Is Thackeray a Terrorist?

PMishra,

First of all I enjoyed your various works on Gandhi. Secondly... I didn`t say I agreed with Bipan Chandra`s view neither did I claim anything about it as per your assertion.. I am rather shocked that you too are trying to take the example out of the context. The Books I had offered you were totally different... `Secular And Nationalist Jinnah` and `QuaidiAzam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and the creation of Pakistan` which are by two Indian historians. Again, I have shown how Jinnah`s demand for Pakistan was not exclusive but inclusive... why no read that before you decide that my entire argument is selective? The reason I mentioned Bipan Chandra and his site is because Bipan Chandra considers M.A.Jinnah as one of the 10 greatest Indians of the Millenium let alone the century.

In any event, sad to see that You are unwilling to see the logic. My declaration that `Jinnah wanted to make a secular state in Pakistan` has nothing to do with whether he embodied a communalist demand or even whether he was the best Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity. The fact is we wanted Pakistan, we got Pakistan... now the question is what kind of state do we want in Pakistan? Whether or not Jinnah used `Islam in danger` or whether or not Jinnah was a minority leader before Partition... the fact is that Jinnah`s pronoucements about the Governance of Pakistan are very clear ... it should have been impartial democratic with sovereignty resting in the people of Pakistan.

Now perhaps you people have another view of secularism, but to me secularism means separation of church and state.. and thats what Jinnah wanted in Pakistan AFTER he had created it w.. a complete separation of the religious elements and Pakistan`s governance, something which Pakistan has been unable to achieve. Let me make it clear.. we are proud of Pakistan... we are proud that we are not subservient to anyone... so its not the point... It is your unjustifiable superiority complex which forces you to react whenever you see that something progressive in Pakistan can be internally driven... you would rather have us declare that `No Maharaj you taught us everything`. Why does it bite Indians so much that we the Pakistanis, and the Pakistani minorities use Jinnah`s 50 odd statements of how Pakistan should be secular to fight for their rights? Would you rather we use Gandhi? One that is not effective in our country... secondly while Gandhi spoke of humanism and human brotherhood, not one of his statements have any clear pronouncements like Jinnah`s `Sovereignty rests with the people` or `everyone regardless of religion caste or creed is an equal citizen of Pakistan.` You guys have to understand... Jinnah started off as a Congress Nationalist, became the leader of the Muslims because he didn`t think they would get a fairshare, and after Pakistan was made, he became the Governor General and accordingly he assumed the responsibility of impartiality that comes with it. If Gandhi was motivated by some sense of morality, all of Jinnah`s motivations come from a sense of duty ... In the Congress, fight for Hindu Muslim Unity, as the leader of the League fight for the best share for his community, and as a head of the state create a just and impartial country.

I believe TNT was an unfortunate fact of life (and thats how Jinnah, the Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity saw it) and continues to be one till now in India as is evident even in the works of the `moderate` Muslim writer like Rafiq Zakaria, who while bashing it, is in a way admitting it for he too see the whole conflict as ... `Oh Jinnah made Pakistan, and left us Indian Muslims at the mercy of the horrible Hindus`.

You have called my work hagiography. Like all Indians, it seems to me that even the great writer Pankaj Mishra is ready to make crass generalizations instead of putting his money where his mouth is and show me how it is hagiography. I can give you very good examples of what true Indian hagiography is ... but I am not in the business of discrediting other Nation`s father figures as you seem to be so hell bent on.

Layman,

Thankyou for the compliment and advice. I do understand that everyone doesn`t see everything from the same angle, and that accounts for why Gandhi might be more respectable to you, and Jinnah might be more respectable to me.

However, people like Harimau utter complete lies and untruths and love to twist facts to change whatever little objectivity remains. Harimau didn`t give me a pasting or anything. Once you have read enough you will see for yourself that Harimau is nothing but a liar who loves to throw in fallacies of all kinds to make up a fallacious argument by association... he uses all the techniques in the book... ad hominem etc ... I think he took the `Logic` class in College (if it was taught in Nehru`s time) just to see how he can manipulate peoples` minds.

Sigalph:

Thankyou for pointing out the obvious to Mr.Harimau, the real master of half truths. Quaid e Azam`s dismissal of the NWFP assembley wasn`t at all unconstitutional but was allowed under the Govt. of India act 1935 and besides I have shown clearly that Dr.Khan Sahib and his coalition ministry had lost its mandate.



Sincerely

YLH

Anny baby,

Wont you say that this kid is kinda sad ..)

ylh #407

``Lest Rsaxena choose to lie about my Email message that I sent to him, I am posting a copy of it here on Chowk: .....

This goes to all of you `obsessed with Pakistan` fools... who should go out and live a little.``

RE: Reply #: 426 sigalph235

``While it was hardly a sign of pluralism, Mr Jinnah`s dismissal of the Frontier ministry was no more unconstitutional than Mrs Gandhi`s doing the same half a dozen times in the `70s.....Outrageous and intolerant, yes; unconstituional, no.``

Agreed. This was a major bone of contention for the opposition parties of that time, some of whose leaders are in the current Government. That`s probably why this constitutional hanky-panky hasn`t been played ever since the Congress`s fall from power. Even though there must be a strong temptation to go after someone like Rabri Devi, whose claim to the Bihar throne other than being able to milk cows is being Lalloo Prasad`s obedient wife. Although, in Bihar`s situation, you have to wonder who`s making a mockery of the Indian Constitution.

sigalph235 #426

``While it was hardly a sign of pluralism, Mr Jinnah`s dismissal of the Frontier ministry was no more unconstitutional than Mrs Gandhi`s doing the same half a dozen times in the `70s. As in Indian Constitution, the provision is contained in Schedule II of the Govt of India Act 1935 as read with the Indian Independence Act of 1947. Outrageous and intolerant, yes; unconstituional, no.``

Dude, weren`t those dismissals of various state govts by Indira Gandhi under Artcile 356 of the Indian Constitution?

http://www.indianlegaleagle.com/articles/emergency.htm

``Indira Gandhi used article 356 48 times during her two spells of rule from (166-77) (1980-84) Morarji Desai and Charan Singh (1977-1980) used it 16 times, Article 356 has been used 98 times June 20, 1951 to Oct.17, 1996 by various political parties and coalition government that came to power since 1947, mostly to prevent unwanted political parties from coming to power and to provide a ground for forming negative general opinion of public against concerned party.``

tvarad #418
``I think the Babri Masjid should be rebuilt. But it should be converted to a Museum which houses the entire history of the structure and it`s surroundings right upto the present time. ``

Good idea.

``(maybe we can kill two birds with one stone and perhaps interest the uber-student of Turkish history, Pres. Musharaff, to make genuine peace with us :-)).``

The genuine purpose is bashing Hindus, BM is only a convenient excuse for Pakistani fundos and liberals alike. The Taliban and the NA got away with killing thousands of Muslims between them, where was Ataturk and Pakistani `liberalism` then?


Zafar #419
``As the CPI once said (I paraphrase, but I think it?s apt): ?India needs latrines, not more mosques or temples?.``

Well said. The BJP has told the VHP that the BJP is obligated to accept court settlements in keeping with the NDA agenda, which it has to adhere to till the end of NDA`s term in office namely 2004. I hope this means if VHP precipitates any incident, the BJP will be in trouble with the NDA. I am also hoping the UP election results will kill the whole BM/RJM issue dead.

re harimau 398

While it was hardly a sign of pluralism, Mr Jinnah`s dismissal of the Frontier ministry was no more unconstitutional than Mrs Gandhi`s doing the same half a dozen times in the `70s. As in Indian Constitution, the provision is contained in Schedule II of the Govt of India Act 1935 as read with the Indian Independence Act of 1947. Outrageous and intolerant, yes; unconstituional, no.

ylh - If I may say one more thing, you are undoubtedly very passionate in your strongly held views. The only problem is that you expect everyone else to hold absolutely the same views. Learn to chill, everybody has their own perspective of the `truth`, and may not always coincide with yours. Take it easy. Live and let go.

harimau #398:

I much enjoyed the debate between you and ylh; that was quite a pasting you gave him.

Ylh - I must say your posts have been most informative. I hardly knew anything about MAJ before your posts.

tahmed321 # 400 . . . sirji I am not crowing about anything, I agree we are all in the same cesspool, I am just in the habit of sometimes presenting facts in a bit of a tongue-in-cheek manner . . . the refugee/asylum seeking bit has more to do with my trying to place simple economic facts on record . . . as far as comparing Pakistan (a full sovereign country) with Bihar (now half a state, that too, the worse half, because Jharkhand the other half is doing very well courtesy natural resources and Tatas/Jamshedpur / steel belt) goes, if you want to compare Pakistan with Bihar then that is your business. I find it sad that you have to even compare a state in India with a country on the sub-Continent, are you sure there is no sub-consciousness emerging from inside your id here?

I mean if I as an Indian would cmpare Bihar with Pakistan, there would be howls from Pakistanis, and justified too.

Unless it is your contention that you would like to have Pakistan as a State in India.

We can surely consider that, I am sure.

Send an application on stamp paper in triplicate, though . . . attested by patwari.

tahmed321 # 400 . . . sirji I am not crowing about anything, I agree we are all in the same cesspool, I am just in the habit of sometimes presenting facts in a bit of a tongue-in-cheek manner . . . the refugee/asylum seeking bit has more to do with my trying to place simple economic facts on record . . . as far as comparing Pakistan (a full sovereign country) with Bihar (now half a state, that too, the worse half, because Jharkhand the other half is doing very well courtesy natural resources and Tatas/Jamshedpur / steel belt) goes, if you want to compare Pakistan with Bihar then that is your business. I find it sad that you have to even compare a state in India with a country on the sub-Continent, are you sure there is no sub-consciousness emerging from inside your id here?

I mean if I as an Indian would cmpare Bihar with Pakistan, there would be howls from Pakistanis, and justified too.

Unless it is your contention that you would like to have Pakistan as a State in India.

We can surely consider that, I am sure.

Send an application on stamp paper in triplicate, though . . . attested by patwari.

http://atimes.com/ind-pak/DB01Df01.html

Daniel Pearl kidnapping plot thickens

By Syed Saleem Shahzad

KARACHI - The kidnapping mystery surrounding the Wall Street Journal`s South Asia bureau chief, Daniel Pearl, is still unresolved after more than a week. Insiders in Pakistani intelligence agencies say the case is not as simple as it appears. But the theories emanating from these agencies have one thing in common: that the kidnapping is an Indian ploy to provide American detective agencies, which are already established in the country, with a chance to discover all the strings of the Pakistani secret underworld as they investigate the case.

Sources say that in the past few days the course of investigation into Pearl`s kidnapping has suddenly changed, and all fingers are now pointing toward outfits that are little known but have been operational in India. One of these organizations, Jamiatul Faqurah, is alleged by India to have carried out terrorist activities, and now, strangely for the first time, its connections to underworld Muslim groups have been established by the United States.

After Pearl`s kidnapping, the first suspect was Harkatul Mujahadeen, an organization banned by the US several years ago. However, aware of the entire structure of this militant group, Pakistani investigators did not pursue the idea. Pakitani intelligence agencies have inroads into all Pakistani militant groups, and believe that had Harkat or any other known militant group kidnapped Pearl, they would have found a clue no matter how secretly the kidnapping was carried out.

Just three days after the incident, Pakistani intelligence agenicies reported to the country`s leadership that no Pakistani militant group was behind the incident. They could find no suspect nor match the modus operandi with those of militant groups operating in Pakistan. The way Pearl was snatched, and the way the kidnappers` demands were made known via email, are not characteristic of Pakistani groups.

The intelligence agencies have therefore concluded in their reports that the kidnapping was a plot hatched by an Indian agency or proxies infiltrated into militant organizations. The motive? To imply that Osama bin Laden`s al-Qaeda network is operating in Pakistan. Once this became recognized, the US would conduct an operation that would not only eliminate Pakistani underworld groups but also discover and destroy their links in India.

This thesis presented by Pakistani intelligence agencies is given weight by several events. Initially, it was stressed that Pearl was staying in Karachi near the beach in a rented property, along with his wife and an Indian friend. He was investigating cyber-crimes and militant organizations. He met with some senior US officials at the US consulate in Karachi, and was not seen again. His kidnapping was registered at Clifton Police Station in Karachi.

However, in the past few days it has emerged - or been claimed - that Pearl managed to meet some senior members of Harkatul Mujahideen in Rawalpindi, who promised him they would arrange his meeting with Shiekh Mubarrak Jillani, a leader of Jamiatul Fuqarah. Jamiatul Fuqarah is said to be operative in Kashmir. It was also implied that Jamiatul Fuqarah has links with some underground groups in the US. The theory then changed to Pearl being kidnapped not in Karachi but in Rawalpindi, and that an organization like Jamiatul Fuqarah was behind the kidnapping.

The US Federal Bureau of Investigation and Pakistani agencies then conducted raids in Rawalpindi, searching for Shiekh Mubarak. Mubarak put an end to that by appearing before the senior superintendent of police in Rawalpindi last Wednesday.

The implication that Jamiatul Fuqarah was involved in Pearl`s kidnapping is strange, because the group has never been accused of conducting terrorist activities in Pakistan. However, New Delhi has blamed the outfit for many incidents that have occurred in India.

Pakistani intelligence sources say that the kidnapping is likely to be a blow for Pakistani secret services` operations in India. There are many such operations, designed to keep India entangled in its internal affairs to the extent that it would not bother to attack Pakistan. Many of these operations were hatched during General Zia ul Haq`s tenure, with the intention of encouraging Indian separatist movements of any hue, Muslim or non-Muslim.

The Sikh Khalistan movement and the Muslim Kashmiri movement are now widely known, but there are other militant structures that the Indian intelligence agencies know about but have not managed to crack. One of them is Dawood Ibrahim`s underworld mafia in Mumbai, which now draws its support from across India.

However, the most important underground structures include Sufi outfits. Traditionally, the Sufis have always kept themselves apart from worldly affairs, preferring to focus on spritual matters. But Zia ul Haq`s spies traced and cultivated some Sufi groups which had a tradition of combat and which struggled against British colonialism. One such outfit is Mian Mir (named after a famous Sufi saint) of Lahore, which has followers in India. These days, the custodian of Mian Mir`s tomb is none other than Skeikh Mubarak Jillani, now under investigation for the kidnapping of Daniel Pearl.

Sources say that many of the facts of the kidnapping are yet to unfold, but they are likely to make life difficult for the Pakistani secret agencies, both inside and outside Pakistan.

ylh

Impressed by your endless hagiography of Jinnah I went and read Bipin Chandra`s summary on rediff. As I expected it turned out to be a little different what you claimed it to be:

[begin quote]

Mohammed Ali Jinnah (1876-1948) was a major nationalist leader from 1906 to 1920 and the architect, along with Lokmanya Tilak, of the Lucknow Pact. Though adopting from 1920 a more communal stance, he retained strong moorings in anti-imperialist nationalism. However, from 1936, he reorganised the Muslim League around an extreme communal ideology -- the assertion of Muslims being a separate nation and Islam being in danger in a united India. At its 1940 session at Lahore, the League adopted the objective of forming a separate homeland for Indian Muslims which came to be known as Pakistan. Jinnah became the founder of the new state of Pakistan formed after the partition of India in 1947 and also its first governor-general.

[end quote]

Personally, I would agree 100% with this assessment. Oddly enough, I had originally suggested in jest that selective quotation could prove LK Advani`s ``secular`` credentials just as much as Jinnah`s. I now realize that in fact there is a kind of deeper connection between the two.

For one, islam was in danger. For the other, hinduism is in danger. Whats the difference?

Reply tvarad #408, Sadna # 411

The RJB/BM issue is such an empty one – the only reason “community leaders” (a misnomer if there ever was one) are interested in it, is that knocking down/building places of worship is relatively easy and short term– solving any of the underlying problems of India is difficult and long term. Guess which approach a politician will pick.

As the CPI once said (I paraphrase, but I think it’s apt): “India needs latrines, not more mosques or temples”. A hard point to argue, given our infant mortality rate. But, sadly, not glamorous enough for our community leaders to pick up on.

To my mind the issue is not whether there should be one kind of house of worship there or another (six of one half a dozen of another, frankly) – but the process by which the issue is resolved. Is the rule of law going to be upheld or not? And THAT is what is important for the country’s future.

Sadna,

I think the Babri Masjid should be rebuilt. But it should be converted to a Museum which houses the entire history of the structure and it`s surroundings right upto the present time. It should be researched by academics of international renown (not the Tejo Mahal kind of nuts) and be available for ALL Indians to visit and study. There is also precedence for this in the Sofia Mosque in Istanbul which was built around the same time and is now a Museum (maybe we can kill two birds with one stone and perhaps interest the uber-student of Turkish history, Pres. Musharaff, to make genuine peace with us :-)). This should be doable since it is a historical monument and the Govt. can turn it over to the Archeological Society of India.

All we need to do then is to convince our Rambhakthas that their leader is still in Vanavas and to look for him in the jungles and interest our Mullahs about plum postings in Afghanistan in their line of work (with Shabana Azmi`s help, of course).

Hypocrisy:

There are some Indians on this board who while arguing so passionately as to how Pakistan was an exclusive demand (which as shown earlier it was not) remain committed supporters of Israel, the jewish theocracy. I, myself, have supported the right of the creation of a demographically jewish state but jewish theocracy is beyond my tolerance as is an theocracy whether Islamic (as in Zia`s Islamic theocracy) or Hindu (as in the BJP`s current rule) though none of the latter examples can compare with rooted theocracy of Israel.

Ofcourse, Rsaxena will point to us that Israel and Pakistan are not the same... and I agree. Pakistan and Israel are not the same. Pakistan while a demand for a Muslim Majority state, never was exclusive like Israel is. Unlike Israel, in Pakistan non Muslim minorities can own property as much as they like, and atleast theoretically in Pakistan, 200 million Hindus from India can migrate and become citizens of Pakistan, changing the very `Islamic` nature of the Pakistani state (ofcourse this is only theoretical).. much unlike Israel where only a jew can now migrate to. Unlike Rsaxena`s `secular` Israel ofcourse, `Islamic` Pakistan doesn`t have a supreme council of religious leaders superceding the rule of the secular politicians, and unlike `secular` Israel, Pakistan only pays lip service to Islam, and its laws, other than the ones imposed by the dictator Zia and which are seldom used anymore as a precedent, ... laws in Pakistan, not even the horrible draconian blasphemy law, are based on anything remotely Quranic but instead on British common law, torts, and the Magna Carta ( Note: 295 C is an adaptation of British Government of India act 1935 295 A and is not a fundamental principle of Islam.. if anyone has an objection to this statement please show me the precedent for draconian 295 C in any of 5 Islamic jurisprudence traditions or any Islamic Law put in place by any state)... whereas secular Israel has rabbinic and Torah laws... Unlike `secular` Israel Pakistan has never elected fanatic right wing rabid dogs.. but in all fairness to Israel, Israel has never claimed to be secular... only its most rabid Indian supporters have to underscore something which does not exist...

This is not a criticism of Israel. Israel has the right to exist and be as exclusive as she wants, and I only hope and pray Israel doesn`t. My concern is with the Hypocrisy of Indians who while supporting a much more exclusive ideology like Zionism and Israel, continue to take shots at Pakistan as an `exclusively Muslim` state. I for one don`t want Pakistan to be exclusively Muslim, and all credible evidence points toward the undeniable fact that Pakistan movement itself did not envisage an exclusive `Islamic` state on the same lines as Zionists envisaged a `jewish` state and religious evidence suggests that even if there was an Islamic state per-se, if all the rigors of Ijtehad and Ijmah were utilized such a state could never be exclusive anyway. But Pakistan has made a lot of mistakes...and those mistakes deserve punishment, but if the critics of Pakistan`s alleged exclusivity as an `Islamic` state were to turn around and then admire the jewish state of Israel, which is far more exclusive even at its most `democratic` ... then I think there is only one word that suits such critics ie `Hypocrites`.

Yes there is a debate as to whether Pakistan is to be an `Islamic` Republic or a secular state... this debate has been there since Jinnah`s death, and almost all reports and commissions, foreign or domestic have concluded that it is supposed to be secular... but that notwithstanding the fact remains... despite the raging debate, there is one principle that no body, except the Mullahs, disagree on ... that everyone in Pakistan should have equal rights and human rights, regardless of religion, caste, creed, or gender.. which is again very unlike Mr.Saxena`s fantasy `secular` Israel.

Sincerely

YLH

Pak Hindu leader wins ballot battle, falls to bullet

VIVEK DESHPANDE

NAGPUR, JANUARY 31: A PROMINENT leader of the Pakistani Hindu community, Sudham Chand Chawla, who successfully fought a legal battle to ensure voting rights for Pakistani minorities, was shot dead by unidentified assailants in the Pakistani city of Jacobabad on Monday.

This was revealed by relatives of the slain leader to mediapersons here.



Pakistani newspapers such as The News and The Dawn carried the news of the killing which largely went unnoticed in India. A pall of gloom descended on the Chawla residence here when his relatives heard it on BBC Radio the same night.

According to his brother Jagdish, who resides here along with three other brothers, Chawla was scheduled to meet the Jacobabad collector in connection with the electoral rolls when he was shot dead.

The Pakistan Supreme Court had restored voting rights to minorities a fortnight ago following Chawla’s sustained efforts.

‘‘Some Muslim organisations, too, helped him in his endeavour but the fundamentalists probably didn’t like it and hence killed him,’’ he said.

Chawla, 45, was president of the Hindu General Panchayat and the Jacobabad district chief of Pakistan People’s Party (PPP). He was one of the prominent Hindu leaders and was popular among Muslims too.

Thousands gathered at his residence and Jacobabad observed an impromptu bandh when the news of his death spread. Hindus staged a highway blockade which was eased after the administration promised to nab the culprits.

‘‘Sindh traders observed a three-day bandh to protest the killing,’’ Chawla’s son Santosh said. Sudham Chand, who owned a rice mill, is survived by his widow, a son and a six-month-old daughter in Pakistan and three sons, Santosh, Manoj and Inder who moved to Nagpur a few years ago.

One of his brothers Kanwarlal is in Jacobabad while four brothers, Jagdish, Ashok, Kishor and Daulat, had left Pakistan 25 years ago to settle down in Nagpur. Sudham Chand was the eldest. His mother, too, is here for the past one year while his father is dead.

According to family members here, Chawla had moved the Pakistan SC three years ago seeking restoration of voting rights to minorities.

‘‘He was helped by people such as former speaker of Pakistan’s National Assembly Elahi Bukhsh Soomro,’’ Jagdish said. ‘‘He also valiantly fought for restoration of land which rightfully belonged to the Hindus,’’ he said.

Sudham Chand was elected a corporator in Jacobabad first in 1983 and then in 1987. In 1990, he bacame president of the Jacobabad PPP and in 1994 became its district chief. In 1996, during Benazir Bhutto’s reign, he was named the chief of Upper Sindh unit of the PPP, according to family members.

‘‘His killing has created a feeling of insecurity among Pakistan Hindus and the Government of India should do something about it,’’ Jagdish said.