Is Thackeray a Terrorist?
Farzana Versey January 20, 2002
#389 Posted by harimau on January 31, 2002 12:08:03 pm
Ref ylh #: 375
[The frontier Gandhi pledged allegience to Pakistan barely a month after the Independence .. by going to Karachi and meeting Jinnah and offering him his fullest support.]
Why stop your history lesson there, Yasser?
Tell us what Jinnah did to the Frontier Gandhi.
Since you won`t, I will.
Jinnah promptly dismissed the lawfully elected provincial government headed by the Frontier Gandhi because it was not a Muslim League government though the Muslim League had no majority in the NWFP legislature.
That is the ``constitutionalist`` that Jinnah was.
Does the constitution of Pakistan require that the same party must rule at the central as well as the provincial levels?
Don`t bring in irrelevancies like ``there was no Pakistani constitution in 1947.``
The acts of 1935 applied to both India and Pakistan in 1947 and beyond until new constitutions were enacted.
So, if in united India you could have the Punjab Unionist Party governing in Punjab, Congress in UP, Jinnah could certainly have allowed the Frontier Gandhi`s government to continue in NWFP.
But then, that would mean a party officially called the Indian National Congress would be running the province of NWFP.
The Pakistan Muslim League, I must remind you, was born on Aug 14, 1947.
By the way, the Indian Muslim League still exists in India. The power-hungry caste Hindus haven`t gotten around to banning it despite the fact that this organization spearheaded the Partition of the nation.
Does a party called the Pakistan National Congress, successor to the Indian National Congress, exist in Pakistan? Does it have even a single member? How about those tens of thousands of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs who were jailed in Sindh, West Punjab or NWFP under the Congress banner prior to independence? Do they get mentioned in a Pakistani textbook on the struggle for independence? I know, Yasser, you are going to tell me that you went to school in the Middle East so you don`t know about Pakistani textbooks. So will your able defender, Ayesha Fayyazi Sarwari, come forward and provide some information as to what suddenly happened to all those freedom fighters?
Let us remember something else that Jinnah said: ``What is the Muslim League? I, with my typewriter, won Pakistan.``
Even a fake like Headshrinker would diagnose megalomania from that statement.
[The frontier Gandhi pledged allegience to Pakistan barely a month after the Independence .. by going to Karachi and meeting Jinnah and offering him his fullest support.]
Why stop your history lesson there, Yasser?
Tell us what Jinnah did to the Frontier Gandhi.
Since you won`t, I will.
Jinnah promptly dismissed the lawfully elected provincial government headed by the Frontier Gandhi because it was not a Muslim League government though the Muslim League had no majority in the NWFP legislature.
That is the ``constitutionalist`` that Jinnah was.
Does the constitution of Pakistan require that the same party must rule at the central as well as the provincial levels?
Don`t bring in irrelevancies like ``there was no Pakistani constitution in 1947.``
The acts of 1935 applied to both India and Pakistan in 1947 and beyond until new constitutions were enacted.
So, if in united India you could have the Punjab Unionist Party governing in Punjab, Congress in UP, Jinnah could certainly have allowed the Frontier Gandhi`s government to continue in NWFP.
But then, that would mean a party officially called the Indian National Congress would be running the province of NWFP.
The Pakistan Muslim League, I must remind you, was born on Aug 14, 1947.
By the way, the Indian Muslim League still exists in India. The power-hungry caste Hindus haven`t gotten around to banning it despite the fact that this organization spearheaded the Partition of the nation.
Does a party called the Pakistan National Congress, successor to the Indian National Congress, exist in Pakistan? Does it have even a single member? How about those tens of thousands of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs who were jailed in Sindh, West Punjab or NWFP under the Congress banner prior to independence? Do they get mentioned in a Pakistani textbook on the struggle for independence? I know, Yasser, you are going to tell me that you went to school in the Middle East so you don`t know about Pakistani textbooks. So will your able defender, Ayesha Fayyazi Sarwari, come forward and provide some information as to what suddenly happened to all those freedom fighters?
Let us remember something else that Jinnah said: ``What is the Muslim League? I, with my typewriter, won Pakistan.``
Even a fake like Headshrinker would diagnose megalomania from that statement.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#388 Posted by veeresh on January 31, 2002 1:09:29 am
. . . Advani in Pakistan would probably go to Sindh, win the elections there, and merge Sindh with India after that . . . have you thought about that as the number of Pakistani refugees seeking asylum in India crosses 9000 (out of whom only about 3000 are Hindus . . .)
#387 Posted by subroto on January 31, 2002 12:48:17 am
Re YLH 385 : ``Now believe me I can respond by completely destroying Gandhi ji and his legacy and that too by QUOTING out of Gandhi`s own works unlike you whose entire vision is based on his own petty biases... but I will not... because I am not going to stoop down to your bigotry. ``
Phew! And I thought we were going to be inundated with posts on Gandhi and his biases ;-). Thank you ylh for being so considerate, but just as Mahesh G can never destroy Jinnah`s legacy neither can you do the same for Gandhi. Oh well you might think you have, in the anonymity of an Internet message board, but not in the real world. Gandhi may not be popular with the politicians and their ilk (except on his birth and death anniversaries), he may not be fashionable topic with the chatterati anymore and there are people who mock him, but his legacy still survives in the heart and minds of millions who still revere him. Actually on a more serious note - has that become the case in Pakistan too?
(Remembering Jinnah on his birth and death anniversaries only).
Regards,
Subroto
Phew! And I thought we were going to be inundated with posts on Gandhi and his biases ;-). Thank you ylh for being so considerate, but just as Mahesh G can never destroy Jinnah`s legacy neither can you do the same for Gandhi. Oh well you might think you have, in the anonymity of an Internet message board, but not in the real world. Gandhi may not be popular with the politicians and their ilk (except on his birth and death anniversaries), he may not be fashionable topic with the chatterati anymore and there are people who mock him, but his legacy still survives in the heart and minds of millions who still revere him. Actually on a more serious note - has that become the case in Pakistan too?
(Remembering Jinnah on his birth and death anniversaries only).
Regards,
Subroto
#386 Posted by cutandpaste on January 31, 2002 12:48:17 am
Pakistan
Council of Foreign Relations
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/coalition/pakistan.html
What has Pakistan done to help the United States since September 11?
Pakistan has become a major staging area for the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, a general who came to power in a 1999 coup, has become a key U.S. ally. Pakistan has given overflight rights to the United States and Britain for their warplanes, shared intelligence about suspected terrorists, and let U.S. forces use two Pakistani airfields.
Has Pakistan supported terrorism?
Yes. Pakistan`s intelligence services—known as the Interservices Intelligence, or ISI—have provided covert but well-documented support to terrorist groups fighting against India in the disputed territory of Kashmir. Until recently, Pakistan was also an ally of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, which harbored Osama bin Laden`s al-Qaeda terrorist network. In many parts of Pakistan, bin Laden remains a hero.
Did Pakistan support the Taliban?
Yes. With its long-standing conflict with India, to its east, Pakistan sought a friendly regime to its west, in Afghanistan. The Taliban, which Pakistan helped create and train, fit the bill. Many within the ISI and the army continue to share the Taliban`s extremist religious ideology and worldview.
How did Pakistan come to support the Taliban?
When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979, Pakistan`s leader, General Mohammad Zia ul-Haq, supported Afghanistan`s mujahedeen (holy warriors) against the Soviets. Zia often promoted a hard-line form of political Islam, and with backing from Saudi Arabia, Zia`s Pakistan built scores of new madrasas (religious seminaries) near the Afghan border to teach Pakistanis and Afghan refugees to wage a jihad (holy struggle) against the Soviets. The Taliban are a product of the conservative and political Islam taught in the Pakistani madrasas. The Taliban came to power in Afghanistan in 1996 after the civil war that followed the Soviets` 1989 withdrawal. By backing the Taliban, Pakistan also hoped to defuse a domestic issue of potential ethnic separatism; the world`s 20 million Pashtuns are roughly split between Pakistan and Afghanistan and comprise the core ethnic group of the Taliban.
Did Pakistan ever support al-Qaeda?
Apparently. James Risen and Judith Miller of The New York Times reported in October 2001 that ISI has had an ``indirect but longstanding`` relationship with al-Qaeda and has used al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan to train operatives for terrorist attacks against India. ISI`s reported use of al-Qaeda camps first came to light in 1998, when U.S. cruise missiles struck suspected al-Qaeda terrorist camps in Afghanistan in reprisal for the terrorist bombings of two American embassies in East Africa. The casualties of the U.S. reprisal reportedly included members of a Kashmiri militant group supported by Pakistan who were training in the al-Qaeda camps. U.S. intelligence officials add that some Pakistani nuclear researchers may have shared nuclear technology with al-Qaeda, but they have released no hard evidence to support this.
Is Muslim fundamentalism widespread in Pakistan?
Yes. According to The Washington Post, some 7,000 madrasas currently operate in Pakistan, with enrollment at more than 650,000 students. Pakistani officials estimate that 10 to 15 percent of the madrasas in Pakistan promote extremist ideologies. (There may actually be many more such seminaries operating in Pakistan; Jessica Stern of Harvard`s Kennedy School of Government calculates that at least 40,000 more madrasas exist but have not registered with the Pakistani government.) These schools provide food, clothing, shelter, and an Islamist education of varying degrees of militancy to thousands of Pakistani boys each year.
Pakistani leader Gen. Pervez Musharraf
announces crackdown on Islamist militants,
Jan. 2002.
(AP Photo/Press Information
Department/HO )
Beyond the madrasas, militant Islamists demanding the imposition of Islamic law have instigated conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims in Punjab, helped trigger endemic violence in Karachi, and caused isolated violent incidents in Pakistan`s Northwest Frontier Province and the adjoining tribal areas. A 1995 revolt in the province attracted hundreds of Afghan and Pakistani madrasa students before the army broke it up. Islamist militants have also smashed satellite dishes, shot video-shop owners, and, in the western Pakistani city of Quetta, chased women off the street to ``defend modesty.``
Is Musharraf`s rule threatened by his support for the war on terrorism?
Experts disagree. According to Anatol Lieven of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Pakistan`s armed forces remain disciplined and well funded, making a military coup to oust Musharraf unlikely. Also, the Taliban`s swift collapse made Musharraf`s pro-U.S. policy easier to sustain by preventing prolonged, destabilizing street protests in support of the Taliban. And according to Radha Kumar, an Asia specialist at the Council on Foreign Relations, many of Pakistan`s businesspeople and intelligentsia and large segments of the general public back Musharraf`s pledges to crack down on terrorism and Islamist militancy.
Still, by turning against the Pakistan`s erstwhile Taliban allies, Musharraf alienated many Islamists, including members of ISI, the army, and Kashmiri militant movements. And experts say U.S. pressure to crack down on terrorists after a December 2001 attack on the Indian parliament, blamed by India on the Pakistani-backed militant groups Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad, have made Musharraf`s position more precarious.
Why has Musharraf cooperated with the United States in the war on terrorism?
Some analysts say that the Bush administration left Musharraf no choice after September 11, telling him he could either be an ally in the war against terrorism or a target. Musharraf has also sought to improve Pakistan`s often cool relationship with the United States, which was further strained recently by Pakistan`s 1998 nuclear tests and by Musharraf`s 1999 overthrow of an elected government. But other experts say that Musharraf acted more out of will than necessity. They argue that Musharraf is trying to turn Pakistan back into a more secular society; in a major January 2002 speech, he asked, ``Do we want Pakistan to become a theocratic state... or… a progressive and dynamic Islamic welfare state?``
What has Pakistan gained from its support of the United States?
Congress has lifted economic sanctions imposed on Pakistan in 1998, after India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons, and in 1999, after Musharraf`s coup. In November 2001, President Bush pledged more than $1 billion in U.S. support to Pakistan, on top of an earlier pledge of $100 million in emergency aid. In addition, Pakistan will be able to reschedule or cancel some of its $12.2-billion debt to the United States. The United States has also encouraged the International Monetary Fund to give Pakistan $1.2 billion for poverty reduction. Moreover, the European Union has dropped tariffs on Pakistani textiles, thus giving Pakistani textiles preferential access to European markets, and the World Bank has increased its aid.
What has Musharraf done to fight fundamentalism and terrorism at home?
In a major speech on January 12, in the wake of the December 2001 attack on India`s parliament, Musharraf pledged to crack down on extremism and prevent Pakistan from being used as a base for terrorism. He announced new rules to govern the madrasas and moderate their extremist curricula. He also banned Jaish-e-Muhammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba, having already arrested the two groups` leaders and frozen their bank accounts after the United States declared them to be terrorist organizations. Moreover, Pakistan banned three other Pakistan-based extremist groups, arrested more than 2,000 suspected militants, and sealed about 390 offices of alleged Islamist militants.
Is Musharraf committed to rooting out terrorism in Pakistan?
By withdrawing Pakistan`s long-standing support for the Taliban, publicly denouncing terrorism conducted in the name of Kashmir, and cracking down on Islamist militants, Musharraf has taken significant steps against terrorism—and at considerable political risk to himself. Still, experts say it`s too early to determine whether he`s truly committed for the long haul. India insists it wants to see deeds, not words, and complains that Musharraf refused to extradite 20 radicals accused by India of terrorism. Secretary of State Colin Powell called the January 12 speech a ``bold and principled stand to set Pakistan squarely against terrorism and extremism,`` and U.S. officials have urged Pakistan to follow through on its antiterrorism measures.
Is Osama bin Laden in Pakistan?
We don`t know. The Afghan-Pakistani border is more than 1,500 miles long, and U.S. intelligence officials say bin Laden might have sneaked through. Moreover, many analysts say that Pakistani officers, ISI members, or tribal leaders sympathetic to bin Laden might help or harbor him. U.S. military personnel are currently tracking al-Qaeda cells in Pakistan, but most of the manhunt there is being conducted by Pakistani military and paramilitary forces—some of whom have long-standing ties to the Taliban.
Does Pakistan have nuclear weapons?
Yes. Pakistan successfully tested a nuclear device for the first time in 1998. The U.S. government estimates that Pakistan has at least 24 warheads, which can be delivered by intermediate-range missiles or Pakistan`s fleet of F-16 aircraft.
Is Pakistan`s nuclear arsenal secure?
Experts disagree. Senior U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Powell, have expressed confidence in the security of Pakistan`s nuclear arsenal, and in October 2001, Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes announced that Pakistan`s nuclear assets were in safe hands. Sumit Ganguly of the University of Texas argues that the Pakistani military is highly unlikely to fragment and leave the country`s nuclear stockpiles vulnerable. According to The Washington Post, Musharraf had started relocating Pakistan`s nuclear arms cache to different locations within the country before the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan began. Still, according to the veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh of The New Yorker, some U.S. administration officials doubt whether U.S. intelligence knows the whereabouts of Pakistan`s entire nuclear arsenal.
Is America helping Pakistan safeguard its nuclear weapons?
Yes. In November 2001, Pakistan announced that it had accepted an offer by Powell to train Pakistani officials on ``security and protection of nuclear assets.`` Pakistani Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar said, ``Pakistani experts would be apprised of the security measures being applied by the United States.``
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/coalition/pakistan2.html
Council of Foreign Relations
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/coalition/pakistan.html
What has Pakistan done to help the United States since September 11?
Pakistan has become a major staging area for the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, a general who came to power in a 1999 coup, has become a key U.S. ally. Pakistan has given overflight rights to the United States and Britain for their warplanes, shared intelligence about suspected terrorists, and let U.S. forces use two Pakistani airfields.
Has Pakistan supported terrorism?
Yes. Pakistan`s intelligence services—known as the Interservices Intelligence, or ISI—have provided covert but well-documented support to terrorist groups fighting against India in the disputed territory of Kashmir. Until recently, Pakistan was also an ally of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, which harbored Osama bin Laden`s al-Qaeda terrorist network. In many parts of Pakistan, bin Laden remains a hero.
Did Pakistan support the Taliban?
Yes. With its long-standing conflict with India, to its east, Pakistan sought a friendly regime to its west, in Afghanistan. The Taliban, which Pakistan helped create and train, fit the bill. Many within the ISI and the army continue to share the Taliban`s extremist religious ideology and worldview.
How did Pakistan come to support the Taliban?
When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979, Pakistan`s leader, General Mohammad Zia ul-Haq, supported Afghanistan`s mujahedeen (holy warriors) against the Soviets. Zia often promoted a hard-line form of political Islam, and with backing from Saudi Arabia, Zia`s Pakistan built scores of new madrasas (religious seminaries) near the Afghan border to teach Pakistanis and Afghan refugees to wage a jihad (holy struggle) against the Soviets. The Taliban are a product of the conservative and political Islam taught in the Pakistani madrasas. The Taliban came to power in Afghanistan in 1996 after the civil war that followed the Soviets` 1989 withdrawal. By backing the Taliban, Pakistan also hoped to defuse a domestic issue of potential ethnic separatism; the world`s 20 million Pashtuns are roughly split between Pakistan and Afghanistan and comprise the core ethnic group of the Taliban.
Did Pakistan ever support al-Qaeda?
Apparently. James Risen and Judith Miller of The New York Times reported in October 2001 that ISI has had an ``indirect but longstanding`` relationship with al-Qaeda and has used al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan to train operatives for terrorist attacks against India. ISI`s reported use of al-Qaeda camps first came to light in 1998, when U.S. cruise missiles struck suspected al-Qaeda terrorist camps in Afghanistan in reprisal for the terrorist bombings of two American embassies in East Africa. The casualties of the U.S. reprisal reportedly included members of a Kashmiri militant group supported by Pakistan who were training in the al-Qaeda camps. U.S. intelligence officials add that some Pakistani nuclear researchers may have shared nuclear technology with al-Qaeda, but they have released no hard evidence to support this.
Is Muslim fundamentalism widespread in Pakistan?
Yes. According to The Washington Post, some 7,000 madrasas currently operate in Pakistan, with enrollment at more than 650,000 students. Pakistani officials estimate that 10 to 15 percent of the madrasas in Pakistan promote extremist ideologies. (There may actually be many more such seminaries operating in Pakistan; Jessica Stern of Harvard`s Kennedy School of Government calculates that at least 40,000 more madrasas exist but have not registered with the Pakistani government.) These schools provide food, clothing, shelter, and an Islamist education of varying degrees of militancy to thousands of Pakistani boys each year.
Pakistani leader Gen. Pervez Musharraf
announces crackdown on Islamist militants,
Jan. 2002.
(AP Photo/Press Information
Department/HO )
Beyond the madrasas, militant Islamists demanding the imposition of Islamic law have instigated conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims in Punjab, helped trigger endemic violence in Karachi, and caused isolated violent incidents in Pakistan`s Northwest Frontier Province and the adjoining tribal areas. A 1995 revolt in the province attracted hundreds of Afghan and Pakistani madrasa students before the army broke it up. Islamist militants have also smashed satellite dishes, shot video-shop owners, and, in the western Pakistani city of Quetta, chased women off the street to ``defend modesty.``
Is Musharraf`s rule threatened by his support for the war on terrorism?
Experts disagree. According to Anatol Lieven of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Pakistan`s armed forces remain disciplined and well funded, making a military coup to oust Musharraf unlikely. Also, the Taliban`s swift collapse made Musharraf`s pro-U.S. policy easier to sustain by preventing prolonged, destabilizing street protests in support of the Taliban. And according to Radha Kumar, an Asia specialist at the Council on Foreign Relations, many of Pakistan`s businesspeople and intelligentsia and large segments of the general public back Musharraf`s pledges to crack down on terrorism and Islamist militancy.
Still, by turning against the Pakistan`s erstwhile Taliban allies, Musharraf alienated many Islamists, including members of ISI, the army, and Kashmiri militant movements. And experts say U.S. pressure to crack down on terrorists after a December 2001 attack on the Indian parliament, blamed by India on the Pakistani-backed militant groups Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad, have made Musharraf`s position more precarious.
Why has Musharraf cooperated with the United States in the war on terrorism?
Some analysts say that the Bush administration left Musharraf no choice after September 11, telling him he could either be an ally in the war against terrorism or a target. Musharraf has also sought to improve Pakistan`s often cool relationship with the United States, which was further strained recently by Pakistan`s 1998 nuclear tests and by Musharraf`s 1999 overthrow of an elected government. But other experts say that Musharraf acted more out of will than necessity. They argue that Musharraf is trying to turn Pakistan back into a more secular society; in a major January 2002 speech, he asked, ``Do we want Pakistan to become a theocratic state... or… a progressive and dynamic Islamic welfare state?``
What has Pakistan gained from its support of the United States?
Congress has lifted economic sanctions imposed on Pakistan in 1998, after India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons, and in 1999, after Musharraf`s coup. In November 2001, President Bush pledged more than $1 billion in U.S. support to Pakistan, on top of an earlier pledge of $100 million in emergency aid. In addition, Pakistan will be able to reschedule or cancel some of its $12.2-billion debt to the United States. The United States has also encouraged the International Monetary Fund to give Pakistan $1.2 billion for poverty reduction. Moreover, the European Union has dropped tariffs on Pakistani textiles, thus giving Pakistani textiles preferential access to European markets, and the World Bank has increased its aid.
What has Musharraf done to fight fundamentalism and terrorism at home?
In a major speech on January 12, in the wake of the December 2001 attack on India`s parliament, Musharraf pledged to crack down on extremism and prevent Pakistan from being used as a base for terrorism. He announced new rules to govern the madrasas and moderate their extremist curricula. He also banned Jaish-e-Muhammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba, having already arrested the two groups` leaders and frozen their bank accounts after the United States declared them to be terrorist organizations. Moreover, Pakistan banned three other Pakistan-based extremist groups, arrested more than 2,000 suspected militants, and sealed about 390 offices of alleged Islamist militants.
Is Musharraf committed to rooting out terrorism in Pakistan?
By withdrawing Pakistan`s long-standing support for the Taliban, publicly denouncing terrorism conducted in the name of Kashmir, and cracking down on Islamist militants, Musharraf has taken significant steps against terrorism—and at considerable political risk to himself. Still, experts say it`s too early to determine whether he`s truly committed for the long haul. India insists it wants to see deeds, not words, and complains that Musharraf refused to extradite 20 radicals accused by India of terrorism. Secretary of State Colin Powell called the January 12 speech a ``bold and principled stand to set Pakistan squarely against terrorism and extremism,`` and U.S. officials have urged Pakistan to follow through on its antiterrorism measures.
Is Osama bin Laden in Pakistan?
We don`t know. The Afghan-Pakistani border is more than 1,500 miles long, and U.S. intelligence officials say bin Laden might have sneaked through. Moreover, many analysts say that Pakistani officers, ISI members, or tribal leaders sympathetic to bin Laden might help or harbor him. U.S. military personnel are currently tracking al-Qaeda cells in Pakistan, but most of the manhunt there is being conducted by Pakistani military and paramilitary forces—some of whom have long-standing ties to the Taliban.
Does Pakistan have nuclear weapons?
Yes. Pakistan successfully tested a nuclear device for the first time in 1998. The U.S. government estimates that Pakistan has at least 24 warheads, which can be delivered by intermediate-range missiles or Pakistan`s fleet of F-16 aircraft.
Is Pakistan`s nuclear arsenal secure?
Experts disagree. Senior U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Powell, have expressed confidence in the security of Pakistan`s nuclear arsenal, and in October 2001, Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes announced that Pakistan`s nuclear assets were in safe hands. Sumit Ganguly of the University of Texas argues that the Pakistani military is highly unlikely to fragment and leave the country`s nuclear stockpiles vulnerable. According to The Washington Post, Musharraf had started relocating Pakistan`s nuclear arms cache to different locations within the country before the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan began. Still, according to the veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh of The New Yorker, some U.S. administration officials doubt whether U.S. intelligence knows the whereabouts of Pakistan`s entire nuclear arsenal.
Is America helping Pakistan safeguard its nuclear weapons?
Yes. In November 2001, Pakistan announced that it had accepted an offer by Powell to train Pakistani officials on ``security and protection of nuclear assets.`` Pakistani Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar said, ``Pakistani experts would be apprised of the security measures being applied by the United States.``
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/coalition/pakistan2.html
#385 Posted by harimau on January 31, 2002 12:48:17 am
Ref ylh #: 370
[I think any objective individual who would read your posts and compare them to mine, will see that misinformation oozes out of your every single word,]
What misinformation? The part about Jinnah demanding to be recognized as the Sole Spokesman for all the Muslims of India? The part about Jinnah resisting the attempt of Congress to fill its share of Cabineat seats with whomever it wanted, including Muslims? The part about Jinnah putting in Jogindranath Mondol to prove a point that if Congress is allowed to nominate a Muslim he was going to nomibate a Backward Class Hindu? None of this can be proved false because they are documented. Not just by Hindu/Indian historians but by Western authors.
[not to mention the fact that despite your hatred, you have been forced to concede every single point that I have made.]
Exactly which point have I conceded? That Jogindranath Mondol was indeed appointed by Jinnah to the Cabinet? Yes; but you managed to hide Jinnah`s motivations behind that appointment and I shed light on it.
[Not only that... but now you are pointing out
that Mr. Mandal left Pakistan after Jinnah`s death, something which I have already admitted..]
Yes, you admitted it this time. But not the first time and Sigalph had to point out that Mr. Mondol left Pakistan to live in India.
[I don`t care what you Indians do or think of him as in Jinnah.]
Then why write so many posts defending Jinnah to Indians? I don`t think that any Pakistani has got any problems with Jinnah, except of course those who had occasion to refer to him as Kaffir-e-Azam.
[I am shocked at how Indians like you love jumping from argument to argument]
I was not jumping from argument to argument. I was explaining Jinnah`s motives in all his actions. I don`t see that you have disproved me yet.
[So who is the master of Half truths?]
You are, Yasser. Because you still will not come out and admit Jinnah`s public statements about who the Congress can appoint to the Cabinet.
[It is something that liars and bigots like you do quite well Harimau.]
Prove me wrong and then call me a liar.
[First of all, I had made it clear that Pakistan demand was endorsed by a variety of groups good and bad... since a Hindu bigot like you seems to be hell bent on against the tamils, I am sure they are awesome people...]
I am sure you consider anybody who was for any type of partition of India awesome people. And of course from your warped viewpoint, the more the pieces the better it was. Well, unfortunately, the country that underwent further partition is Pakistan, not India.
[How about the first Law Minister of India? B R Ambedkar? WHy not talk of his endorsement of the Pakistan demand? Why not talk of Scheduled caste Federation? Why not talk of the several christian parties, and why not talk of Jogindranath Mandal`s party?]
No matter what Ambedkar said about the demand for Pakistan, no matter that the Scheduled Castes were stirred up by the British to oppose Indian independence just as the Justice Party was, the fact is that India has provided strong constitutional safeguards and the most stringent affirmative action programs in the world to redress the grievances of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes. And BR Ambedkar, India`s Law Minister and Member of the Constituent Assembly had no cause to go settle in Pakistan, as opposed to your Mondol.
[The point is proved and you have accepted it yourself: Pakistan demand was endorsed by many different political and religious groups with one common fear ie Caste Hindu Domination]
How is it that caste Hindu domination is not that much of a problem in most of India? Do you see the Dalits asking for partition? Do you see the Indian Muslims clamoring to migrate to Pakistan? Do you see that miniscule minority of Parsis crying oppression? Do you find the Jains trying not to be publicly seen to be Jains? In fact, do you even see the Tamils asking for independence anymore? Have you seen the same Tamils elect Jayalalitha to power in Tamil Nadu, she who has promised to wipe out the LTTE strongholds in Tamil Nadu?
The fact, Yasser, is that every one of Jinnah`s reasons for demanding a separate country for Muslims has been proved to be untenable by the peaceful co-existence of a dozen religions, a score of ethnic groups, and several hundred linguistic groups in India. As time goes by, you will only see tighter integration among the people of India who, through the nation-building efforts of our political leadership, have come to see themselves as Indians first and foremost and Hindu/Muslim/Sikh..., Tamil/Telugu/Malayali/Bengali...., or Naga/Mizo/Santhal/Toda/Coorgi... etc., as a distant second. This bond will only increase with the passage of time no matter how much Pakistanis wish for India`s splintering into a dozen countries.
What Pakistan needs is a strong identity. Pakistan not= Hindustan won`t fly much longer. You got to look for something else.
[I think any objective individual who would read your posts and compare them to mine, will see that misinformation oozes out of your every single word,]
What misinformation? The part about Jinnah demanding to be recognized as the Sole Spokesman for all the Muslims of India? The part about Jinnah resisting the attempt of Congress to fill its share of Cabineat seats with whomever it wanted, including Muslims? The part about Jinnah putting in Jogindranath Mondol to prove a point that if Congress is allowed to nominate a Muslim he was going to nomibate a Backward Class Hindu? None of this can be proved false because they are documented. Not just by Hindu/Indian historians but by Western authors.
[not to mention the fact that despite your hatred, you have been forced to concede every single point that I have made.]
Exactly which point have I conceded? That Jogindranath Mondol was indeed appointed by Jinnah to the Cabinet? Yes; but you managed to hide Jinnah`s motivations behind that appointment and I shed light on it.
[Not only that... but now you are pointing out
that Mr. Mandal left Pakistan after Jinnah`s death, something which I have already admitted..]
Yes, you admitted it this time. But not the first time and Sigalph had to point out that Mr. Mondol left Pakistan to live in India.
[I don`t care what you Indians do or think of him as in Jinnah.]
Then why write so many posts defending Jinnah to Indians? I don`t think that any Pakistani has got any problems with Jinnah, except of course those who had occasion to refer to him as Kaffir-e-Azam.
[I am shocked at how Indians like you love jumping from argument to argument]
I was not jumping from argument to argument. I was explaining Jinnah`s motives in all his actions. I don`t see that you have disproved me yet.
[So who is the master of Half truths?]
You are, Yasser. Because you still will not come out and admit Jinnah`s public statements about who the Congress can appoint to the Cabinet.
[It is something that liars and bigots like you do quite well Harimau.]
Prove me wrong and then call me a liar.
[First of all, I had made it clear that Pakistan demand was endorsed by a variety of groups good and bad... since a Hindu bigot like you seems to be hell bent on against the tamils, I am sure they are awesome people...]
I am sure you consider anybody who was for any type of partition of India awesome people. And of course from your warped viewpoint, the more the pieces the better it was. Well, unfortunately, the country that underwent further partition is Pakistan, not India.
[How about the first Law Minister of India? B R Ambedkar? WHy not talk of his endorsement of the Pakistan demand? Why not talk of Scheduled caste Federation? Why not talk of the several christian parties, and why not talk of Jogindranath Mandal`s party?]
No matter what Ambedkar said about the demand for Pakistan, no matter that the Scheduled Castes were stirred up by the British to oppose Indian independence just as the Justice Party was, the fact is that India has provided strong constitutional safeguards and the most stringent affirmative action programs in the world to redress the grievances of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes. And BR Ambedkar, India`s Law Minister and Member of the Constituent Assembly had no cause to go settle in Pakistan, as opposed to your Mondol.
[The point is proved and you have accepted it yourself: Pakistan demand was endorsed by many different political and religious groups with one common fear ie Caste Hindu Domination]
How is it that caste Hindu domination is not that much of a problem in most of India? Do you see the Dalits asking for partition? Do you see the Indian Muslims clamoring to migrate to Pakistan? Do you see that miniscule minority of Parsis crying oppression? Do you find the Jains trying not to be publicly seen to be Jains? In fact, do you even see the Tamils asking for independence anymore? Have you seen the same Tamils elect Jayalalitha to power in Tamil Nadu, she who has promised to wipe out the LTTE strongholds in Tamil Nadu?
The fact, Yasser, is that every one of Jinnah`s reasons for demanding a separate country for Muslims has been proved to be untenable by the peaceful co-existence of a dozen religions, a score of ethnic groups, and several hundred linguistic groups in India. As time goes by, you will only see tighter integration among the people of India who, through the nation-building efforts of our political leadership, have come to see themselves as Indians first and foremost and Hindu/Muslim/Sikh..., Tamil/Telugu/Malayali/Bengali...., or Naga/Mizo/Santhal/Toda/Coorgi... etc., as a distant second. This bond will only increase with the passage of time no matter how much Pakistanis wish for India`s splintering into a dozen countries.
What Pakistan needs is a strong identity. Pakistan not= Hindustan won`t fly much longer. You got to look for something else.
#384 Posted by rsaxena on January 31, 2002 12:48:17 am
re: MaheshG on ylh
{{He is hypersensitive and that makes him stupid. If you see he hogs 40% of all message space. He can`t make his point and bad mouths everybody who disagrees with him. I have to call a spade a spade.}}
exactly...he`s been doing that for nearly the past 2 years...
...i keep saying this but it is fascinating how much trouble he has with reality...reminds me of the idiots i saw on 60 minutes last year who claimed the holocaust never happened and had a ton of ``evidence`` to back up their claims, etc., etc. ... revisionist $hit ...
{{He is hypersensitive and that makes him stupid. If you see he hogs 40% of all message space. He can`t make his point and bad mouths everybody who disagrees with him. I have to call a spade a spade.}}
exactly...he`s been doing that for nearly the past 2 years...
...i keep saying this but it is fascinating how much trouble he has with reality...reminds me of the idiots i saw on 60 minutes last year who claimed the holocaust never happened and had a ton of ``evidence`` to back up their claims, etc., etc. ... revisionist $hit ...
#383 Posted by tvarad on January 31, 2002 12:48:17 am
ylh
``My point has been well made.
1) I have shown by Jinnah`s speeches, his actions and his life that Pakistan was to be an all inclusive secular state.``
As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The people of the Soviet Union don`t praise the fact that Lenin wanted a worker`s paradise. They see the reality that his ideas destroyed their countries. They see his communist experiment as a miserable failure. So why don`t you just admit that Jinnah`s experiment was a miserable failure given that Pakistan has teetered on the edge of anarchy ever since it`s inception?
``My point has been well made.
1) I have shown by Jinnah`s speeches, his actions and his life that Pakistan was to be an all inclusive secular state.``
As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The people of the Soviet Union don`t praise the fact that Lenin wanted a worker`s paradise. They see the reality that his ideas destroyed their countries. They see his communist experiment as a miserable failure. So why don`t you just admit that Jinnah`s experiment was a miserable failure given that Pakistan has teetered on the edge of anarchy ever since it`s inception?
#382 Posted by ylh on January 31, 2002 12:48:17 am
Aisha #379
Thankyou for your support and compliments. I have rather enjoyed the same old debate this time around. Nothing these people can say or do can change the facts. If anything, their efforts have been counter productive. I didn`t need any more convincing but their baseless accusations and their laughable (il)logic has convinced me even more of our Great Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah`s awesome stature when it comes to moral goodness and ability.
Sometimes when confronted with the Mullahs and bigots of our own, we lose sight of the reasons Pakistan was created for. It is then that we require a refresher course in Bigotry. Rendezvous with the likes of Mahesh G, and Harimau provide exactly that. Imagine having to live with these people. This is not to say that there are not genuinely good people on the otherside, but they are far too less and they too seem to have no sense of responsibility when it comes to controlling their bigots. I mean after all when the likes of Jay, Harimau and Mahesh G are spreading their pearls of hate, how many times have genuinely good people like Shammi stopped them for their own sake if not ours?
Time to thank providence, God Almighty, Allah, Bhagwan, eishwar, Ahur Mazda, YWH, Jehovah and all his/her manifestations for his/her gift to us ie Pakistan. Let us make it and build it as our Great Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah would have wanted it, so that we do justice to ourselves, Pakistan and Quaid`s legacy.
Pakistan Zindabad
#381 Posted by MaheshG on January 31, 2002 12:48:17 am
YLH, again hogging 40% of the message space?
What history are you talking about?
Jinnah made speeches. Big deal. Every politician does. Deeds are what counts. Not words.
Jinnah might have shed many crocodile tears for the minorities, but he sacrificied them in his mad pursuit for power.
No wonder Pakistan turned out to be a land of bigotry and jehadis. What else can you expect? A land spawned by the Devil himself will have nothing but evil in it.
#380 Posted by ylh on January 31, 2002 12:48:17 am
End of Debate:
An educated person knows when to end a debate. It has now deteriorated into name calling started by people like Mahesh G who just want to vent out their hate and nothing more. I believe everything that needed to be discussed has been discussed. I have presented the evidence unlike my tormentors and I believe anyone can go and see the Past 100 posts and see for themselves whose right and whose wrong. Furthermore, it seems that Mahesh G and other bigots who destroyed a perfectly good discussion between myself and Shammi, have been given enough rope to hang themselves and they have availed the opportunity well, exposing their little knowledge.
To outline Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah`s achievements and greatness I have quoted many authors, many of his contemporaries including Mahatma Gandhi. His secular vision for Pakistan can hardly be questioned, though it is now upto the people of Pakistan to make a reality and soon they will get another chance at polls.
However to sum it all up, I am going to quote Surat Chandrabose, brother of Subhas Chandrabose
``Mr.Jinnah was great as a lawyer, once great as a Congressman, great as a leader of Muslims, great as a world politician and diplomat, and greatestof all as a man of action, By Mr. Jinnah`s passing away, the world has lost one of the greatst statesmen and Pakistan its life-giver, philosopher and guide``.
and the Hindustan times on 12th September 1948:
`Forget him they say, we can`t. He crossed swords with the best and .. he won.`
Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah Zindabad
Pakistan Paindabad
-Sincerely
Yasser Latif Hamdani
An educated person knows when to end a debate. It has now deteriorated into name calling started by people like Mahesh G who just want to vent out their hate and nothing more. I believe everything that needed to be discussed has been discussed. I have presented the evidence unlike my tormentors and I believe anyone can go and see the Past 100 posts and see for themselves whose right and whose wrong. Furthermore, it seems that Mahesh G and other bigots who destroyed a perfectly good discussion between myself and Shammi, have been given enough rope to hang themselves and they have availed the opportunity well, exposing their little knowledge.
To outline Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah`s achievements and greatness I have quoted many authors, many of his contemporaries including Mahatma Gandhi. His secular vision for Pakistan can hardly be questioned, though it is now upto the people of Pakistan to make a reality and soon they will get another chance at polls.
However to sum it all up, I am going to quote Surat Chandrabose, brother of Subhas Chandrabose
``Mr.Jinnah was great as a lawyer, once great as a Congressman, great as a leader of Muslims, great as a world politician and diplomat, and greatestof all as a man of action, By Mr. Jinnah`s passing away, the world has lost one of the greatst statesmen and Pakistan its life-giver, philosopher and guide``.
and the Hindustan times on 12th September 1948:
`Forget him they say, we can`t. He crossed swords with the best and .. he won.`
Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah Zindabad
Pakistan Paindabad
-Sincerely
Yasser Latif Hamdani
#379 Posted by ylh on January 31, 2002 12:48:17 am
``I`ll provide it to you just as soon as Pakistan vacates POK as per the UN resolutions.``
Sawal Gandum Jawab Channa... mian you are the one who brought up the UN Resolutions. Now are we running away.
By the way, I heard an Afghan Woman of Northern Alliance`s interview on C Span and She declared `Burqah is an Indian thing and has nothing to do with Afghanistan`. Is she right?
#378 Posted by Aisha_Sarwari on January 31, 2002 12:48:17 am
Quoted from YLH in response to a Bigot whose entire vocab seems to be limited to `IDIOT` and `DEVIL`- Aisha
YLH`S POINTS
THE FIRST LAW MINISTER OF MUSLIM PAKISTAN
It is clear that if Pakistan was expected to be an islamic state, Jinnah would have appointed an islamic jurist as the first law minister of Pakistan, but instead he appointed a Hindu. It shows clearly that he wanted a secular state.
The Jogindranath Mandal Saga:
1) Jinnah appointed Jogindranath Mandal, a scheduled caste Hindu, on a Muslim League seat out of 5 Muslim League seats in his own place, in the Interim Cabinet of 1946-47 to emphasize that Pakistan demand or his own struggle were not only for Muslims.
2) Before the election of the President of the constituent assembey of Pakistan on 11th August 1947, the question arose as to who was going to be the first `acting` President of Pakistan`s constituent assembley? Again, Jinnah chose Jogindranath Mandal, a scheduled caste Hindu, to be the president of Pakistan`s highest legislative body indicating clearly that Pakistan would be a secular state.
3) In a `theoretical` Islamic state the major preoccupation of the state is law and `Islamic` law to be exact. Then did Jinnah appoint an Islamic jurist as Pakistan`s first Law Minister then? NO. Jinnah appointed the same Scheduled Caste Hindu `Jogindranath Mandal` as the first law minister of Pakistan.
4) Jogindranath Mandal left Pakistan after Jinnah`s death and Liaqat`s death because he saw that Pakistan was moving away from its original goals of a secular state for all faiths who had previously fought to escape Hindu caste domination.
a) Jinnah`s Pakistan demand was inclusive and secular even if Muslim Minority was the constituency for this demand.
b) Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be a secular state but his lieutenants lacked his charisma and succumbed to chamberlainism when confronted with the Mullahs after Jinnah`s death. That is why Pakistan gradually moved towards a theocracy becoming exactly that under Zia ul Haq.
JINNAH`S LOGIC IN A PARAGRAPH:
The Principle is simple: Can a ethnic, religious or political group fighting for their rights and their safeguards, after having achieved their goal then turn around and infringe on the rights of other such groups? The answer is simple : No. That is why Jinnah, after creating Pakistan by championing the rights of Muslim Minority, wanted Pakistan to be completely secular so that the Minority turned Majority Muslims would not infringe upon the rights of the Non Muslim Minorities of PAKISTAN.
JINNAH`S CAREER AS THE CHAMPION OF MINORITY RIGHTS:
Jinnah wanted to escape what he viewed as Majority Caste Hindu Domination of various minorities including Muslims and scheduled castes . The significant Muslim Minority, which also was his constituency, became the vehicle of this struggle. From 1906-1927 he tried to bring Muslims and Hindus together in the struggle against the British, but the advantages of the famous Lucknow pact 1916, the only time there was for brief Moment Hindu Muslim Unity achieved. From 1927-1939 he tried to acquire safeguards for a Muslim Minority in a Hindu Majority and thus championed the rights of Minorities. From 1940-1947 he campaigned for an Independent state formed out of Muslim Majority areas of the British Indian Empire. So after having won his case for the Rights for the Muslims, M.A.Jinnah, the champion of minority rights turned his attention towards the betterment of Pakistan`s minorities ie Hindus christians etc.
PAKISTAN MOVEMENT INCLUDED CHRISTIANS, SCHEDULED CASTES AND ALL GROUPS OPPOSING MAJORITARIAN HINDU TYRANNY:
On 22nd December 1939 (if I am not mistaken) Jinnah called for the `Day of Deliverance` which was translated as `Yaum-Nijaat` for the masses. That day many disparate groups celebrated the day of deliverance by having rallies and processions and moots. In these groups were Scheduled Caste Hindus and Dalits, Buddhists, Tamils, more than a few christian Parties, possibly Communist Party of India, and ofcourse the Muslim League.
This prompted Gandhiji to say in one of the Congress newspapers (something to the effect of): I see that the Old ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity has not disappeared but has re-invented himself... now I have come to understand for Brother Jinnah is trying to do. He is organizing the `anti-Congress` against the Congress which in the long term is good for India`s nationalist Politics.
Gandhi might have been wrong about the principle since Jinnah`s focus was minority safeguards and not `two party Politics`, but he was right in so far as the fact that all the Minorities had rallied and endorsed the Muslim League agenda as means to escape what they feared to be the `Caste Hindu Domination`.
We know quite well by now, as I have pointed out from facts and history unlike my frustrated opponents on this site, that the Pakistan demand was endorsed by variety of religious, ideological and ethnic groups and personalities good or bad... the Pakistan demand was endorsed by B R Ambedkar (the first Law Minister of India, and Dalit leader, for further elaboration read his book `Pakistan or Partition of India` and `Gandhi and Gandhiism`), the scheduled Caste federation, multiple christian parties, the Communist Party of India (to Jinnah`s displeasure apparently), ofcourse Jogindranath Mandal`s party, M C Rajah and his followers, a few tamil organizations etc.
Now let us compare to this the groups opposing Pakistan : Congress was the only pseudo (due to abundance of Mahatmas, Pandits and Maulanas) secular party opposing the Pakistan demand. Other parties included Hindu mahasabha, which was rabidly communal, several other Hindu fundamentalist organization, several Islamic fundamentalist organizations such as `Jamiat e Ulema Hind` , Deobandi Conference, Majlis e Ahrar and Jamaat e Islami... and three out of those four Islamic fundamentalist parties were in direct alliance with the Congress Party.
Again, this should be proof enough for the secular nature of the PAKISTAN Demand but I doubt that a person like yourself can bring yourself to accept the truth. So was Jinnah fighting exclusively for Muslims? This extremely stupid and outrageously untrue statement is made by two separate groups of people ... first is Indian Bigots and second their Pakistani counterparts the Mullahs..
Jinnah once said `I have pleaded more for the scheduled castes than the Muslims`.
JINNAH: A LEADER FOR ALL PEOPLE
Hindu Depressed Classes Leader MC Rajah On Jinnah:
M C Rajah, Hindu Leader of the depressed classes,
``All religions hold that God sends suitable people into the world to work out his plans from time to time and at critical junctures. I regard Mr Jinnah as the man who has been called upon to correct the wrong ways in which the people of India have been led by the leadership of Mr Gandhi. Congress took a wrong turn when it adopted wholesale the non cooperation programme of Mr Gandhi and assumed an attitude of open hostility towards Britain and tried to infusew the minds of people a spirit of defiance of law and civil disobedience more of less thinly veiled under a formula of truth and non violence. Moreover by Mahatmafying Mr Gandhi it appealed to the idolatorous sperstition of the Hindus, thus converting the religious adherence of the Hindu section of the population to the Mahatma into political support of his non cooperation movement.While this strategy was of some avail in hustling the British Government to yield more and more it divided the people into Hindu and non hindu sectionsIn these circumstances a man was needed to stand up to congress and tell its leaders that their organization however powerful numerically and financially doesnot represent the whole of India. I admire Mr Jinnah and feel grateful to him because in advocating the cause of the Muslims he is championing the cause of all the classes that are in danger of bein crushed under the steam roller of the caste Hindu majority, acting under the inspiration and orders of Mr Gandhi ``
(25th December 1940, 9 months After the Pakistan Resolution)
C R Vedi, chancellor of Andhra University :
`M.A.Jinnah is the pride of India and Not just the possession of the Muslims`
A Hindu Professor Dutta of Forman Christian College:
`I fully endorse the demand for Pakistan which based on the principles of Equality, fraternity and Justice for all as espoused by Islam. What have we hindus to fear in such a Pakistan.`
JINNAH WANTED A SECULAR STATE: PAKISTANI HINDUS
After Objectives Resolution was passed in 1949 (and mind you objectives resolution is a very egalitarian and progressive resolution with obscure references to Islam) Quaid e Azam`s Hindu colleagues in the Pakistani legislature who had endorsed Pakistan as a means against what they viewed as `caste Hindu domination` of scheduled castes, Muslims and christians in form of India... had this to say to say about the Islamic sounding document:
1) Sris Chandra Chattopadhyaya said: ``What I hear in this (Objectives) Resolution is not the voice of the great creator of Pakistan - the Quaid-i-Azam, nor even that of the Prime Minister of Pakistan the Honorable Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan, but of the Ulema of the land.``
2) Birat Chandra Mandal declared that Jinnah had ``unequivocally said that Pakistan will be a secular state.``
3) Bhupendra Kumar Datta went a step further: ...were this resolution to come before this house within the life-time of the Great Creator of Pakistan, the Quaid-i-Azam, it would not have come in its present shape....``
Ofcourse as we all know that the passage of this resolution, which is much more liberal sounding than the latter ordinances of Zia, became the basis of the resignation of Jogindranath Mandal, the first Law Minister of Pakistan...
But these are facts which both the Mullahs in Pakistan and the Hindu fanatics in India suppress. They don`t want Pakistan to be a progressive secular state... that would prove their propaganda wrong.
I believe this should suffice to show that Pakistan was intended for all faiths and religions and not just Muslims, even if Muslims became the vehicles of the creation of such a state as they did in Turkey which is the true precedent for Pakistan.
Was Jinnah Responsible for DIRECT action Day Killings:
4 Questions to the self proclaimed Gods:
1) If Jinnah was responsible for Direct Action Day killings, why hasn`t any credible accused him of such? Even the authors of the `freedom at Midnight` make a scape goat out of Suhrawardy.. and I am sure if Sigalph is reading this, he will have something to say about this.
2) Jinnah issued this call for civil disobedience in New Dehli. How come violence didn`t break out all over Punjab, and UP and other Muslim League strong holds? Why did violence break out in a Hindu Majority city? Were Muslims so honorable and brave to give the Hindus a fighting chance and start trouble in the one place where Hindus were a majority?
3)Why is it that the death toll of Muslims was twice as many as Hindu death toll. This is confirmed by any reports that you wish to bring up provided your source isn`t a revisionist columbist 40 odd years later or `Hey Ram` the Movie.
4) If Direct Action Day was such a `sectarian` move, why did most of the Congress and Pro-Congress Newspapers hail it as a masterly `anti-Imperialist` move congratulating Muslim League for giving up its constitutional ways and means?
But I doubt you will be able to answer these questions, because in order to answer these questions you will have to use your brains which will ultimately lead you to the conclusion that the History that you read in school and saw courtesy Kamal Hassan and read courtesy one Carl Posey with Amnesia is not the real History.
Jinnah vs Azad/Ghaffar
To suggest that Abu Al Kalaam Azaad or A G Khan were moral or intellectual superiors of Jinnah is not only sad but stupid. Yet you have the right to your own stupid little beliefs. When A G Khan was busy goat herding and A K Azaad was busy reciting Arabic in a Madrassah and giving fatwas that all Muslims should migrate from India, Jinnah was busy penning the Lucknow Pact, the only pact in the history of the subcontinent which for a brief moment made Hindu Muslim Unity a tangible reality. When A G Khan was a little known tribal leader and when Azad was busy pointing out the nuances of Islamic law, Bulbal-i-Hind, Srojini Naidu was writing books and poems about the `Best Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity` M.A.Jinnah.
The fact is that the `tussle` happened, but not only 100 Million Muslims but many scheduled caste Hindus (As is evident in the works of B R Ambedkar, MC Rajah, and Jogindranath Mandal, Pakistan`s first law minister) and christians came to revere Jinnah as their one and only leader in the 1940s. As for Azaad, he did become a token Muslim of the Congress, and A G Khan, well first he accepted Pakistan, then he played the ethnic pushtun card... which in any event is worse than any communal card. Today the combined legacy of A G Khan and Azad, though unwittingly, is Pushtun Nationalism, and the religious seminaries both in Pakistan and India... the Imam Bukharis of India, and the Qazi Hussain Ahmeds of Pakistan. Jinnah, unlike Gandhi, Nehru and Patel, was an elected member of various legislative assemblies of India from 1910-1939 and he resigned atleast 4 times only to be elected again... and atleast twice he resigned in support of your Gandhiji despite being his political opponent.
If power was what Jinnah wanted... Jinnah could have gotten it many times... and he and he alone was offered Positions as Governor of various states. I don`t want you to respect Jinnah, but 55 years after the man`s death, if you are going to accuse him of something that not even his staunchest opponents accused him of, then all I can say is that you are a pathetic case. I just hope you are not saying that.
BR Ambedkar says in his book Pakistan or Partition of India published ` There is no politician in India today who deserves the title of incorruptible more than Mr. M A Jinnah` ... and power is achieved for reasons right? How many palaces did M.A.Jinnah or his relatives make in Pakistan? None. So what good that `power` do him that he got after 41 years long political career at the twilight of his life? He worked day and night ... which accelerated his illness and killed him. Surely Jinnah could have just accepted the Governorship of one of the provinces in 1931 and then would certainly have become the first Asian Viceroy of India, as many in the British Empire had predicted as early as 1918.
JINNAH`S WARNING AGAINST THE BLASPHEMY LAW:
When Section 295-A was discussed in the Central Assembly, Jinnah sounded a warning: ``I thoroughly endorse the principle, that while this measure
should aim at those undesirable persons who indulge in wanton vilification or attack upon the religion of any particular class or upon the founders and prophets of a religion, we must also secure this very important and fundamental principle that those who are engaged in historical works, those who are engaged in bona fide and honest criticisms of a religion, shall be protected.`` (emphasis added, throughout).
Indian Authors on Jinnah:
If you want to read good accademically Honest Indian Books about Jinnah, written from a uniquely Indian perspective read:
1) Secular and Nationalist Jinnah, by Dr. Ajeet Javed of JNU.
2) Quaid-i-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah and the creation of Pakistan by Sailesh Kumar Bandopadhaya.
3)Jinnah : Man of Destiny by Prakash Almeida. Delhi, Kalpaz, 2001,
Taking on the Mullahs and Indian fanatics at the same time:
ONE speeech HUH?
Jinnah, Minorities and Democracy:
The statements that Are not repeated that often:
14 th July 1947:
Minorities to which ever community they might belong will be safeguarded. They will be in all respects the citizens of Pakistan without any distinction of caste or creed.
(New Dehli Press Conference)
Note: Here I am skipping the May and August statements for they are already repeated too many times and are the clear indications of Pakistan`s future as a secular democracy. They`ve been quoted elsewhere.
25th October 1947:
Minorities DO NOT cease to be citizens. Minorities living in Pakistan or Hindustan do not cease to be citizens of their respective states by virtue of their belonging to particular faith, religion or race. I have repeatedly made it clear, especially in my opening speech to the constituent Assembley, that the minorities in Pakistan would be treated as our citizens and will enjoy all the rights as any other community. Pakistan SHALL pursue this policy and do all it can to create a sense of security and confidence in the Non-Muslim minorities of Pakistan. We do not prescribe any school boy tests for their loyalty. We shall not say to any Hindu citizen of Pakistan `if there was war would you shoot a Hindu?`
(Quaid e Azam`s interview with Reuters` Duncan Hooper note: not to be confused with his interview with Reuters` Doon Campbell which has been quoted in detail else where).
30th October 1947:
The tenets of Islam enjoin on every Musalman to give protection to his neighbours and to the Minorities regardless of caste and creed. We must make it a matter of our honor and prestige to create sense of security amongst them.
(To a Mass Rally at University Stadium Lahore)
Same Day (On Radio Pakistan):
Protection of Minorities is a sacred undertaking. (On Partition Massacres) Humanity cries out loud against this shameful conduct and deeds. The civilized world is looking upon these doings and happenings with horror and the fair name of the communities concerned stands blackened. Put an end to this ruthlessly and with an Iron hand.
17th December 1947:
I cannot in good conscience continue to be the president of a self avowedly communal organization and the Governor General of Pakistan at the same time.
( Last meeting of the All India Muslim league before it split into PML and IML)
9th January 1948:
Muslims! Protect your Hindu Neighbours. Cooperate with the Government and the officials in protecting your Hindu Neighbours against these lawless elements, fifth columnists and cliques (reference to Mullahs-ylh`s note). Pakistan must be governed through the properly constituted Government and not by cliques or fifth columnists or Mobs.
(Tour of Riot affected areas of Karachi)
25th January 1948:
I would like to tell those who are misled by propaganda that not only the Muslims but Non Muslims have nothing to fear. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. Islam has taught Equality, Justice and fairplay to everybody. What reason is there for anyone to fear Democracy, equality, freedom on the highest sense of integrity and on the basis of fairplay and justice for everyone. Let us make the constitution of Pakistan. We will make it and we will show it to the world.
(Address to the Karachi Bar association on the occasion of Eid Milad un Nabi)
3rd February 1948:
I assure you Pakistan means to stand by its oft repeated promises of according equal rights to all its nationals irrespective of their caste or creed. Pakistan which symbolizes the aspirations of a nation that found it self to be a minority in the Indian subcontinent cannot be UNMINDFUL of minorities within its own borders. It is a pity that the fairname of Karachi was sullied by the sudden outburst of communal frenzy last month and I can`t find words strong enough to condemn the action of those who are responsible.
(Address to the Parsi Community of Sindh)
Note: The Feb Statements about `PAKISTAN not being a theocracy` have been repeated elsewhere... They were addressed to the People of America and People of Australia. I don`t wish to repeat them at this time because then Bigots both our own and foreign declare that YLH only repeats one speech.
21st March 1948:
Let me take this opportunity of repeating what I have already said : We shall treat the minorities in Pakistan fairly and justly. We shall maintain peace, law and order and protect and safeguard every citizen of Pakistan without any distinction of caste, creed or community.
(Mass Rally at Dacca)
22nd March 1948:
We guarantee equal rights to all citizens of Pakistan. Hindus should in spirit and action wholeheartedly co-operate with the Government and its various branches as Pakistanis.
(Meeting with Hindu Legislators)
23rd March 1948:
We stand by our declarations that members of every community will be treated as citizens of Pakistan with equal rights and previleges and obligations and that Minorities will be safeguarded and protected.
(Meeting with the `Scheduled Caste Federation`)
13 June 1948:
Although you have not struck the note of your needs and requirements as a community but it is the policy of my Government and myself that every member of every community irrespective of caste color, creed or race shall be fully protected with regard to his life, property and honor. I reiterate to you that you like all minorities will be treated as equal citizens with your rights and obligations provided you are loyal to Pakistan.
(Speaking to Quetta Parsis)
Count these statements (and believe me there are more but my head is hurting so I know I have done a patchy job with them since I copied them out of Jinnah papers) and then add 10 others that I have ommitted because I have repeated them so many times ...
So Bigots... what do you say? Still 1 speech? huh?
(Dissent should celebrated)
ROAD LESS TRAVELED
Two roads diverged in a yellow wood
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth
Then took the other as just as fair
And having perhaps the better claim
Because it was grassy and wanted wear
Though as for that, the passing there
Had worn them really about the same
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet, knowing how way leads onto way
I doubted if I should ever come back
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence
Two roads diverged in a wood
And I took the one less traveled by
And that has made all the difference
ylh: There is nothing in the abovementioned that Indians could counter or challenge. Thats why they took to hurtful and bigoted statements. Keep up the Good work. Keep your chin up. And the Bin Ladens and Mahesh G of the World will disappear.
sincerely
Aisha
YLH`S POINTS
THE FIRST LAW MINISTER OF MUSLIM PAKISTAN
It is clear that if Pakistan was expected to be an islamic state, Jinnah would have appointed an islamic jurist as the first law minister of Pakistan, but instead he appointed a Hindu. It shows clearly that he wanted a secular state.
The Jogindranath Mandal Saga:
1) Jinnah appointed Jogindranath Mandal, a scheduled caste Hindu, on a Muslim League seat out of 5 Muslim League seats in his own place, in the Interim Cabinet of 1946-47 to emphasize that Pakistan demand or his own struggle were not only for Muslims.
2) Before the election of the President of the constituent assembey of Pakistan on 11th August 1947, the question arose as to who was going to be the first `acting` President of Pakistan`s constituent assembley? Again, Jinnah chose Jogindranath Mandal, a scheduled caste Hindu, to be the president of Pakistan`s highest legislative body indicating clearly that Pakistan would be a secular state.
3) In a `theoretical` Islamic state the major preoccupation of the state is law and `Islamic` law to be exact. Then did Jinnah appoint an Islamic jurist as Pakistan`s first Law Minister then? NO. Jinnah appointed the same Scheduled Caste Hindu `Jogindranath Mandal` as the first law minister of Pakistan.
4) Jogindranath Mandal left Pakistan after Jinnah`s death and Liaqat`s death because he saw that Pakistan was moving away from its original goals of a secular state for all faiths who had previously fought to escape Hindu caste domination.
a) Jinnah`s Pakistan demand was inclusive and secular even if Muslim Minority was the constituency for this demand.
b) Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be a secular state but his lieutenants lacked his charisma and succumbed to chamberlainism when confronted with the Mullahs after Jinnah`s death. That is why Pakistan gradually moved towards a theocracy becoming exactly that under Zia ul Haq.
JINNAH`S LOGIC IN A PARAGRAPH:
The Principle is simple: Can a ethnic, religious or political group fighting for their rights and their safeguards, after having achieved their goal then turn around and infringe on the rights of other such groups? The answer is simple : No. That is why Jinnah, after creating Pakistan by championing the rights of Muslim Minority, wanted Pakistan to be completely secular so that the Minority turned Majority Muslims would not infringe upon the rights of the Non Muslim Minorities of PAKISTAN.
JINNAH`S CAREER AS THE CHAMPION OF MINORITY RIGHTS:
Jinnah wanted to escape what he viewed as Majority Caste Hindu Domination of various minorities including Muslims and scheduled castes . The significant Muslim Minority, which also was his constituency, became the vehicle of this struggle. From 1906-1927 he tried to bring Muslims and Hindus together in the struggle against the British, but the advantages of the famous Lucknow pact 1916, the only time there was for brief Moment Hindu Muslim Unity achieved. From 1927-1939 he tried to acquire safeguards for a Muslim Minority in a Hindu Majority and thus championed the rights of Minorities. From 1940-1947 he campaigned for an Independent state formed out of Muslim Majority areas of the British Indian Empire. So after having won his case for the Rights for the Muslims, M.A.Jinnah, the champion of minority rights turned his attention towards the betterment of Pakistan`s minorities ie Hindus christians etc.
PAKISTAN MOVEMENT INCLUDED CHRISTIANS, SCHEDULED CASTES AND ALL GROUPS OPPOSING MAJORITARIAN HINDU TYRANNY:
On 22nd December 1939 (if I am not mistaken) Jinnah called for the `Day of Deliverance` which was translated as `Yaum-Nijaat` for the masses. That day many disparate groups celebrated the day of deliverance by having rallies and processions and moots. In these groups were Scheduled Caste Hindus and Dalits, Buddhists, Tamils, more than a few christian Parties, possibly Communist Party of India, and ofcourse the Muslim League.
This prompted Gandhiji to say in one of the Congress newspapers (something to the effect of): I see that the Old ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity has not disappeared but has re-invented himself... now I have come to understand for Brother Jinnah is trying to do. He is organizing the `anti-Congress` against the Congress which in the long term is good for India`s nationalist Politics.
Gandhi might have been wrong about the principle since Jinnah`s focus was minority safeguards and not `two party Politics`, but he was right in so far as the fact that all the Minorities had rallied and endorsed the Muslim League agenda as means to escape what they feared to be the `Caste Hindu Domination`.
We know quite well by now, as I have pointed out from facts and history unlike my frustrated opponents on this site, that the Pakistan demand was endorsed by variety of religious, ideological and ethnic groups and personalities good or bad... the Pakistan demand was endorsed by B R Ambedkar (the first Law Minister of India, and Dalit leader, for further elaboration read his book `Pakistan or Partition of India` and `Gandhi and Gandhiism`), the scheduled Caste federation, multiple christian parties, the Communist Party of India (to Jinnah`s displeasure apparently), ofcourse Jogindranath Mandal`s party, M C Rajah and his followers, a few tamil organizations etc.
Now let us compare to this the groups opposing Pakistan : Congress was the only pseudo (due to abundance of Mahatmas, Pandits and Maulanas) secular party opposing the Pakistan demand. Other parties included Hindu mahasabha, which was rabidly communal, several other Hindu fundamentalist organization, several Islamic fundamentalist organizations such as `Jamiat e Ulema Hind` , Deobandi Conference, Majlis e Ahrar and Jamaat e Islami... and three out of those four Islamic fundamentalist parties were in direct alliance with the Congress Party.
Again, this should be proof enough for the secular nature of the PAKISTAN Demand but I doubt that a person like yourself can bring yourself to accept the truth. So was Jinnah fighting exclusively for Muslims? This extremely stupid and outrageously untrue statement is made by two separate groups of people ... first is Indian Bigots and second their Pakistani counterparts the Mullahs..
Jinnah once said `I have pleaded more for the scheduled castes than the Muslims`.
JINNAH: A LEADER FOR ALL PEOPLE
Hindu Depressed Classes Leader MC Rajah On Jinnah:
M C Rajah, Hindu Leader of the depressed classes,
``All religions hold that God sends suitable people into the world to work out his plans from time to time and at critical junctures. I regard Mr Jinnah as the man who has been called upon to correct the wrong ways in which the people of India have been led by the leadership of Mr Gandhi. Congress took a wrong turn when it adopted wholesale the non cooperation programme of Mr Gandhi and assumed an attitude of open hostility towards Britain and tried to infusew the minds of people a spirit of defiance of law and civil disobedience more of less thinly veiled under a formula of truth and non violence. Moreover by Mahatmafying Mr Gandhi it appealed to the idolatorous sperstition of the Hindus, thus converting the religious adherence of the Hindu section of the population to the Mahatma into political support of his non cooperation movement.While this strategy was of some avail in hustling the British Government to yield more and more it divided the people into Hindu and non hindu sectionsIn these circumstances a man was needed to stand up to congress and tell its leaders that their organization however powerful numerically and financially doesnot represent the whole of India. I admire Mr Jinnah and feel grateful to him because in advocating the cause of the Muslims he is championing the cause of all the classes that are in danger of bein crushed under the steam roller of the caste Hindu majority, acting under the inspiration and orders of Mr Gandhi ``
(25th December 1940, 9 months After the Pakistan Resolution)
C R Vedi, chancellor of Andhra University :
`M.A.Jinnah is the pride of India and Not just the possession of the Muslims`
A Hindu Professor Dutta of Forman Christian College:
`I fully endorse the demand for Pakistan which based on the principles of Equality, fraternity and Justice for all as espoused by Islam. What have we hindus to fear in such a Pakistan.`
JINNAH WANTED A SECULAR STATE: PAKISTANI HINDUS
After Objectives Resolution was passed in 1949 (and mind you objectives resolution is a very egalitarian and progressive resolution with obscure references to Islam) Quaid e Azam`s Hindu colleagues in the Pakistani legislature who had endorsed Pakistan as a means against what they viewed as `caste Hindu domination` of scheduled castes, Muslims and christians in form of India... had this to say to say about the Islamic sounding document:
1) Sris Chandra Chattopadhyaya said: ``What I hear in this (Objectives) Resolution is not the voice of the great creator of Pakistan - the Quaid-i-Azam, nor even that of the Prime Minister of Pakistan the Honorable Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan, but of the Ulema of the land.``
2) Birat Chandra Mandal declared that Jinnah had ``unequivocally said that Pakistan will be a secular state.``
3) Bhupendra Kumar Datta went a step further: ...were this resolution to come before this house within the life-time of the Great Creator of Pakistan, the Quaid-i-Azam, it would not have come in its present shape....``
Ofcourse as we all know that the passage of this resolution, which is much more liberal sounding than the latter ordinances of Zia, became the basis of the resignation of Jogindranath Mandal, the first Law Minister of Pakistan...
But these are facts which both the Mullahs in Pakistan and the Hindu fanatics in India suppress. They don`t want Pakistan to be a progressive secular state... that would prove their propaganda wrong.
I believe this should suffice to show that Pakistan was intended for all faiths and religions and not just Muslims, even if Muslims became the vehicles of the creation of such a state as they did in Turkey which is the true precedent for Pakistan.
Was Jinnah Responsible for DIRECT action Day Killings:
4 Questions to the self proclaimed Gods:
1) If Jinnah was responsible for Direct Action Day killings, why hasn`t any credible accused him of such? Even the authors of the `freedom at Midnight` make a scape goat out of Suhrawardy.. and I am sure if Sigalph is reading this, he will have something to say about this.
2) Jinnah issued this call for civil disobedience in New Dehli. How come violence didn`t break out all over Punjab, and UP and other Muslim League strong holds? Why did violence break out in a Hindu Majority city? Were Muslims so honorable and brave to give the Hindus a fighting chance and start trouble in the one place where Hindus were a majority?
3)Why is it that the death toll of Muslims was twice as many as Hindu death toll. This is confirmed by any reports that you wish to bring up provided your source isn`t a revisionist columbist 40 odd years later or `Hey Ram` the Movie.
4) If Direct Action Day was such a `sectarian` move, why did most of the Congress and Pro-Congress Newspapers hail it as a masterly `anti-Imperialist` move congratulating Muslim League for giving up its constitutional ways and means?
But I doubt you will be able to answer these questions, because in order to answer these questions you will have to use your brains which will ultimately lead you to the conclusion that the History that you read in school and saw courtesy Kamal Hassan and read courtesy one Carl Posey with Amnesia is not the real History.
Jinnah vs Azad/Ghaffar
To suggest that Abu Al Kalaam Azaad or A G Khan were moral or intellectual superiors of Jinnah is not only sad but stupid. Yet you have the right to your own stupid little beliefs. When A G Khan was busy goat herding and A K Azaad was busy reciting Arabic in a Madrassah and giving fatwas that all Muslims should migrate from India, Jinnah was busy penning the Lucknow Pact, the only pact in the history of the subcontinent which for a brief moment made Hindu Muslim Unity a tangible reality. When A G Khan was a little known tribal leader and when Azad was busy pointing out the nuances of Islamic law, Bulbal-i-Hind, Srojini Naidu was writing books and poems about the `Best Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity` M.A.Jinnah.
The fact is that the `tussle` happened, but not only 100 Million Muslims but many scheduled caste Hindus (As is evident in the works of B R Ambedkar, MC Rajah, and Jogindranath Mandal, Pakistan`s first law minister) and christians came to revere Jinnah as their one and only leader in the 1940s. As for Azaad, he did become a token Muslim of the Congress, and A G Khan, well first he accepted Pakistan, then he played the ethnic pushtun card... which in any event is worse than any communal card. Today the combined legacy of A G Khan and Azad, though unwittingly, is Pushtun Nationalism, and the religious seminaries both in Pakistan and India... the Imam Bukharis of India, and the Qazi Hussain Ahmeds of Pakistan. Jinnah, unlike Gandhi, Nehru and Patel, was an elected member of various legislative assemblies of India from 1910-1939 and he resigned atleast 4 times only to be elected again... and atleast twice he resigned in support of your Gandhiji despite being his political opponent.
If power was what Jinnah wanted... Jinnah could have gotten it many times... and he and he alone was offered Positions as Governor of various states. I don`t want you to respect Jinnah, but 55 years after the man`s death, if you are going to accuse him of something that not even his staunchest opponents accused him of, then all I can say is that you are a pathetic case. I just hope you are not saying that.
BR Ambedkar says in his book Pakistan or Partition of India published ` There is no politician in India today who deserves the title of incorruptible more than Mr. M A Jinnah` ... and power is achieved for reasons right? How many palaces did M.A.Jinnah or his relatives make in Pakistan? None. So what good that `power` do him that he got after 41 years long political career at the twilight of his life? He worked day and night ... which accelerated his illness and killed him. Surely Jinnah could have just accepted the Governorship of one of the provinces in 1931 and then would certainly have become the first Asian Viceroy of India, as many in the British Empire had predicted as early as 1918.
JINNAH`S WARNING AGAINST THE BLASPHEMY LAW:
When Section 295-A was discussed in the Central Assembly, Jinnah sounded a warning: ``I thoroughly endorse the principle, that while this measure
should aim at those undesirable persons who indulge in wanton vilification or attack upon the religion of any particular class or upon the founders and prophets of a religion, we must also secure this very important and fundamental principle that those who are engaged in historical works, those who are engaged in bona fide and honest criticisms of a religion, shall be protected.`` (emphasis added, throughout).
Indian Authors on Jinnah:
If you want to read good accademically Honest Indian Books about Jinnah, written from a uniquely Indian perspective read:
1) Secular and Nationalist Jinnah, by Dr. Ajeet Javed of JNU.
2) Quaid-i-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah and the creation of Pakistan by Sailesh Kumar Bandopadhaya.
3)Jinnah : Man of Destiny by Prakash Almeida. Delhi, Kalpaz, 2001,
Taking on the Mullahs and Indian fanatics at the same time:
ONE speeech HUH?
Jinnah, Minorities and Democracy:
The statements that Are not repeated that often:
14 th July 1947:
Minorities to which ever community they might belong will be safeguarded. They will be in all respects the citizens of Pakistan without any distinction of caste or creed.
(New Dehli Press Conference)
Note: Here I am skipping the May and August statements for they are already repeated too many times and are the clear indications of Pakistan`s future as a secular democracy. They`ve been quoted elsewhere.
25th October 1947:
Minorities DO NOT cease to be citizens. Minorities living in Pakistan or Hindustan do not cease to be citizens of their respective states by virtue of their belonging to particular faith, religion or race. I have repeatedly made it clear, especially in my opening speech to the constituent Assembley, that the minorities in Pakistan would be treated as our citizens and will enjoy all the rights as any other community. Pakistan SHALL pursue this policy and do all it can to create a sense of security and confidence in the Non-Muslim minorities of Pakistan. We do not prescribe any school boy tests for their loyalty. We shall not say to any Hindu citizen of Pakistan `if there was war would you shoot a Hindu?`
(Quaid e Azam`s interview with Reuters` Duncan Hooper note: not to be confused with his interview with Reuters` Doon Campbell which has been quoted in detail else where).
30th October 1947:
The tenets of Islam enjoin on every Musalman to give protection to his neighbours and to the Minorities regardless of caste and creed. We must make it a matter of our honor and prestige to create sense of security amongst them.
(To a Mass Rally at University Stadium Lahore)
Same Day (On Radio Pakistan):
Protection of Minorities is a sacred undertaking. (On Partition Massacres) Humanity cries out loud against this shameful conduct and deeds. The civilized world is looking upon these doings and happenings with horror and the fair name of the communities concerned stands blackened. Put an end to this ruthlessly and with an Iron hand.
17th December 1947:
I cannot in good conscience continue to be the president of a self avowedly communal organization and the Governor General of Pakistan at the same time.
( Last meeting of the All India Muslim league before it split into PML and IML)
9th January 1948:
Muslims! Protect your Hindu Neighbours. Cooperate with the Government and the officials in protecting your Hindu Neighbours against these lawless elements, fifth columnists and cliques (reference to Mullahs-ylh`s note). Pakistan must be governed through the properly constituted Government and not by cliques or fifth columnists or Mobs.
(Tour of Riot affected areas of Karachi)
25th January 1948:
I would like to tell those who are misled by propaganda that not only the Muslims but Non Muslims have nothing to fear. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. Islam has taught Equality, Justice and fairplay to everybody. What reason is there for anyone to fear Democracy, equality, freedom on the highest sense of integrity and on the basis of fairplay and justice for everyone. Let us make the constitution of Pakistan. We will make it and we will show it to the world.
(Address to the Karachi Bar association on the occasion of Eid Milad un Nabi)
3rd February 1948:
I assure you Pakistan means to stand by its oft repeated promises of according equal rights to all its nationals irrespective of their caste or creed. Pakistan which symbolizes the aspirations of a nation that found it self to be a minority in the Indian subcontinent cannot be UNMINDFUL of minorities within its own borders. It is a pity that the fairname of Karachi was sullied by the sudden outburst of communal frenzy last month and I can`t find words strong enough to condemn the action of those who are responsible.
(Address to the Parsi Community of Sindh)
Note: The Feb Statements about `PAKISTAN not being a theocracy` have been repeated elsewhere... They were addressed to the People of America and People of Australia. I don`t wish to repeat them at this time because then Bigots both our own and foreign declare that YLH only repeats one speech.
21st March 1948:
Let me take this opportunity of repeating what I have already said : We shall treat the minorities in Pakistan fairly and justly. We shall maintain peace, law and order and protect and safeguard every citizen of Pakistan without any distinction of caste, creed or community.
(Mass Rally at Dacca)
22nd March 1948:
We guarantee equal rights to all citizens of Pakistan. Hindus should in spirit and action wholeheartedly co-operate with the Government and its various branches as Pakistanis.
(Meeting with Hindu Legislators)
23rd March 1948:
We stand by our declarations that members of every community will be treated as citizens of Pakistan with equal rights and previleges and obligations and that Minorities will be safeguarded and protected.
(Meeting with the `Scheduled Caste Federation`)
13 June 1948:
Although you have not struck the note of your needs and requirements as a community but it is the policy of my Government and myself that every member of every community irrespective of caste color, creed or race shall be fully protected with regard to his life, property and honor. I reiterate to you that you like all minorities will be treated as equal citizens with your rights and obligations provided you are loyal to Pakistan.
(Speaking to Quetta Parsis)
Count these statements (and believe me there are more but my head is hurting so I know I have done a patchy job with them since I copied them out of Jinnah papers) and then add 10 others that I have ommitted because I have repeated them so many times ...
So Bigots... what do you say? Still 1 speech? huh?
(Dissent should celebrated)
ROAD LESS TRAVELED
Two roads diverged in a yellow wood
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth
Then took the other as just as fair
And having perhaps the better claim
Because it was grassy and wanted wear
Though as for that, the passing there
Had worn them really about the same
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet, knowing how way leads onto way
I doubted if I should ever come back
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence
Two roads diverged in a wood
And I took the one less traveled by
And that has made all the difference
ylh: There is nothing in the abovementioned that Indians could counter or challenge. Thats why they took to hurtful and bigoted statements. Keep up the Good work. Keep your chin up. And the Bin Ladens and Mahesh G of the World will disappear.
sincerely
Aisha
#377 Posted by ylh on January 30, 2002 7:06:40 pm
Shammi,
Also pick up the 21st-28th Jan issue of Newsweek and see for yourself how many Musharraf says he will make Pakistan secular.
He is clearly appeasing the fundoos in this speech. Ataturk, Musharraf`s hero, once declared `Khilafat is what we are fighting for and Khilafat is our Goal` when speaking to the Mullahs. So we know the result of this don`t we?
MaheshG
``He is hypersensitive and that makes him stupid. If you see he hogs 40% of all message space. He can`t make his point and bad mouths everybody who disagrees with him. I have to call a spade a spade.``
I have used up so much space because there was so much evidence. I have made my point rather clearly and with good evidence and good sources. You say I am bad mouthing and I can`t make my point... Have some shame. Your entire argument is based on `Jinnah was an Idiot` and `Jinnah is the devil`.. where as I have presented quotes and History which as with your other Indian pals you have been unable to refute. Is there no shame left?
My point has been well made.
1) I have shown by Jinnah`s speeches, his actions and his life that Pakistan was to be an all inclusive secular state.
2) I have shown that Pakistan demand was well endorsed by many Non Muslim political groups and leaders.
3) Unlike you I haven`t called anyone an `idiot` or the `devil`. Ossama Bin Laden and you on the other hand seem to be long lost twins.
Yes I have hogged 40% of the board, but unlike you, it is not defaecation, but every single post is a balanced and logical proof of the stated objective: Jinnah wanted a secular Pakistan.
You on the other hand have used up much less of the space, but what little you have used has been a complete waste of Bit space for chowk except that you have shown what a bigoted and fanatical nation you belong to and what a closed and narrowminded individual you yourself are.
#376 Posted by ylh on January 30, 2002 7:06:40 pm
The Many Faces of Bigotry:
Mahesh G`s latest response personifies Indians and their hatred for PAKISTAN and Jinnah. Mahesh G, much in Ossama bin Laden fashion, has chosen to play God and declare who is the `great satan`. Nothing new for Bigots... when you lose out in argument... start throwing in stupid insults with no root in reality. I mean man... change Jinnah`s name with the US ... and you might as well be in a madrassah or at anti-US Islamist rally.
``YLH, you painted a very contrived picture of Jinnah. If you want I can paint you a picture of the devil where he is kindness personified``
So whats new... your counterparts in Pakistan call Jinnah `Kafir e Azam` and you call him devil. Doesn`t make him so.
``How about the following scenario? Don`t you think the following is much more plausible. Jinnah was a power hungry politician.``
Well again, that might be your opinion but all of Jinnah`s contemporaries, including Gandhi, Nehru, B R Ambedkar and Patel call Jinnah `incorruptible, selfless and honest`. Furthermore it is already clearly shown that if power was what Jinnah wanted ... he could have gotten it many times before. Jinnah was offered the Governorship of various provinces many times. He was offered knighthood in 1918, he was offered the Prime Ministership of India... but like Gandhi said : `Jinnah is incorruptible and brave` and so he was.
``First he tried to share power projecting himself as a secular leader. When that didn`t help he resorted to communalism. That is easily explained by the death of half a million people because of his insistence on partitioning India.``
It was not just Jinnah`s insistence but the insistence of the people who gave League the electoral success... In any event, is this the way a Hindu bigot from Modern India has chosen to
hide the crimes of his ancestors ? The Partition massacres have only ONE reason. Intolerance of Hindus and Sikhs to the Pakistan demand. They were unable to reconcile themselves to the fact that Pakistan was created and started massacring Muslims provoking a similar response from their counterparts in Pakistan. To hold Jinnah responsible for partition massacres is like saying that the world trade center disaster was because of US`s foreign Policy and thus those people deserved to die.
``You can scream all you want, but you will never be able to explain how at 1947 Pakistan started out with 10% minorities and has reduced them to 2% in 1990.``
Bangladesh today has more 15 % minorities. Add Pakistan and Bangladesh together and you will see that Both countries still have more than 10% minorities jointly. So whats you point.
``I am sorry that Pakistan has been spawned by the devil himself. But that can`t be an excuse to post zillions of posts that go nowhere.``
Typical. Have no argument. No facts. No figures. No logic. The enemy is the DEVIL... For Ossama Bin Laden United States is the `Great Satan` ... for a Bigot like yourself: Jinnah is devil.
The fact is that you, Mahesh G, have no argument. You have lost the war of facts and other than a measly `Jinnah created Pakistan and people died in partition exodus` you have no basis for your horribly inaccurate and bigoted claims.
Now believe me I can respond by completely destroying Gandhi ji and his legacy and that too by QUOTING out of Gandhi`s own works unlike you whose entire vision is based on his own petty biases... but I will not... because I am not going to stoop down to your bigotry.
There are many Indians who appreciate Jinnah and his vision... the book `Secular And Nationalist Jinnah` after all was not written by a Pakistani but an Indian.
-YLH
#375 Posted by tvarad on January 30, 2002 7:06:40 pm
RE: Reply #: 379 sarwari
``As opposed to? Do you mean Indian women? Like the ones constantly obsessed with make up, shoes and holi? I`ve met some dumb Indian women in my time here in San Jose, but I will reserve my judgement on an entire people.``
Oh yes, I forgot. They should have put on burqas, produced a dozen babies, come on television and said how proud they were that their children flew planes into buildings or got blown to bits in Afghanistan in the name of Jihad. Like Muslim women all the way from Egypt to Pakistan are doing, right?
I am glad that India women were worrying about their makeup than about their loved ones being pulverized by daisy cutters in Afghanistan.
``As opposed to? Do you mean Indian women? Like the ones constantly obsessed with make up, shoes and holi? I`ve met some dumb Indian women in my time here in San Jose, but I will reserve my judgement on an entire people.``
Oh yes, I forgot. They should have put on burqas, produced a dozen babies, come on television and said how proud they were that their children flew planes into buildings or got blown to bits in Afghanistan in the name of Jihad. Like Muslim women all the way from Egypt to Pakistan are doing, right?
I am glad that India women were worrying about their makeup than about their loved ones being pulverized by daisy cutters in Afghanistan.
#374 Posted by tvarad on January 30, 2002 7:06:40 pm
RE: Reply #: 376 ylh
``PS tvarad, I am waiting for you to bring me the UN resolutions calling for the right of self determination of NWFP, not that it had anything to do with the argument ... as per my last post. Hope you will read it.``
I`ll provide it to you just as soon as Pakistan vacates POK as per the UN resolutions.
``PS tvarad, I am waiting for you to bring me the UN resolutions calling for the right of self determination of NWFP, not that it had anything to do with the argument ... as per my last post. Hope you will read it.``
I`ll provide it to you just as soon as Pakistan vacates POK as per the UN resolutions.