The Curse of Mullah

PS: You will do well to ignore the abuse from the myopic anti-Pakistan brigade that will come your way now.

Atif Mian sahib,

My sentiments exactly. Read this a while back in the Friday times also. I have faith that we will fight back, and win back what is truly ours... this nationstate which has been hijacked by fanatics... Obviously the problem with our secular and idealistic foundations is the apparent anomaly of the separate muslim state. This issue has been discussed in great detail before on this board. In any event nation-states are evolutionary, and Pakistan doesn`t need to be wedded to Muslim Nationalism. Hence Jinnah`s speech where he says:

`Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims, not in a religious sense for that is personal faith of an individual, but in a political sense and we shall all become equal citizens of one state`

How can these ignorant mullahs argue for the ideological islamic state then, I will never know...

-Manto

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

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

It amazes me that things could have gotten so bad in Pakistan. As a child I always used to tell off religious neighbours who were shocked that I offerred prayers in jeans or trousers, by suggesting that it was my choice. I never believed that Pakistan would get to such a state.

Re Article
So what’s your point. Pakistan should become a secular state ?

Faruk

Educated people in Pakistan need to take stand to separate religion from politics. Relgion should be consigned to its appropriate place, namely, personal homes.
Communal people will have to be barred from holding political offices. That absolutely requires removal of masjid staff from standing in elections. The right of vote itself will have to be restricted to at least high school graduates and the candidacy to secular university graduates.

Educated people in Pakistan need to take stand to separate religion from politics. Relgion should be consigned to its appropriate place, namely, personal homes.
Communal people will have to be barred from holding political offices. That absolutely requires removal of masjid staff from standing in elections. The right of vote itself will have to be restricted to at least high school graduates and the candidacy to secular university graduates.

Though I don`t support the mullahs but the fact remains that mullahs won the seats in the parliament fair and square. At least they did not get 98% votes in a referendum with a turnout of 71%.

The bill was presented in the parliament and was stamped by the majority. Can we say the same for our LFO that is keeping His Highness Mr. MAcho Musharraf on the throne. I think not. Dont you forget that NWFP budget has the highest percentage dedicated to education. How many of our other assemblies and governments can claim that.

And who in NWFP except for those going to Burn Halls and Cadet Colleges or Private colleges where trousers. The majority of the population already wears Shalwar Qameez.

I think we are making a mountain out of an ant hill.

Take care

re: Atif Mian

Jinnah is dead and Jinnah`s Pakistan died in 1971. Stop dreaming the impossible and realize that Pakistan of today was created in December 1971. Pakistan of today is an ideological state fasting becoming a theocracy of a politically exclusive minority. The consitution of 1973, which is the holy grail of any liberal Pakistani states quite clearly that sovernity belongs to Allah and national leaders are its rightful trustees. What we have in Pakistan is nothing less than a divine right of the kings and the feudals have replaced the kings, but the excesses of power are still the same.

Do not blame the mullah; blame your beloved consitution, which gives them the right to legalize your dress code. Mullahs did not make Pakistan a theocracy. It was made into a theocracy by those enfeebled liberals, who wrote the 1973 consitution. You wish to reclaim Pakistan, then write another constitution, which gives you the right. You hate the mullah and you cast blame towards him, but remember it was the politicans of Pakistan who went begging bowl in hand to the mullah to give them legitimacy when they grabbed power illegally. Every politican in Pakistan, who was illegitmate asked for mullah`s help to make himself absolved of sins. Who let the mullah into politics? Who allowed the mullah to grab the armalite and raise the banner and kill? While the killing was going on, who turned a blind a eye to it all? Blame the army if you want, but blame yourself because in the name of Kashmir you thought that you could wash away the spot on your conscience. You cried ``out damned spot`` but the spot refused to wash away!

Blame the mullah, but remember that it was the educated class of Pakistan which failed Pakistan and not the mullah. The mullah knew what he wanted, but the educated elite of Pakistan; the guardians of its liberal dreams was confused. We never knew what we wanted and when the people of Pakistan dispised us, they stood behind the mullah, because we raped the very people we promised to hold inviolate. The mullah came to power, because we gave up that power to him; we who were busy amassing wealth and hounding our opponents. While we killed each other, the mullah counted his roseries and waited and he waited till we had proven ourselves to hopless to the people of Pakistan.

By all means blame the mullah and blame the army and blame the bureaucracy and blame the Indians and blame the zionist and blame the Americans and blame the cosmos! Also blame yourself, because you did nothing to stop it all. Where were you in all of this? Blame yourself, because your sin is greater; you are educated and to those whom much is given, much is expected from and yet, you were found wanting.

Yours and my generation has failed Pakistan. Let us accept this fact and not blame others for our short comings.

Ciao

Arjunm,

Obviously the saying `little knowledge is dangerous` holds true. You are the living example of it. YLH is under no obligation to educate every tom di-ck and harry with facts.

-Manto

came across this item. when people`s party asked fazlu to not accept the agreement on LFO (recent event), fazlu`s response was in the form of a retort to BB: `would you do the same if you controlled two provinces?`

mullah or not, they are politicians first and are being played around with by the faujiz who have no interest apart from their own. similarly, i dont know how long the mullah`s can live off of slogans. i always get the sense that if BB were allowed to return and contest free and fair elections, she`ll win hands down. not cause she`s forgiven, but because in the carnival of free elections, the `chamchay` and `mullay` are always thrashed. of course this would not be acceptable to our dime a dozen faujiz.

i never thought a day would come when i`d despise the faujiz and the conservative establishment so much, i`d prefer to see someone like BB come in thrash them.

This is for `ENQUIRER`. Perhaps I am mistaken but did you suggest that non-high school graduates should not be allowed to vote. You`re kidding, right. Tell me you`re joking. Or have I completely misunderstood. Cuz, if you mean what I think you mean, you`ve just recommended that we have an undemocratic, elitist electoral system. That definitely cannot be the solution.
Oh, and `vanguard`, it does not matter what the majority of people wear in NWFP or anywhere. The choice to wear what they want is what is important. With regards to the highest education budget in the NWFP. It would have been an encouraging sign if it were less brainwashing and more education.

Those dailytimes people censored the word `phallic` from my letter... tsk tsk...

Ferozek,

I agree with you ... I have always told people that the basis of the problem is the constitution of 1973 ... though some might argue that the problem started in 1949, when Liaqat Ali Khan ignored very reasonable and sane advice from the Hindu MPs who were invoking Jinnah`s promise. Yet, if this Pakistan was created on 16th December 1971, the time has come for another Pakistan... a Pakistan which is peace with its past.

I was looking through the Chambers dictionary once, and I came across 2 meanings for Pakistan ... 1) A republic in South Asia. 2) A former Republic (1947-1971) with East and West Wings.

-Manto

TRUE. IT IS THE CONSTITUTION OF PAKISTAN, NAY THE PREMISE OF PAKISTAN THAT IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE PRSENT WOES. I do not say that we have to undo the Partition of 1947, the thinking in Pakistan have to reassess the communalistic foundation on which the country rests. NO DOUBT THE CONSTITUTION OF PAKISTAN HAS TO BE REWRITTEN. Furthermore, there is no need to rule out the unification of India PROVIDED IT IS DONE RATIONALLY INCLUDING THE rights and RESPONSIBILITY OF ALL. If East Germany and West Germany can unify so can India and Pakistan. Of course, Indians have to accept this too since they stand to lose by unification.

re: Inquirer & Mantolives

Yes, the preamble to the consitution is a problem and since we are mindlessly devoted to that document, we create our own problems.

Ciao

[quote]
To me, true Islam represents the best of what mankind can hope to achieve.
[end-quote]

As long as you believe silly nonsense like this, there is no hope for you. The real tragedy is that the author of this report doesn`t even understand that it is his own attitudes that are the start of the whole problem.

Tom Friedman has correctly characterized it as ``problems caused by an assumption of islamic superiority which is not supported by economic and social fact``. But heh, he is an amreekan yahood, (even lower in your caste system than a polytheist hindu? Please do enlighten us kafirs who cannot follow these subtle distinctions), so you probably don;t care for his comments.

Pakistan is slowly being forced to face the challenges and contradictions, in my opinion, which Jinnah foresaw, at the time of partition. The in and out military rule had kept democracy dormant and thus some of these issues from surfacing earlier. However, they were bound to appear, sooner or later. Some of these contradictions include:

1) If Pakistan is/was to be a secular state, then what was the point of creating Pakistan, in the first place?

India, at the time of partition was fully secular – secular constitution, secular Prime Minister, secular populace, secular legal system, etc. This secularism reached furthur heights when Gandhi was assassinated by the BJP predecessors. So, how can someone ask for a separate nation, from India, for, “Mulsims,” and then go on to point out that the new nation should be secular. Separation from a secular state, by a religious community, to form its own secular state, is a conflicting concept.

While the maulvis of Pakistan must accept what Jinnah openly stated, again and again, i.e. Pakistan is not to be a theocratic state (though he refrained from using the phrase, “It will be a secular state;” perhaps indicating his own understanding of the contradiction), the secularists of Pakistan, obviously, must answer the question, “If secularism was the ideal, then how can the creation of the Pakistan be justified, since India was secular, by all accounts?”

So, a “Secular`` state for Indian “Muslims” has an in-built contradiction that Pakistan’s polity now faces, and cannot decide upon.

2) What to do when maulvis are elected through a democratic process?

Goras don’t face this contradiction, because their societies are overwhelmingly secular. At most, their maulvis can form a pressure group, as is the case of the Christian Coalition in the USA. But the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Fallwells will never be elected President. And even if they do get elected, it will only be due to the assistance of secular forces. So the gora maulvis are now left debating whether gay marraiges should be legal or not. Not how to become the Prime Minister of UK, or Chancellor of Germany. But what about Pakistan, where maulvis have shown that they can be voted into the position of Chief Minister, and who knows, maybe even Prime Minister (someday)?

By tradition, the boundaries of “dress code” in a society is decided, on a legal basis, by the collective will of the people, through an elected group. Hence, there are boundaries in America, where it is illegal to walk naked in a park, etc. If the elected maulvis ban pants and shirts, it may be idiotic, but is it non-democratic? They were voted in by poor people, who can barely afford shalwar kameez, much less pants. Maybe they want to remove the class difference in dress, and will get even more votes, from their poor voters (99% of whom cannot afford cable television, and would thus be least bothered, if it were banned). Or maybe, the maulvis are just idiots. In either case, they are democratic. Democracy includes idiots within its folds, also.

The secularists are usually strong supporters of democracy, and usually anti-military. However, they are now facing a contradiction: What to do, when democracy results in elected maulvis, and the only counter to the maulvis is a secular military dictator?

3) How to undo the secularity of Jinnah’s ideas?

All said and done, Jinnah was a secularist to his fingernails, in his personal life. And a secularist, if not to his fingernails, at least to his wrists in his political life. He had absolutely nothing in common with maulvis – even those maulvis who were his friends. He was the ultimate anti-maulvi – as anti as any Muslim can be. Without getting into the pluses and minuses of Jinnah’s ideas, they do create a contradiction for our Shariah-loving maulvis, i.e. the guy who created Pakistan, repeatedly stated that Pakistan is not to be a theocracy (translated: No Shariah, of any kind).

For maulvis to implement their Shariah-atic agenda, they have to literally distort the documented words of Jinnah – the guy who founded the country, and whose picture the maulvis must hang on their walls also. How can they implement in Shariah in a country, whose founder prohibited it? Another contradiction.

In my opinion, following are the realistic facts of South Asia, as opposed to the theoretical facts (which the overly religiously-inclined and overly secularly-inclined friends on this site, keep pushing, for some reason):

- Pakistan was created primarily for the Muslims of India (only someone clueless will not see this). Unless, we consider it a coincidence that, even at great personal losses, Muslims just happened to migrate to Pakistan and Hindus and Sikhs just happened to migrate to India, at the time of Partition. It thus contradicted the basis of a secular nation. It actually broke away from a secular nation, on the basis of the religion of its inhabitants. This is, in fact, anti-secularism (though not necessarily Islamism).

- India is not a secular state, regardless of how much its Constitution says it should be. It briefly was, at the time of partition, but hasn’t been since. Nehru and Co. wanted it to be a secular state, but it hasn’t ended up as one. It is secular in its outwardly appearance, but its uniting factor has always been the Hindu religion of its inhabitants - most of whom, never had anything else (including language and nationhood) in common with each other, historically. Each province in India, that has had a non-Hindu majority (Sind, Baluchistan, NWFP, Pakistan Punjab, Bangladesh, Indian Punjab, Kashmir) has successfully or unsuccessfully tried to separate from the Hindu majority provinces. This does not happen in true secular states. In fact, India still cannot figure out what to do, and how to handle, its large Muslim minority. This is now clearly visible by the repeated electoral victories of the BJP. In fact, India is now moved beyond being a religious state, and is on the verge of becoming a Hinduvta state, i.e. radically religious.

- Jinnah wanted to be in a united secular India. He was more fond of Bombay, than of Karachi. However, he realized that sooner or later, India would not remain humanely secular, and the Muslims there would be in thick nihari. The rise of the BJP has vindicated his vision. So he had to ask for a country, based on religion. However, he wanted, “his” country to be humanely secular (secular can be inhumane, also), i.e. more secular than what he thought India would end up as. He then realized that the inhabitants of his new nation, weren’t nearly as secular in their outlook as he was. A better expression maybe that they were far more Islamic in their outlook than he was. Hence, he understood that shoving his ideas of secularism down their throats, would be counterproductive. At the same time, he understood that theocracy would ruin Pakistan also.

Jinnah turned out to be correct on all the above accounts: 1) India ended up electing BJPs, which went after Indian Muslims, from all directions 2) Muslims in Pakistan, in their separate country, prospered beyond Muslims in India 3) Pakistanis refused to accept pure secularism, resulting in not a single major Pakistani political party declaring itself to be openly secular 4) Theocratically motivated maulvis screwed Pakistan, intentionally or intentionally, whenever they got power.

However, even the most brilliant lawyer in the British empire, Jinnah, did not have a solution for these contradictions.

So Pakistan (and India, also) is a country whose population finds its unifying identity in its religion, with armchair secular theorists, somehow trying to portray it as a secular nation, and with misguided maulvis, trying to destroy it by turning it into a theocracy. It is also a country in which the maulvis and the secularists will, unfortuanately, settle for nothing short of the other’s complete destruction.

In my opinion, dividing a society and its corresponding political space, along the religion and secularism lines, with no third option, is potentially catastrophic for third-world countries. It has had catostrophic results in India. Poor results in Iran and Algeria. And has resulted in a confused Turkey – to name a few third world countries. In case of Pakistan, simply using the secularism/Islam argument creates contradictions in the ideas behind the creation of the country, itself.

Interestingly, both Pakistan and India, have been thoroughly let down economically by their corrupt secularly inclined leaderships. Both have thus, seen a rise of religiously motivated political parties – more dangerously so in India. I think, they will both be let down by their religious leadership also. At that time, hopefully, some sane individuals will come to the front, and will present a workable solution to handle the contradictions in these countries.

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

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

“Bhutto sentenced in Switzerland

A judge in Switzerland has found former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and her husband, Asif Zardari, guilty of money laundering.” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3125277.stm)

It is a rare political leader, who has the honour of being legally convicted in two different countries for corruption. It will be interesting to hear the arguments offered by the PPP for BB`s conviction in Switzerland.

The best thing that can happen to the secular supporters in Pakistan is for a credible secular political party to appear in Pakistan. Pakistanis, until now, and even now, have always voted more secular than religious. However, the more secularly inclined parties have ruined Pakistan, and have robbed it silly. Primarily, because these parties are nothing but corrupt feudals, hiding behind secularism. Just like religious parties are nothing but ambitious maulvis hiding behind Islam.

The two most powerful secularly inclined parties in Pakistan are ANP and PPP. However, these parties have also been amongst the most useless and corrupt and feudal – specifically PPP. ANP has been thoroughly thrashed in NWFP by maulvis. PPP has been able to hold on to its traditional 28% or so votebank. However, it is being held hostage by BB and Zardari.

I believe the govt. offered Amin Fahim the PM-ship of Pakistan, in an alliance with PML(Q). He was obviously willing to accept. However, BB vetoed it, because she wants to oppose the govt. until corruption charges against her are dropped. And she does not want any other powerful leader to head PPP, who could replace her. So the PPP is now out in the cold, with no direction. The PPP actually won the largest percentage of votes, hence the theory that the govt. conspired against it, doesn’t quite hold water. It would not have won more seats than it did in the last election, had that been the case. Yet, it is neither in power, nor leading the opposition.

Since PPP occupies the secular seat in Pakistan, it is the platform of the Pakistani secularists – even the ones who dislike BB. The best thing that could happen to Pakistani secularists is if BB is completely sidelined from the PPP. This will get rid of the corruption scandals associated with the PPP. This will also get rid of PPP’s hereditary leadership. No one, other than a Bhutto, has ever headed the PPP. It is the only truly hereditary party left in Pakistan. It will also force the PPP to hold internal elections. It never holds internal elections, and BB is its officially appointed chairperson for life, while she simultaneously argues for elections in Pakistan.

Once BB is gone, other good people from within the PPP ranks will appear in leadership positions. More importantly, it may open up the door for non-feudals to come to the forefront of the PPP. This will then result in the PPP being a progressive secular party, rather than a “feudally secular” (an oxymoron) party.

Those asking for the return of BB to Pakistan, should think twice. She has destroyed Pakistan, twice, and is a wanted criminal. No one has done more to discredit secularism in Pakistan than the Bhuttos. Making BB the poster child for secular forces is only going to be counterproductive for them. There are plenty of other good people, some within PPP (I know a few of them), who are much better and more honest choices to occupy this position. However, they cannot rise within their party, as long as the Bhuttos dominate it. Political parties should belong to the people, not to one family.

Even now, BB has no problems with the PPP going into a complete alliance with the MMA, just so she can put pressure on the govt. to get herself cleared of corruption. An honest PPP leader would never have to do that, and would be able to negotiate from a much more solid position.

Hopefully the above-mentioned news will mean an end to BB’s career. This could result in a revitalisation of the PPP, with new urban leadership. That could then give credibility to secularism in Pakistan. However, as long as Pakistani secularist keep looking towards individuals like BB as their leaders, they will never be able to take on the maulvis. The maulvi leadership, for all its ignorance, does not have any corruption cases against it. And is, on the whole, democratically elected, within its own parties. And is not feudal. BB, on the other hand, is exactly the opposite, i.e. feudal, dictator within her party and internationally recognised (and now convicted) as massively corrupt.

Romair:

``India, at the time of partition was fully secular – secular constitution, secular Prime Minister, secular populace, secular legal system, etc. ``

Completely false. India, at the time of independence, did not even have a constitution. The Congress wanted a secular country but it was not a done deal. ``secular populace`` has no meaning. It is the government that can be secualr if it does not adopt an official religion. People in India have always been religious. The legal system in India and Pakistan was completly the same, an inheritence of British Common Law and Indian traditions.

Your assumption that a secualr Pakistan is meaningless because it seperated from a secular India is flawed. There are two major flaws:

1. Since Pakistan became independent on Aug 14th, and India became independent on Aug 15th, Pakistan did not seperate from India. It is a successor state, one of two, of the British colonial holding or ``British Iindia``.

2. Since India itself was not a ``secualr republic``, the seperation of Pakistan was not that of a religious country seperating from a Hhindu one. It was a ``Muslim Majority`` country seperating from a Hindu Majority one.

The above two points illustrate the hollowness of your claim that raison d`etre of Pakistan was a non secular state. You must also realize that there is a difference between a country ``for Muslims`` and a Muslim country.

Having said all that, and gone through Jinnah`s sayings speeches etc (definietly not as much as Manto) I do believe that there is a lack of clarity, maybe deliberate, in defining what Pakistan was to be. That could be a strategic issue in terms of making the legal case for Pakistan and Jinnah did not foresee what a problem it would become. I am not saying that si the case, merely stating the possibility.

One thing that I do think is paramount..it is the people, not an individual`s vision, that defines a country. If the Mullahs win an election they should get power, with the caveat that they agree to hold elections again after a fixed term. Oone time election is not democracy.

Romair:

``India is not a secular state, regardless of how much its Constitution says it should be. It briefly was, at the time of partition, but hasn’t been since.``

???????????????? what is your definition of secular???

++
India, at the time of partition was fully secular – secular constitution, secular Prime Minister, secular populace, secular legal system, etc.
++

This is a controversial claim, and certainly not a fact.

Even in 1947, Hindu fundamentalist forces were bitterly opposed to Congress`s secular politics. To marginalize the fundamentalists, Congress diluted its secular ideals by adopting some fundamentalist slogans. Several Congress members echoed the views of Hedgewar. Since Jinnah was initially a member of Congress, he was apprehensive that at some point, Gandhian secularism would succumb to Hindu fundamentalism.

Nevertheless, Jinnah didn`t envision a theocratic state in Pakistan anyway.

I agree with the author (Atif Mian) that the Mullahs have essentially been derailing Pakistan from its intended vision in the last 2 decades. However, we need to expose these retrogressive forces through democratic means. The anti-Mullah camp is largely in disarray. There are no charismatic and honest leaders among the moderate/liberal parties to oppose the Mullah camp.

Although PPP and PML together share 60% of the vote in Pakistan, their leaders (Benazir and Nawaz Sharif) have been convicted of corruption (in absentia). Since convicted leaders cannot engaged in politics, both PPP and PML are essentially leaderless. The latter has been hijacked by Musharraf to form a king`s party.

The remaining parties are too small to pose any challenge to the Mullahs. MQM has only 3% of the total vote and its leader (Altaf Hussain) has been convicted of murder and extortion. Punjabis and Pashtuns don`t trust him. Imran Khan, Farooq Leghari, Wali Khan, Mehmood Achakzai, etc are leaders of one-man parties.

In contrast, the Mullahs are organized. They are also untainted with corruption (primarily because they never got a chance to indulge in corruption). And above all, they are riding a wave of anti-US sentiment. Inside the National Assembly and outside, Mullahs are leading the opposition in Pakistan.

Unless moderate political forces get organized, they will cede the political ground to Mullahs completely in the next elections. IMHO, Pakistanis should prepare themselves for a rough ride. Mullahs are likely to become an every day nuissance for the next 3-5 years.

Continued: There is no such thing as secularist in private life. Jinnah was a believing shia and from the looks of it more religious in his last days. That he used to drink or eat pork was his personal irreligiousity. Secularism is a public condition.

Jinnah was a secular nationalist when he believed in one Indian nation. Later on he did become a Muslim Nationalist as in he moved from his belief in one Indian nation to one muslim nation, but he remained a secularist with respect to the issue of Governance, i.e. he was believer in the separation of religion from the matters of the state. And when he spoke of `Hindus will cease to be Hindus, and Muslims will cease to be Muslims`, he hinted towards Pakistan evolving into a secular nation, through the efforts of a secular state.

Arjunm,

Isn`t it amazing that you are claiming with certainty about Pakistan which even the government of Pakistan is pathetically unaware of? CIA`s figures are based on the estimates by the Pakistan Government itself. And the estimates of the Pakistan Government are way off....

Kindly visit the website : http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/

It claims on the top of the page: Serving 15 Million Christians of Pakistan.

Ok so let us say that those figures are sexed up... let us assume there are only 10 million christians. Add to those 9 million christians, the official figure of 1.2 million Hindus (though according to other estimates they are around 2.5 million) and 1 million for other religions. Now add that up.... 10 + 1.2 + 1= 12.1 million Non-Muslims atleast right?

12.2/140 million = 8.75%


Inquirer,

I admire your concern for Pakistan ... but I say this with all the politeness... while We want friendship, cordial relations, even open borders with India, but atleast this secularist doesn`t stand for reunification (Infact it is a Mullah who goes by the name Fazlu who wants reunification). As for the communalistic foundations... we will leave this to a fairer understanding of history whenever History is written without the bias of nationality.




Romair,

Some definitions:

Secular nation: A nation with a common secular characteristic ie language.
Secular state: A State that doesn`t interfere in the religious beliefs of its citizens nor does it discriminate on those basis, nor does it use religious dogma to legislate.

Examples of secular nations:

Had Punjab become one state when the british left and a Republic perhaps that would have been a secular nation. Similarly if Kashmir ever wins its independence it might be a secular nation based on common Kashmiri identity. Logically a secular nation will live under a secular state.


Examples of Secular states without secular nations:

Modern Turkey emerged out the conflict between non-Muslim ottomans, and Muslim ottomans at the end of the world war 1. Hence the nation that emerged after the world war 1 was 99.6% Muslim. Yet it was proclaimed a secular state. Same was true of Greece which was an orthodox christian nation, but had a secular state. Israel is a Jewish nation and the country was founded as a jewish homeland. Yet the state of Israel is a secular state. Turkey, Greece and Israel remain Muslim, Christian and Jewish nations respectively, but as states they are completely secular.


You are right that initially Jinnah wanted a secular Indian nation, but later on his life he became disillusioned with the idea... (please cut the cra-p about humanely this or that ok?) but how does it contradict with his desire to see Pakistan as a Secular State which is different from Secular nation? Here is your contradiction: In the first `realistic` fact you say Pakistan broke off from a secular nation. In your second `realistic` fact you say India is not secular. Because if you believe in the second fact then you have automatically answered the questions in the first. And if you believe in the first realistic fact, then all you are basically saying is that Jinnah was wrong in his estimate of India. That basically his fear of a Hindu theocracy was unfounded.

Pakistan was created out of an apprehension and fear of mistreatment by the Hindu Majority. Now if the assertion is that India is a perfectly secular nation-state, that apprehension was unfounded and baseless. If the assertion is that India is not a secular nation-state but rather a Hindu one as you claim later on... then you have your answer. In any event, it doesn`t negate the belief of the Pakistan`s founders in the idea of the separation of church and state. Your post has done nothing but repeat all the accusations that Indian nationalist histiography levels at Pakistan. Maybe it will help if you read Ayesha Jalal`s thesis on partition and you will actually broaden that horizon which seems to be very limited at the moment. Pakistan`s founders opted for Pakistan only out of a fear of Hindu domination. Hence their fear, rightly or wrongly, was that India wouldn`t be a secular state. However at the expense of repeating myself, had Jinnah met the Jamaat e Islami leadership and the Mullahs who are now well entrenched in the halls of our Islamic Republic, he would have gladly preferred Hindu domination. I have no doubt about this. It hurts me to find a fellow countrymen so closed to the understanding of simple political science concepts.. I don`t know what this `secular nation` means, but I know damn well what a secular state means, and both concepts are totally different. There are many secular states in the world... US, India, European states, but most of these states are inhabited with nations which have religions, christianity, Hinduism, etc.

Also this scapegoat you make out of BJP is insulting to the intelligence of the common man.
BJP remains more secular and modernist in ideology than any party in Pakistan. Forget their motivations but as pointed out to you on other boards, where you as always have ignored any appeals to reason, BJP is the party that stands for a Uniform secular civil code for all Indians regardless of their faith. Yes BJP is a Hindu Nationalist party, but it is a staunchly secular party when it comes to the issues of Governance.


SO here is your home assignment soldier:


1) Distinguish between Nation and State ... Comment on the foundations of the United States of America. Comment whether the nation in 1776 was secular or christian? What about the state that resulted from the Revolution?

2) Read the US constitution. Inform us on Chowk how many times the word secular has been used. Then comment whether the absence of the word `secular` makes the US constitution any less secular?

3) Using the conclusions of the first two questions interpret the following words:

`You may belong to any religion caste or creed- that has nothing to do with the business of the state... In due course of time Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims and we shall all become equal citizens of one state.`

Please inform us if the person who made these remarks isn`t making his intention about the nature of the state perfectly clear? Let us not forget that where these statements were made and when. If you read the Jinnah papers, this speech came immediately after the election of Jinnah as the speaker/President of PCA, and after a point of order by one MP who inquired about the nature of the state. You are right that Jinnah was well aware of the apparent contradiction that may arise out of the misunderstanding of the demand for Pakistan which is precisely why he made it abundantly clear on many occasions what Pakistan would be as a state... infact a month ago, the Deputy Prime Minister of India said this that while Jinnah had expressly stated that Pakistan would be a secular state, it isn`t, and that none of the Indian leaders had made such tall claims, but India is a secular state.


The point is that we the secularists don`t want to make change the religion of any nation. Pakistan is a predominantly Muslim nation and that is a fact, just like India is a predominantly Hindu majority nation. All we are asking for is keeping religion out of governance... hence legislation on the basis of Quran and Sunnah shouldn`t happen.. because Pakistan isn`t inhabited by Muslims alone, and non-muslims are as much Pakistanis as anyone. And even among Muslims there are so many divisions... When they brought up the issue of Sharia, Jinnah simply replied `What sharia, whose sharia, I don`t have time for this`.... But then I don`t think Romair has time for the real facts. His facts are usually arrived at by long and hard debate within his own head. Book utanay ka to hosla nahin hai... He will not answer any questions, just like he ignored all the questions by Sameer, myself and PM on the other board.

-Manto

re: #22 by stuka

Thanks for your comments.

Jinnah wisely remained vague about the role of Islamic law in Pakistan. On the one hand, he described Pakistan as a laboratory and fortress of Islam... on the other, he declared that Pakistanis are free to go to their mosques, temples, churches.. and that they would cease to be Hindus, Muslims, Christians in the political sense.

If he had openly rebuffed the idea of Shariah law, Mullahs would have painted him as another Mustapha Kamal Pasha. This could have divided the Pakistan Movement.

#18, Romair:
You need to learn about India. Here is some info to illuminate your international ignorance. The question-statements can be ascribed to you. Bracketed by ****--****. Answers are mine!

I take issue with the underlying theme of this article (This article was written by Nadeem Akram but later removed by Chowk). I am not informed about Pakistan but I do know about India. I will confine my comments to the Indian context.

****What we have today is a big chunk of humanity waking every morning wondering what if anything they have done to deserve this; they don’t have access to clean drinking water, basic health services, acceptable sanitation conditions, education, gainful employment, and above all the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.****

This is just not true. They may not have water works a la western standards but the quality on almost all fronts has improved during last fifty years. This is borne out by the longer life expectancy, better health care, lower infant mortality; population booming to a billion. Educational opportunities were never better, unemployment has reduced to a point that it is hard to get personal servants! Even the poor have radio, tv and other appliances!!


****A handful of people play with the lives of millions of people everyday.Decisions are made on their behalf without their participation, yet the oligarchy of politicians and industrialists want everyone to believe that democracy rules in this part of the world. ****

Ask the educated minorities in India: How the farmers and lower caste people feel endowed with the power to vote. Of course, Mayavati and her likes could not even dream to be consulted for their own exixtence fifty years ago, let alone rule the Uttar Pradesh.

****They were asked to fight for freedom, which was to bring them prosperity; it never did, and now they are asked to protect the freedom through sacrifice. ****

From what has already been asserted this statement is baseless. of course every one will not have every thing they want. Ever. What people need in India is the sense of responsibility to run a democratic form of governance.


****Half a century’s deceit, lies, and false promises have ensured that the majority of the people in the region remain mere tools in furthering the interests of the few. ****

This is true even for United States. The populace has to learn the ropes of democratic procedures. If our educated people are either cynical or consider beneath them to go and organize for votes they will be subject to the will of those who show up at the polls. The members of Parliament in India haling from farming classes has doubled during the last fifty years and halved for graduates.


****Hunger, famine, poverty, and suffering were the words that were ascribed to India (sub-continent) a century and half ago; these words are as relatable today as they were then. ****

The wealthy and poor will always exist but now they are in a much more balanced ratio than fifty years ago. There has not been any famine and obesity is increasing just as in US though it has not quite reached the same level.

What we need to do is to develop greater sense responsibility for operation in self-governance mode. For example Indian cities are littered with trash but no community is willing to make the decision to pay for clean-up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#11,87msa:
No, I am not joking. You see what countries like Pakistan and India need to do is to bring their populations to understand that democracy is not a panacea. People have to work hard to deserve the right of vote. All European and North American countries spread their right of vote gradually. Since they took good amount of time they did not need the restriction on candidacy. But for South Asian countries, India got the universal adult franchise instantaneously. It was done so that the tough goals of a very liberal leadership in India could be met. It has been a mixed blessing, however. Since Pakistan is not even at zero level, it has to limit the right of vote as well as candidacy. Musharraf has tried to restrict the candidacy - and only partially succedded at it - but the terroristic and low level of training of Pakistani populace requires restricting the right of vote also. First people have to be trained in democratic living. They have to understand the system rather than be driven like cattle from one system to another. This devolves a tremendous responsibility on current leadership of Pakistan. In particular, it is necessary to neutralize the mullah-masjid alliance as India had done under Mr. Nehru. Unfortunately there is no leader of Mr. Nehrus`s caliber in Pakistan.

HisExcellency #24: I agree with most of your other points, however, there are two points I do not agree with.

“Since convicted leaders cannot engaged in politics, both PPP and PML are essentially leaderless. “

I don’t think the PPP and PML are leaderless. No party with so many seats can be leaderless. I know four of five individuals in PPP and PML personally, through my family. They are usually the top contenders for NA seats in their localities. They are gifted, educated, intellectual, urban and honest (at least as far as I know). They have never had any corruption cases against them. A couple of them are rags to riches stories, and are self-made millionaires. And are as enlightened as anyone you will find in Pakistan. Anyone of them would make a much better leader of PPP and PML than BB and NS. If they were leading their parties, I would definitely vote for them.

The problem is that the PPP and PML are not internally democratic. Their top leaderships will never allow it. In fact, internally, for top leadership position, PPP and PML are less democratic than the Army – which rotates its Chief every three years, while PPP and PML have elected heads for life. They are nothing but the old boys network of feudals. NS is the only exception, being an urbanite, however, he is only a representative of the feudals. He was basically put into power by the Army. Otherwise PML is also a party dominated by feudals like Junejos and Soomros and Hussains etc.

The feudals see BB and NS as their best bet/representative for keeping power amongst the feudals, in Pakistan. So they keep supporting them. They are as scared of their political opposition, as they are of urban members of their parties gaining power within the party. Why doesn’t BB allow someone else to run PPP, when she is facing all these corruption charges? It would give her more time to handle the charges, and the party will run better with an internal leader? Primarily because she is afraid of another leader emerging within the PPP, and taking her place. She will only pass on the leadership to a family member.

“Although PPP and PML together share 60% of the vote in Pakistan,”

I think one has to take the, “60%” vote bank with a grain of salt. I only consider urban vote bank to the true vote bank – where people are free to vote. In feudal areas, people have no choice, but to vote for a feudal. And invariably, one feudal belongs to PPP and the other to some faction of PML. Since 60 - 66% of the MNA seats go to feudals, the real vote bank can only be analyzed in the urban 33% or so.

In the urban vote bank, PML wins in Punjab cities, with PPP comes second. MQM wins in Sind cities, with MMA second. And MMA wins is Baluchistan and NWFP, now. With PML and ANP second in NWFP. PPP has never had any support in urban NWFP, urban Baluchistan and urban Sind (other than Layari). It is basically a feudal Sind/Punjab and urban Punjab party.

The maulvis have a lot going for them, which the more secular parties don’t have:

- Unlike PPP and PML, the maulvis hold elections within their parties.

- Maulvi parties allow the poorest people to take leadership positions. In fact, the recent elections have resulted in mullahs of mosques and farmers being elected to the NWFP assembly. These are individuals most Chowk interactors would not invite to their living room. Yet, now they are making the laws. When was the last time the PPP and PML elected a poor man to office (even internally).

- Maulvi parties are not heridatory. JI’s amir is not the son of the previous Amir. Though in case of JUI, the leader is the son, (but that is the exception and not the rule).

- Maulvi parties have a super loyal following. Feudal voters are forced to vote for feudals of PPP and PML. However, in the cities, the PPP and PML voters are not too loyal to their parties. While JI voters and JUI voters are very loyal. They, rightly or wrongly, believe in their leaders. While the normal PPP and PML follower is fed-up with BB and NS. Many vote for them, just to keep the maulvi out, as indicated by a reply on this site. Naqshbandi’s loyalty to Nooranis of the world, is far stronger than Manto’s or Atif Mian’s loyalty to BBs of the world.

- Maulvis only change their agenda, when they have something politically to gain. They rarely change their agenda, because they are afraid of being convicted of corruption, etc. PPP and PML leaders can always be blackmailed by each other, and by the Army, because so many of them are loan defaulters, tax defaulters, illegal Swiss account holders, and what not. I cannot completely agree with your assertion that the reason maulvis haven’t been corrupt is because they have not had power. Some of them like Fazl, Qazi etc. are regularly Senators, MNAs etc. Yet, none has ever had any corruption cases against him. This makes them even more popular, within their own parties.

Pakistan’s secular forces will not be able to take on the maulvi unless:

1) the maulvi performs even worse that the PPP/PML/ANP etc. in areas where they have been elected. This is unlikely, since the PPP/PML etc. performed so pathetically. The maulvis’ voters are too poor to be pushed about cable TV and no pants and shirts. In fact, they may see this as an evening out of the class system in their areas, i.e. if they cannot watch cable, why should anyone else

2) the secular voters stop putting their faith in the same corrupt leaders of PPP and PML, and start looking for newer faces. This will not happen until PPP and PML are rid of Bhuttos and Sharifs, since they will never allow anyone to emerge from within the ranks

3) PPP and PML become more egalitarian and allow their common workers to rise in the party – much like the MQM and MMA does. PPP projects itself as the, “Awami” party, yet statistically speaking less than 2% of its top leadership seems to be Awami (BBC has the exact statistics). While a very large amount of the MMA top leadership is Awami.

If one takes out the fedual areas of Pakistan, where PPP and PML feudals dominate everyone, MMA is quite a force now in the cities and in the non-feudal rural areas. I don’t have the statistics, but I would say in the non-feudal areas of Pakistan, MMAs’ vote bank is maybe equivalent to those of the non-maulvi parties.

I think middle class and lower middle class Pakistanis give far less importance to the tag, “secular” than the many interactors on Chowk. If the PPP/PML/ANP does not deliver, these voters will obviously go to the other alternative, which is MMA. They are probably more pushed about food and education, than secularism and Islam – a point I repeatedly try to make here.

Stuka`s reply to Romair needs to be highlighted:

``Your assumption that a secualr Pakistan is meaningless because it seperated from a secular India is flawed. There are two major flaws:

1. Since Pakistan became independent on Aug 14th, and India became independent on Aug 15th, Pakistan did not seperate from India. It is a successor state, one of two, of the British colonial holding or ``British Iindia``.

2. Since India itself was not a ``secualr republic``, the seperation of Pakistan was not that of a religious country seperating from a Hhindu one. It was a ``Muslim Majority`` country seperating from a Hindu Majority one.

The above two points illustrate the hollowness of your claim that raison d`etre of Pakistan was a non secular state. You must also realize that there is a difference between a country ``for Muslims`` and a Muslim country.``



Why did I waste my time writing those posts. Stuka has said so much better than I ever could.

-Manto

HisEexcellency:

``Jinnah wisely remained vague about the role of Islamic law in Pakistan.``

In hindsight, it is my subjective opinion that the move was not wise. Pakistan is still suffering from an identity crisis due to that vagueness. Romair, Manto and Urstruly on Chowk are three Pakistanis with three different visions, yet all of them are ``good`` Pakistanis. In Pakistan, I don`t think that a national consensus has emerged even now.
In India, incluidng the BJP, all political parties respct the ONE cnstitution that defines the national consensus.

My reading of history, both Indian and Pakistani, is that the situation was so polarized by the 1940S that there was no way an alternative could have emerged to Jinnah`s leadership. A clear vision therefore could have been articulated. Moreover, keeping the ultimate destination vague is not good policy in the long term. All this is ofcourse in hindsight.

I would like to emphasize that my PERSONAL view is that Jinnah`s vision in 1947 is immaterial. A consensus of the Pakistani people on the other hand is essential. Also, my PERSONAL opinion is that Romair`s thoughts, keeping the country Islamic in name but not going overboard ``Islam Lite`` if you will, is actually closer to the reality of what the majority of Pakistanis want.

Manto`s vision, though admirable and closer to what I would want my country to be like, I feel is a bit radical for the Pakistan of today.

#26, mantolives:
I appreciate your recognition of my concerns. Those concerns are not limited to Pakistan only. I am convinced the fates of India and pakistan are interlinked and therefore, the good of one will affect positively the other no matter how antagonistic the two countries appear to be at present. I also appreciate your not passing any judgement on my thesis and leaving it up to fair historians of the future. I hope and pray that before long the unravelling of twisted strands of relationship between two countries of one people will begin. Let it be through Fazlur Rahman if it has to.

Atif Mian: would you believe so far I had not read your article. The discussion was so intense, I did not have time to read the initializing statement!!!! I want to unhesitatingly endorse your thoughts and I have no disagreement with any of them.

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

here`s a excerpt of a piece on MMA written by Anwar Iqbal from PBS`s website highlighting JUST HOW SIGNIFICANT MMA`s victory was:

`Is Pakistan likely to Become a Taliban State?`
...
``Consequently, the MMA emerged as the single largest political group in the Pathan areas. It now rules the North-West Frontier Province, where it has a majority in the provincial assembly, and also is a coalition partner in the adjacent Balochistan province. At the national level, the MMA won 53 seats in an assembly of 342, the highest number for any Islamist group since Pakistan`s creation in 1947. This makes the religious parties, who had never won more than 10 seats before this election, the third largest force in parliament after the pro-Musharraf ruling alliance and the opposition PPP of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.

A closer look at the election results, however, provides a better picture. The PPP, which won 62 seats in the National Assembly, received the highest number of votes, 25.01% of the total polled. The pro-Musharraf Pakistan Muslim League (PML-Q) received 24.81% of the votes. In the National Assembly, however, the PML-Q became the single largest party, with 77 seats, and later formed the federal government with the help of smaller parties.

The MMA, which surprised many by winning 53 seats, received 11.10% of the total votes. Even the smallest group in the National Assembly, the Pakistan Muslim League (N), the party of another former prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, got more votes. Although it has only 14 members in the assembly, it received 11.23% of the total votes.

This lends strength to the opposition`s claim that had its leaders -- Bhutto and Sharif -- been allowed to return from exile and campaign for their candidates, their parties might have fared better. It also strengthens the allegation by independent observers -- including some from the European Union -- that though the government did not interfere with the voting, it manipulated results to ensure that the PPP and PML (N) did not get a majority.

Although the MMA won 53 seats, it did not increase its vote bank. Religious parties usually receive 5% to 6% of all votes across the country. But because in the past they often competed against one another, their votes were split and they did not have a significant presence in the national legislature. There are also allegations the military government supported religious parties as a bulwark against the mainstream political elite and hopes to use the Islamic card in its dealings with the United States....``

rozaiba:

Molvis power is about to increase with the certain appointment of new Balochistan governor as a result of possible deal with MMA on LFO. The resident specialists here are never going tp accept the role military establishment intentionally played in propping up MMA. Even today MMA will lose both provinves if a new fair elections are called. Similarly Ch. Shujaat is more likely to assume prime ministerial position once deal is done because he is much more acceptable to MMA. The governments in Panjab and Sindh are non-functional due to overlordships of military but they have given free hand to MMA in NWFP and Balochistan.

Military had three tier strategy right from the begining. One of the main difference this time different from previous military rules was to bet on three horses simultaneously. Topmost being PML (Q) and Laghari`s NA, followed by a gathering of infependent candidates backed by ISI and third group, MMA.

They knew that chances of winning against PPP, PML (N) and MQM are bleak for Musharraf. The so-called liberal support led by The Friday Times was never there for Musharraf. TFT`s Sethi had his own axe to grind with NS as he has still not given up with Ittefaqnama regular column.

The reason Musharraf is still in power is apparently due to one person and his name is Colin Powell. He has kept all Islamists stone throw away from him to make sure USA keeps betting on this mule.

Jinnah was not vague. He clearly stated ``Religion has nothing to do with the business of state``.

However, Pakistan continues to go running jumping in a totally different direction. And possibly towards a melt down unless unfettered democracy and secularism is the course chosen.

As for the threat posed by the Military and Mullas, the only way to nuetralize them both through one stroke is to normalize relations with India.

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

The author wrote:

``Mr. Khalid Waqar Chamkani, a member of parliament from JUI (F) in the Frontier assembly, presented a new bill aimed at revolutionizing the educational system of Pakistan. The bill declared the wearing of shirts and trousers as “Un-Islamic” (and hence un-constitutional), and called for a strict ban on shirts and trousers in all schools and colleges of the province.``

Unfortunately, from this opening paragraph I was expecting an article on the education system in Pakistan, however it turned out to be a general political discussion with a rather familiar theme. But back to this, I have some questions:

a) What is the current dress code in state run schools and colleges, if any? How do they vary from province to province, if at all? I seem to remember that under Zia, the shalwar kameez was enforced...

b) Aside from the dress code, exactly what other steps/measures were proposed by the MMA to reform the education system in Pakistan? Or was the author being sarcastic, and the only thing done was the bill for the changing/enforcing of dress code?

Romair--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?

**
The biggest problem which the ulama face is that even when they win in a fair manner, like in Algeria, the secularists in Pakistan and the USA will always conspire to keep them out of power...shame for those supporters of democracy who only seem to accept results when parties they like win!

**
As for Mawlana Noorani--if only all the factions within the Ahle Sunnat would also vote for him he could be Pakistan`s saviour insha Allah! I also think that if Prof. Tahir ul Qadri`s PAT could also be enticed to join the MMA it would greatly strengthen the Islamic block...

re:#31 by Mantolives
Would you deny that Pak, which started out as a ``country for muslims`` has not become a ``muslim country``?
Sridhar

sameerjb:

from what i hear, part of the deal the MMA is to strike with the gvt. invovles allowing the assembly legislature to control and regulate the finances of the local bodies. This is MMA`s demand as the provincial MPA`s aren`t happy at the local bodies officials who came to power earlier. Obviously, with the acceptance of this demand, local bodies will dead. So this is once area where MMA`s influence will increase.

Personally I feel insulted. I had actually thought these local bodies would be of some value and had gone around helping put up advertisements as well as help organize gatherings and rallies for garnering votes for a friend who was running as a labor councilor-nothing hi fi but a little contribution all the same. What a total waste and a sham. The same friend was then kidnapped by a serving brigadier to make sure he and others vote for Mian Aamir as the chief Nazim of Lahore.

#38, nazarhayatkhan:
Standing ovation to you!!
Could you write an article on the developments in Pakistan during 1947 to 1950. That will put alot of things in perspective since I am confident that you have the decency, objectivity and goodwill to do justice to truth.

``The result has been that the very Mullahs that Jinnah fought so hard to defeat, today stand ready to bulldoze whatever is left of Jinnah’s vision.``

Wake up pakistanis, jinnah is dead. One should not even think of living in another mans dream. Pakistan of today is the outcome of the actions of pakistanis, and it is time that you all accept it. The evolution of pakistan has not been haphzard, it has followed a patters of evolving into a unique versuion of islam, jihadic islam.
Jihadists are going across afghanistan now and killing. They are coming to kashmir and killing. They are coming to delhi and killing. They have gove to the US to kill. Start accepting the reality of unique pak version of islam, jiahdic islam.
Now most of the saudi funds are cut, and it is the abduls of pakistan through a few paises from every one supporting their vision of pakistan, a jihadic pakistan.

The original bill included the clause: `Western Dress is unislamic`.

It was after the ANP (Frontier Gandhi`s son`s party) legislators got up and repeatedly pointed towards Jinnah`s picture (with the suit) that the Mullahs were forced to amend this clause. Do you understand how that old boy still remains material to pakistani politics?
If yes would you mind explaining it to Feroze K as well?

Had it not been for that long dead Jinnah, NWFP legislature would have declared western dress unIslamic, and hence it would become an apostasy to wear Pant and shirt.

-Manto

rsidhar,

It has become a Muslim country and an Islamic ideological state. Have you ever seen me deny that? Should I then stop struggling for my own ideals?

Stuka

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

-Manto

Stuka,

I agree with your estimate. Ok... So say I agree to the name `Islamic Republic of Pakistan` and we create a state which is secular all but in name. Ok.. but tommorow a Naqshbandi starts creating trouble and saying out loud `Pakistan calls itself Islamic Republic, but why isn`t it Islamic?`` When you surrender on little things like these... you are giving the religious fanatics a foot in the door.

Ok so Jinnah died in 1948 and we have whitewashed his views on the state, but the words of the Hindu MPs who spoke out against the Objectives Resolution still ring true.


Romair,

Kindly list the achievements of the MMA government in NWFP except the banning of Western Dress and forcing women to wear the Burqah? MMA Government in NWFP is going to be the end of the Mullah in of itself.

BTW It says a lot for the `balance` in your posts is that the only person supporting you is Naqshbandi.


Nazarhayat Khan:

I agree with you ... Jinnah wasn`t vague at all. His statement `Pakistan shall not be a theocracy run by priests with a divine mission` was almost prophetic of what is going on in NWFP... the MMA government has made real a mess of things there... apparently we are now to forget all the true ends of Government as per Locke Hobbes and Salmond... the only true end of Government is to force women to wear Burqahs.

Jinnah had clearly foreseen this then which is why he wanted these `priests with a divine mission` out of politics. Forget even the idealistic human rights angle of secularism... it is a practical necessity for the state to simply survive.



ArjunM,

If you read closely, I don`t agree with the Websites` figures either. However it is not a random website but the mouthpiece of the Pakistan Christian Congress which is the convening body of the All Pakistan Minorities alliance.

The truth is somewhere between the 3% official Government figures (CIA Factbook relies of census figures carried out by the country`s administration), and the 10-12% claimed by various minority groups and NGOs. My own estimate is 7-8% and this is the accepted view amongst the Human Rights Activists etc. Acha let us assume that Pakistan Government is right, and there are only 3% Non-Muslims in Pakistan.. that is still 4.5 Million people (As opposed to 12.2 million that I estimate).... Are the rights of those people not important? Should I stop fighting for them because it bothers you Arjun?

I wonder what angle you have in hoping for the plight of Pakistani minorities to continue? And what is this insecurity you have? Why do always feel the need to prove that you Indians are better than pakistan? Accepted.... You Indians are DA BOMB, and we are the scum. Arjun, does that satisfy your various insecurities? Phallic size maybe?



Naqshbandi,

``As for Mawlana Noorani--if only all the factions within the Ahle Sunnat would also vote for him he could be Pakistan`s saviour insha Allah!``

I`ll give you one guess at what Maulana Noorani has in common with Michael Jackson. Amazing... an Ahle-sunnat savior for a country founded by a Shia.

-Manto

stuka #22: ````secular populace`` has no meaning. It is the government that can be secualr if it does not adopt an official religion.``

Secular populace is the most important factor in secularism. I am surprised, you think it has no meaning. India is currently not a secular state, even though its govt. is secular, legally and Constituionally speaking. This is because the tendencies of its population are not secular - or no longer secular.

``The legal system in India and Pakistan was completly the same, an inheritence of British Common Law and Indian traditions.``

This is true. And to the best of my knowledge, the British left behind a secular system. Hence your claim of India, not being secular, is incorrect - at least at the govt. level. Even at the populace level, I would say a majority of the Indians wanted a secular state, judging by their support of Congress. A secular state, need not be, 100% secular. It always has religious oppositions.

The pitch given by the leaders of the two countries was quite different though. Jinnah, wanted a country for Muslims. While Nehru wanted everyone, regardless of religion, to live in one country. I assume you do see the differences in this.

``Pakistan did not seperate from India``

If you want to look at it technically, then yes. Pakistan did not separate from the India of today. But it did separate from the India of pre-1947. All texts, Indian or Pakistan, that I have read, refer to Pakistan breaking away from India. In fact, one of the major lines pitched by Indians, used to be (before the rise of BJP) that Pakistan was wrong to separate from India (the word British Empire was not used, since all Indians agree that Pakistan should have broken away from the British).

``was a ``Muslim Majority`` country seperating from a Hindu Majority one.``

This is exactly what I stated. A Muslim majority separated from a country which was by design secular (unless you think India was not by design secular in 1947). All secular countries have a majority of one religion or the other. In India`s case, it was Hinduism. However, Nehru and Co. did not want a religious system of govt.

``The above two points illustrate the hollowness of your claim that raison d`etre of Pakistan was a non secular state.``

Please try to first understand my claims, before declaring them hollow. If you cannot understand them, then ask me. I did not say the raison d`etre of Pakistan was non-secular. I stated that there are contradictions in its raison d`etre. They should be obvious to everyone. Anyone can thus, twist its raison d`etre to suit whatever they want, yet, no one can put up a convincing argument, in either direction. They can just convince the already convinced, and use Jinnah etc. to suit their claims. 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.

Anyone who thinks Jinnah was absolutely clear, at a public level, on what he wanted Pakistan to be, has done very little research on the subject. Jinnah, wasn`t even sure whether he wanted an independent Pakistan, up til a few years before independence. He wasn`t even sure whether the Punjab and NWFP leadership would vote for Pakistan, well into the 40s. And he wasn`t even sure, what would constitute the boundaries of Pakistan, till almost the last days. How in the world, could he have a clear vision of a country, he wasn`t even sure he wanted to create?

I will present some history of the speeches to you, which will highlight how extemproneous they were, i.e. he did not plan m,any of the famous statements, he just spoke them as they came to his mind. Unfortunately, too many Pakistanis, are unwilling to discuss Jinnah on a historic basis, without biases. They just want to quote him, out of context, to suit their agendas. Discussion of history should never be tainted with subjectivity.

I do agree with you that people need to look ahead now, and not get locked into what one person wanted 55 years ago. One cannot live in the past.

I don`t have my own definition of secularism. There is a standard definition of Secularism: ``The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.`` (www.dictionary.com)

=== 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