would almost certainly have changed the course of Asian history. Yet, so precious was the secret that that film harboured that even the British CID, one of the most effective investigative agencies in the world, was ignorant of its existence.``

These were the X-rays of Jinnah diagnosed as a TB patient. The authors, after creating a suspense, further write that: ``The damage was so extensive that the man whose lungs were on the film had barely two or three years to live. Sealed in an unmarked envelope, those X-rays were locked in the office safe of Dr J.A.L. Patel, a Bombay physician.``

On the basis of the story, Jinnah emerged as the one on whom depended the whole movement of Pakistan. The story further becomes interesting when a Hindu doctor kept the secret at the cost of Indian unity. His professional integrity was more important than his political inclinations.

In 1997, on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of India-Pakistan Independence, Patrick French published a book, Liberty or death. After his own investigation, French refutes the whole story narrated by Collins and Lapierre. According to him: ``The idea that Jinnah`s poor state of health was a closely guarded secret is absurd: it was referred to in the press at that time, and it is obvious from photographs taken in the mid-1940s that Jinnah was unwell.

Moreover, the reduction of the Muslim League`s wide popular backing to the whim of one man`s `rigid and inflexible` attitude is indicative of the way that Pakistan history has been traduced. A second problem with Collins and Lapierre`s story is that it is not correct. Jinnah did not go to Bombay in May or June 1946, since he was busy in negotiating with Cripps in Simla and New Delhi. Nor did he have a doctor by the name of J.A.L. Patel. Although it is possible that Jinnah had tuberculosis in 1946, there is no evidence among his archive papers to support the theory.``

However, Jinnah himself on many occasions expressed the view that he was the sole creator of Pakistan. In one of his famous quotes, he said that he and his typewriter made Pakistan. The statement disregarded the efforts of his colleagues and the other Muslim League leaders in the Pakistan movement. It also downgraded the people`s participation in the struggle for a separate homeland.

There is evidence that he did not think highly of the leaders of the Muslim League. He found them mediocre and not capable of leading the nation. Perhaps, that was the reason that Jinnah, knowing his fatal illness, accepted `the moth eaten and truncated Pakistan`. The later history of Pakistan vindicates Jinnah`s assessment of the Muslim League leaders who miserably failed to solve the problems of a nascent nation.

The failure of these leaders has boosted Jinnah`s image as a superman. He overshadowed everybody. The nation also paid respect to him by naming universities, colleges, airports, roads, hospitals, and institutions of different kinds after him with the result that a citizen of Pakistan feels his presence every where in the country, wherever he goes.

Moreover, his image as a ``Great Leader`` (the Quaid-i-Azam) is presented in the textbooks to mould the mind of the young generation encouraging them to follow in his footstep. Scholars are eulogizing different aspects of his life. A film is screened to counter the film Gandhi in which Attenborough distorts the image of Jinnah. These efforts have made Jinnah sacrosanct. Any criticism of him is regarded a treason. He has become a paragon of super human virtues, beyond all weaknesses normal in human being.

The reverence accorded to him is such that mere association with him catapults a person from a humble position to the rank of freedom fighter. People take pride in their claim to have shaken hands with him (though he avoided shaking hands with people), or having seen him, talked to him, or merely attended his public meeting. The rulers of Pakistan, realizing the impact of his association, create myths of their links with him. Z.A. Bhutto claimed that as a student he wrote a letter to the Quaid - it is not known whether he replied to that letter or not, Zia`s sycophant bureaucrats discovered a diary of Jinnah (that was the time when Hitler`s diaries were discovered and later on proved false) which disappeared along with him.

Nawaz Sharif, assuming to follow in his footsteps, called himself `Quaid-i-Sani` (the second leader). One such similar example is found in the history of France when Napoleon III made an attempt to revive the image of Napoleon I in order to legitimize his authority. Marx jokingly comments in The eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte that ``Hegel remarks somewhere that all facts and personages of great importance in world history occur, as it were, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce.`` Nawaz Sharif`s self-given title proves it.

Jinnah has become such a symbol of wisdom in the Pakistani society that people visualize Pakistan with his reference. His vision, his agenda, his dream and his ideals, all remained unaccomplished because he died soon after Independence. It is commonly believed that had he lived some more years, the history of Pakistan would have been different. There are few nations which rely so heavily on one individual.

No doubt, Jinnah was a great leader of his people. He was a man of integrity and honesty, but to idealize him to such an extent as to preempt the emergence of another rank of leaders out of his shadow is strange. Every generation has its own dreams and vision which it wants to accomplish without interference. Not imitation but freedom is required to build a new world. Therefore, an attempt should not be made to repeat but to make new history. People should be liberated from the shadows and allowed to flourish in a free society. Great leaders should be respected but not worshipped.

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/books/books4.htm

December 25, 2001

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

http://www.dawn.com/herald/jinnah/jinnah3.htm

Interview with Indian script writer of film ``Jinnah`` Mr. Farrukh Dhondy. He says Jinnah never wanted a separate country. He set out to win a case and ended up winning a country.

By Syed Ali Dayan Hasan

Q. Did you in fact write the script of the film Jinnah?

A. Yes, I did, and no it was not just a revision of earlier drafts. I wrote the entire script. There was an earlier script by Guy Slater but I never saw it. Akbar Ahmed told me I would not get the credit for it and neither could he acknowledge that I wrote it because I am Indian. I understood his viewpoint completely.

I chose to start working afresh because basically I have been brought up to be out of sympathy with Jinnah or at least out of sympathy with the formation of Pakistan. Akbar Ahmed told me I may get a different impression of Jinnah from the one I had carried so far if I read more about him. So I read extensively including Ayesha Jalal’s work and Wolpert’s biography. From these sources, I formed my impressions of Jinnah anew. While, I had categorically told Akbar I was not going to write a crude propaganda film, I knew that in writing the film I had to be sympathetic to Jinnah because it was meant to present Jinnah’s viewpoint and his imperatives.

Q. Were you paid for writing the script?

A. Yes and there was no quarrel about it. I had a good time with the money. I went to India and spent it. I have no complaint on that score. I kept my part of the bargain and kept the secret. I went to the premiere of the film at the London Film Festival and sat through it very happily. At the end, I congratulated Akbar and told him he had a great script and we both laughed.

Q. How did this whole story enter the public domain in that case?

A. Its coming into the public domain has absolutely nothing to do with me. If Akbar Ahmed and Jamil Dehlavi have fought and decided to bring this whole affair out in the public domain, it is hardly my fault. I have no complaint against either of them. The story was initially aired by the Guardian newspaper here in Britain. I do not know who instigated the Guardian. A reporter from the paper came to me and asked if I had signed a piece of paper selling all my rights in Jinnah for one pound. I did not even remember signing any specific paper and said so. So, the reporter said that that means Mr. Ahmed is guilty of forgery. I told him to not get over-excited and that I would get back to him. I called Jamil and he said yes I had signed this document in his presence and he reminded me of the occasion. So, I called the Guardian and said that yes indeed I had signed the paper and Akbar was not guilty of forgery at all. I did this purely to stop the Guardian from alleging that Akbar had forged my signature when I knew it to be untrue. The reporter, not being an idiot, then said that if I had signed the paper it obviously meant that his hunch that I had written the script was correct. I responded by saying that I was not saying that I had written the script, all I was saying was that I had signed the paper. He was unimpressed with my denial. Eventually, I told him to draw his own conclusions because I had said all I had to say. When I asked him how he had procured a copy of the document, he informed me that Akbar Ahmed himself gave him the document. I was flabbergasted.

Q. What do you think the Dehlavi-Ahmed fight is about?

A. There was an initial falling out over money. Jamil insists that both Akbar and his wife, who were the money-keepers so to speak, did not understand how films are produced. Jamil would keep telling me this during the filming.

The other, more important, reason was that Jamil felt that Akbar was hogging all the limelight attached to the film. Akbar constantly refers to Jinnah as his film. He hosts and attends receptions in honour of the film and constantly markets himself as the maker of Jinnah both in Pakistan and abroad. Jamil felt this was totally unacceptable. Akbar may have brought the team together, eased their way, advised and co-produced the film. But after all, a film is a director’s vision. And Jamil is the director. He argues that he is the director-producer so he deserves some credit. This is the principal reason behind Jamil and Akbar falling out.

As for the financial scandal concerning payments made to Akbar’s son and son-in-law, broken by the Guardian here in Britain, I am personally unaware of those details.

Q. How do you respond to allegations that you and Jamil Dehlavi are part of an Indian conspiracy to undermine the film and the military government of Pakistan?

A. Well, the only person who has ever paid me in connection with this film is Akbar Ahmed and I am unaware of his links with the government of India. There is no truth in the allegation that I work for RAW or the ISI or any other intelligence agency for that matter. I am not even an Indian citizen. However, I was born Indian, I love India and would have liked to see India remain undivided. As far as Pakistan is concerned, as the expression goes ``some of my best friends are Pakistanis.`` I hope there is a rapprochement between the two countries and if General Musharraf can bring that about, I wish him the very best of luck. I understand that General Musharraf is a modernist and a progressive. If he stamps out corruption from Pakistan, he will have achieved more than anyone has in the entire subcontinent to date.

And if General Musharraf is handing out high commisionerships and ambassadorships for writing this script, I would also like to put in a request for one. But I would prefer a place where there is little work Tahiti for example. I would make a very good ambassador because, unlike others, I know when to keep my mouth shut and when to open it. I suppose it would also prove that I am not a RAW agent.

Q. Have you been in touch with Akbar Ahmed since the scandal broke?

A. I tried. But a man called Tariq came on the phone and said ``Dhondy, did you ask for a bribe to buy the film for Channel 4?`` And that really was that. When I began working on the film, I was still commissioning editor at Channel 4. Of course, I had made it clear to Akbar that if I was writing the film, Channel 4 would have nothing to do with it. I informed the managing director of Channel 4 that I was writing this script. Akbar was sent a letter saying that Channel 4 would consider his film when it was ready. That, however, is a standard response. It meant nothing and anyone working in Britain knows that.

Q. How do you view Jinnah the man?

A. I understand Jinnah much better now. Of course, he is not the man the RSS or the BJP or even mainstream Indian nationalists make him out to be. I understand that he was a secular man and wanted a secular Pakistan. He was also a constitutional lawyer. The problem with Jinnah, and I think the film alludes to this, was that he set out to win a case and ended up winning a country. I believe that the truth about the Quaid-e-Azam must be understood not just in India but in Pakistan as well.



http://www.dawn.com/herald/jinnah/jinnah1.htm

Feroz:
THank you for a very good discussion. As always, your candid thoughts are appreciated and very welcome.
Yup, now this is dropping out of the `current hits` at chowk only to give way to other more burning subjects.
I guess we will pick this up again, in the context of some other articles.
For now sit back for some exciting cricket and whatever else our desi biraaders throw up.
At a practise game, 3000 spectators and 13,000 policeman.
Damn it !!!! THEY (the *R`s of course) even hijacked `the beatiful game`

ON a different note:
I wonder what Indo-Pak talks are all about. I wonder what the hell they talk about.
I wonder if Chowk could get transcripts !!!
Would be interesting to say the least.
regards

Re: Rana Ransher`s post #66

Looks like this article will be end up in Chowk`s civic center soon and thus all further dicussions will end due to a laziness to find the right link. Running round in circles? To be honest with you, at times during this discussion I felt like I was searching for a door in a room with no doors while holding a candle in a hurricane!

You hypothesis is a vaild one that Jinnah`s acts in creating Pakistan do not espouse a secularist vision.

Then again, my defination of the term is a western oriented one; separation of state and church, mosque, temple, and any building or institution related with religion.

Let me throw a Hail Mary pass at you. I will add this caveat to your argument why Jinnah wanted a muslim home land. There was a wide spread concern on the part of the Mulims that if they were to remain in India, their own sense of idenity would be diluted within the context of a Hindu political identity, but not a religious one. The whole reason for Pakistan was that Indian Muslims could enjoy political rights in their own right without sharing it with another group. Having said that, the basic reason why Muslim Leaque and Congress were agiating was to politically discipher a post-British reality and the specific political rights of these two groups within that reality. Do we agree so far?

If we do, then the reason for Pakistan becomes self-evident and if we disagree on this point, then all the discussions on this point will tend to be rhetorical. Jinnah in wanting Pakistan was in toto suggesting that Hindus and Muslims could not get together in a political sense. His distinction of Hindus and Muslims as being separte entities was meant in the political sense and not in a religious sense. I can see your rationale in questioning this, but please remember that religious overtones in Pakistani politics did not become pre-dominant till after partition.

Rana sabib, I think, and I might be wrong, but your confusion in this matter is stemming from your understanding of the terms muslim political rights and muslim religious rights. These two terms are different and they do not mean the same thing.

To answer your second part of the question; Jinnah wanted and was hoping that Pakistan would be secular in tradition of Islamic principles of equality and egalatrianism. I know this sounds like an oxy-moron, but just bear with me. Jinnah`s interpretation of Islam was through the prism of classical Islamic postulates, but in this he was in disagreement with the Ullema. Jinnah wanted a home land for the Muslims and not a theocratic state, but the Ullema wanted an Islamic state where religion would be tied, as you suggested, with notions of nation and race. Jinnah did not want this and the reason why we have this present theocracy is, because no one could forcefully articulate Jinnah`s vision for Pakistan, after his death, in face of the orthodoxic obduracy of the Ullema in Pakistani politics.

As to the Hindu right taking Jinnah`s argument and using them as focal point for breaking the Indian confederation, let me just ask you this question: do they really understand Jinnah and for that matter, how many Pakistanis really know what Jinnah wanted? Unfortuneately for us, the debate on what Pakistan should be is still evolving and till it does, Pakistan will periodically swing between the religious right and the secularist vision, but regretablly it will never remain in the middle; a sense of moderation in its polity.

Hope this helps! Incidently, thanks for a stimulating, sometimes annoying and occassionally exsparting, but always an extermely enlightening and an entertaining discussion on Jinnah and the politics of Pakistan. Vielen dank mein Herr! Merci beacoup! Gracia!

By the way, we just had two storms pass over Utah and most of the ski resorts got plenty of fresh powder, Brianhead alone got 58 inches of new snow last night!

re: Ferozk

Thank you for your reply and the info on Utah skiing.

Yaar......regarding the replies, I agree with most of what you say, but we seem to be going in circles with regards to the term `secularism`. We (and Jinnah) obviously have different definitions of the term. To ask for a separate nation on the basis of a religious identity is NOT secular, in fact it is the biggest violation of secularism, no matter how you justify the action. The confusion about Islamic identity, secular Islamic country, secular state with a majority Muslim population is all a legacy of this ACT.
Jinnah, afterall, was a big believer of there being 2 nations in South Asia (a Hindu nation and a Muslim nation for over a 1000 years, as he put it). You may choose to ignore the anthropologists, geneologists and linguists, but even historically speaking this was never true for South Asia. (re: one of my earlier posts which details this). This theory finds credence ONLY in the Islamic ideology of the Ummah where RELIGION is equated with RACE, NATION and even HERITAGE. Jinnah may have wished for a state which was not ruled by the Sharia (and Ulemas, etc.) but that does not mean his vision becomes secular.
As a matter of fact, not one participant on this forum has pointed to any ACT of his which was truly secular. Everybody just alludes to him abandoning his secular front because of the Hindu Right.
With the act of partition Jinnah made his vision a reality.
I am not trying to castigate Jinnah for the present state of affairs in pakistan, but I am holding him responsible for creating 2 ( and then 3) nations in the sub-continent. However, as you can see this did not solve ALL the problems.
Today there is a need for a secular foriegn policy between these 3 nations. Whether the dispute be Kashmir or Babri Masjid it needs to be dealt with a secular hand ?
However, with such different views on the term secularism itself, I am very pessimistic about any such developments.
On the flip side, in India this is a very contemporary issue. In the last 10 years Indian polity has seen the same `abandonment` of secularism because of a presence of a Muslim right (within India and beyond). Issues like ISI`s involvement in the religious (not-so-secular) war in Kashmir are gaining center stage. Ironically, the Hindu Right in India today quotes Jinnah when they assert the need for a Hindu nation.
Jinnah`s vision of a Hindu Nation and Muslim nation have become almost true, complete with Nuclear arsenals.
It may not be long before the Hindu Right starts asking for a Hindu nation with a further `exchange of populations` (per your advise I refrain from calling it ETHNIC CLEANSING) and use ALL of Jinnah`s arguments for it.
Feroz, taan phir ki hoyegaa ?
Would you still think that would be a very secular move ?

Re: All, I apolgise for the lenght of this post.

Re: Temporal post # 63

Thanks for the information. Did you confirm that the doctor was from Bombay also?

Re: Amit`s post # 61

Not to be sarcastic, but I was not aware of a Pakistani intellectual class!

You have raised an interesting question. First of all, before I try to answer this question, I would need to know excatly what you refer to as an ``intellectual class``. Are we talking about the academia or the educated elite in Pakistan? Secondly, what do we mean by intellectualism in Pakistan? Non religious orthodoxy, secularism etc.?

On the second part of your question; I would agree with you. The vast majority of ``thinking Pakistanis`` have no interest in realigning the Present Line of Control either. The reality of the situation is that present LoC has been the defacto frontier for nearly 50 yrs. now. Personally, I think that Kashmir is a thorn in the side of Pakistan-Indian relations and it needs to be removed post haste. As to a compromise on this issue, ala North Ireland, there has to be a political will to do so. Presently, in Pakistan, compromising on Kashmir would be akin of wishing a political deathwish.

As to the normalization of relations with India, the same logic applies. There has to be a political will to achieve such a normalization. I agree with you on all the benefits which could accrue from such a detente, but then again we are talking common sense. A commodity which has not existed in our political market place and probably will not exist within our life times. In my humble opinion there will no normalization of relations with India as long as the immediate post-partition generation is still alive. As long as there is a living memory of partition, this issue will remain moot.

Do the intellectual classes have a vision for Pakistan`s future, I do not know, but I am pretty confident that they a vision for their own future. How Pakistan`s interests play out in that vision; are those interests antithetical or complimentary to Pakistan remains open for debate.

Re: Rana Ransher`s post # 64

I am going to approach this from the end up.

I think the problem vis a vis a Muslim majority and an Islamic identity is that there is no clear cut defination of the term. Those two buzz-words are still evolving and this problem will persit till there is a workable defination of the problem. What do we, as Pakistanis, mean by those two terms? I wish, I could answer this for you, but to me, in a personal sense, the question is fraught with pitfalls. The leadership of Pakistan, which argued for its creations, was secular. I know this, because they did not want a theocracy. In their opinion, the Ullema was poorly equiped to deal with problems of a modern state and their education, grounded in orthodoxy, did not enable them to be competent in matters of the day to day running of the state.

I agree with you. Jinnah did not speak for all the Muslims and there were many, including the Ullema, who chose to remain with Congress. Muslim right, as you so quintly put it, and its ideology was not responsible for creating Pakistan. These same champions of Islam who want to make Pakistan a theocracy today were against the idea of Pakistan itself! Pakistan was created through the sheer will of people like Jinnah, Liaquat Ali Khan and other secular minded Muslims and in this they were bitterly opposed by the Islamic Ullema of India. In fact Jinnah was called apostate because he wanted Pakistan; an idea that was thought to be un-Islamic by the Ullema. The fact that Jinnah won Pakistan despite all their obstacles did not sit well them and still rankles them to the present.

Soon after Jinnah`s death, these same people tried to remould themselves in the eyes of Pakistani people. All the subsequent Pakistani contitutions have been held hostage by them and it was they, not Jinnah and his lieutants, who were responsible for fositing an Islamic ideology on Pakistan and arguing that it was an Islamic state. The present day Pakistan is nothing what its founding fathers wished it to be. It is a tragedy of Pakistani political life that anyone who questions the motives of these Ullema is branded an apostate to Islam and is blessed with a fatwa on his head.

To capsulate, the Muslim religious right was not responsible for creating ``an electorate`` for Pakistan. The reason that Pakistan came into being was, because many Muslims agreed with Jinnah`s vision, inspite of the Ullema`s anti-Pakistan fatwas, of a Muslim, not an Islamic homeland for the Muslims of India. The domination of the Pakistani politics by the Ullema is regretable, because they are trying to pass themselves as the rightful heirs of Jinnah`s legacy. The co-equation of race with nation was bitterly opposed by the Indian Ullema and it was only after the creation of Pakistan, that these same persons began adovcating for a religious state. Hence, I disagree with your contention that the creation of Pakistan was religiously inspired.

Realistically, I can not speak for the Pakistani politicans and their ideé fixé since paritition. Has their preceptions changed? All I can suggest to you is read a web site for a Pakistani newspaper and you`ll have your answers. However, to be perfectly honest with you, there are many voices in Pakistan, though non-governmental, which are calling for a re-think of the post-paritition reality as it exists today.

I would also like to make a crucial point here and this is, perhaps, the most important indicator of our attitudes towards India. The vast majority of Pakistanis are not interested in a perpetual conflict with India, but are eager for basic amenities of life; clean drinking water, electricity, safe neighborhoods and the primacy of the rule of law. We, as a people, realize that fifty years of conflict with India has gained us nothing. Why is the present Pakistani government not reflective of this viewpoint? That my friend is another debate. As the editor of The Economist, Bagehot, once said, ``democracy is the illushion of something and not the reality of anything``, we do not have a democratic government despite what our leadership claims.

However, getting to the crux of your question: the presense of a Hindu right justifying an abandonment of a secular front.

I do not think that I can answer this question to your complete satisfaction. The loss of the secular front, to the Hindu right, in my opinion was to the growing disparity of interests between the Muslim right and the Hindu right. I honestly think that the secular front got marginalized, isolated and ignored in the racial hatred which seemed to be dominanting the Muslim and Hindu political discourse. As to the Hindus not making a Hindu based consititution and the Pakistanis creating a consititution on the tradition of Sunnah and Sharia, the answer to which lies in the fact that neither Jinnah or Liaquat Ali Khan were alive when the Pakistani consititution was being framed. As I said before, there were no Pakistani secular leaders left who could contest the religious platforms of the Ullema.

Lastly; did Jinnah have ``blue print for Pakistan``. Again, I am not sure what you are looking for in this case either. Jinnah`s blue print for Pakistan, by reading his speeches and via reading his letters, was for a modern Muslim state with a bi-cameral legislature and an independent judicary, based on the British common law and not on Sunnah as mentioned earlier. Jinnah wanted a polity not dominated by race relations, but based on the principle of equality and egalatrianism. Jinnah`s blue print was for Pakistan not be a theocratic state and he repeatedly stressed home this point. Now, what happened to Pakistan since 1947 can not be blamed on Jinnah, but on the political leaderships that followed him. The fact that Jinnah`s blue print did not end up being created, is not the man`s fault, but in a more real sense, our own. Jinnah should not be blamed for the mess Pakistan is in today. In the American parlance, Jinnah did not drop the ball, but we did.

On a lighter side; you can buy alcohol in bars in Utah, and in stores. There are state liquor stores which sell all beverages with an alcohol content of higher than 3.2 percent i.e wine vodka, cognac (my favorite) and single malt scotch (another favorite). Alcohol is available in Utah, but its use is frowned upon because the dominant relgion, Mormonism, considers it a sin. In other words, Utah is a like a small piece of Pakistan Middle East in the middle of America. If you want my two-cents, I think the powder in Utah is much superior to Tahoe. Also, since Utah is gearing up for 2002, there are a lot of pre-Olympic package deals being offered. I would try the Utah tourism website.

re: Ferozk

``I discerned a bit of revisionism in your reply and that you seemed to be judging the actions of the 1940s based on what we know in the present! Please remember that those people who made these choices did not have the benefit of our historic legacy``
THere is no revisionism on my part. Revisionism implies I am changing history in some way to suit my present day standards. INcidently we agree about most of the historical facts discussed in the context of this article. The fact is at the time there was a 1) Hindu Right a 2) Muslim Right and a 3) Secular Front. I agree that the future of the state was the big question mark. But in my opinion, you are not answering how the presence of a Hindu Right can justify abandoning your supposed secular front. (same question to Jinnah or any other person claiming to be secular).
Incidently, the same ``Hindus`` went on to make a constitution that was not based on any Hindu text, this despite a Muslim right with an age-old exclusive history for the Ummah.
ANd what were Jinnah`s blueprint for the state anyway ? I admire your stand of defending him, even though you have very little to work with.
You keep saying the Congress should have made compromises with Jinnah. How about giving us some insight into what compromises Jinnah was seeking ?

``As an aside, lets discuss the issue of ethnic cleansings. Yes, it was that and it was wrong, but to inforce the present politically correct standard to that time and those people is an example of historic revisionism at its worst!``
Absolutely NOT ! It was ethnic cleansing then and now. So what if we did not use the same term for it then. We are now wiser and should at least not make the same mistakes. BTW there are present day Pakistani politicians still calling for `plebiscites` all over India. Has there thinking undergone any changes since the partition days ?
IN fact, if you study the Bosnia situation, you will see the parallels (Catholic nation, Protestant Nation, Ummah). It just so happens that the Muslims are not calling for a separate nation, the others are ? Double standards on your part, maybe ?

Also, as a History student, you shouldn`t necessarily assume Jinnah spoke for all the Muslims. There were a lot of influential Muslims who maintained their secular stand. So all the Muslims in India are not necessarily abandoned by Jinnah, some of them believed in the secular dream.
IN your analysis, you conveniently forget the Muslim right and its ideology of creating an exclusive `electorate` by equating religion to race and Nation (when convenient). In fact, this is something strange since these are the only real consistent arguments FOR partition. (Iqbals was the strongest, most convincing such voice). And they have dominated Pakistani politics since 1947 (making it an Islamic state, ZUH`s Islamization, and now Mianjis CA-15). You see it is very hard to oppose Islamization `cause then you are labelled `an enemy of the religion``.

How a secular state (without a Muslim majority as opposed to one with it) threatens Islamic identity, still beats me ?

On a different note: I am thinking of going to Utah for a ski trip. I have done some Internet research on it. When they say `no alchohol` does that mean they don`t even sell it in stores or they just don`t have bars ?
Will help me choose between Utah and Tahoe, though.

regards

Feroze:

Just received a one sentence reply to my query from Mr. Cowasjee--``Dr. Jal Patel was a parsee.``

Am rushing off....

regards

My two cents:

Two Nation theory was a total failure!!! That there are only two nations in the sub-continent - muslims and hindus is complete false. This theory failed when Bengalis were massacred by Paki Jawans (were they not muslims??) resulting in the separation of east pakistan. If we were all ``one`` nation then why three army actions on balochistan in which thousands of baloch freedom fighters were killed and their villages destroyed!!

BTW I must warn everyone to be careful in writing anything against Jinnah - the punishment for saying anything against Jinnah is 14 years rigorous imprisonment (chaudah saal ba mushaqat) - this is in the constituion of Pakistan!!

Re : Ferozek, Ras

What does the intellectual class in Pakistan feel about the long term future of muslims in the subcontinent ? Currently muslims are divided over three nations. In Pakistan, they are completely fragmented on ethnic/sectrian grounds and economically impoverished due to large scale economic mismanagement. In India, they are limping back to a normal life but the progress is slow due to bitter Indo-Pak relations. Things are probably a little better in Bangladesh. Certainly muslims are not happy with the way things are in contrast to their elite upper class status earlier in history.

The vast majority of people in India and Pakistan do not want to change the political boundaries. However, there is no reason why muslims cannot become the dominant socio-economic group in the subcontinent, if they choose. Islamic culture can also make a comeback. The first step would be to normalize relations with India and have a subcontinental reconciliation with hindus. Second step could be to establish a military and economic alliance with India on the basis of equality. Third would be to establish major trade and commerce with the emerging markets of Central Asia. The commercial needs of Central Asia and South Asia are complementary and trade would be extremely beneficial for both regions. Pakistan would be the biggest beneficiary since it would be the connection between the two. Muslims in India would also prosper in such a process as they would become the liaison between both sides. The communal tensions in India would be lowered as hindus will realize the value of having good relations with the islamic world.

All this may sound very optimistic but it is not impossible. For e.g. the Kashmir issue can easily be solved with a compromise similar to the Northern Ireland solution. The media in Pakistan and India never mention the word ``compromise `` with respect to Kashmir. These sort of initiatives must come from the intellectual classes in Pakistan. If Indians say these things, they are blamed for trying to create `akhand bharat `. Unfortunately the intellectual class in Pakistan does not seem to have a positive long term vision for the muslims in Pakistan and rest of the subcontinent. They should realize that the partition days are long over. Most hindus in India already realize that the two communities have vast differences but there is a need to develop a win-win formula.

Re: Anita Zaidi`s post # 59

Dear lady, I apolgise to your sense of convictions and I stand corrected before you!

In addition let me just say this towards that argument. Incidently, this may sound as an ad hoc argument and I apolgise for that.

The nature of female apartheid in Pakistani society is cultural driven and its perceptions, rightly or wrongly, is wide spread. Now, the government of Pakistan is composed of men who are, culturaly, accustomed to the idea of this sex bias and the reason why our government practices this infamy is because in their sense of perception it is all right to do so.

A government is often the total sum of the prejudices, biases, personal believes and igorances of the people who compose it. This problem, in Pakistan, is not systematic of a government policy, but rather of a personal perception based on the dominant culture of the society. Even if the present and future governments of Pakistan deplore this practice, it will not resolve the issue. To fully delegitimize this issue, there has to a cultural renassiance in the collective Pakistani viewpoint on this issue.

A good example was the racial aparheid in South Africa. That policy ended, not because of sanctions or government intervention, but due to the perception of the problem. Once the whites agreed that it was wrong and immoral, they refused to adhere to its precepts and thus, apartheid ended.

Getting back to Pakistan, a government, for good or bad, is the reflection of its people and this policy of a female apartheid in Pakistan will not end till we refuse to follow its logic. It does not matter why the government follows this policy, but the question should be, why do we as a society still follow this abhorent fallacy?

Anyways, thanks for tangent!

Re: Rishi`s post # 58

Luck had nothing to with it my friend! My boss was in Washington D.C. attending some conference of Republican executive directors and we are presently in down cycle after Nov. elections. I have more time than I know what do with it it! Maybe, I will find a femme du jour to keep me amused! :)

Besides, Park City is only an hour from where I live and I wanted to catch the Sundance festival and see all the cutie pies, hot babes and yummy mommas. Boy, I tell you, those are some high maintaince and expensive play toys! There are a whole bunch of older, rich bored women out there!
My attitude is if they have the money, I sure could use it!

If I could just afford one, oh yeah baby!!

P.S.: Yes, I know that I will get a lot of grief for saying this, but I`cant help it! There were some seriously drop dead beautiful reasons for staying in bed all the time! :)

Re: Ferozk (#55)

``Discrimination, in any nation, is not a governmental policy, but a human failing. Government may tacitily support it, but we must always draw the distinction between the government and the people as practioners of this policy...``

Sorry to poke a hole in this argument Feroz, but the government of Pakistan practices gender apartheid against women as its official governmental policy...

Anita

Re: FerozK

Nice to read you again my friend. Skiing, that too during a weekday...hmm are`nt you lucky ?

About Gandhi my two cents. As a proponent of non-violence i admire Gandhi. However Gandhi did not invent this policy. It has been practized by hindu saints even before the birth of Christ.(eg., Buddha, Madhavacharya, Shankaracharya ,etc). However i do admire Gandhi for making it into a strong political weapon, to such an extent that this idea was considered to be a gift to mankind by people no less than Martin Luther King and Einstein. I admire him for choosing the nationalistic path (the same for which you find him unacceptable). I admire him for his inner strength and his conviction. However, Gandhi`s fault is in confusing his personal likes and dislikes with national causes. He could have been deeply religious in his personal life, but in a political sphere he committed a harakiri in espousing his hindu orthodoxy which in reality alienated atleast a section of the Muslim Orthodoxy. Also he should have restricted his quirks and ideosyncracies to his personal life.

The trouble with Gandhi was that he gave himself too much credit for what was going on in the country and expected obedience from the masses and the elite. He was hardly democratic in his own way. And to top it all he was plain stupid (as in the case you point about Jews). He was at times totally impractical.

The last paragraph can hold good for his disciple ``Nehru`` also. On a parallel scale, I really do admire the ``Border Gandhi`` Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan.

Rishi

Sorry for this, again, but I was kidnapped by a girl who wanted to show me her new tattoo! It was the cutest little bumble bee I ever saw!!

To all, I apolgise for the unbearable lenght of this post.

Re: Rishi post # 38

Thanks for a facinating analysis! Given the demographics you presented it seems that Muslims would have been in ``equality`` with the Hindus in an united India.

Given, as EB suggests, that Muslims had a unifying political theme since 1206, it does not mean anything, because in 1206 there was no comphrension of the term `nationalism`. The state was the personal extension of the morarch`s self interests. Also, in 1206, the world was not dominated by the political ideals of the west, as it was in 1947. Hence, we have to argue a case for the Muslim political thought as it existed in 1947 and not in 1206! Yes, the Muslims might have had a political theme, but that was invalidated after 1857 and it would take the Muslims nearly a hundred years to argue one.

You are correct in saying that the Mughal emperors were the lighting rod for Muslim political participation. That was not the case after 1857. After 1857, Muslims did not enjoy a political mandate or a franchise in the British influenced politics of the day. Muslim political leadership had to re-invent its own ideology and then link it to the political scene as it was evolving. My rebuttal, or as the Germans would say it gegen antworten, to you is that from 1857 to about 1919, the Muslims in India did not have a clue to as what they wanted! Yes, there was always a discussion of Muslim special interests, but they were meant in the sense of logica inter politicia (within a political sense).

In this you are absolutely correct. Muslim articulation of their own political destiny, in India, arose as the result of the Ottoman Turk defeat in 1918 and was crstalized in the aftermath of the Versailles Peace Conference of 1919 which nullified the Turkish empire. The gradual dismemberment of the Turkish empire was seen as an European afront to Islam and that marshalled the Muslim opinion in India against the British, thus giving them a focal point of un unifying political argument.

I agree with on you this point: the creation of Pakistan was intended to protect and preserve the special status of Muslim elites. I, for one, being involved in politics, do not believe in the idea of altrusim, but that every action has a selfish reason behind it. Consequently, I do not believe that the creation of Pakistan had any ``noble`` motives behind it.

Having said that, let me just say this. The political rationale that was codified into a demand for Pakistan, two-nation theory, was the manifestion and a perception of the political scene by the Muslims that the situation was irrevocable. Sitting fifty years later, with the benefit of hindsight, we can say that they were wrong. My statement about the eventuality of Pakistan, as a choice, was made in lieu of that realization. At that point in time, in 1947, given the nature of the Indian political debate, that choice made sense. As some one interested in history, I try to ``see`` events and situations as a contempory of that period might have seen them.

Therefore, the choice for Pakistan was the response of the Muslims to the situation in India and was thought in 1940s, not in 1990s, as the most rationale way to deal with the problem. Whether we agree with that or not is academic. Was it right or not is questionable. There is no correct answer to this question. My statement merely suggested that given the situation, as it had existed then, this idea made sense. I was putting myself in their shoes and, without hindsight, I could not see a solution to the problem, but through the two-nation theory.

Hope this clarifies any misunderstandings!

Re: Rana Ransher post #37

First of all, thank you for your detailed reply!

Firstly, I am a secular minded person. My own personal mantra is that further from the mosque, nearer to God!

I discerned a bit of revisionism in your reply and that you seemed to be judging the actions of the 1940s based on what we know in the present! Please remember that those people who made these choices did not have the benefit of our historic legacy. In their collective opinion, rightly or wrongly, they felt they were correct and justified in their actions and that is how I want to judge them, in their in own context, and not within the prism of my own contemporary contextual understandings.

Jinnah, according to my understanding, was speaking of a Muslim ``majority`` on a micro level and not on a macro level. His idea of a majority was based on the demographics of the areas in which the Muslims enjoyed a dominance. He was not suggesting that Muslims, overall, had majority status over the Hindus. The Muslims never constituted a majority in India. His idea was that the areas, on a micro level, which had Muslim majority should become Pakistan.

Yes; I think that Jinnah spoke of a real problem, but whether the solution was right or wrong is debateable. As I mentioned in my reply to Rishi, given the context of the times, the idea of Pakistan made sense, because there was a growing awareness that a point had been reached in Hindu-Muslim discourse when regression to status quo was no longer a viable option.

Off course not! I do not deny the scale of tradegy that occured in the aftermath of Partition. Could it have been avoided ? I honestly do not know. I know this, however, that the actors who were involved in this drama were slowly coming to grips with their own inflexibility and their own short comings and were of the opinion that things had morphed into a state of conflict.

In this, I think that your argument makes a valid point and this is what I will add to it. The idea of Pakistan, the two nation theory, was accepted as an aveune out of this gridlock, because nothing else seemed to resolve the irtractiable problem of the race relations, as they were evolving prior to indpendence. This then delves right into your question and the answer is, after much consideration, no. I think that Jinnah accepted Pakistan as a solution to a problem in lack of an another option.

Let me put it to you in these words. If you think that the situation prior to 1947 could have been resolved in a comphresenive manner, then the reason for Pakistan would diminish. This then implies that the situation could have been avoided. To which my answer is that it could not, in those circumtances, and that Pakistan was the only way out of the dilemma. This judgement is reflective of being a Muslim, in India, at the time of partition. If you still think Pakistan, as a solution to the problem was a mistake, I would be really interested in hearing how you would have chosen to resolve the issue and in the process avoid partition.

As an aside, lets discuss the issue of ethnic cleansings. Yes, it was that and it was wrong, but to inforce the present politically correct standard to that time and those people is an example of historic revisionism at its worst!

As a disclaimer, I am not in favor of such policies and I detest the notions of religious, political or other reasons which seek to exploit a dissimialrity for any cause, purpose or intent.

Having said, I also resent the notion of affixing our moral standards and perspectives in a historic sense and to castigate the past for its lack of those said criteras. We should be interested in judging those people in the context of their own standards, as they, not us, understood those standards to be.

Ethnic cleasning, as a term it not orginate till the Serbs started to massacre the Muslim population of Jugoslavia. The people of India, at the time of partition, had no concept what ethnic cleansing meant. Hence to blame the people, in this case the leaders, of ethnic cleansing, though true in a contempory sense, does ill service to them in a historic sense. You are hereby judging a people on a standard and a criteria they never knew existed. I hate these types of retro-moralities, because they tend to obscure truth and rather seeks to ``spin`` history to appeal to the present sensibilities of the day.
As a student of history, every bone in my body revolts against this practice.

In dealing with the issues, questions and passions of those times, all I ask is that we do not corrupt the history of those times with our present morality du jour! Though my interest is in history and I live in a by-gone time, I still look forward with the belief that ``past is proloque``.

Again, I hope this clarifies what my intent was in asking those questions.

Sincerely!

RE: Rishi

Today`s Rediff on the Net carries my letter that hopefully explains further my humble opinion on the current problem. Here is what is says:

Subject: Dr Stephen Cohen on India/Pakistan relations

One has to respect Dr Cohen for becoming a specialist on South Asia. But there is only so much that he can say or do. The problem with these
``specialists`` is that they have to say different things to gain acceptance into the corridors of power in India and Pakistan. For example: ``I guess today India and Pakistan need another Simla to resolve the issue and the solution is really quite obvious: convert the Line of Control into a border.``

One can only ask Dr Cohen that if this was a possible solution and each country has been in control of more or less the same territory then this problem should have been solved itself by now. It does not take a genius to recommend such an option. It takes a man of courage to say enough is enough.
Outside powers have made it a habit of using Kashmir to sell their weapons to India and especially Pakistan. They have used the misery that Kashmir has generated for their own benefit while promising each of the three parties
(let us not forget the Kashmiris) what they want. Everything is acceptable except a solution.

It is time that the three parties woke up. India will never become a superpower if it cannot find a non-military solution to this problem. The ball
is in India`s court. In the remote possibility that Pakistan does collapse lies India`s own undoing. So both countries need to accept the ground realities and come up with a compromise. And this compromise cannot be the present line of control. If India and Pakistan cannot resolve this issue then the future of the area is extremely bleak. So it is time that we all grew up. (End)

RE: Rana
Yes I do try and stay as current as one can from
here in the US. I consider myself a moderately
aware person whose writings do sometimes make it to the press in the Sub-Continent.

RE: Feroz
I disagree with you. I still hold Gandhi in VERY
high regard but find very little to appreciate
in the person of Nehru.

Ras

Re: Syed Ahmed post # 49

I take a day off to go sking and I came back and find that we are discussing discrimination and the same bigotary that has divided us for the last fifty years into our present state of misery.

Discrimination, in any nation, is not a governmental policy, but a human failing. Government may tacitily support it, but we must always draw the distinction between the government and the people as practioners of this policy. We all realize that discrimination exists on the sub-continent, and as a Pakistani, I am not interested in discovering who is more discriminatory; the Indians or the Pakistanis. My interest lies in understanding the root causes of this problem so that it can be erdicated.

Muslim Leaque and the Congress positions were not shaped by public opinion. Public opinion is a western democratic concept and such, did not exist in the political vocabulary of pre-partition Indian discourses. The policies of Congress and Muslim Leaque were shaped by the western educated leaders, like Jinnah, Nehru and Ghandhi, who dominated its leadership. The leadership of Congress and Muslim Leaque was concentrated in the big cities, New Delhi, Bombay and Calcutta, and was composed of the urban educated elite. Their discussions to divide the post British Indian political pie was made out of their own self interests and without a thought to ``public opinion``.

In this, I credit Ghandhi for taking the politics to the village level and increasing the scope of the debate to include many issues that were of a marginal concern to the political elites of New Delhi. However, I must point out that though I admire Ghandhi for doing so, I do not approve of the methodolgy which he employed to gain his results. Ghandhi took his cause to the villages, because he was being increasingly isolated in the dominant political centers. This was a ploy by Ghandhi to consolidate his own power base and then deal with the Congress on an equal footing.

In doing so, Ghandhi nationalized the political debate and British, who sought to use this, fanned the flames of sectarianism to divide Muslim Leaque and Congress. This was a classic British tactic of divide and rule and by doing this, they were hoping to undermine the independence movement itself. The rationale was if Congress and Muslim Leaque were fighting amongst themselves, they could not present a united front against the British.

It was this polarization of positions that disgusted Jinnah and was the reason why he left for England.

As to your assertions about Jinnah being victimized in Indian history texts. Why blame the Indians for confusing the issue and distorting Jinnah`s message. We, Pakistanis, have not been entirely blameless ourselves. We are teaching lies about Jinnah and each time we want something politically, we contort history to reflect that what we want, Jinnah wanted also. History in the sub-continent is what the present rulers want. It has nothing to do with the actual reality of what happened.

History, in its classical sense, is the opinion of the past by the contempory generation. In Pakistan, the problem is that we are not interested in the opinion of the past specially if it proves out actions, in the present, as misguided!

Re: Truth

My one specific act of blame on Ghandhi is that for his own personal reasons, to get political power, he incouraged nationalism. A process that would reciprocated by the Muslim Leaque to a point till there would be no moderates left in the independence movement. I blame Ghandhi for the sectarianism which swept India.

If Ghandhi had not nationalized Indian politics, partition would have been a gentlemen`s agreement without the blood bath that it was. My question to you is this: who apointed Ghandhi as the messiah of the Indian people? No one, it was Ghandhi himself who took on this mantle.

This was the same gentleman who wrote to the Jews, during WWII, that they all should commit mass suicide as a form of protest against Hitler! Richard Attenbrough not withstanding, lately I am getting a deeper appreciation of Nehru as a political leader. Granted that his romance with socialism would cause India economic heartache, but atleast he was appealing to Indian greatness in a tangible sense and not in some mythological sense as Ghandhi seemed to view India.

re Syed Ahmed

Thanks for you reply.
I think we both agree about Jinnah.
And this candid discussion is definitely clearing things up for me. However, some bigger issues come to my mind. Now given 3 political fronts 1) secular 2) Hindu RIght 3) Muslim Right. You say because HR existed you (as a Muslim) would probably abandon a secular front and swing to the MR (like Jinnah, I guess). Is that really sound reasoning ? I see inherent contradiction. Do you think it is okay to JUSTIFY your own right wing point of view (Islamic identity, Ummah) by pointing to other right wing views ? A fundamental question I would ask you is `` Do you believe 2 wrongs make a right ?``
You are choosing to ignore that the Islamic concept of Ummah which directly relates a religious identity to a Nation and even a race, culture, civilization, existed long before Savarkar was even born. Savarkar`s theories were essentially an attempt at providing Hindus with a similar ideology. The parallels are amazing !!
If you continue to let the opposing right wings hog YOUR politics, you obviously will be left without a voice. Why do you think that then (and even now) you have only 2 CHOICES ?
Now in America, their exists a Christian RIght. Now using the same logic Muslims should (anytime reallly) start demanding a separate nation for Muslims. Come on ...... then why do you complain if the French PM says `he is concerned about
In your arguments, the conflict between secular and Islamic ideologies is very apparent. Am I right to assume an Islamic identity is ALWAYS threatened (to different extents) in a society where non-Muslims live. Afterall, what is this Islamic identity ?
IMHO secularism and Islamic identity are contradictory. Muslims often confuse secularism with `separation of Church and state` (to a Muslim NO SHARIAT). That is only ONE of its tenets.

re: Ras Sidiqqui
IMHO, I think you are missing the point of a lot of the discussion so far. You say,``The discussion generated thus far has been a little bit disappointing. This ``What if analysis`` is going a bit far. ``What if there had been no partition?`` is a purely academic discussion now. Partition happened in 1947 and then again in 1971. What we now need to do in this context is improve on what we got.``
Maybe you see this purely as a Pakistani discussion. But even as a Pakistani you should realize that a lot of what happens in Pakistan is directly affected by what happens in India and the rest of the subcontinent and vice-versa. What we have today can be better understood only by analyzing the historical events. This discussion is necessary. IN FACT, CHOWK should probably compile these discussions and hook up with newspapers and get more people to read them.
I am not sure if you are interested in politics at all. But if you study present day politics of the subcontinent countries (foriegn policy is just one part, I mean to include local indigenous politics also) they are all inter-related. Whether you see things as a country, city, region, sub-continent, household, expat community is besides the point. India (ok the sub-continent `cause you may be a stickler) was/is a land of interconnected differences. Today the sub-continent is not a peaceful region and a lot of resources go into `destructive` things. Society/societies can only thrive when there is peace and people actually have time to do something `creative`.
You do ask for the the countries to get to the discussion table. Well this is the discussion table. The countries need to talk about this in this manner. Any discussion can only help. I really believe future governments will work this way.
In India this debate is extremely relevant to contemporary politics. 50 years ago there were braodly 3 political fronts 1) secular 2)Hindu right (Savarkar) 3)Muslim right (Islamic Ummah). Incidently today the same 3 political fronts are still at it in different shapes and forms.
Nobody is suggesting reversing history in any way. But you can point to mistakes in history and be wiser. It COULD manifest itself in having a better, less adversarial FORIEGN POLICY. Have you read about how much India and Pakistan spend EACH day exchanging `friendly fire` at Siachen. Nuclear Bombs. I could go on, but you get my point.

Re: Ras Siddique

``Partition happened in 1947 and then again in 1971.What we now need to do in this context is improve on what we got.``

--agree. I too am not advocating reunification. But it does help to understand the past to plan our future.

``For a person born after the event, in a country which my parents CHOSE to help create, Pakistan was already a reality. ``

-- for more than 60 % of the Indians, Pakistan is a reality too. They too were born after partition and Pakistan was never a part of India for them .

``And India is not blameless in the direction that the Pakistan of today has taken.``

-- True and holds good conversely too.

``The rise of fascism in Pakistan will become more

real if the Kashmir dispute is not resolved.``

-- I concur . With Pakistan ,the issue is to solve Kashmir dispute. With India it is how to solve it. The best solution (the hindu right wing would not like this ) is to make the line of controls the permanent border. Observe complete truce with the UN forces (paid for by both India and Pakistan proportionately ) guarding the border and with a commity of nations ensuring that both nations comply to this. There should be no official chest thumping on either side and who knows the future might well be great when we might break up like the Soviet Union rather peacefully or forge an economic order like the European Union (who knows, again the possiblities would be immense,,,SR would love this angle )

``And India will fall prey to a similar malady in spite of its ``Worlds Largest Democracy`` slogan. ``

True, a slight aberration on Kashmir, and we would see a Hindu India which might officially persecute the muslim minority populace along with the christian and other minorities. We might even face a balkan type ethnic cleansing. The rise of the Sangh parivar are a sad pointer to the directions India might go into. The right wing hindu fundamentalist would stand to gain the most with a consolidation of the hindu population across caste and community which has been a myth till now. Pakistan would lose the most with Kashmiris from Azad kashmir raising pro independance slogans and with a powerful militant hindu india at its borders.

`` Both countries need to get to the negotiating

table and make peace. THEN if there are any merits to this questioning of Partition, the generations of the future will get a chance to re-evaluate and possibly address this issue. ``

-- I agree.

``For now South Asia needs some years of peace, which has thus far been hampered by the perception of an expansionist India.``

-- An expansionist India is not a reality any more. The truth is there is nothing left to expand even if India wants to. Funny that Indians view Pakistan as being expansionist. Guess thats how the politicians thrive across the borders on both sides By raising perceived threats and bogeys.

Cheers

Rishi

Re: Syed Ahmed

``In your reply to Waheed you reiterate official government propaganda.``

-- And would you please state this official propaganda. And please don`t dismiss my statements as propaganda. What do i gain by disseminating this propaganda in a forum such as this ? The facts that i presented are there for you to see. Dispute them if you can . And i have indeed accepted discrimination in a couple of areas at least.

You claim to know more about Indian Muslims with your few visits to India and dispute the observations of an Indian who had spent 25 years of his life in India growing up with Muslim friends, listening to the call of Azan 5 times a day, being taught by Muslim Professors (and by god, the English Prof Usman Sait was excellent with Macbeth ) and honoured with a masters degree by none other than Dr.Abdul kalam, where the captain of my college cricket team was a muslim and who was also my roommate, where my first girl friend was a muslim, in a country where my second favourite cricket player is a Muslim and almost all our movie idols are muslims, where nationally acclaimed muscians are Muslims (A.R. Rahman, Zakir Hussein, Allah Raka to name a few. If India was so oppressive, i would expect most of these Muslims to have moved out of India when they can.). I can go on and on and would only end up repeating myself ad nauseum. Instead, let me just state that you can believe whatever you want, but then reality is something different and to understand reality you need an unbiased mind and should not pre-suppose and pre-expect (or should i say, hope for )something else before you observe it.

I am not claiming that there is no discrimination at all, but that the discrimination exists across all spheres in India, forward caste private sector organizations do not recruit backward caste people for their key positions, the same with the gujaratis, the bengalis, the tamils, the malayalis and the same holds good for muslim private sectors too. You claim that muslims are not industrialists. Take a trip to Ambur near Madras where the whole place is filled with rich Muslim entrepreneurs specializing in leather and granite industries. Take a walk to the major restaurants in both Bombay, Bangalore, Hyderabad and Madras and see who owns them. Ofcourse we still have not had a Muslim organization as big as the Tatas. We also do not have a south indian organization or a bengali organization or an oriya organization as big as the tatas too. What the heck, even some of our famous underworld dons are muslims ?

``Your analysis although correct to a certain degree is essentially adolescent. ``

-- and while disputing my observations, you claim that i am being adolescent by stating that my arguments are adolescent. AND YOU DISMISS THEM AS BEING ADOLESCENT WHILE CONCEDING THAT THEY ARE CORRECT TO A CERTAIN DEGREE. BEATS ME HOW YOU COULD DO THAT . That too by virtue of the limited interactions you have had with India and Indians. And when you can`t dispute the arguments with absolute facts, you have to malign the person who makes the arguments or the arguments themselves, won`t you ?

``NO glass ceiling - I have been to India and there widespread discrimination( social not as a matter of govt policy) against Muslims,

they are underrepresented in all aspects of Indian public life. ``

-- Thanks for stating that discrimination is not a government policy. If there is social discrimination, would Azharuddin, pataudi, and the film stars to quote a few be so popular. The Indian Administrative Service is nowadays represented by Forward Caste North Indian Hindus in a majority. Representation in such organizations are more due to nepotism and selective opportunities. Just like a doctor`s son becoming a doctor, a collector`s son aspires to become an IAS in India. However i can claim that all the last three collectors in my District in india are Muslims and the last two governors of my state have been muslims and also the current health minister and education minister of my state are muslims too. This given the fact that muslims amount to less than 10 % of the States population.

``Symbolic appointments to governemnt position do not assure equity to the masses.``

-- True, however governments cannot uplift just a section of the masses alone. Remember that the Muslim elite of India are doing very well indeed. It is only the masses who suffer. IN FACT ALL THE MASSES OF INDIA SUFFER AND SO I WOULD EXPECT IN PAKISTAN TOO. And most of the recent converts to Islam are hindus who are dejected by the oppressive caste structure of hinduism. These recent converts are already suppressed masses who take to islam with the hope that islam might provide them with a better life and more respect as human beings. But then things hardly change whichever religion you choose unless you change it for yourself. ELSEWHERE IN THIS FORUM, THERE WAS AN ARTICLE BY BINA ABOUT AN INDIAN BORN MUSLIM WHO PROVIDED THE FIRST INTERNET SERVICE FOR PAKISTAN. Read about his opportunities in India and then comment about ceilings. And his was not a symbolic case. Nobody provided it to him.. he got his opportunities himself. And can i forward some muslims from India who might be representives of the secular credentials and equal opportunities that are available in India , just to prove my point ?

``In General Middle class HIndus often look upon ( with certain justifications) Indian Muslims as ignorant , backward and non-progressive. ``

Middle class Hindus from North India look down upon South Indians, and vice versa. What the heck almost everybody who is a little different from the other in terms of caste, community, religion, race etc., looks down at the other in India . If all muslims are looked down in India then what would account for the popularity of Amir Khan, Salman Khan and Shah Rukh Khan apart from the thousands of other popular muslim names that i can throw upon you. The truth is middle class muslims also look down upon middle class hindus.

MIDDLE CLASS AMERICAN CHRISTIANS ALSO LOOK DOWN UPON MUSLIMS AS RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALIST WHO OPPRESS WOMEN AND REPRESENTED BY THE TALIBAN/AYATOLLAH/SADDAM/QADDAFI and ignorant , backward and non-progressive. Would you state the same about America too ? And why would you live in a country where the popular perception is so ?

-- sorry again if the above argument is offense. Just wanted to point out a common thread.

``Muslim employment in private industry is abysmal where social discrimation is wide spread.``

-- true, i have already commented upon it. That is the way india is. If you are somebody in India, you make sure that you employ only people from your caste, community etc as you key employees. Among the leather companies near madras, (eg., Alsa group ) almost 90 % of the upper management are muslims. Can you account for that as reverse discrimination ? you would find the same discrimination in pakistan also among punjabi, sindhi and mohajir groups won`t you ?

``yo will find it very rare for a muslim to head a group or division of the tatas/birlas/ambanis/oberois etc....``

-- that statement is wrong. You will find it even more rare for a non tata/ non birla/non ambani/non oberoi to head these groups. If Ambani was a muslim then probably you expectations could have come true. And remember that the chief of Bombay Dyeing (the biggest textile group after Reliance) is the grandson of Jinnah.

``To equate a similar Pakistan sentiment - we can relate that we had Bengali primiers in Pakistan``

True if only the last united Pakistan`s elections were held valid and if west Pakistan had accorded equal status to East pakistan. Also here East and West Pakistan were two distinct blocks. Unlike Indian Muslims who themselves are seperated again by caste, language,and race. Hence a malayali muslim would prefer to identify with a malayali hindu rather than with a tamil muslim in all matters excepting religion. Thus the reigning male film star of malayalam movies is a malayali muslim while the reigning female lead for the tamil film industry was a muslim. India is much more complex than a regular hindu muslim divide and is no way similar to a east/west pakistan divide.

HOWEVER RECENT EVENTS SUCH AS THE RESURGENCE OF HINDU FUNDAMENTALISM MIGHT ALTER THE REALITY IN THE COMING FUTURE UNTIL THE PSEUDO-SECULARIST STOP PAMPERING THE MUSLIMS AND THE HINDU FUNDAMENTALISTS STOP BAITING THEM.....

``Re: Annogul

``I FIND IT A TRIFLE AMUSING THAT MUSLIMS WHO ARGUE AGAINST LIVING IN A SLIGHTLY HINDU MAJORITY INDIA DON`T MIND GIVING UP THEIR ISLAMIC COUNTRY AND IDENTITY TO LIVE AS CITIZENS UNDER A GLASS CEILING IN A PREDOMINANTLY CHRISTIAN MAJORITY USA``

``

Glad that you have something positive to say about my arguments even though you picked it out of Annoguls reply.

`` you assume that there is no Pakistani bogey

constituency in India. There is a huge

DEfense establishmeny whose very survival

depends on the Pak or Chinese bogey.``

-- i don`t. instead, i claimed otherwise for which Ferozk even credits me in his reply. You assume wrongly about my assumptions.

`` You assume hindu funddamentalism is a recent phenomenon, - which it is not. It has been very pervasive since the late 19th century.``

-- Nope, you are again wrong about my assumptions. I know and accept that hindu fundamentalism was pervasive since time immemorial . Else we would not have developed such a parochial and oppressive caste structure.

Instead all that i am stating is that the growth of this fundamentalism into an all nation phenomenon was a recent feature. The BJP which is governing today had only 2 MPs in the parliament in the last but one election. The muslim bogey never worked in India (especially the south where conversely the brahminic hindu/hindi bogey worked better). There were no Hindu fronts in southern India, no VHP and no Bajrang Dal. The RSS was the only outfit and was expected to die a natural death. SURPRISE, SURPRISE ---- the SHIVSENA was formed not on an anti-muslim platform but on an anti-south indian hindu or otherwise platform. The first riots instigated by the ShivSena in Maharastra was against the hindu tamils and hindu malayalis . It was only after the bogey was used up, did ShivSena take up the Muslim bogey.

``- you view the events of pre-partition INdia with the hindsight of the developments since then. That is an irrational analysis of the socio-political situation at the time of parttition.``

--True and i don`t claim otherwise. I was just pointing to the current reality which surprised even me when i took those data into consideration.

``- you are judging the political leaders with the assumption tha they could influence events substantially.``

-- No i was not judging anybody. Just pointing out possible reasons. They could be wrong.

``IN reality both parties ie the League and the COngress were ld by public opinion as much as they created public opinion. And events in the British political establishment were beyond their influence.``

-- Educate me if you have solid reference to public opinion ever being considered. I have given references of how public opinion was created instead by a handful of prominent personalities. When you dispute me, also disprove me , will ya ?

``- you are wrong about INdian impressions of JInnah. He is almost universally reviled in official textbooks and the INdian version of history. ANd is almost single handedly accused of corroboration with the British to ensure Divide & rule. I have been to INdia and have many Indian friends and their knowledge of JInnah is alost universally quite simple much like their counterparts in Pakistan and their view of Gandhi.``

-- in the textbooks that i learnt, Jinnah is quoted as an intelligent barrister who was the cause of partition. That`s it and thats about it.

How is being reviled here ?. Yes he is accused of corroborating with the British. But today nobody really cares about him nor do they care about Gandhi for that matter. If you ask a pointed question about Jinnah to an Indian, then the answer you would get would be as expected. ? However the truth is it would be a tall order for you to expect Jinnah to be glorified in India just as it would be for me to expect Gandhi/Nehru to be glorified in Pakistan (and even i would not glorify Gandhi/Nehru on all fronts -- there are things i admire about them and there are things i don`t) . However most Indians assume that Gandhi did find much more acceptance outside both India and Pakistan than Jinnah ever did. Jinnah is viewed on a parallel plane with Nehru in india and not with Gandhi.

p.s: IS IT DISHEARTENING FOR SOME PAKISTANI TO ACCEPT THAT MUSLIMS IN CURRENT INDIA ARE NOT AS WORSE OFF AS THEY EXPECT THEM TO BE. ? IS IT HARD FOR A PAKISTANI TO ACCEPT THAT MANY MUSLIMS ARE DOING VERY WELL INDEED IN INDIA ? IS IT HARD FOR A PAKISTANI TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE FATHER OF THE INDIAN NUCLEAR BOMB HAPPENS TO BE A MUSLIM, OR THE CRICKET TEAM WHICH DEFEATED PAKISTAN IN THE WORLD CUP OR THE SAHARA CUP WAS LEAD BY A MUSLIM ? ARE SOME PAKISTANIS SEEKING VALIDITY FOR THEIR NATION IN THE PERCEIVED HARDSHIPS OF INDIAN MUSLIMS ?

These are just questions that rise up to my mind. No offence meant to any of my Pakistani friends.

Disclaimer : I am a non practising, agnostic individual who was born a Hindu. I despise Hinduism for its casteist structure, for its superstitious beliefs. however i admire hinduism for its plurality, its underlying philosophy and secular ideals. I admire hinduism for its lack of organized structure and the freedom it provides for an individual towards his choice of worship. I also admire islam for its egalitarian beliefs of equality among mankind (even though that is restricted to only the muslims ) and for its non casteist structure. I have visited several mosques and have offered namaz along with most of my other hindu and muslim friends.

In short i am a confused individual.

Sorry to make this forum a personal vehicle.

Some readers may have concluded I`m an irrational hawk.

I just feel that in India and Pakistan a lot of issues get confused and people dont compartmentalize issues.

SO minority rights, secession, independence, two-nation theory, Muslim identity ALL get mixed up in ONE CONFUSED discussion. Every detail, every nuance is important.

Let me, as a gross generalization, make the following observations.

Pakistanis appear to have a better knowledge of the exact details leading to Independence and/or Partition. Indians, often for the wrong reasons and based on a poor knowledge of the facts, arrive at a conclusion that a very detailed study of the facts and better reasons would not alter.

Anyhow, let me say that I want peace and good relations between our countries and self-determination for Kashmir. Thanks.

Re: Rishi

IN your reply to Waheed you reiterate official government propaganda. Your analysis although
correct to a certain degree is essentially adolescent. NO glass ceiling - I have been to India and there widespread discrimination( social not as a matter of govt policy) against Muslims,
they are underrepresented in all aspects of Indian public life. Symbolic appointments to governemnt position donot assure equity to the masses. In General Middle class HIndus often look upon ( with certain justifications) Indian Muslims as ignorant , backward and non-progressive.
Muslim employment in private industry is abysmal where social discrimation is wide spread. yo will find it very rare for a muslim to head a group or division of the tatas/birlas/ambanis/oberois etc....

To equate a similar Pakistan sentiment - we can relate that we had Bengali primiers in Pakistan as consequence East Pakistan enjoyed priveliges on par with the Western wing. This sort of logic is ludricrous and does not stand strong scrutiny.


Re: Annogul

``I FIND IT A TRIFLE AMUSING THAT MUSLIMS WHO ARGUE AGAINST LIVING IN A SLIGHTLY HINDU MAJORITY INDIA DON`T MIND GIVING UP THEIR ISLAMIC COUNTRY AND IDENTITY TO LIVE AS CITIZENS UNDER A GLASS CEILING IN A PREDOMINANTLY CHRISTIAN MAJORITY USA``

Magnificent - I could not have said it better myself. if you anaylize this the majority of Pak migrants to US are the Urdu speaking people. So consequently wheras their earlier migration was supposedly on religious/economic/cultural lines,
the subsequent immigration to the US was purely economic. ALso the assimilation of Pakistan s into the AMerican Melting pot is very fast at most 2 generations iif not less with reckless abandonment of religious or cultural values.

In contrast the indigenous West Pakistanis ie, predominantly the Punjabis - whose earlier support to the Pakistan was at best lukewarm have full embraced the Urdu speaking ideology of Pakistan.
As a matter of fact - Urdu with each successive generation has gained widespread acceptance in the province - Also religious conservatism orginally a characteristic of the Muslims in the minority provinces ( ie. Urdu speaking) is revitalized more so in the rural Punjab than in urban Karachi. As a consequnce we see a reverse migration of Pakistan professionals ( predominantly Punjabis)
to Lahore & Islamabad to retain cultural roots for their children in their formative years. Part of the reason being they have more economic opprtunities and roots in the old country, - Nonethless that does not explain the entire story, the Urdu speaking migrant in general tend to embrace Western values at a far greater pace than their provincial brethern up north and are less concerned with the religious values in comparitive terms. ANother funny thing, that I cant explain is that the more recent migrants have a far more liberal view of assimilation than that of their predecessors. This is just amazing that people eho migratewd in the 60`s are far more concious of their religious cultural roots than those who migrated in the 90`s.

Lest somebody view this as a parochial reproachment against Urdu speaking people - my mother is Urdu and these are generally my personal obervations.

Now explain that .......

Re: Rishi

I reiterate your premises are incorrect.

- you assume that there is no Pakistani bogey
constituency in India. There is a huge
DEfense establishmeny whose very survival
depends on the Pak or Chinese bogey.

- You assume hindu funddamentalism is a recent phenomenon, - which it is not. It has been very pervasive since the late 19th century.

- you view the events of pre-partition INdia with the hindsight of the developments since then. That is an irrational analysis of the socio-political situation at the time of parttition.

- you are judging the political leaders with the assumption tha they could influence events substantially. IN reality both parties ie the League and the COngress were ld by public opinion as much as they created public opinion. And events in the British political establishment were beyond their influence.

- you are wrong about INdian impressions of JInnah. He is almost universally reviled in official textbooks and the INdian version of history. ANd is almost single handedly accused of corroboration with the British to ensure Divide & rule. I have been to INdia and have many Indian friends and their knowledge of JInnah is alost universally quite simple much like their counterparts in Pakistan and their view of Gandhi.


Re: RanaRansher

``To me Jinnah`s ideology
(in terms of what he pusehd for as a SOLUTION) holds about the same appeal as
Savarkar derivatives in the form of Sangh parivar today. ``

You are correct but JInnah was not an ideologue - nor did the Muslim League have an ideology and therefore the confusion in post-Pakistan politics of secular vs Islamic etc.
But JInnah was not a religious bigot like Savarkar - nor were most leaders of the League - actually the conservative MUslim constituency -ie teh Mullahs supported COngress. This is the paradox that Pakistan was formed by the Muslim elite on the basis of religious & cultural differences -wheras in fact they themseleves did not conform to the same values. THis had more to do with garnering public support for the cause of Pakistan. To them ( and look at it from their perspective) Pakistran offered a relief from Hndu domination ( poerceived or otherwise) and a way to preserve their culture and way of life. THey wer not in aposition to guarantee the rights of all Muslims - their rationale was to do as much for as many as possible. Ofcourse the righ-wing elements in Congress, the onslaught on language HIndi vs Urdu, the vilification of everything foreign - The MOguls considered as foreigners despite 300 yrs of
inter-marriages. The complete absence of any substantial minority lkeadership in COngress - Azad/ Zakir Hussain / Ghaffar Khan despite their stature had very little popular following. And the Ghandian utilization of Hindu symbolism to vitalize the masses .

I stand correct with regards to Indo-Pak BS. I should have have clarified INdo-Pak mud-slingly as opposed to historical analysis of events. I am a pragmatist and is essence I agree with secularists.

Godot wrote:

``What happened? Why the U-turn? Why did Jinnah start believing in Two Nation Theory?``

What more of an explanation does one need?
The discussion generated thus far has been
a little bit disappointing. This ``What if analysis`` is going a bit far. ``What if there had been no partition?`` is a purely academic discussion now.
Partition happened in 1947 and then again in 1971.
What we now need to do in this context is improve
on what we got.
For a person born after the event, in a country which my parents CHOSE to help create, Pakistan was already a reality. The negatives of it`s creation are of little significance to me now. Neither Pakistanis NOR Indians can stare back and then forward into a crystal ball and tell me that things would have been great had partition not happened.
And India is not blameless in the direction that the Pakistan of today has taken. As a distant
observer now I can only complain about the lack of a realistic appraisal of the situation from the other side of the border.
The rise of fascism in Pakistan will become more
real if the Kashmir dispute is not resolved. And
India will fall prey to a similar malady in spite
of its ``Worlds Largest Democracy`` slogan.
Both countries need to get to the negotiating
table and make peace. THEN if there are any merits to this questioning of Partition, the generations
of the future will get a chance to re-evaluate and possibly address this issue.
For now South Asia needs some years of peace, which has thus far been hampered by the perception of an expansionist India.

Ras

Re: Annogul

``As for your ideas of what could have been in the case of a united India: with so many variables shooting from all angles, it really is anybody`s guess``

True. I was only pointing out to another plausible angle rather than the more popular xenophobic , oppressive life normally portrayed by some when confronted with the thought of a united India. Yes, it is anybody`s guess. My question is did Jinnah give it that benefit of doubt or was he acting on entirely different reasons such as his own political expediency ...again we`d never know. But then it serves to understand the past to clear the present and the future.

Thanx for your reply

Rishi