Is Thackeray a Terrorist?

Interesting.... terrorists of the past are leaders of the future.....





Advani on Pakistani list of wanted criminals

FIR says he plotted to kill Quaid-e-Azam in 1947

By Akhgar Anwar Awan



KARACHI: The possible list of wanted criminals, which Pakistan wants India to hand it over, also includes Indian Home Minister Lal Krishna Advani as he is wanted in a case to assassinate Quaid-e-Azam in 1947, sources divulged to The News.

Advani, a hawk on Kashmir and a rabid anti-Pakistani politician, has been a proclaimed offender in the case eversince its registration, the sources said. The case is based on the FIR number 4/47 that was registered on September 10, 1947 by the then SHO PS Jamshed Quarters Inspector Tooti Ram against 18 accused. They were charged with hatching a criminal conspiracy to assassinate the then governor-general Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan, Khawaja Nazimuddin and other top-line leaders of Pakistan Movement. The police, however, could arrest only six of them, while the remaining 12 accused, including L K Advani and some leaders of Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), absconded.

The arrested accused, Khem Chand s/o Gopal Das, Nand Ram s/o Gobind Ram, Gobind s/o Lal Singh, Hargobind s/o Ghando Mal, Santo s/o Ghando Mal and Tayken Das s/o Jairam were sent up for trial and were convicted by the trial court in this case. They were awarded different penalties by the court.

The case against the remaining 12 accused (absconders) was placed on dormant file till the time of their arrest. In the meantime an agreement was reached between India and Pakistan under which the six convicts were extradited to India on September 19, 1948.

The said case is still pending on dormant file against LK Advani and some leaders of VHP and, according to sources, the Pakistan government may demand of the Indian government to hand over to it these accused.

Dear Ms Sarwari:

You write:

``I don`t know much about Azad except that he was a religious leader, nor do I know much of Ghaffar Khan except that he was a pro-Congress Leader,``

Don`t worry -- for a Pakistani lady -- you know a lot:)

ok ok -- just kidding.

Layman writes:

``I also wish that India retains its pluralistic and secular character. The VHP/Bajrang Dal/Shiv Sena types need to be shown their place. They are negative forces, motivated by hate.

Babri Masjid must be re-built and the masjid breakers punished, if we are to be a country governed by the rule of law.``(Layman)

Now -- that is one the clearest statements -- with no ifs and buts -- I have ever read from an Indian Hindu about the communal state of affairs in India.

Layman is 100% right -- India must have RULE OF LAW.

The first step in that direction will be to FIRE that Babri Masjid criminal Advani, who personally supervised and directed the vandalizing and destruction of a historical monument -- and a place of worship of another community -- in broad day light -- televised before the audience of the world.

Advani is an EMBARRASSMENT -- a THORN on the side of a secular pluralistic, progressive India.

A LAW BREAKER – in charge of LAW & ORDER!! -- for a country of one billion LAW ABIDING people -- is a CARICATURE -- AN ANAMOLY -- of a Home Minister.

To my ``most educated`` Hindu Indian friends I say -- that if India has to CONTINUE to be a pluralistic, secular, democratic and progressive country -- they must savage and crush their VHPs, Shiv Senas, and Bajrang Dals -- just as the progressive Muslims are doing to their Islamist fundamentalist extremists -- on Chowk or outside Chowk.

For the ``most educated Hindus`` thrashing the Islamic Jihadi extremist is -- a heart warming, spirit elevating, holier than thou -- EASY exercise.

Now they should increase the level of DIFFICULTY for themselves, somewhat -- let` see some use of their verbal daisy cutters on THEIR OWN -- Temple Jihadis.

Kashmir is NOT a done deal yet, folks -- India MUST crush the CRIMINAL cabal of their Temple Jihadi extremists, the Shive Senas, the RSS, the Bajrang dals, the VHPs -- or LOSE Kashmir.

Can`t have both -- Period.

The ROAD to the ``GLORIES of the PAST`` -- is full of DISASTERS AND DAISY CUTTERS -- NOT ONLY -- for the ISLAMISTS REVIVALISTS -- IT`S A ROAD TO HELL -- FOR THE HINDU REVIVALIST -- AS WELL.

NO KIDDING.

Nasah,

Will you stop making stupid statements and show me what I have said which has bit you like an insect in your undies?

If calling a spade for spade, Mullah Azad the mullah that he was, is somehow non-Progressive and anti-India, then so be it. If pointing out the pro-tribal, pro-ethnic, anti-Progress and anti-Women stances of NAP and ANP the parties of Abdul Ghaffar Khan and his (western-educated) heirs is anti progressive and anti-India than so be it... Remember I didn`t call any of these gentlemen `idiot` or `bigot` as your countrymen have called the only one man who has gone down in the History of the subcontinent as the best Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity.

For the nationalist `Mullahs` at the time of the partition please refer to a famous column that Kuldip Narain wrote... or is `Kuldip Narain` also

`anti-Indian` and `anti-Progress`. I am trying to find it right now... I saved it in one of my files for future use against Indian Muslims of your disposition.

In any event, let us accept the real role of these two gentlemen Mullah Azad, and almighty pushtun A G Khan. Mullah Azad was a conservative Islamic fundamentalist (in the best sense of the word) used by the Congress Party to woo the conservative religious and traditional elements as well as rabidly fundamentalist elements amongst the Muslim Community in order to undercut the demand for Pakistan. Similarly A G Khan and his followers needed the congress party to form the government in NWFP... and atleast in that it was a symbiotic relationship.

See Mullah Azad was exactly the kind of Muslims, the Hindus were ready to tolerate... the Kind that read Quran all day, debated the Prophet`s favorite foods and how the Prophet did `wudoo, debated how many fingers Abu Hanifa had and whether Abu Hanifa ate with his left hand or right? or how sinful are Muslim women who don`t do the `purdah`, someone who was fluent in Arabic and spoke `fasih o baligh` Urdu but could not speak English and was not well versed in Modernity INTELLECTUAL INDEED. They could also tolerate the nostalgic Mughal Utopia of `Lucknow` as long as these indulgent Muslims played chess all day and attended to the harem at night. Ofcourse they could hold ceremonious positions in the Government as token Muslims but no more and the real power of the country will lie in the hands of the Hindus.

Men like Jinnah, Sir Syed, Iqbal etc were a threat. They dressed internationally, they spoke the language of the Government, they were well versed in Law and Politics.. people who could stand up for their rights... ofcourse they were a threat... that is precisely why when Mullah Azad was hired to woo the `traditionalists` there was another colossal miscalculated to think of. After all the power base of Jinnah and the league was never amongst the traditionalists... When Pakistan Movement was in its infancy... Ch.Rahmat Ali held a lavish dinner with Chiblis and the best wine at Cambridge ... a dinner attended by Indian Muslim intellectuals and politicians from all over India and the British Isles... including Jinnah, who we are told earlier scoffed at the idea of Pakistan, but was brought around to the logic of it by the great persuasion skills of Allama Iqbal. The people fighting for Pakistan had a `Muslim` identity but they were hardly bothered with theology or religious law... they believed in the separation of church and state when it came to the ruling of their proposed separate Muslim state as eloquently put in his 1930 speech by the great Allama Iqbal.. So Congress was barking up the wrong tree. The traditionalists and religious fanatics never supported Pakistan nor did they ever capture the imagination of the Muslim masses which were wedded to the leadership of what Barbara Metcalf, Sarah Heath, Lawrence Zirring and Fazlurrahman of Yale etc call `the Aligarh Modernists`

Sincerely

Yasser Latif Hamdani

tvarad,

In Jinnah`s time, the Scheduled Caste federation operated out of Dacca which was part of Pakistan then if you don`t remember. Bangladesh last time I checked still has a 15% + Hindu Population and thats after a lot of riots etc. Sigalph, if you are reading please provide the exact figures.

With that said, I admit that the Hindus which were Jinnah`s colleagues and supporters left Pakistan after Jinnah`s death and some after Liaqat`s death because of the ill treatment especially the Objectives resolution in 1949 under Liaqat`s Primeministership which they saw as a breach of faith and the promise of a secular state that Jinnah in his life time had made to them.

I am afraid, I still don`t comprehend the Indian need to somehow challenge the well accepted notion that Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be a progressive secular democracy. As is proved by all the evidence I have provided, Jinnah`s demand for Pakistan wasn`t exclusive for Muslims. But lets hypothetically suppose it was, then doesn`t that provide even more currency to the claim of secularism ... that Jinnah ultimately declared that Pakistan has to be a secular state in order to survive as a modern state?

But somehow, you Indians want to prove that any thing progressive in Pakistan is externally driven and not an inherent strength... which is the farthest thing from the truth since Pakistanis are moderates and they have always been moderates... precisely why they chose the westernized leadership of Jinnah, and the `Aligarh Modernists` instead of the Mullahs of Ahrar and Deoband who were being wooed by the Mullah in chief of the congress.. should I say who that was?

If anything it was Zia ul Haq and his policies which were externally driven. It was the US which aided and abetted that criminal Zia against Zulfikar Ali Bhutto... it was Zia who enforced the hudood laws, and instituted a outdated concept of separate electorates which had been abandoned by Pakistani leaders in 1947 for they had served their purpose. It was Zia who un did the Muslim Family Laws, that Pakistan had begun to institute as early as 1947 to curb polygamy and to ensure the equal rights of women as given to them by the Constitution of Pakistan.

So please take it in your head for a moment, that while Jinnah`s pre-partition career is important as a historical record, whether he was the best ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity or whether he was a communalist (which I have proved with credible evidence that he was not) is irrelevant to Pakistan. It is his statements outlining his vision for Pakistan which matter at that time... and all those statements are for a secular, democratic and progressive Pakistan. First of all the principle of the separation of church and state is as valid in homogenous societies (Remember secularism was actually born in homogenously christian societies of Europe) as heterogenous societies... and secondly Pakistan can hardly be seen as a Homogenous society... with 73 different sects of Islam, 7 different versions of the fiqh, 3 Million plus christians, 1 million plus Hindus, close to half a million sikhs, and a hundred thousand each for Buddhists and parsis, Pakistan can hardly afford not to be a secular state, something which Jinnah knew well and his advocacy of secularism especially after Pakistan was created was not only the true reflection of his own personal beliefs (which he could sacrifice if his followers were indeed homogenous and wanted something different), but was driven by a practical need.

-Sincerely

Yasser Latif Hamdani

Ref ylh #: 352

[Anyway more on Jinnah and his all Inclusive Demand for Pakistan:

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.]

Quite the little master of the half-truth, aren`t you, Yasser?

Jinnah demanded that Muslim League be recognized as the sole spokesman for Muslims and Congress be declared a Hindu-only party. This despite the Congress having no religious affiliation as a requirement or in its name or in its membership or in its elected leadership. After all, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was the President of the Indian National Congress. It is just that Jinnah didn`t get too far in the ranks of the Congress when it became a mass-based organization as opposed to a bunch of elitists discussing greater self-rule under a British Sovereign over after-dinner brandy and cigars.

When the Congress opposed being labelled a Hindu-only party and appointed a Nationalist Indian Muslim to a Cabinet position, Jinnah first threatened to quit the Cabinet demanding that ALL Muslim cabinet members should be appointed only by the Muslim League. Finding that everybody including the Viceroy was prepared to call his bluff and that the Muslim League would have no say at all if he walked out of the Cabinet, Jinnah appointed a Scheduled Caste Hindu to the Cabinet under the Muslim League, hoping to prove that the Muslim League is NOT limited to Muslims only and in fact as inclusive as the Congress and trying to create yet another divide, this time amongst the various castes of Hindus, as if his mischief in dividing Indians into Hindus and Muslims was not enough.

Just like you were dragging around poor Jogindranath Mondol as evidence of Jinnah and Pakistan being secular democrats at heart till sigalph pointed out -- and I reminded you -- that Mr. Mondol sought political asylum in India despite having been the Law Minister and member of the Constitutent Assembly in Pakistan, you will continue to tout the fact that Jinnah appointed Mr. Mondol to the Interim Cabinet in India. But the time for half-truths is over.

Perhaps you should study the seal of the Government of India. The motto therein says: Satyameva Jayathe. Which translates to: Truth Alone Triumphs. Not lies. Not half-truths. Not selective editing of truths to create an image for Jinnah. The complete unvarnished truth is what will triumph in the end.

And that complete unvarnished truth is that latter-day nawab-wannabes such as Liaquat Ali Khan, knowing fully well they wouldn`t have a snowflake`s chance in hell of being elected dogcatcher in Lucknow, created the myth that he wouldn`t be APPOINTED dogcatcher under majority rule, and demanded a separate country. This country of course has never had any real democracy despite having had a few elections in its history and is condemned to be pillaged and raped by the elitists and the Army. All I can say is that we have perfect Mughal rule in Pakistan. If you read the history of India, the Delhi sultanate was pretty much like what Pakistan is today in terms of political development.

The Pakistani elite know it and they also know that this is not sustainable in the long term. The last attempt to subdue a restive population by force was in 1971 and we all know where that went. You can be pretty sure that Pakistan is heading down the same path of people versus the powerful and there will be another major bloodletting the likes of which the world hasn`t seen. If I were a Pakistani. I would want to de-nuclearize the country. You wouldn`t want Punjabi or Pathan generals having weapons of mass destruction at their command facing rebellions by tens of millions of people in Karachi, Hyderabad or Quetta.

The East Bengalis paid in blood for their sins. The same people who in 1905 made Curzon undo the partition of Bengal committed the mortal sin of demanding the partition of the country on the basis of religion. Once they saw how religion was used to enslave them, they had to repay that debt in blood. The same fate awaits Pakistanis. No matter what Musharraf tries to do, and no matter how many middle-class Pakistanis cheer him on and pray 5 times a day to Allah for his success, you cannot stop the avalanche. It has been gathering momentum for the last 50 years but the final act isn`t over yet.

The greatest irony is that the country created to ``protect`` the Muslims of South Asia has so far been the greatest killer of Muslims in the subcontinent.

So much for Jinnah and his legacy.

Ref ylh #: 346

[.... on the lines of Cabinet Mission Plan, which we (the Pakistanis represented by Quaid e Azam) had accepted.

The Cabinet Mission`s Three Tier federation formula:

1st Grouping: Complete Punjab, Sind, Baluchistan and NWFP.

2nd Grouping: United Provinces, Bombay, South India etc

3rd Grouping: United Bengal and Assam.]

As is typical, you left out the fly in the ointment. The Cabinet Plan provided for the withdrawal of any of the units of the federation after 10 years.

This would have effectively meant that the demand for Pakistan was only postponed by 10 years and not abandoned altogether.

And that would have been Jinnah`s dream of a united Punjab in Pakistan.

The Congress and Mountbatten turned Jinnah`s logic on him and asked why if India should be partitioned, the provinces cannot be.

As for the only Asian barrister whose picture hangs at Lincoln`s Inn, let us not forget that he lost his last case when his own arguments were turned against him and he had to settle for less than he asked for.

Ref ylh #: 339

[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.

... 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.]

Let us take the Tamils and the few Tamil Organizations that you talk about.

The only Tamil organization that existed at the time was the Justice Party. This made common cause with Jinnah that the British should continue to rule over India rather than give independence to a United India. Just like Jinnah was asking for Pakistan, the Justice Party was asking for Dravidastan, comprising of the four southern states of Andhra, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. When you take these four states, Tamils constitute perhaps 30% of the population and there was no demand by any of the others for an independent Dravidastan and there was no demand by even the Tamil masses for an independent Dravidastan. So, it is all a question of a minority of a minority of a minority demanding special rights and privileges.

The Justice Party, for those of you interested in true history, observed a day of mourning on Aug 15, 1947 as, according to them, the Dravidians were abandoned by the British to the tender mercies of the Aryans of North India. Realizing that public sentiment was against them, the Justice Party then changed its name and emerged as the Dravida Kazhagam (DK), fighting this time ``Brahminical tyranny``. The party then splintered into the DMK which languished in the backbenches of the state`s legislature for 20 years. Their repeated claims to speak for the entire Dravidian population was resoundingly opposed by the politicians of the other three southern states to such an extent the DMK was forced to change its muted demand for an independent Dravidastan to a demand for an independent Tamil Nadu.

Since these guys, like Jinnah, had no true political agenda except to rip off what they possibly can -- much like common thieves do during a blackout or a major city riot -- it is not surprising that they all made common cause. Yasser, if you want to show the greatness of Jinnah by pointing out the association of so many ``minority right`` upholders, make sure you have somebody better than the Justice Party or the Russian-owned Communist Party of India. But since that is about all you can get, perhaps we should all remember the adage: ``You are known by the company you keep``.

re: ylh

humor? what could be funnier than an idiot claiming to want a secular nation to which no one but muslims want to go? what could be funnier than an idiot whose legacy is a nearly bankrupt country unable to sustain democracy and whose name is the ISLAMIC Republic of Pakistan, despite his lipservice to secularism?....glaring reality...nothing but facts...no quotes from 50,000 places...just the facts..no interpretation of facts, just the facts...the reality is so bright and glaring, it burns a hole through your behind, which is why you seem to go haywire again and again and again on chowk, and with multiple people...

tvarad #344:

``We don`t need a Union or Confederation or whatever.``

My thoughts exactly.

``Also, I simply wish that Pakistan develops into a modern pluralistic state that is representative of the hopes and aspirations of the people (ylh is rubbing his eyes in disbelief now :-)). I am skeptical that there are any leaders in Pakistan who would deliver the goods but I would be more than happy to be proved wrong on this count.``

I also wish that India retains its pluralistic and secular character. The VHP/Bajrang Dal/Shiv Sena types need to be shown their place. They are negative forces, motivated by hate. Babri Masjid must be re-built and the masjid breakers punished, if we are to be a country governed by the rule of law.

RE: Reply #: 352 ylh

``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.``

So, how many ``scheduled caste Hindu``s moved to Pakistan based on Jinnah`s promises? How many ``scheduled caste Hindu``s are there now in Pakistan?

ylh,

How exactly was Jinnah and the Muslim League the representative of, say, a Muslim from erstwhile Mysore

OK OK kid -- I apologize for having high expectations from you as a modernist and progressive Pakistani -- my loss -- happy now.

Rsaxena,

Chotay bachay, learn from anny... now thats what I call wit.. she is genuinely funny unlike your rather unfunny little comments which dont pass for wit.



Thankyou Anny :)



Anyway more on Jinnah and his all Inclusive Demand for Pakistan:

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.



My Point is Two fold

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.

We can approach the Jinnah issue on different levels:



1) After the creation of Pakistan did Jinnah espouse the formation of a secular democratic state?

Ans: Undeniably. I have already quoted 50 odd speeches from 1947-1948. I have also outlined the steps he took in this regard.



2) Was this consistent with his advocacy of Pakistan demand from 1940-1947?

Ans: I have shown clearly how Jinnah`s Pakistan demand was endorsed by many Non Muslim groups as a way of escaping what they collectively viewed

Caste Hindu Domination. In any event as proven earlier, after creating PAKISTAN to escape caste Hindu domination (whether imaginary or real), if Jinnah hadn`t tried to make Pakistan a secular state by the same principal (protecting minorities from Muslim Majority domination), then it would be inconsistent. Hence Pakistan`s status as an `Islamic` Republic is inconsistent with the Pakistan demand itself not to mention hypocritical.



3) Was Jinnah a nationalist or a communalist in the context of a United India?

Ans: Jinnah`s career from 1906-1940 was aimed at achieving Hindu Muslim Unity by any means. In this respect from 1906-1940 he was a nationalist. He wanted the betterment of Muslim community and in this respect he was a communalist. Jinnah was against the `separate` electorates as a principle and in that respect he was a nationalist, but Jinnah accepted the reality that Muslims wanted separate electorates as the basis of unity with Hindus and he thus pleaded for Hindus to be more understanding. In this respect he can be called a communalist. But remember Jinnah was the only leader and political figure ever to be called the `best Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity`.

Maheshbhaiyya

``Anny behanji,``

pls be prepared for a lot of pittaee if u call me behenji..i hit very hard and when very angry i close my eyes and scream and hit whatever i can hit at..if you like u can have all my aslee brothers emails to verify because behenji lies not

``if you are an argument as to why I sound sad please make it.``

i am an arguement? i think you typed ulta pulta excitement mae

you are sad because u often engage in what is called `hatemongering` here at chowk...we all do waisae but you usually only appear to make a bitchy comment (like the one you made to ylh) yes? its not a nice thing to be bitchy..`do u realize how stupid you sound` is a sad thing to say for a grown man...talk nice to him what u said so rudely and take back what u said and ill take back calling you sad

``I am willing to take you on.``

you dont know what youre saying luvbun...or do you? :)