A Visit to Pakistan

There is nothing very special or outstanding about Mr Vyasulu`s article. He is one of those people who think that the enemy can be be-friended by being good to him. So, he talks of how wonderful the Pakis are and how amazing everything is over there, without going deep into underlying facts.

For example, at one place Mr Vyasulu says that he was dazed by the flashy cars in Islamabad. Well, those were imported cars. We Indians make our own cars and are self-sufficient in almost all other fields too. That is why the recent sanctions (after nuclear tests) had no effect on us, while it sent Pakistan into near bankruptcy.

Mr Vyasulu also talks about a feeling that most Pakistanis have (according to him). He says that Pakistanis hate India because they think that we do not accept them as a country. Well, the fact is something else. The Pakistanis KNOW that partition was illegitimate and wrong. Indeed, they know that the British or Congress and Muslim League leaders were NOT democratically elected representatives of the Indian people, and therefore had no right to make decisions that affected the lives of the Indian masses so severely. A matter as important as partition of a country should have been decided through a referendum (of course, if a referendum had been conducted, a majority of Indians would have rejected partition). It is this knowledge that worries the Pakis. Pakistan itself could be regarded as a disputed territory. That of course means that we should be talking about undoing partition, NOT about ownership of Kashmir!

Finally, I would like to add that Mr Vyasulu apparently tried to be Mr Sugar-coated Nice-man during his visit to Pakistan. He often appeared to be sympathetic to the most ridiculous Paki viewpoints, instead of standing up for his own country`s viewpoints or position. He failed to be an effective ambassador of his country and people.

Re: Najib the Ajib

``Indeed, they know that the British or Congress and Muslim League leaders were NOT democratically elected representatives of the Indian people, and therefore had no right to make decisions that affected the lives of the Indian masses so severely``

Was Independence itself illegal and wrong, after all it was negotiated by people who weren`t democratically elected?

Also, yaar ``undoing`` partition...fXXX why don`t we go back to the Raj while we`re at it?

This is in response to Faraz.

Dear Faraz, you counter my opinion (about how wrong and unacceptable partition was) by asking whether we should also consider Independence a `wrong` thing since it was negotiated by un-elected people.

Well, firstly, I am glad that I was able to bring to your notice that an important decision like partition of a country was wrongly thrust upon an unwilling majority.

Now, independence was different. Why? Well, it was a campaign run by every Indian from Karachi to Dhaka to Madras. On the other hand, the issue of partition was discussed/debated and negotiated only by a handful of people amongst themselves (the riots took place AFTER it was decided by the self-styled leaders that partition will happen; in fact the riots showed how a situation can go out of hand if something is thrust upon an unwilling population). The people of India had no say over the matter (partition). Apart from that, Independence was an act of undoing a wrong incidence--the colonization and exploitation of India. On the other hand, partition was an act of breaking up a country against the will of the majority of people, who generally are very emotional about `desh` and `sarzameen`. Moreover, partition was the result of personal differences and power-struggle between Nehru and Jinnah. Some Pakistanis justify partition by saying that the Hindus would have suppressed them if they hadn`t broken away. What about the time when a Muslim minority (Islamic invaders from Central Asia) ruled over India (mostly non Muslims) for centuries? As you can see, even today a large number of Muslims (like me) live in India and are in no way oppressed. Indeed, in keeping with democratic values, the majority rules. At the same time, India`s secular constitution gives everyone equal opportunity, and most Indians firmly believe in secularism (except a handful of fanatics; there are more fanatics in Pakistan today).

Re: Najib

1. I disagree that there is NO discrimination against Muslims in India. But that matters not one bit; how the Muslims are treated now is irrelevant, it matters how they felt and were treated (especially by the Congress) in the Pre-partition days. Pakistan`s ideology is very much tied to history.

2. As for seeking majority consent before partition, that is not only impractical but absolutely stupid. For example, do you honestly believe it is wrong for the Kosovar Albanians to ask for partition simply because the majority Serbs are against it (Note: I am not comparing their situation with those of Muslims in pre-partition India, I`m putting your ``majority-consent before partition`` rule to the test)

3. There is something about your posts that leaves me a little perplexed. You are convinved that partition was wrong (you also use the word ``illegal``, according to what law?) and that in reality, all Pakistanis are Indians. However, your posts always make generalizations about Pakistanis that seem to indicate that you do view them as very different from Indians. Examples:

``If the Kashmir problem is solved, I`m sure the Pakis will find another reason to quarrel with us.`` Pakis this, Pakis that. You obviously view ``Pakis`` as distinct from Indians in your posts, but still insist that Pakistan is ``disputed territory``, and legally (once again how?) a province of India. Choose on or the other.

Finally, with respect to Kashmir if you aren`t even willing to acknowledge us a nation how do you think we will ever come to a resolution on Kashmir?

Faraz

Your description contradicts with what we see on television. Its a well known fact that one always tries to show its best side to a guest. You hardly mentioned anything about poverty in pakistan. This what was your main issue of going to pakistan I believe. If somebody pumps more than 30 billions to country of size of pakistan, its bound to reflect. You can guess what could have happened to UP if this was the case. You will find hardly any goods that are really produced in pakistan. They lived mainly on imports of large consumer goods. As far as income parity is concerned, A smaller country always has a advantage over a large one. Just compare switzerland with USA. Pakistan rules on better punjab land than India, still every year they resort of import wheat to feed their population. There are reasons to explain.

good luck

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