Verdict in Pakistan

Ummair:

I think ``the happy one`` has responded to your question re: India implementing UN resolutions. Enough said on that.

All:

It`s alway curious to me how the entire Pakistani gallery falls silent when I ask why Pakistan is shooting itself in the foot (and mouth, and head, and behind, and chest) chasing the ``K`` when it`s own roof is collapsing.

Another unrelated curiosity is what drives some Pakistanis to sit around with a syringe searching for a drop of Persian or Arabic blood in their veins all day.

``. I`ve had this discussion before--with Indians, esp. Bengalis, in Grad seminars--and it never ceases to amaze me how much they worship Bose.``

Well here is one Bengali who finds Subhas Bose (and his earlier incarnation, ``Masterda`` Surja Sen) to be anything but. That man tried to destroy one of the finest fighting machines in the world (the British Indian Army)by making treachery, ``namak harami``, pseudo-respectable. He presided over the torture of his own countrymen. He endorsed and helped the Japs bomb Calcutta and Chittagong. He attempted to make his own Bengalis and Indians slaves of one of the most brutal, saidstic, and savage regimes of the twentieth century (the fascist Japs). Comparing British administration of India to Japanese or German occupation is an academic excersise of those ungrateful folk who enjoy today the fruits of the system of constitutional liberty that the British bequeathed. As I have said before the Nawaz Sharif trial, even under a military junta, demonstrates the lasting legacy of that British gift. Thanks to the moral strength of the institutions of judiciary that were created in the hundred plus years of English administration and the tenacity of Pakistan`s bar, even today there survives a glimmer of the rule of law in Pakistan.

Such a legacy is unthinkable in any other power`s colony, as Fuzair is so correct in pointing out. French colonies in Central Africa (Rwanda, Burundi, CAR), Dutch colonies in Asia (Indonesia, E. Timor), and SPanish posessions in L. America were a far cry from most former British areas. The British were no saints but they sure were much nobler devils than the French, Dutch, and Spaniards. I will not even mention the conditions of former Russian, Japanese, or German colonies.

Re post 130:

Here is a Bangladeshi who will definitely care to comment. Firstly, Bangladesh didn`t have as much of a Hindu-Muslim problem as its bigger neighbours. I guess both the Hindus and Muslims there generally follow the milder, personal stream of their respective faiths (as opposed to the RSS or Jehadi variety). Secondly, Mujib was a visionary insofar only as he had a grand vision of turning himself into a Stalin and his country into a personal fiefdom.

So when you see Bangladesh being run by his daughter, albeit popularly elected, don`t be so sure that democracy has taken root. SOme of the very people that cheered Mujib becoming absolute dictator in 1975 (including foreign minister Samad Azad) are again in office and their real tastes are showing in the repressive new laws and measures against opposition politicians and newspapers.

Will Bangladesh emerge as a thriving pluralistic democracy someday sooner than Pakistan? Most likely. But it is not there yet and when it reaches that stage it will be largely a collateral product of a thriving open market economy, vigorous press, vibrant civil society, a debate filled parliament, and a strong, vigilant judiciary which is ever watchful of human rights. We have some ways to go. Wish us the best!

happy one #144, concerned #145: I seemed to have touched a nerve in both of your cases (which is not always a bad thing). To the best of my knowledge, the UN resolution on Kashmir has never been invalidated by the UN Security Council. Kashmir is still marked as disputed territory on the UN maps. Every country in the world recognizes the UN resolution decision on Kashmir (even Nehru made speeches in support of it years after it was actually signed). So according to your replies, every country in the world (except India) practices ignorance and hypocrisy.

As you long as you try to look at this UN resolution through a magnifying glass that has Pakistan drawn on it, you will end up being frustrated. This is evident from both of your comments. Just look at Kashmir as a Kashmiri problem, and things will become much more clear.

It is useless for me to argue the validity or invalidity of this resolution with you, since I am already aware of your opinions (and you of mine). However, the only point I am trying to make is that according to the UN, this resolution is still applicable. If you could point out where a join sitting of the Security Council invalidated the UN resolution on Kashmir, I will accept your argument.

When UN resolutions are resolved or invalidated, there are actual UN (not Indian/Pakistani/Kashmiri documents, since these are interpreted differently depending on the nationality of the interpreter) documents that are signed and archived by the members of the Security Council. It is not done verbally, or just through arguments. Kindly do not try to convince me through arguments that this resolution is invalid (since I disagree with your arguments more than you disagree with mine). Please point me to the UN legal document that states these resolution to be invalid; perhaps I missed it. Otherwise, the UN resolution legally still remains applicable, regardless of what both of you state. It is unfortunate that no country has the courage to enforce these resolutions.

It is quite common that the country that is adversely affected by Security council approved UN resolution will try its best to argue against it. In many cases, their arguments are valid, since some of the decisions of the Security Council are one-sided. However, the only unique point about this case is that India is attempting to get a position into the same Security Council, whose resolution it refuses to recognize. However, there are at least as many arguments as there are people. So kindly point me to the URL, which declares this resolution to be invalid. If you cannot do that, then please state that such a document does not exist, and continue supporting the killing of innocent people in Kashmir.

Re: Umairr #135

You said: `` Why is India concerned with having a seat in the UN Security Council, when India itself refuses to recognize one of the longest standing resolutions passed by the UN Security Council.``

Dear Umairr,

We have had this exchange before a few months ago. At that time I had started my post in a `once and for all` fashion and explained India`s stand on the above issue. Since that time I have seen at least 10 posts from you repeatedly parroting your stance on the plebiscite over and over again and so I feel obliged to renege on my `once and for all` promise.

The UN recommended plebiscite was to be held by India AFTER THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE PAKISTANIS BACK TO THE INTERNATIONAL BORDER. And I would not be using all caps if I was not so frustrated that you repeatedly and deliberately ignore this fact of paramount pertinence in your arguments!!

Article 370 of the Indian Constitution has ensured that the Indian government, even if they wanted to could not flood the `held Kashmir` with Hindus. Can you imagine what the plebiscite would be like if India sent a million `colonizers` into the vale? But did they do that?? No!

Every single government that is accused of `occupying` a land or a people systematically alters the demographic of the `occupied` land by colonizing it. Eg. Chechnya, Gaza, Kosovo, etc. That is what `occupiers` do. Did India do that? No. Did Pakistan do that? Yes! Not only have Non-Kashmiris of Pakistani origin settled there because of Pakistani state controlled activities, but there`s all kind of riffraff in `Azad Kashmir` ranging from Sudanese to Central Asian mercenaries. So will they all be voting come P-Day?

The Hindus must be the only people in history that have been accused of `occupying` a land from which they have themselves been `ethnically cleansed`. So how about those Kashmiri Pandits? Will those poor bas * *rds be mailing in their proxy votes from refugee camps in New Delhi come P-Day?

The funny thing is ... when the UN resolution called for plebiscite contingent upon the withdrawal of Pakistani forces back to the original International border, had Pakistan complied and withdrawn, the Muslim majority would probably have voted to break from India and that would have been the end of that! But the Pakistanis did not withdraw. WHY???

So next time you call for India to hold a plebiscite. Do the following first:

1. Come up with a reliable and verifiable way of determining Kashmiriyat and only let Kashmiris vote.

2. Withdraw from the LOC back to the International Border.

PAKISTAN WILL NEVER ALLOW THE ABOVE!! WHY??

You have to come to terms with reality here. The only plausible solution here is the recognition of the LOC as the border. And the fact is that the Indian electorate is about a 100 times more ready to accept that as a solution that the Pakistani ``electorate``.

Just based on watching interviews and commentary by present day resident Muslim Kashmiris on either side of the LOC, it seems pretty evident to me that majority of the Muslim Kashmiris want to break away from India. That is a sad fact but India has a valid concern as to how it came to that. Had Pakistan not intervened (its a kind word to describe an invasion), things would have been very different. The Kashmiris would have had a strong regional democratic setup and an extremely powerful presence in the Central government.

In fact I can predict with fair bit of confidence that the sequence of government changes that occurred in the last ten years in India would have been very different and profoundly affected by those Kashmiri MPs and we would have a different government today.

That is what the Kashmiris gave up by allowing the Pakistanis to play them. The Indian government recognizes this and plays its cards accordingly. The obdurate refusal to allow third party mediation seems unreasonable on surface but has its motives based in realpolitik. The Indians watch with increasing satisfaction as Pakistan continues to shoot itself in the foot and disenchant itself in the eyes of the Kashmiris.

re: #135

anyone who mentions UN `resolutions` and accuses india of not implementing those is either ignorant or a hypocrite.

In reply to Fuzair #141 :

The common mistake everyone seems to have made is not to have read Hitler`s ``Mein Kampf``. Hitler had a great contempt for what we would now call third world revolutionaries. Hitler was a racist, through and through, and his reasoning was that if the superior Germans had such a hard time dealing with the English, then the inferior ruled races were delusional in thinking that they could win their independence.

Bose too, may have made this mistake.

Did Bose have a Fuehrer complex ? I do not know.

The British did not have death camps; however, the famines that they tolerated or even engendered killed as many millions as did Hitler`s death camps. We do not recognize the British as mass killers of sub-continentals because we tend to share the contempt towards, or the feeling of the insignificance of, the people who died as a result of the British rule.

-arun gupta

Re: Friend #137

Actually I think it was Sigalph235 who first mentioned Bose and someone else who objected to his characterization of Bose as a Japanese stooge.

Why I call Bose an opportunist with a Fuehrer complex is very straighforward: any ``nationalist`` who would work with Hitler or the Japanese for the liberation of India clearly prefers the fire to the frying pan--so to speak. How was German or Japanese rule preferable to British rule? Did Bose--or you--really think that the Japanese would respect Indian independence any more than they did the ``independence`` of Manchuko?

Frankly, if you have to be ruled by someone else, you couldn`t do better than the British--I am not saying that they were saints, I`m just saying that they were better than the others out there. Although, to be fair, I don`t really know that much about Danish rule of Spitsbergen, Greenland or the Danish Virgin Islands. Maybe they were better colonialists than the British.

Yes, Bose did turn down the ICS and resign the Presidency of Congress BUT he also permitted, indeed encouraged, the maltreatment of every Indian POW that refused to get down on his knees and worship the Netaji. I`ve had this discussion before--with Indians, esp. Bengalis, in Grad seminars--and it never ceases to amaze me how much they worship Bose. At least even Gandhi said that he`ed fight (pathetically to be true) if the Japanese actually invaded India. Of course Bose loathed Gandhi.

So please explain to me how Japanese rule was preferable to British? Or are you one of those who believe that you have to have a white skin in order to be a racist/exploiter?

Regards.

Umairr #123

Very informative and interesting.

Did NS alone redefine the rules of the game or was he playing by the existing unwritten rules? Was it ever possible to survive in this game without similar manipulation? Also, didn`t the Army wield influence on national government, politicians and policies even before NS tried to wield control over the Army?

Is Musharraf also making his own deals to ensure his own presence at the helm of affairs? Is he trying to build public consensus to redo controversial Constitutional amendments or is he talking of anything else which ensures the nation can resist the excesses of future leaders, apart from selective punitive action taking place at this time, or pushing future leaders out of the picture altogether or cultivating puppet leaders?

Will the rules ever change without bringing public will and public good into central focus in the open instead of behind closed doors?

Sadhana

sac #127

Thanks, very interesting points raised in your post.

What strikes me from your post is the similarities in the Indian and Pakistani picture. India had potentially the same problem of defination of identity, the same dependence on the omniscience of charismatic leaders, same corruption and venality of those in power.

``Such an individual would never have survived in India.``

Not true. The difference is simply that India`s huge size has saved it to some extent. Its difficult for any individual or organization to take comprehensive control of so many peoples` destiny for any extended period, though the Congress party managed to do just that at a national level for 4 decades. They didnot do such a good job, which is why there are so many regional parties. I remember an newpaper election ad which appeared ``Do you want a midnight call from N Delhi to dismiss your state government. If not,vote for XXX party, don`t vote for Congress``.

On the other hand, if Maharashtra was an independent nation, say, Thackeray might well have wreaked the same havoc as any Pakistani leader, or Jayalalitha in Tamil Nadu, say. UP by itself has more people than Pakistan, I think, but even its politicians have to observe limits on how far they can go.

Representative government, adherence to some semblence of order and fair sharing of resources is a harsh necessity in India to preserve unity of purpose among so many. Conversely, unity of purpose among so many has been proved to have obvious benefits.

``messiah``

This phenomenon is very alive and well in India. Indians may be more realistic in their expectations for these reasons:

-The departure of the Gandhi family(and their visible feet of clay)

-Rigorous examination of much of our post-Independence history, another inescapable `benefit` of democracy when many are jostling for power and trying to discredit each other

- Real-world problems like hunger and livelihood which just don`t go away.

-Society is not homogenous, even within the majority community, the caste system and regional culture has perversely contributed both to social cohesion and fragmentation of politics.

But Indians in general are not less hopeful of detecting signs of godlike omniscience in their leaders and surrendering judgement and responsibility to these leaders. Again the existence of so many people with so many diverse histories and expectations has helped offset this tendency to some extent. Maybe Pakistan`s similar diversity will also help, if the diversity is accepted in principle and not attempted to be stifled either by efforts toward forcing homogeneity or fostering unequality under law?

``Most of it I feel has to do with a lack of

consensus on the basic questions related to the

Pakistani identity and society at its very

inception.``

Very true, but you might like to read what Shashi

Tharoor had to say about `Who is an Indian`

http://www.rediff.com/republic/2000/apr/06shashi.htm

http://www.rediff.com/republic/2000/apr/07shashi.htm

In my personal opinion, maybe Pakistanis` unity and common purpose is just not trumpeted enough or is too much defined in public debate by enmity with India and interference of outside interests.

Once thats re-established(the `why`), maybe the consensus and compromise required for resolving basic issues of `how` will follow more easily.

``Sigh......``

Now is this angst for real or are you trying to get more than your fair share of sympathy? :-)

Sadhana

Omar1974 #129 writes: ``I have finally understood why Ylh, Yasser Latif Hamdani persists in this blind devotion to ZAB...HAMDANI is a SINDHI name if i ever heard one``.

Does this mean that if you are Panjabi, you are blindly-devoted to NS, or if Urdu-speaking you are blindly-devoted to Altaf? While you may not agree with Ylh`s opinions, please try not to lower the standards of discussion by such personal attacks.

Let me borrow this board to present this account of our great ``scholar`` Akbar Ahmad ( who has looked so pathetic on BBC in defending Pakistan.You have a good english accent doctor no content!)

The Jinnah controversy - I

Jamil Dehlavi

As for its allegations and claims: that I did not fulfil my job as producer by failing to raise finance, that I overshot the budget, and that when the government pulled out its investment. The fact is that I was not engaged to raise the finance. Raising finance is the job of the Executive Producer, namely Akbar Ahmed. The Producer is responsible for ensuring the money is spent optimally in the making of the film. He makes sure that all the parts and players-actors, technicians, laboratories, film stock, equipment and so on-come together at the right time and the right cost. In short the producer produces the film and the Executive Producer produces the finance.

There was no overshoot of the budget. There was however a substantial shortfall when the previous government failed to honour its commitment to provide £1,000,000 towards the film due to the controversy in the Press. There was nothing in the contract between Quaid Project and my company which mentions a co-producer`s credit nor was there ever a co-producer`s fee in the budget, and not one member of my production team knows or has heard of Babar Ahmed or Arshallah Khan. The project was saved, not by these two phantom co-producers ``stepping in`` and raising the necessary funds but by my company which assumed enormous debts to complete the shoot, debts that still have not been repaid in full by Akbar Ahmed`s company, debts that are the subject of court proceedings which I have initiated. And why were Babar and Arshallah paid £70,000 for raising family money? Is this not a classic example of the snake swallowing its tail?

Is for it claims that an offshore account was opened on the advice of financial advisers because of the tax efficiency of the scheme and that money was raised from personal resources and family members in this account and transferred to the QPL account. An offshore account is a way of avoiding tax. Whether this is a legitimate tactic depends on the law governing the person opening the account. What is suspect is why would Akbar Ahmed want to open such an account in his own name when we are told that the money being raised by him and his associates was for the project? It is asserted that Babar was responsible for the editing of the film and the first trailer, and for locating a sales agent. Next no doubt we will be told that he masterminded the design of the Hubble telescope! Editing a film is a complex and meticulous skill, and in the case of my film Jinnah, it was more than usually complex. Babar Ahmed surfaced in London during post-production and while the first trailer was being made he was, indeed, foisted by his father onto one of my editors for a few days before he was eased out. That was the extent of his involvement. The final cut was done under my supervision in New York by an American editor Robert Reitano and I can confirm I did not see Babar Ahmed lounging about in Manhattan! The Nation has in its possession two letters from the film`s editors. My English editor Paul Hodgson has said: ``Akbar told me that his son had some ideas for the trailer and would like to sit in on the editing. I spent three days following up these ideas and produced nothing that resembled a trailer.`` My American editor Robert Reitano states: ``I never met nor did I ever speak to Babar Ahmed, and we received no guidance from him whatsoever.

Babar Ahmed may well have been responsible for finding the Sales Agent. That explains why two years after its completion the film still hasn`t found a distributor in any of the major markets of the world. For the record, I had persuaded Goldcrest, a leading film distributor which has sold such films as Gandhi and Chariots of Fire, to finance the entire post-production and to market the film internationally. However, Akbar Ahmed, ever wise and astute, decided not to take up Goldcrest`s services because he was unwilling to allow them to recoup their expenses first which is normal practise with a sales agent. I am sure that Goldcrest would have had the film showing to worldwide audiences by now. How sad that my film is in the hands of rank amateurs who will ultimately be the ruin of it.

It is alleged that I took well over £300,000 out of the project as remuneration and refers to a sum of £164,000 as bonus money paid under duress because I would not return the negative of the film to the Quaid Project. And I was paid $33,000 personally for post-production by Quaid Project USA and that other monies were given to my company for which I am refusing to give invoices or tax back. This is yet another lie. I was paid less than half of this amount for dedicated work spread over four years. The £164,000 referred to was owed to me by Quaid Project against monies I had put forward personally to salvage the project when the previous Pakistan government pulled out its investment. My company had a lien on the film and it is normal in the film industry to hold the negative until all outstanding payments have been settled. I received no remuneration from Quaid Project USA for the six months I spent in New York completing the film. All my post-production accounts with Quaid Project USA were closed two years ago to their satisfaction and the Chairman Dr Nasim Ashraf can confirm this. The truth, on the contrary, is that Akbar Ahmed is refusing to provide accounts to his investors, some of whom are now starting legal proceedings against him.

That I am demanding another £49,000 from Quaid Project is a fact. I have instituted legal proceedings in the UK High Court against Akbar Ahmed`s company for monies he owes me, for not crediting me properly in the promotion and publicity of the film, and for not submitting accounts for royalty payments due to me. I am clearly unable to go into details about this matter since it is sub judice. Akbar Ahmed`s accountant Mohammad Ashraf has claimed that the Quaid Project is making a counter-claim of £667,000 for recovery of monies overpaid to and wrongly claimed by my company. I have no idea where this figure comes from. All I can say is how can a reputable accountant like Mr Ashraf have allowed Quaid Project to overpay me what amounts to almost a third of the budget?!

The reason it has taken me so long to commence legal proceedings against the Quaid Project is that I was trying to avoid further controversy around the Jinnah film and was hoping that Akbar might settle the matter out of court. However, when he refused me a VHS tape of my own film, I considered that a declaration of war on his part.

The childish and absurd reaction from Akbar Ahmed in the face of perfectly legitimate and fair questions from The Guardian is that I am part of some ``Indian lobby`` determined to discredit him and by extension the present government. The journalist`s investigation is about money taken out of a film production, and this cannot be refuted by paranoid accusations masquerading as patriotism. I am a Pakistani and proud of it, my family took part in the creation of Pakistan. My grandfather was a colleague of the Quaid and my father held several important posts including that of Foreign Secretary and High Commissioner to the UK. Surely the Pakistan government is perfectly capable of distinguishing between ``Indian lobbies`` and financial malpractice. I welcome the anti-corruption, modernising manifesto of the present government and invite its Accountability Bureau to investigate this matter. A High Commissioner who is more conscious of promoting his own image rather than that of Pakistan can only bring our country into disrepute. Akbar Ahmed has woven an intricate pattern of deception around himself. What credibility does he have left when the Foreign Office itself is accusing him of misappropriating government funds during his first few months in office? I am sure that the government is their desire to clear the country of corruption will no doubt seriously reflect on its choice of High Commissioner to the United Kingdom as more sordid facts begin to emerge.

Fuzair

What was your rationale behind dragging S.C.Bose in this idscussion? Are you trying to divert attention from main topic of this discussion - Bhutto Vs Jinnah Vs NS

``As far as S. C. Bose is concerned, he was an opportunist cum patriot``

I guess so. Person who chose not to join Indian Civil Service for freedom movement, who resigned from presidentship of Indian National Congress to avoid a split, who accepted teaching profession over a civil service post, he must be an opportunist.

As far as INA is concerned, tell me about De Gaul & Marshall Petain, who was traitor and why?

Britisher`s fight was not our fight. It was not a fight for justice or humanity. They startd fighting only when Hitler reached their shores. It was fight to preserve economic interests, to preserve empires. Please don`t pass judgement on the basis of limited facts.

Regards

Fuzair

What was your rationale behind dragging S.C.Bose in this idscussion? Are you trying to divert attention from main topic of this discussion - Bhutto Vs Jinnah Vs NS

``As far as S. C. Bose is concerned, he was an opportunist cum patriot``

I guess so. Person who chose not to join Indian Civil Service for freedom movement, who resigned from presidentship of Indian National Congress to avoid a split, who accepted teaching profession over a civil service post, he must be an opportunist.

As far as INA is concerned, tell me about De Gaul & Marshall Petain, who was traitor and why?

Britisher`s fight was not our fight. It was not a fight for justice or humanity. They startd fighting only when Hitler reached their shores. It was fight to preserve economic interests, to preserve empires. Please don`t pass judgement on the basis of limited facts.

Regards

RSexana #132: Actually the Nation comments make quite a bit of sense. Why is India concerned with having a seat in the UN Security Council, when India itself refuses to recognize one of the longest standing resolutions passed by the UN Security Council (on Kashmir). If India is interested in joining the Security Council, then shouldn`t it first accept the decision of this body itself. I am surprised you fail to see the obvious anomoly in India`s desire to join the Security Council.

``I have finally understood why Ylh, Yasser Latif Hamdani persists in

this blind devotion to ZAB, and is willing to over look his every

fault. ZAB, claimed ancestry from Larkana, and was proud of being

Sindhi, despite inability to speak the language ... he only learned it

much later. HAMDANI is a SINDHI name if i ever heard one, now

that i think of it. ``

Do us a FAVOR ... DONT THINK ....

Hamdani IS PERSIAN NAME !!!!!

Ok first of all

OMAR MIRZA please little Knowlegde is DANGEROUS ...Hamdani is not a Sindhi name ... as a matter of fact my friend I have never been to Sindh except Karachi airport ... so in that regard I am unfortunate ...

1)Hamdani is the name from a city in IRAN ... CALLED HAMDAN

REFERRENCE SHAH HAMDAN of Kashmir ... the saint who came from IRAN !!!!!!

2) ZAB is not responsible for MQM ... as a matter of fact Zia Ul Haq is who instigated and as a matter of FACT HELPED MQM to Launch .....

As for my persistence ... read other answers ...

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was our most charismatic leader (apart from Jinnah) ... he was a genius ...

and he was a visionary ... I have already answered all your uninformed, poorly researched accusations ... earlier and so have many other people ....