The Meaning of Pakistan
Aisha Sarwari March 10, 2001
#761 Posted by Truth on March 30, 2001 7:24:18 pm
ylh:
although it is intellectually demeaning to interact with a nitwit like you, here goes.
1. the only reason i brought up India - Bangladesh unity is because sigalph mentioned the special place Calcutta has in the hearts of Bangladeshis (in his opinions). If Bangladeshis are happy with the status quo, who am I to change it?
But remember, just like Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are entitled to their views, I am entitled to mine. I think the tumultous and bloody events of 1947 will be partially healed by ever deepening relations between India and Bangladesh. With regard to a nostalgia for British India or Hindu India, thats in your head, not mine. If I was nostalgic for British India, we would be after Burma as well.
Indian nationalism, which is a combination of geography and ideology, is far superior to the two nation theory, which is divisive nationalism within the same geography (and I dont mean the vast geography of ``Mother India`` (a term I dont use by the way - you do), I mean the city of Lahore, the city of Karachi, the city of Dhaka, of Calcutta with Hindu-Muslim populations).
As a Lahori, do you really expect me to support a country (Pakistan) founded by a party (Muslim League) that doesnt have the grace to chose a name that would include me? There is a reason why Pakistan cannot make the symbolic gesture of a minority Head of State. It is because Pakistan operates on a different paradigm. We have had Abdul Ghaffor as Chief Minister of Bihar and AR Antulay as Chief Minister of Maharashtra, both Hindu majority states, because we were not created by people shouting in the streets of India: ``Hindustan ka matlab kya, Ramayan, Veda aur Geeta``.
When Pakistan has a head of government in even one of its states from a minority group, give me a call. Till then dont waste my time.
And by the way Sigaplh was talking about a reverse merger, Bangladesh absorbing West Bengal. So breathe easy, the Indians and Bangladeshis are not coming together any time soon.
And you accuse me of indulging in some sort of Hindu trick because I talk about the hypothetical union of Indian and Bangladesh. Why are you getting involved in this discussion between people 1500 miles away from you - after all this entity called India didnt exist did it, so what is your connection to this talk about Bangladesh? Its not a shared religion is it?
although it is intellectually demeaning to interact with a nitwit like you, here goes.
1. the only reason i brought up India - Bangladesh unity is because sigalph mentioned the special place Calcutta has in the hearts of Bangladeshis (in his opinions). If Bangladeshis are happy with the status quo, who am I to change it?
But remember, just like Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are entitled to their views, I am entitled to mine. I think the tumultous and bloody events of 1947 will be partially healed by ever deepening relations between India and Bangladesh. With regard to a nostalgia for British India or Hindu India, thats in your head, not mine. If I was nostalgic for British India, we would be after Burma as well.
Indian nationalism, which is a combination of geography and ideology, is far superior to the two nation theory, which is divisive nationalism within the same geography (and I dont mean the vast geography of ``Mother India`` (a term I dont use by the way - you do), I mean the city of Lahore, the city of Karachi, the city of Dhaka, of Calcutta with Hindu-Muslim populations).
As a Lahori, do you really expect me to support a country (Pakistan) founded by a party (Muslim League) that doesnt have the grace to chose a name that would include me? There is a reason why Pakistan cannot make the symbolic gesture of a minority Head of State. It is because Pakistan operates on a different paradigm. We have had Abdul Ghaffor as Chief Minister of Bihar and AR Antulay as Chief Minister of Maharashtra, both Hindu majority states, because we were not created by people shouting in the streets of India: ``Hindustan ka matlab kya, Ramayan, Veda aur Geeta``.
When Pakistan has a head of government in even one of its states from a minority group, give me a call. Till then dont waste my time.
And by the way Sigaplh was talking about a reverse merger, Bangladesh absorbing West Bengal. So breathe easy, the Indians and Bangladeshis are not coming together any time soon.
And you accuse me of indulging in some sort of Hindu trick because I talk about the hypothetical union of Indian and Bangladesh. Why are you getting involved in this discussion between people 1500 miles away from you - after all this entity called India didnt exist did it, so what is your connection to this talk about Bangladesh? Its not a shared religion is it?
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#760 Posted by bong_dongs on March 30, 2001 7:24:18 pm
Ref ylh:
On the whole I heartily concur. Some points:
1)``our struggle for independence from eternal Brahman Hegemony``
You know for yourself that muslim nationalism in the Indian subcontinent is more complex than that, you do yourself a disservice by regurgitating such plithy one-liners.
2)``What joins together Europe is Economics, and concern for the future``
Yes it is with such pragmatism in mind I desire a closer economic, cultural (and not political) union with Bangladesh. But Bangladesh is still a hostage to its real and imagined insecurities, for example:
2.1) the long standing problem of transit rights to N.Eastern states
2.2) Refusal to sell us natural gas (under pressure from obscurist forces)
3) There is already a movement (small and hesitant maybe) towards greater federalism in India:
3.1) The coalition goverments with stronger roles for regional parties.
3.2) The constitution review comission asking for greater number of subjects to be moved to states list.
3.3) IMHO this represents a greater maturity on part of the nation where there is overall a lesser concern for seperatism on part of some major states (eg Punjab, Tamil Nadu) and recognition the way to deal with seperatism in other states (Tripura, Nagaland, Kashmir) is more autonomy and not less.
4) If (and its a big if) genuine federalism of this sort is achieved then we can think of bigger issues (like the fanciful ideas of an E.U. style union of all South Asian states)
(whew... thats the longest post I`ve ever written here!!)
On the whole I heartily concur. Some points:
1)``our struggle for independence from eternal Brahman Hegemony``
You know for yourself that muslim nationalism in the Indian subcontinent is more complex than that, you do yourself a disservice by regurgitating such plithy one-liners.
2)``What joins together Europe is Economics, and concern for the future``
Yes it is with such pragmatism in mind I desire a closer economic, cultural (and not political) union with Bangladesh. But Bangladesh is still a hostage to its real and imagined insecurities, for example:
2.1) the long standing problem of transit rights to N.Eastern states
2.2) Refusal to sell us natural gas (under pressure from obscurist forces)
3) There is already a movement (small and hesitant maybe) towards greater federalism in India:
3.1) The coalition goverments with stronger roles for regional parties.
3.2) The constitution review comission asking for greater number of subjects to be moved to states list.
3.3) IMHO this represents a greater maturity on part of the nation where there is overall a lesser concern for seperatism on part of some major states (eg Punjab, Tamil Nadu) and recognition the way to deal with seperatism in other states (Tripura, Nagaland, Kashmir) is more autonomy and not less.
4) If (and its a big if) genuine federalism of this sort is achieved then we can think of bigger issues (like the fanciful ideas of an E.U. style union of all South Asian states)
(whew... thats the longest post I`ve ever written here!!)
#759 Posted by mohajir on March 30, 2001 7:24:18 pm
East Pakistan`s bloody death, 30 years on
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/geted.pl5?eo20010325a1.htm
http://www.cryforjustice.com/
By HARVEY STOCKWIN
Special to The Japan Times
HONG KONG -- Tonight marks the 30th anniversary of the beginning of one of the most traumatic Asian events in recent times: the blood-soaked birth of Bangladesh. Bangladeshi voices will be raised to remind the world of what was an enormous crime against humanity. But they may not tell the full story. Bengalis were not the only victims.
This grim episode was the consequence of another great Asian trauma, the partition of India in 1947.
The Pakistan that came into being on Aug. 14, 1947, consisted of two wings, separated by nearly 1,600 km of Indian territory. In West Pakistan there were four provinces: Punjab, Sindh, Baluchistan and the Northwest Frontier Province. In East Pakistan, there was basically one province, the eastern part of Bengal.
The former undivided Pakistan was an example of the dictum that a ``house divided against itself cannot stand.``
There were simply too many contradictions. In Pakistan`s initial quasi-democratic period, a satisfactory constitutional balance of power between the two wings was never found. After Field Marshal Ayub Khan mounted Pakistan`s first military coup, the imbalance became even more marked. All the top military officers were either Punjabis or Pathans. The majority of the population was in the East, but the all-Pakistan government was very much of, by and for West Pakistanis, to the ever mounting frustration of Bengalis.
East Pakistan was poor with very inadequate infrastructure. West Pakistan had more economic potential and its relationship with the East tended to be exploitive.
Above all, the Punjabis in the West and the Bengalis in the East were very different people, apart from Islam.
Given all the contradictions, dissimilarities, and antipathies, plus the looming antagonistic presence of India in between the two wings, the breakup of Pakistan was bound to happen. What made the separation bound to happen and a terrible tragedy was the concatenation of various factors late in 1970.
First, there was the cast of characters responsible for Pakistan`s fate. Ayub Khan, who retired in 1969, became a fairly astute politician, but that is more than can be said for his successor, general, later president, Yahya Khan. He was simply no match for the wiles of East Pakistan leader Sheik Mujibur Rahman and leading West Pakistan civilian politician Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. Crucially, neither Mujibur nor Bhutto was capable of the compromises that might have saved Pakistan, for a while at least. Both were power hungry and lacking in moral scruples. The same could be said of several key West Pakistan generals. Yahya Khan did not fully control the generals either.
Second, there was the tremendous tidal wave that a cyclone in the Bay of Bengal sent rolling across the Ganges delta in East Pakistan early in November 1970, just as the two wings of Pakistan were preparing for an already delayed general election. Probably up to a million Bengalis died.
Pakistan itself began to die, too, as the West Pakistanis paid scant attention to the catastrophe. Britain, the United States, West Germany and a host of other nations quickly supplied aid by air and sea, but Islamabad was very slow off the mark. Yahya Khan, preoccupied with a trip to China, plus helping Nixon and Kissinger to open ties with China, didn`t even bother to visit the Delta when he passed through Dacca. Had the army made a great effort to provide help, the nation might have been saved.
Instead the cyclone let loose a tidal wave of anti-West Pakistan feeling among the Bengalis. Mujib had a fertile field for his secessionist demagoguery. Bhutto stayed home in West Pakistan.
The third factor making the breakup inevitable was democracy, which produced a political cyclone when the general election took place in December.
Numerous small Bengali opposition parties abstained from the poll. This left the field to Mujibur and his Awami League which won 167 out of 169 seats in the east. Bhutto`s People`s Progressive Party was similarly dominant in Punjab and in Sindh, winning 81 out of 134 seats in the four western provinces.
The election was not just for a national assembly but also for a constitutional assembly. Mujibur thus had the power to write the pan-Pakistan constitution by virtue of his majority in the East. Crucially, Mujibur won no seats in the West, Bhutto won no seats in the East.
The result brought the West Pakistanis face to face with the democratic fact that if the Bengalis stayed united behind the Awami League, they would always be in the majority. At the very least, Mujibur would insist on a federation in which the West`s power to dominate and exploit the East would be greatly reduced.
So, in a nutshell, Pakistan`s first and last democratic election brought home to all how incompatible the two wings of the nation actually were. Mujibur only wanted to remain in one nation if he was running the whole show. Bhutto wanted to be prime minister in the West rather than permanent leader of the opposition in a Bengali-dominated One Pakistan.
Instead of moving quickly to try and lessen differences, Yahya Khan strung out the negotiations before the National Assembly ever met. A more politically adept leader might have quickly promoted a federal system which satisfied both Mujibur`s and Bhutto`s hunger for power. Instead, as Khan procrastinated, the irreconcilable East-West, Mujibur-Bhutto differences increased.
As Khan failed to control the situation, he also failed to hold back his generals. They now moved to do what they wanted to do anyway: to crack down on East Pakistan, to try and sustain One Pakistan by force of arms. And as Mujibur moved from advocating autonomy to pressing for secession, aroused Bengalis began to take their frustrations out on West Pakistanis and particularly on the Biharis, the Muslims who came to East Pakistan from other parts of India after partition, but who remained foreigners in Bengali eyes.
On March 14 Bhutto suggested two prime ministers -- himself in the West, Mujibur in the East. Mujib was already calling East Pakistan Bangladesh. On March 15, Yahya Khan made one last effort to keep Pakistan together.
On March 22, Mujibur asked Khan to transfer power to the two Pakistans as Bhutto had suggested. A last round of Bhutto-Mujibur-Khan talks got nowhere.
On March 23 Bengalis celebrated Resistance Day. The future Bangladeshi flag was flown at Mujibur`s house.
Then on the night of March 25-26, the newly appointed military commander of East Pakistan, Gen. Tikka Khan, unleashed his greatly outnumbered forces in a savage effort to use terror as the means for holding Pakistan together.
One embittered Pakistan general, in his memoirs, described the terror that was unleashed: ``Peaceful night was turned into a time of wailing, crying and burning. Gen. Tikka let loose everything at his disposal as if raiding an enemy. Instead of disarming Bengal units and imprisoning Bengali leaders, as he was ordered, he resorted to the killing of civilians and a scorched-earth policy.` ``
Thereafter Tikka Khan was always known as the Butcher of Bengal. This was the beginning of the genocide against the Bengali people.
Bhutto, returning to West Pakistan on March 26 after quietly encouraging the generals to pursue their crackdown, made a famous declaration: ``By the Grace of God, Pakistan has at last been saved.``
What he meant was that a West Pakistan in which he could aspire to be prime minister would endure. But Bhutto must have known that the savage terror in the East marked the death knell for a Pakistan that straddled the subcontinent, though the protracted death throes were to last another nine months, and to encompass the third Indo-Pakistani War.
Yet there was much more to the tragedy than that. What was unleashed in March 1971 was not simply a brutal military repression but also a ferocious communal blood bath.
I was among a group of six journalists allowed back into East Pakistan a month after the crackdown began. It was obvious that the West Pakistanis had enlisted the Biharis to wreak their vengeance on the Bengalis, that the Bengalis had sought to kill Biharis, that Muslims had been killing Hindus, and that Punjabis and Pathans were spurred on by racial as well as military motives as they indiscriminately slaughtered Bengalis.
Over 300,000 Biharis are today a mute epitaph for One Pakistan. They do not want to stay in Bangladesh. The West Pakistanis don`t want them.
So those 300,000 Biharis, who wish only to be Pakistanis, have been stranded in refugee camps in the former East Pakistan ever since 1971. They languish there still.
Harvey Stockwin reports and analyzes Asian politics and diplomacy for the Times of India and the Jakarta Post.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/geted.pl5?eo20010325a1.htm
http://www.cryforjustice.com/
By HARVEY STOCKWIN
Special to The Japan Times
HONG KONG -- Tonight marks the 30th anniversary of the beginning of one of the most traumatic Asian events in recent times: the blood-soaked birth of Bangladesh. Bangladeshi voices will be raised to remind the world of what was an enormous crime against humanity. But they may not tell the full story. Bengalis were not the only victims.
This grim episode was the consequence of another great Asian trauma, the partition of India in 1947.
The Pakistan that came into being on Aug. 14, 1947, consisted of two wings, separated by nearly 1,600 km of Indian territory. In West Pakistan there were four provinces: Punjab, Sindh, Baluchistan and the Northwest Frontier Province. In East Pakistan, there was basically one province, the eastern part of Bengal.
The former undivided Pakistan was an example of the dictum that a ``house divided against itself cannot stand.``
There were simply too many contradictions. In Pakistan`s initial quasi-democratic period, a satisfactory constitutional balance of power between the two wings was never found. After Field Marshal Ayub Khan mounted Pakistan`s first military coup, the imbalance became even more marked. All the top military officers were either Punjabis or Pathans. The majority of the population was in the East, but the all-Pakistan government was very much of, by and for West Pakistanis, to the ever mounting frustration of Bengalis.
East Pakistan was poor with very inadequate infrastructure. West Pakistan had more economic potential and its relationship with the East tended to be exploitive.
Above all, the Punjabis in the West and the Bengalis in the East were very different people, apart from Islam.
Given all the contradictions, dissimilarities, and antipathies, plus the looming antagonistic presence of India in between the two wings, the breakup of Pakistan was bound to happen. What made the separation bound to happen and a terrible tragedy was the concatenation of various factors late in 1970.
First, there was the cast of characters responsible for Pakistan`s fate. Ayub Khan, who retired in 1969, became a fairly astute politician, but that is more than can be said for his successor, general, later president, Yahya Khan. He was simply no match for the wiles of East Pakistan leader Sheik Mujibur Rahman and leading West Pakistan civilian politician Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. Crucially, neither Mujibur nor Bhutto was capable of the compromises that might have saved Pakistan, for a while at least. Both were power hungry and lacking in moral scruples. The same could be said of several key West Pakistan generals. Yahya Khan did not fully control the generals either.
Second, there was the tremendous tidal wave that a cyclone in the Bay of Bengal sent rolling across the Ganges delta in East Pakistan early in November 1970, just as the two wings of Pakistan were preparing for an already delayed general election. Probably up to a million Bengalis died.
Pakistan itself began to die, too, as the West Pakistanis paid scant attention to the catastrophe. Britain, the United States, West Germany and a host of other nations quickly supplied aid by air and sea, but Islamabad was very slow off the mark. Yahya Khan, preoccupied with a trip to China, plus helping Nixon and Kissinger to open ties with China, didn`t even bother to visit the Delta when he passed through Dacca. Had the army made a great effort to provide help, the nation might have been saved.
Instead the cyclone let loose a tidal wave of anti-West Pakistan feeling among the Bengalis. Mujib had a fertile field for his secessionist demagoguery. Bhutto stayed home in West Pakistan.
The third factor making the breakup inevitable was democracy, which produced a political cyclone when the general election took place in December.
Numerous small Bengali opposition parties abstained from the poll. This left the field to Mujibur and his Awami League which won 167 out of 169 seats in the east. Bhutto`s People`s Progressive Party was similarly dominant in Punjab and in Sindh, winning 81 out of 134 seats in the four western provinces.
The election was not just for a national assembly but also for a constitutional assembly. Mujibur thus had the power to write the pan-Pakistan constitution by virtue of his majority in the East. Crucially, Mujibur won no seats in the West, Bhutto won no seats in the East.
The result brought the West Pakistanis face to face with the democratic fact that if the Bengalis stayed united behind the Awami League, they would always be in the majority. At the very least, Mujibur would insist on a federation in which the West`s power to dominate and exploit the East would be greatly reduced.
So, in a nutshell, Pakistan`s first and last democratic election brought home to all how incompatible the two wings of the nation actually were. Mujibur only wanted to remain in one nation if he was running the whole show. Bhutto wanted to be prime minister in the West rather than permanent leader of the opposition in a Bengali-dominated One Pakistan.
Instead of moving quickly to try and lessen differences, Yahya Khan strung out the negotiations before the National Assembly ever met. A more politically adept leader might have quickly promoted a federal system which satisfied both Mujibur`s and Bhutto`s hunger for power. Instead, as Khan procrastinated, the irreconcilable East-West, Mujibur-Bhutto differences increased.
As Khan failed to control the situation, he also failed to hold back his generals. They now moved to do what they wanted to do anyway: to crack down on East Pakistan, to try and sustain One Pakistan by force of arms. And as Mujibur moved from advocating autonomy to pressing for secession, aroused Bengalis began to take their frustrations out on West Pakistanis and particularly on the Biharis, the Muslims who came to East Pakistan from other parts of India after partition, but who remained foreigners in Bengali eyes.
On March 14 Bhutto suggested two prime ministers -- himself in the West, Mujibur in the East. Mujib was already calling East Pakistan Bangladesh. On March 15, Yahya Khan made one last effort to keep Pakistan together.
On March 22, Mujibur asked Khan to transfer power to the two Pakistans as Bhutto had suggested. A last round of Bhutto-Mujibur-Khan talks got nowhere.
On March 23 Bengalis celebrated Resistance Day. The future Bangladeshi flag was flown at Mujibur`s house.
Then on the night of March 25-26, the newly appointed military commander of East Pakistan, Gen. Tikka Khan, unleashed his greatly outnumbered forces in a savage effort to use terror as the means for holding Pakistan together.
One embittered Pakistan general, in his memoirs, described the terror that was unleashed: ``Peaceful night was turned into a time of wailing, crying and burning. Gen. Tikka let loose everything at his disposal as if raiding an enemy. Instead of disarming Bengal units and imprisoning Bengali leaders, as he was ordered, he resorted to the killing of civilians and a scorched-earth policy.` ``
Thereafter Tikka Khan was always known as the Butcher of Bengal. This was the beginning of the genocide against the Bengali people.
Bhutto, returning to West Pakistan on March 26 after quietly encouraging the generals to pursue their crackdown, made a famous declaration: ``By the Grace of God, Pakistan has at last been saved.``
What he meant was that a West Pakistan in which he could aspire to be prime minister would endure. But Bhutto must have known that the savage terror in the East marked the death knell for a Pakistan that straddled the subcontinent, though the protracted death throes were to last another nine months, and to encompass the third Indo-Pakistani War.
Yet there was much more to the tragedy than that. What was unleashed in March 1971 was not simply a brutal military repression but also a ferocious communal blood bath.
I was among a group of six journalists allowed back into East Pakistan a month after the crackdown began. It was obvious that the West Pakistanis had enlisted the Biharis to wreak their vengeance on the Bengalis, that the Bengalis had sought to kill Biharis, that Muslims had been killing Hindus, and that Punjabis and Pathans were spurred on by racial as well as military motives as they indiscriminately slaughtered Bengalis.
Over 300,000 Biharis are today a mute epitaph for One Pakistan. They do not want to stay in Bangladesh. The West Pakistanis don`t want them.
So those 300,000 Biharis, who wish only to be Pakistanis, have been stranded in refugee camps in the former East Pakistan ever since 1971. They languish there still.
Harvey Stockwin reports and analyzes Asian politics and diplomacy for the Times of India and the Jakarta Post.
#758 Posted by ylh on March 30, 2001 7:24:18 pm
Interestingly enough Bengalis were the most vocal during the Pakistan Movement,(Direct Action Day brought forth blood only in Bengal right?)....
Maybe it escapes the infinite wisdom people like Harimau, that Tyranny of the Majority and Democracy are not the same thing... One man one vote is not the issue.. Indeed, the biggest proponent of One man one vote was Savarkar, the greatest Hinduvtist of all times ... but then you probably are an RSS member anyway. Pakistan was created as an alternative,.. a final solution. Why did Nehru reject the Cabinet Mission Plan?
Those who talk about one-man one-vote, please explain to me how ``2 senators per state`` rule of the US is fair according to their ``One man one vote`` logic.
US has a 2 Senators per state, regardless of the populations of those states, and this is to ensure the parity of all states at the center. Are you suggesting that the bastion of freedom, United States is doing something contrary to ``Democracy``... tyranny of the Majority yes, ..Democracy No!
And if you dont have a problem with 2 senators per state in the US, then what possible problem would you have with the Cabinet Mission plan which called for a three tiered formula giving all joining groups parity at the center?
Then a Pakistan Unit, and a Hindustan Unit could have together formed the Union of India... but alas, it was not to be? Why? Because the so called Indian secularist personified in the person of Nehru is nothing but ``Hinduvtist``!
The struggle of the Muslim League and Qaid e Azam was for equality... it was affirmative action, .. parity.... etc. Pakistan was created due to instragience of the ``Hinduvtist`` Indian National Congress to give Muslims their rights!
Is it any wonder, that upon arrival in Karachi Nelson Mandela headed straight for Qaid`s Mausoleum and exclaimed...
``To see Ali Jinnah Musuem is a tremendous source of inspiration for all those who have struggled against all forms of racial oppression.`` (impact International April 1995)
Now let us put an end to this bickering, all three states India, Pakistan and Bangladesh start with true and genuine secular principle put forth by the greatest man produced by South Asia...
``You are free- You are free to go to your temples
You are free to go to your mosques, or anyother place of worship in this state of Pakistan(replace with India or Bangladesh). You may belong to any religion caste or creed- that has nothing to do with the business of the state.``
To free, sovereign, Non communal, Democratic republics of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh....
Maybe it escapes the infinite wisdom people like Harimau, that Tyranny of the Majority and Democracy are not the same thing... One man one vote is not the issue.. Indeed, the biggest proponent of One man one vote was Savarkar, the greatest Hinduvtist of all times ... but then you probably are an RSS member anyway. Pakistan was created as an alternative,.. a final solution. Why did Nehru reject the Cabinet Mission Plan?
Those who talk about one-man one-vote, please explain to me how ``2 senators per state`` rule of the US is fair according to their ``One man one vote`` logic.
US has a 2 Senators per state, regardless of the populations of those states, and this is to ensure the parity of all states at the center. Are you suggesting that the bastion of freedom, United States is doing something contrary to ``Democracy``... tyranny of the Majority yes, ..Democracy No!
And if you dont have a problem with 2 senators per state in the US, then what possible problem would you have with the Cabinet Mission plan which called for a three tiered formula giving all joining groups parity at the center?
Then a Pakistan Unit, and a Hindustan Unit could have together formed the Union of India... but alas, it was not to be? Why? Because the so called Indian secularist personified in the person of Nehru is nothing but ``Hinduvtist``!
The struggle of the Muslim League and Qaid e Azam was for equality... it was affirmative action, .. parity.... etc. Pakistan was created due to instragience of the ``Hinduvtist`` Indian National Congress to give Muslims their rights!
Is it any wonder, that upon arrival in Karachi Nelson Mandela headed straight for Qaid`s Mausoleum and exclaimed...
``To see Ali Jinnah Musuem is a tremendous source of inspiration for all those who have struggled against all forms of racial oppression.`` (impact International April 1995)
Now let us put an end to this bickering, all three states India, Pakistan and Bangladesh start with true and genuine secular principle put forth by the greatest man produced by South Asia...
``You are free- You are free to go to your temples
You are free to go to your mosques, or anyother place of worship in this state of Pakistan(replace with India or Bangladesh). You may belong to any religion caste or creed- that has nothing to do with the business of the state.``
To free, sovereign, Non communal, Democratic republics of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh....
#757 Posted by Eklavya on March 30, 2001 7:24:18 pm
ylh # 753
ylh, that was an excellent post. Let me congratulate you for hitting the nail on a core issue. It seems to me that behind all the talk emanating from both sides pre-1947, India was divided primarily for reasons you have raised in your post. The tragedy is that a majority of Indians have never understood that simple fact, thanks primarily to Nehru who bequeathed to us some very romantic notions of secularism. Mind you, these notions have served us very well, but they also suffer from deep flaws. When I have some more time to spare, I will give you another take on these issue.
ylh, that was an excellent post. Let me congratulate you for hitting the nail on a core issue. It seems to me that behind all the talk emanating from both sides pre-1947, India was divided primarily for reasons you have raised in your post. The tragedy is that a majority of Indians have never understood that simple fact, thanks primarily to Nehru who bequeathed to us some very romantic notions of secularism. Mind you, these notions have served us very well, but they also suffer from deep flaws. When I have some more time to spare, I will give you another take on these issue.
#756 Posted by harimau on March 30, 2001 7:24:18 pm
Ref ylh #: 749
[I am a Pakistani first and then anything else. Two Nation theory to me is the product of the inability Hindu Community and their leaders to come to a compromise on with a Muslim Community.]
The Hindu community in Bangladesh has accepted one-man-one-vote as the basic democratic principle and is living under that. You pathetic idiots who went and formed Pakistan claimed veto rights that constitutionalists were not willing to grant you.
Don`t give me the crap that the Muslims are generous and treating the Hindus right whereas the treacherous Indian banias would have ripped off a Muslim minority in a united India. Coming from the butchers of Dacca, that doesn`t wash.
So, let us get this straight. You guys wanted more power than your 33% population figure in a united India would have given you and when you didn`t get it, you demanded Pakistan.
By the same rule, the Hindus of Bangladesh have the right of secession. No, Indians are not demanding it nor are Bangladeshi Hindus.
[I am a Pakistani first and then anything else. Two Nation theory to me is the product of the inability Hindu Community and their leaders to come to a compromise on with a Muslim Community.]
The Hindu community in Bangladesh has accepted one-man-one-vote as the basic democratic principle and is living under that. You pathetic idiots who went and formed Pakistan claimed veto rights that constitutionalists were not willing to grant you.
Don`t give me the crap that the Muslims are generous and treating the Hindus right whereas the treacherous Indian banias would have ripped off a Muslim minority in a united India. Coming from the butchers of Dacca, that doesn`t wash.
So, let us get this straight. You guys wanted more power than your 33% population figure in a united India would have given you and when you didn`t get it, you demanded Pakistan.
By the same rule, the Hindus of Bangladesh have the right of secession. No, Indians are not demanding it nor are Bangladeshi Hindus.
#755 Posted by Eklavya on March 30, 2001 7:24:18 pm
Sigalph # 726
Increasingly, I am beginning to believe that Nehruvian concept of secularism suffers from some fundamental weakenesses. Do you know of any easy references to Ambedkar`s views of secularism?
* * You seem to have forgotten the classical definition of secularism provided by the late Dr Ambedekar in the debates of the Indian Constitution, `not an absence of religion but...`
* *
Increasingly, I am beginning to believe that Nehruvian concept of secularism suffers from some fundamental weakenesses. Do you know of any easy references to Ambedkar`s views of secularism?
* * You seem to have forgotten the classical definition of secularism provided by the late Dr Ambedekar in the debates of the Indian Constitution, `not an absence of religion but...`
* *
#754 Posted by fuzair on March 30, 2001 7:12:56 pm
Re: DG #740
No offense taken. I was simply referring to the fact that places that write ``Islamic Republic`` have one religion while places that write ``People`s Republic`` tend to have another (i.e., at least nominally Marxist-Leninist/Socialist). In any case, I am not Bangladeshi so I can hardly take offense at what you said.
Regards.
No offense taken. I was simply referring to the fact that places that write ``Islamic Republic`` have one religion while places that write ``People`s Republic`` tend to have another (i.e., at least nominally Marxist-Leninist/Socialist). In any case, I am not Bangladeshi so I can hardly take offense at what you said.
Regards.
#753 Posted by harimau on March 30, 2001 5:10:16 pm
Ref harimau #: 571
I said earlier
[Why all this angst about what it means to be a Pakistani?
Isn`t it quite obvious?
All those who believed in democracy, one-man-one-vote, the power of the ballot over the bullet, and all such things stayed on in India.
The remainder (baki) went to Bakistan.]
I didn`t think to add that the sane and rational people formed Bangladesh and the rest (baki) formed Bakistan.
My apologies to Bangladeshis.
I said earlier
[Why all this angst about what it means to be a Pakistani?
Isn`t it quite obvious?
All those who believed in democracy, one-man-one-vote, the power of the ballot over the bullet, and all such things stayed on in India.
The remainder (baki) went to Bakistan.]
I didn`t think to add that the sane and rational people formed Bangladesh and the rest (baki) formed Bakistan.
My apologies to Bangladeshis.
#752 Posted by ylh on March 30, 2001 5:10:16 pm
Neptune,
This is a repost of my post to Sigalph... Kindly tell me where I have expressed my shock over Bengalis thinking of themselves as Bengalis before Muslims? I do think they should in this Modern Day in age think of themselves as Bangladeshis first and then Bengalis....
Dear friend Sigalph,
I am still perplexed by your apparent endorsement for the call for
``reunificaton``.
However, on an intellectual level I wish to point out a certain
inherent flaws with your argument...
since I have in my early teens read quite a bit on the late
Eighteenth Century Indian History ...
1) You call Calcutta the Cultural capital of United Bangla,...
Calcutta gained major importance as a British Town, with a fort. It
is like Karachi, a Modern Town. Other than its Economic and
Political importance which was gained because it was a British
town, it has no real ``Historical`` significance for Bengalis. Kindly
explain.
Nawab Siraj ud Daullah`s and before him his grandfather Nawab
Mahabat Jang`s Capital was Murshadabad if I am not mistaken.
Calcutta was the focal point of hostility to the ``Independent`` state
of Bengal.
2) Bengalis admittedly have been the forefront of movements of all
sorts... Communal National etc.
The ``Anandmath`` was written by Hindu Bengali, and symbolizes
Hindu National Identity. Bengali Muslims had supported the
Division of Bengal, All India Muslim League was formed in Dacca,
the Lahore Resolution was presented by a Bengali, Calcutta Riots
happened in Bengal, Bengali Nationalism owes its birth to that
region... and ofcourse the war of Independence of 1971 that you
fought.
Bengalis have stood up for their rights, their freedom and their
sovereignty as different nations communities etc whenever, their
rights were infringed upon. In so many words, Bengal has been the
most Explosive region in the History of the Subcontinent.
Then how can you envisage a reunification between the two states.
-YLH
This is a repost of my post to Sigalph... Kindly tell me where I have expressed my shock over Bengalis thinking of themselves as Bengalis before Muslims? I do think they should in this Modern Day in age think of themselves as Bangladeshis first and then Bengalis....
Dear friend Sigalph,
I am still perplexed by your apparent endorsement for the call for
``reunificaton``.
However, on an intellectual level I wish to point out a certain
inherent flaws with your argument...
since I have in my early teens read quite a bit on the late
Eighteenth Century Indian History ...
1) You call Calcutta the Cultural capital of United Bangla,...
Calcutta gained major importance as a British Town, with a fort. It
is like Karachi, a Modern Town. Other than its Economic and
Political importance which was gained because it was a British
town, it has no real ``Historical`` significance for Bengalis. Kindly
explain.
Nawab Siraj ud Daullah`s and before him his grandfather Nawab
Mahabat Jang`s Capital was Murshadabad if I am not mistaken.
Calcutta was the focal point of hostility to the ``Independent`` state
of Bengal.
2) Bengalis admittedly have been the forefront of movements of all
sorts... Communal National etc.
The ``Anandmath`` was written by Hindu Bengali, and symbolizes
Hindu National Identity. Bengali Muslims had supported the
Division of Bengal, All India Muslim League was formed in Dacca,
the Lahore Resolution was presented by a Bengali, Calcutta Riots
happened in Bengal, Bengali Nationalism owes its birth to that
region... and ofcourse the war of Independence of 1971 that you
fought.
Bengalis have stood up for their rights, their freedom and their
sovereignty as different nations communities etc whenever, their
rights were infringed upon. In so many words, Bengal has been the
most Explosive region in the History of the Subcontinent.
Then how can you envisage a reunification between the two states.
-YLH
#751 Posted by ylh on March 30, 2001 5:10:16 pm
Bongdong
``Hinduvtastic Designs on the Sovereign states like Bangladesh``
A true secularist in India will accept the Republic of India`s current frontiers... will not search for India`s identity in the 3000 year old ancient wisdom, someone who will not talk of Ram Raj, and of Caste rule, some one who will not support the renaming of a city say Allahabad for example, etc...
Truth, the self styled Secularist to the core(laugh), has these hidden emotional attachments to one indivisible bharat mata.... why else would he berate our struggle for independence from eternal Brahman Hegemony as divisive?
It is time to face historical facts. India has never existed as one entity, though it was under the sovereign control of the British. It is like Europe... and no doubt Europe has come together, but on the basis of parity and equality. The individual nation-states have for the most part not compromised their distinct National identities... there is no Hinduvta, no ``Hindu-Musulmans``... no ``ancient`` wisdom... no ahmisa Satyagraha ... No Lord Rama as the greatest protector... no Secularisms etc. What joins together Europe is Economics, and concern for the future, not imagined entities of the past, and not the mythical representation of Europe as the Religious Mother of all Europeans.
Neptune who earlier falsely accused me making a scapegoat of my ancestry, which I had mentioned just as an example... fails to comprehend this.
I am a Pakistani first second and last. I am not proud or ashamed of any relative ... neither those who spread Islam in Kashmir, nor those who fought in the front rows of Prithvi Raj Chauhan`s armies... I cannot be bothered. It is irrelevant!
Its time people on Chowk grew up for indeed if you dont, then the future of our superstitious and illiterate peoples of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh are bleak!
``Hinduvtastic Designs on the Sovereign states like Bangladesh``
A true secularist in India will accept the Republic of India`s current frontiers... will not search for India`s identity in the 3000 year old ancient wisdom, someone who will not talk of Ram Raj, and of Caste rule, some one who will not support the renaming of a city say Allahabad for example, etc...
Truth, the self styled Secularist to the core(laugh), has these hidden emotional attachments to one indivisible bharat mata.... why else would he berate our struggle for independence from eternal Brahman Hegemony as divisive?
It is time to face historical facts. India has never existed as one entity, though it was under the sovereign control of the British. It is like Europe... and no doubt Europe has come together, but on the basis of parity and equality. The individual nation-states have for the most part not compromised their distinct National identities... there is no Hinduvta, no ``Hindu-Musulmans``... no ``ancient`` wisdom... no ahmisa Satyagraha ... No Lord Rama as the greatest protector... no Secularisms etc. What joins together Europe is Economics, and concern for the future, not imagined entities of the past, and not the mythical representation of Europe as the Religious Mother of all Europeans.
Neptune who earlier falsely accused me making a scapegoat of my ancestry, which I had mentioned just as an example... fails to comprehend this.
I am a Pakistani first second and last. I am not proud or ashamed of any relative ... neither those who spread Islam in Kashmir, nor those who fought in the front rows of Prithvi Raj Chauhan`s armies... I cannot be bothered. It is irrelevant!
Its time people on Chowk grew up for indeed if you dont, then the future of our superstitious and illiterate peoples of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh are bleak!
#750 Posted by harimau on March 30, 2001 5:10:16 pm
Ref ylh #: 732
[These are abstract words with little meanings, Jogindranath Mandal representing Muslims on a Muslim Seat through the Muslim League, then inaugurating the Pakistan Constituent Assembley, and finally becoming a minister in the Cabinet...]
I agree with you that persons named Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Humayun Kabir, Margaret Alva, etc., running for election, getting elected and becoming cabinet ministers in India is a normal occurrence, whereas Jogindranath Mondal running on a Muslim League ticket is an extraordinary miracle caused by Allah himself.
Has the fact ever struck you that Mr. Mondal represented East Pakistan (today`s Bangladesh) rather than the pathetic rump state which calls itself the Islamic Republic of Pakistan?
[These are abstract words with little meanings, Jogindranath Mandal representing Muslims on a Muslim Seat through the Muslim League, then inaugurating the Pakistan Constituent Assembley, and finally becoming a minister in the Cabinet...]
I agree with you that persons named Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Humayun Kabir, Margaret Alva, etc., running for election, getting elected and becoming cabinet ministers in India is a normal occurrence, whereas Jogindranath Mondal running on a Muslim League ticket is an extraordinary miracle caused by Allah himself.
Has the fact ever struck you that Mr. Mondal represented East Pakistan (today`s Bangladesh) rather than the pathetic rump state which calls itself the Islamic Republic of Pakistan?
#749 Posted by ylh on March 30, 2001 5:10:16 pm
Neptune,
Since you have little understanding of my beliefs let me state ... I am not asking Bengalis to be Hindus or Muslims before Bengalis... I am asking
Bangladeshis (Hindus and Muslims, Bengalis and Non Bengalis) to be Bangladeshis before Bengalis?
Do you understand?
This is the same thing I ask of Pakistan and Pakistanis....
I am still at odds to understand why if I call for securing the sovereignty of the Nations of Bangladesh and Pakistan, I become a proponent of the Hindu Muslim Divide?
Plus I am still also unable to understand why a people can base their nationalisms on ``ethnic`` origins and thats ``cool`` with people like Neptune, but common religious customs are ``evil``.
Gentlemen
Grow up. Stop playing these games. Accept Sovereign National boundaries... Anyone living in Pakistan is a Pakistan! Anyone living in India is an Indian, and anyone living in Bangladesh is a Bangladeshi! Stop for God sakes pitting ethnic identities against religious identities...
Be realistic... put the ideals of freedom equality and justice infront of us.
Be Bangladeshis before Bengalis, Indians before Punjabis, Gujjus, Dalits, Pakistanis before Sindhis Punjabis Baluchis Pathans Shias and Sunnis!...
Since you have little understanding of my beliefs let me state ... I am not asking Bengalis to be Hindus or Muslims before Bengalis... I am asking
Bangladeshis (Hindus and Muslims, Bengalis and Non Bengalis) to be Bangladeshis before Bengalis?
Do you understand?
This is the same thing I ask of Pakistan and Pakistanis....
I am still at odds to understand why if I call for securing the sovereignty of the Nations of Bangladesh and Pakistan, I become a proponent of the Hindu Muslim Divide?
Plus I am still also unable to understand why a people can base their nationalisms on ``ethnic`` origins and thats ``cool`` with people like Neptune, but common religious customs are ``evil``.
Gentlemen
Grow up. Stop playing these games. Accept Sovereign National boundaries... Anyone living in Pakistan is a Pakistan! Anyone living in India is an Indian, and anyone living in Bangladesh is a Bangladeshi! Stop for God sakes pitting ethnic identities against religious identities...
Be realistic... put the ideals of freedom equality and justice infront of us.
Be Bangladeshis before Bengalis, Indians before Punjabis, Gujjus, Dalits, Pakistanis before Sindhis Punjabis Baluchis Pathans Shias and Sunnis!...
#748 Posted by ylh on March 30, 2001 4:33:27 pm
Being a Hindu Follower of Gandhi and Being secular are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE....
Away with dreams and Shadows!
Yasser Hamdani
Away with dreams and Shadows!
Yasser Hamdani
#747 Posted by ylh on March 30, 2001 4:33:27 pm
Neptune,
Kindly refrain from assuming....
I am afraid you know little about me to render that judgement. I have nothing against Bengalis thinking of themselves as Bengalis first and then anything else. You dont understand the crux of the argument. Why do you insist on the Indian Center anyway. Why should New Dehli Control the destiny of Bengalis or anyone else.
I am a Pakistani first and then anything else. Two Nation theory to me is the product of the inability Hindu Community and their leaders to come to a compromise on with a Muslim Community.
Today that Pakistan exist, I believe it should exist as a state which doesnot discriminate against anyone on the basis of religion caste or creed! I am all for Bangladesh and Pakistan being Secular states, but Independent Sovereign States DO NOT mean they should Unify with India.
Kindly try to understand the argument, or dont jump in if you dont know whats going on!
-YLH
Kindly refrain from assuming....
I am afraid you know little about me to render that judgement. I have nothing against Bengalis thinking of themselves as Bengalis first and then anything else. You dont understand the crux of the argument. Why do you insist on the Indian Center anyway. Why should New Dehli Control the destiny of Bengalis or anyone else.
I am a Pakistani first and then anything else. Two Nation theory to me is the product of the inability Hindu Community and their leaders to come to a compromise on with a Muslim Community.
Today that Pakistan exist, I believe it should exist as a state which doesnot discriminate against anyone on the basis of religion caste or creed! I am all for Bangladesh and Pakistan being Secular states, but Independent Sovereign States DO NOT mean they should Unify with India.
Kindly try to understand the argument, or dont jump in if you dont know whats going on!
-YLH
#746 Posted by Truth on March 30, 2001 4:24:01 pm
sigalph:
your refernce to learning islamiyat in Bangladeshi schools and cathecism in Catholic schools - they would be equivalent in private schools but if it is made compulsory in govt schools that is a breach of my definition of ``secularism.``
ylh:
frankly, i dont give a damn as to whether you care for a unified india or not. you are irrelevant to what will happen in india. i`m secular to my core and i`m not here to respond to the projections of your biases.
for the ``long live khalistan`` people such as yourself: - india has alrady created ``khalistan`` - a Sikh majority province called Punjab out of the old Punjab. the 30 to 40% of Punjabis who are Hindus in the current Punjab have willingly accepted the fact that the executive head of Punjab (Chief Minister) is almost always likely to be Sikh. You would think that at least 20% of the time a ``40% minority`` would get the office of Chief Minister. Who knows it may happen. I frankly dont care despite being a Punjabi Hindu myself. (I prefer this system to the old Lebanese system - One Druze, One Maronite, One Shiite routine). the key thing is that all Indian Punjabis have accepted the simple but powerful principle of one man, one vote in a secular framework and let the chips fall as they may. Moreover Punjabi Hindus of Punjab are all learning Gurmukhi. This is in deference to the wishes of the majority Sikhs. And all this is at least 30 years old.
your refernce to learning islamiyat in Bangladeshi schools and cathecism in Catholic schools - they would be equivalent in private schools but if it is made compulsory in govt schools that is a breach of my definition of ``secularism.``
ylh:
frankly, i dont give a damn as to whether you care for a unified india or not. you are irrelevant to what will happen in india. i`m secular to my core and i`m not here to respond to the projections of your biases.
for the ``long live khalistan`` people such as yourself: - india has alrady created ``khalistan`` - a Sikh majority province called Punjab out of the old Punjab. the 30 to 40% of Punjabis who are Hindus in the current Punjab have willingly accepted the fact that the executive head of Punjab (Chief Minister) is almost always likely to be Sikh. You would think that at least 20% of the time a ``40% minority`` would get the office of Chief Minister. Who knows it may happen. I frankly dont care despite being a Punjabi Hindu myself. (I prefer this system to the old Lebanese system - One Druze, One Maronite, One Shiite routine). the key thing is that all Indian Punjabis have accepted the simple but powerful principle of one man, one vote in a secular framework and let the chips fall as they may. Moreover Punjabi Hindus of Punjab are all learning Gurmukhi. This is in deference to the wishes of the majority Sikhs. And all this is at least 30 years old.