The Curse of Mullah

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Mmanto:

Post 45 and 46..

I agree with you. From an ideological perspective, the fact that Jinnah was staunchly secular provides excellent ammunition.

RSridhar:

I think your question to Manto was unfair. He has been around long enough for you to know that he has stood by his own ideals very consistently. I had in fact published some of his letters to editors when he was away from Chowk as well.

Naqshbandi #41: ``your posts are always well balanced and interesting. If there were elections tomorrow which of the main parties MMA, PML, PPP, PTI, etc. would you vote for?``

Thanks for the compliment.

I find it interesting that I criticise religious and secular extremism equally. And I openly state I do not support religionism or secularism, as a political concept. Yet I get attacked far more from those of secular persuasion than by those of religious persuasion. I have noticed this quite a bit. Those of religiuos persuasion, at least on this site, are more interested in arguing my points, rather than just completely denouncing them. While those of secular persuasion think I am completely wrong, if I don`t support their ideas 100% - even their idiotic ideas of bringing BB back into power.

I support PTI, actively. So I would vote for PTI. I think they are far more genuine than the PPP and PML and far more balanced than the MMA. Interestingly, PTI openly projects itself as a non-secular party. They consider themselves a very moderate and progressive non-secular party. Which is what I think the people of Pakistan want (not the people of Turkey or Saudi Arabia, but the people of Pakistan).

I will not vote for MMA. I do not like people who think they should tell me how to practice my religion. And I think MMA`s leaders are just using religion for political gains. And I do not believe in the concept of Ulema, to begin with. I think Islam forbids professional Ulemas. And I think Ulema, as a group, have done a lot to harm Islam. Though Tahir-u-Qadri seems relatively reasonable.

Amongst big parties, PPP would be my first choice, if it could get rid of Benazir and its other feudal leaders, and allows its urban leaders to lead the party. Until they get rid of BB, I would never vote for it, since I think it is nothing but a vehicle for robbing the country, by feudals.

Ditto for PML.

Amongst the choice of major leaders in Pakistan, currently. I would support Imran Khan for PM. After that, I would support Asghar Khan (more so his late son). There are one or two individuals in PPP and PML (like Aitezaz Ahsan, late Meraj Khalid etc.) I would support also, but they are too far down in their party`s hierarchy (or they are dead). I would also support Zubaida Jalal of PML for PM. As well as Maleeha Lodhi, if she had a voting base (which she doesn`t). Amongst the powerful feudals, I suppose Farooq Leghari and Fakhr Iman are the best of the worst.

So my order of support for current prominent leaders would be: Imran Khan, Asghar Khan, Zubeida Jalal/Aitezaz Ahsan etc. (or any decent progressive PML or PPP person), Musharraf

Imran Khan, Asghar Khan, ZJ, AA etc. have nearly zero shot of becoming leader of Pakistan. This leaves us with the likes of Benazir, Nawaz, Chaudhry Shujaat, Altaf Hussain, Fazl-ur-Rahman, Musharraf. Out of these, I support Musharraf, becuase the remaining will throughly screw Pakistan - if they haven`t already done so. Though, I think Musharraf should have called it quits last October.

However, if BB, NS and Qazi were the only three people alive, and I had a gun to my head, and had to vote, I would vote for Qazi.

Manto:

``it remains relevant only because when Mullahs claim that Pakistan was founded as an Islamic state, Jinnah is an effective rebuttal. ``

Don`t get me wrong. It remains relevant also because it is the most progressive. But, the people carry the vision. It must be inclusive of the awaam and not imposed top down by a secular elite. The backlash would be that secularism would be identified with the elite and so the common people, when blaming the elite for their ills would blame secularism with it as well.

..in fact, that is what is happening. Romair keeps blaming BB and secularism as if the two are tied together. If it turns out Fazlu is a chor, would he blame Islam? No. He would blame Fazlu.

Does any body know for sure as to what Islamic dress is. Shalwar Qameez were not in vogue at the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh); how then is shawar qameez Islamic dress? There is no clear-cut injunction against the western dress. All that religion prescribes is that the dress should be modest.

How about the modes of transport? Is travelling in a car, bus, train, aeroplain, or any other motorized vehicle un-Islamic? If yes, why? And if no, why? Using telephones, referigerators, air conditioners, electricity in any form; are all of them un-Islamic? There is western stamp (or the stamp of kafirs, if you will) on all of them. Shouldn`t the use of all of them be also banned? How about computers? They are also innovation of the west. Where is one going to draw the line. Life without these amenities is unthinkable in modern times.

If any thing needs to be banned, it is mullahism. No body should be allowed to preach religion in whatever form, until such a person has a graduate degree in science together with a proof of religious competence. Mullahs are illiterate.

Mohammad Gill

Musharraf is not all what is needed but he is a thousand time better than all masjid-mulllah combinations. Pakistan CAN NOT get any thing better than Musharraf. I wish him luck and wisdom.

Romair,

Kuch to Khuda Ka Khauf karo, itni Ghalat biyani? Yeh sikhata hai Islam tumhe? Jhoot bolna?

Bhai meray.. we, the secular extremists, tried arguing with you... We wrote long posts asking you for answers to simple questions and you couldn`t answer... Stuka, PM, Sameerjb and Dost Mittar are all witnesses to how you refused to answer very direct and simple questions posed by the `secular extremists`... as for religio-extremists not attacking you... your attack on them is mere lip service... if you look at your posts it is the secular extremists you have a thing against... I suspect a much deeper conflict.

You didn`t give us one straight answer ... here is a complete record of the debate between us...

http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00002370&channel=civic%20center#interact

It seems that we had to say stuff like `Oh Romair your posts are so balanced` in order for you to think that we actually argue your points. Perhaps like secularism, argument also means something else for Romair... Waisay Please show us where Naqshbandi has actually argued your points by the way... that would be interesting... Aur isn`t it time you acted your age and stopped taking childish pot shots at me?

You`ve shown us your true colors... waisay tell us this... Why did Meraj Muhammad Khan leave your party ? And while we are on that topic... isn`t it a little ironic that Imran Khan switched from being Pro-Musharraf and pro-Afghan war to anti-Musharraf and pro-Mullah in a matter of days especially after he became convinced that there was no chance in hell that he would be chosen to lead as Prime Minister a National Unity government? I used to be a staunch Imran Khan supporter 1997-2001. I realized that not only was he an opportunist, but on top of that he was a really stupid one as well. Between a stupid opportunist and a well educated opportunist I will choose the well educated one. Waisay this is not indicative of my estimate of him as a great cricket captain and an even greater social worker. I will continue to support Shaukat Khanum and continue to praise his efforts in that field till the day I die. Again ... one can do this if one has a holistic view on things.


-Manto


PS I don`t expect any straight answers from Romair... He doesn`t have much to offer when it comes to original thought.

For all we know now Romair might confuse Meraj Khalid with Meraj Muhammed Khan.. both veteran PPP leaders ... but the latter joined Imran Khan and left him.

Romair:

``Secular populace is the most important factor in secularism. ``

I think you need to check the meaning of secular in the dictionary. The population consists of individuals who may be religious, agnostic or atheist. That has no relevence to secularism. Secularism stands for the seperation of religion with state. It has no relevance to the religious feelings of the people. If all 100% of Pakistanis are devout Muslims who all hate Hindus but the GOVERNMENT or the STATE is run not according to Islamic Law but by man made law, and furthermore that government does not recognize an OFFICIAL religion, then Pakistan would be a SECULAR country.

If, on the other hand, all Pakistanis, be the Muslim, Hindu, Christian etc live in communal harmony and you have Hindu Judges and Jarnails, BUT Pakistan adopts an OFFICIAL religion and mandates that certain posts (like president) be only for Muslims, then regardless of communal wellbeing Pakistan will not be a Secular state.

Even with your example of India, the population may be communal or not communal, that has nothing to do with the Indian constitution which remains secular.

I think your secular versus non secular debate is as biased as your statement that BJP and SSP are similar. I speak after having checked the website.

Also, the fact that a ``secular extremist`` (whatever that means) is criticizing you and a religious extremist is calling you fair and balanced is more a reflection of your own views than any reflection on the extremism of either party.

I am new and i wanted to post in this debate. But after i have read all the replies that have come to this debate i ask that why have you people left the real discussion topic and gone into a quarrell into completely something else?
Although i agree to Both Manto & Inquirer but this discussion is going nowhere. Did u hear the story of the lamb and the wolf? Where the fox accuses the lamb of making the stream dirty from where they both are drinking and then of abusing him last year after he sees the water flowing of the opposite direction and that the lamb was only 6 month`s old. The wolf after all eats the lamb b`coz u cant win over the wolf can you? So we cant win over them. However you debate with these people they wont understand. they have got the virus (mullah`s virus). They indeed are a virus.

Romair:

``Jinnah pushed the secular agenda when it suited him and he pushed the religion argument, when it suited him. I think he had good reason in pushing both, and was correct whenever he pushed either. And he realized the reality of the situation, and did not force either down the throats of Pakistanis. He just wanted to ensure that Pakistan did not become a theocratic state. That was his biggest fear, which he mentioned in his speeches. ``

Agreed. I have made the same point. However, you are changing your position. In this post, you accept the possibility of secularism whereas in your earlier post you were excluding it, refering to is as a contradiction. Now you say that Jinnah did not want a Theocratic state. A state has to be secular to eliminate theocracy, otherwise you will keep having a constant debate on how much religion in government is enough and how much is too much.

Look at the definition you posted:

``The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.`` (www.dictionary.com)

The definition speaks to the responsibility of the state in excluding religion. By this definition itself, my point is clarified that only a state can be secular or theocratic. The communal passions of the people do not count.

re:#53 by stuka
My question to Manto was rhetorical. There was really no substance in it. I was not trying to criticise him or anybody for that matter.
Sridhar

All feudal attrocities, all loot of politicians pales compared to the `lut maar` of the faujiz for the duration of the country`s history!!

One statistic should in itself explain everything:

3 million East Pakistanis massacared as a result of fauji egos and guns. Another would be the 500 BILLION dollars spent on worthless military over the country`s history (take into account the sum of future/present value and opportunity costs etc.- you do the calculations- if you come up with something different, inform me)

--
This is the mentality of Fauji-lovers:

The common man is entirely stupid. He has no experience with democracy. So he will be irresponsible and sees his vote not as a way to voice his opinion but as a `commodity` to be sold to the highest bidder. So since the common man is too stupid and selfish to realize the value of a vote, we should take it away from him until he is competent enough (like the educated reading writing types) to exercise it in an extremely civilized manner. For now, the common man is uncivilized.

Very uncivilized. Why else does he continue to vote for a corrupt and arrogant politician like Benazir Bhutto or Nawaz Sharif? These two are not leaders. They are renegade elements and harmful to the country`s progress and growth. The common person is too stupid to realize that. We should help the common person by trying to help `better` people come forward and replace them. And we shall persist with the exercise of forcing `clean and honest` people like Imran Khan, down the throat of the stupid masses who don`t know right from wrong. It doesn`t matter if the stupid masses continue to deny the `clean and honest` politicians a chance to rule. As long as we set the rules and keep changing the goal post, the stupidity can be maintained at a distance and Pakistan can prosper. Hell, it`s all the better as with all these random rule changes, no institution can ever grow into anything meaningful. This way, the common nuts can be made to run around aimlessly, while we can control the future of the country (so what if the same mentality resulted in the massacre of 3 million East Pakistanis and dismembered the major part of the country?). It is imperative to control the stupid people at all costs. We really wish they weren`t so stupid, but they are. Let`s help them with the great education we`ve been blessed with by denying them the right to a freely exercise a vote anyway they like. We know better.
--

etc., etc. etc. I`m sure you all get the piont :) :)
utterly disgusting.

The intellectual scene in Post-independence India
A speech of S. Gurumurthy given to IIT Chennai

(Some excerpts from the mind of an intellectual giant)

Very aptly applies to Pakistan as well.


1)

---

In 1937, when the All India Shariat Act was passed, the preamble to the act mentioned that this was being passed by a demand made by the AIML leader Mohammed Ali Jinnah. Today, the Shariat has become a part of Muslim consciousness.

---

2)

---

Secularism: A Reversal and perversion of the Indian mind.
And now, coming to what is the position today. Everything that drove the freedom movement - everything that constituted the soul of the freedom movement, whether it is the Ram rajya of Gandhiji or Sanaatana Dharma of Sri Aurobindo or the spiritual patriotism of Vivekananda or the soul stirring Vande Maataram song, came to be regarded not only as unsecular but as sectarian, communal and even as something harmful to the country.

Thus, there was a reversal, a perversion of the Indian mind. How did it occur? Today, the intellectualism of India means to denigrate India. There are mobile citizens and there are non- citizens deriding India. Go to the Indian Airlines counter you will find people deriding India. Go to a post office they will deride India. Go to a railway station, they will deride India. It is the English educated Indian`s privilege to deride India.

---

3)

---

Demonising India: Projecting a negative image.
This enormous intellectual failure, to the extent of being intellectually bankrupt, did not occur overnight, it was no accident. There is a history behind this enormous erosion. And I told you about these mobile citizens, what they have done to us. Every country has problems. There is no country without any problem. Are you aware of what is one of the most pressing problems in America today? It is incurable according to the American sociologists; even American economists have begun to agree with them. American politicians are shaken, one third of the pregnant women are school going children. And mothers mix the anti-pregnancy pill in the food without daughter`s knowledge everyday.

But this is not the image of America. The image of America is a technologically advanced country etc. etc. Ours is the only country where the mobile citizens of India have transformed the problems of India into the image of India -its identity is inherently related with its problems.

---

Go to any country and the same negative stereotype is echoed that India is suffering from poverty and malnutrition. India has no drinking water. Indian women are burnt. If they are married, they are burnt, if they are widows, they are burnt. See the image that has been built about this country. Who did this? The English educated Indian.

And one Kaluraam Meena (have you ever heard of him? Asks the audience to raise their hands if they have), only a small fraction of this large audience has heard of him. When Clinton came to India, he went to a village called Nayla where the villagers interacted with him. And one of the panchayat board members asked him, ``Sir, I am told that in the West, all of you believe that this country is a rotten country, a backward country, a poor, hungry country. Do you also think like that?``

Clinton was shaken, because he might have thought that this person might be approaching him for some favour. I will relate my experience when I went to the Carter Centre in 1993. They were talking about dispute resolution and all that. I went there to meet somebody, if not Carter, somebody else at least. His Deputy, a lady, was very hesitant to receive me. ``Mr. Gurumurthy``, she said, ``Mr. Carter is not around, anyway,
I can spare seven-eight minutes for you.`` I said three or four minutes of your time would do. Even before I could start, she said, ``Mr.Gurumurthy, we don`t have funds, we will not be able to help`` (laughter from the audience). I replied, ``Let us assume you have a hundred billion dollars, how much will you give me? One billion? One million?`` She kept quiet, I said: ``I don`t need your money. I came here to discuss whether community living is an answer to disputes. I have come to discuss this because you have suggested electoral means to resolve problems in communities which have no damn idea of what an election is; whether community living is an answer because you don`t what that means. She sat and discussed this with me for two hours. This is the image we have projected that anybody, who comes from India, comes to beg. Ordinary Indians did not create this impression; educated Indians created it. This is the work of civil servants, NGOs. Christian missionaries during the freedom movement created this. Indians are filthy, rotten, dirty and unhealthy, advertising abroad these are the people who need to be saved. We have to Christianise them, enlighten them, and give us money. I can understand that because it is their business. But what did we do after 1947?

---

I think when one wants to discuss history one needs to do so objectively. Not subjectively. One must put aside one`s own biases. Otherwise, one always sees history thru colored goggles.

People tend to twist Jinnah`s words into whatever suits them. If they believe in secularism, they will state he always pushed secularism. Which of course, is not true. Since the whole demand of Pakistan went against secularism. If they believe in Islamism, they will disregard his secular arguments, and point out that Pakistan was by design a religious state. This is not true either. These are too very simplistic views of Jinnah, in my opinion.

One of the most quoted lines of Jinnah is as follows:

``You are free to to to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan... You may belong to any religion or caste or creed-that has nothing to do with the business of State....``

This line is often discarded by those who want Pakistan to be an Islamic state. I am not sure how they can discard something like this, since it is documented, and recorded. But they do.

This line is also the main line, that all people pushing the secular agenda concentrate on. It is as if Jinnah never said anything else to contradict this in his whole life. And this was the only line out of his mouth. The secularists completely gloss over the contradiction of how creating a state for Muslims goes against secularism, to begin with.

The real situation, in my opinion, is the contradiction. Jinnah, himself, wasn`t sure what would work. He used the religion card to create Pakistan and he used the secular card once it was created.

If the above quote is read within the context of the speech he made, this confusion becomes clear. This is described by Wolpert as follows:

``Then he suddenly awakened from a dream, looking around at the packed and steaming hall filled with eager, perspiring faces....He had won.....The highest court in had returned another verdict in his favor-Pakistan was to be born in just a few days. But what exactly was it? And how was it going to work? There had never even been time to consider the details.......Not even time to write out a single speech in advance.....

``........You will no doubt agree with me that the first duty of a Government is to maintain law and order, so that the life property and religious beliefs of its subjects are fully protected by the State.....I know that there are people who do not quite agree with the division of India and the Partition of Punjab and Bengal....but now it has been accepted.....But the question is, whether it was possible or practicable to act otherwise than what has been done.....A division had to take place. On both sides, Hindustan and Pakistan, there are sections of people who may not agree with it, who may not like it, but in my judgement there was no other choice.....``

.....``In this division`` He continued in this uncharastertic troubled monolouge of reflection before the preplexed mullahs, pirs, nawabs, rajas, shahs, and khans trying to fathom as well as follow his every word, ``it was impossible to avoid the question of minorities being in one Dominion or the other......We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community.....will vanish. Indeed if you ask me this has been the biggest hinderance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free peoples long ago.``

What a remarkable reversal it was, as though he had been transformed overnight once again into the old, ``Ambassador of Hindu-Mulsim Unity``...His mind was racing to swiftly for logical coherence, almost freely associating as he rambled extemporaneously.

....``You are free; you are free to go to your temples......all members of one Nation``

What was he talking about? Had he simply forgotten where he was? Had the cyclone of events so disoriented him that he was arguing the opposition`s brief? Was he pleading for a United India - on the eve of Pakistan`` (Wolpert, Jinnah of Pakistan)

What Jinnah wanted and did not want is a thing of the past. We need to look ahead to solve our problems. George Washington may have wanted certain things for the USA, but the Americans aren`t locked into it. However, as a student of history, it should be obvious, that Jinnah was personally secular, but flipped back and forth between religion and secularism to get what he wanted. And I must say, he did this brilliantly. However, the speech above, and its analyses by Wolpert, indicates that even Jinnah`s own extemperous thoughts realized the contradicitons in his arguments.

There was definitly a lot of vagueness in his arguments related to these issues. I think, as I stated earlier, his preferences were as follows:

1) A united humanely secular India (as opposed to a secular India only in its Constitution and legal system, and not in the behavior of its populace), in which Muslims were not exploited
2) A federation of India, in which the center only has control over a few things, and Muslim states have control over their own day to day affairs
3) A separate land for Muslims, based on their religious difference, breaking away from a potentially inhumane secular India, if he felt Muslims were to be exploited in India due to their religion. After this non-secular argument was achieved, then that new country should be secular, i.e. a secular Pakistan created on a religious argument.

His career indicates, he tried hard for 1, but could get it. He almost got 2, but Nehru vetoed it, after Gandhi and British had accepted it. He ended up getting 3, but could not figure out to handle its contradicting nature. Clearly evident from his speech. Pakistan is trying to figure out this contradiction even till today:

A secular Muslim using a religious argument to break away from a secular state, to create another secular state, with a background of reliigous maulvi Muslims, denouncing him as Kafar-e-Azam, arguing against the creating of this state and arguing to stay united with a secular India.

No wonder everyone is so confused......