Western Media’s War on Pakistan

``Here is another Paki smoking Pot.
Muslims did not rule hindus, idiot.
Some muslim rulers ruled both hindus and muslims.
Some muslim rulers and invaders also converted a lot of hindus to Islam.``

Sure Idiot is the person who thinks in terms of who ruled whom! Did I say Muslims ruled Hindus? Read the statement again... its says ``If there ever was a Unified Bharat, it was under the rule of Muslims.``
As you use the term idiot, surely there are lot of them out there who on one hand talk about ``Akhand Bharat`` while on the other hand think in terms of who ruled whom.

``Some muslim rulers ruled both hindus and muslims.``
Extrapolating on your line thinking you now want some hindu rules to rule both hindus and muslims ?

``Some muslim rulers and invaders also converted a lot of hindus to Islam.``
Very true!! Who denies this ? Thats is why we say we have created our own Identity in subcontinent.

``Best test would be: do these Turks, Arabs accept u as their own?``
LOL... My dear! we have our own identity. We are known as Pakistanis.

``Did the muslims in the subcontinent fight for freedom against the British or Hindus?``
They fought against both. And I must remind you they faught against both when British first invaded the subcontinent.

``Looking at the state of affairs today, a seperate muslim state does not make sense.``
I don`t understand why Indians have this absurd craze of trying to prove that a separate muslim state does not make sense. Who give you the right to judge all alone what makes sense and what does not ? I am sorry, you are just trying to answer for the sake of asnwers. Did you not read what I said in the last post ? Here is what I said.
``Unfortunately you are trying to teach us what freedom means. You are trying to tell us what we muslims have been fighting for.``
Yet again you are trying to teach us what makes sense for us and what does not ?

Rest of post tries to prove Pakistan is bound to be a failed state. Great nations face great troubles. Sates are always bound to either fail or succeed at one time or the other. We don`t see any Persian empire or Roman empire anymore. We won`t see the American empire much longer. Just because Pakistan is facing troubles today does not automatically mean Pakistan is going to be a failed state. Nations must know how to emerge victorious out of the crisis, only then they can become great nations. There is a saying that goes like this : ``There are two ways to handle a situation; face the music or run for the cover``. You are trying to teach us ``run for the cover``.

#161 by bongdongs
`` Do you not understand the point I am making``
pray tell me what exactly is the point you are making?

There might be a hereditary or genetic problem if you did not understand the point. Did you read the sentence next to the one you quoted above ?

``(Philosopher Sir Karl Popper posits that the principal aim of government must be to ``minimize avoidable suffering``. Another author has proposed five criteria: ``Electoral suffrage - protection of life and property - justice, health and education for all, at least to a certain level - maintenance of a sound administrative infrastructure - roads, transport, drains - and the equitable collection of taxes.``

As many criteria as the number of mouths.
I quest you again, don`t try to teach us what is good and what is bad based on the theories of philosophers that are bound to evaporate in history. We differ right from the basics. Our theory and judgment of right and wrong is based on our religious foundations. So I am sorry we can`t agree on the political theory of the state/government, right from the start.
This is yet another reason for two states in sub-continent and again it is neither your responsibility, nor your capacity to theorize on the subject whether muslims should have a separate state to realize their distinct political, religious and social rights, or can it be done within a united India.
Muslim scholars of the subcontinent have theorized on this subject. They differ in their opinion and I respect both of them. It was the job of the muslims of subcontinent to decide and whatever they decided, they decided well.
But why you want a unified India is nothing more than a bigger chunk of land to rule.

#160 by sohaib_hamid
``I already pointed this out that it were Muslims who were dethroned by British, and if there ever was a Unified Bharat, it was under the rule of Muslims. ``
Ha, ha, ha.
Here is another Paki smoking Pot.
Muslims did not rule hindus, idiot.
Some muslim rulers ruled both hindus and muslims.
Some muslim rulers and invaders also converted a lot of hindus to Islam. It is possible that if u trace your ancestory, you would realize your ancestors were actually hindus. I know, that hurts and you are going to defend by saying you have this turkish ancestory or Arabian ancestory blah, blah, blah. Best test would be: do these Turks, Arabs accept u as their own? Last i heard, Pakis were not getting any special treatment for being muslims in the Land of the Dark (which is what i call Saudi Arabia as).
Sridhar

re: #160 by sohaib_hamid
My question to u:
Did the muslims in the subcontinent fight for freedom against the British or Hindus? I read from some books that Pakis have been indoctrinated into believing that muslims in British India were actually fighting against the Hindus? A cursory glance at history will disprove that theory. War of Independence had both hindus and muslims fighting together. Does Paki history books teach their children that people like Jhansi ki Rani, Tatya Tope fought against the British? I bet not.
Let us face it, some Paki politicians had it easy. Men like Nehru, Gandhi and the others (which included many muslims too) worked tirelessly and when the cake was being handed over, Jinnah and others (fighting for a seperate muslim state) communalised the politics and demanded a part of the cake.

Looking at the state of affairs today, a seperate muslim state does not make sense. Hindus are still plagued by the question: if Pak is a country for muslims of the subcontinent, why could it not keep its eastern wing together and why are there more muslims in India today than in Pak?
Indian leaders like Nehru, Gandhi simply decided to cut of the limb that was looking ugly (today, that limb is gangrenous).
Looking back, it was a good decision. Pak is the terrorist hunting ground today. Even Pakis feel it is a failed state.
http://www.satribune.com/archives/may2_8_04/P1_khurram.htm
(Philosopher Sir Karl Popper posits that the principal aim of government must be to ``minimize avoidable suffering``. Another author has proposed five criteria: ``Electoral suffrage - protection of life and property - justice, health and education for all, at least to a certain level - maintenance of a sound administrative infrastructure - roads, transport, drains - and the equitable collection of taxes. If a state fails to deliver on at least a quorum of the above - then one has to say that the contract between state and citizen begins to look shaky - and if it fails on all of the above, then it’s a failed state.``

How does the Pakistani state fare? It does not pass any of the five tests. It fails on Popper’s yardstick. Instead it inflicts untold misery on innumerable Pakistanis. This human suffering must not and cannot be dismissed on account of our poverty and culture. The state is guilty. The military and civil establishment, judiciary, and the politicians have failed the citizens. It is unacceptable that generations perish bereft of basic education, health, justice, and equality of opportunity. Thomas Jefferson’s words resonate across the centuries: ``I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.``)

(No education for the poor. No health. No public facilities. And the greatest, perennial nightmare: no protection of life and property; and no justice. Torture and abuse instead of law enforcement. Extortion and manipulation, instead of justice from the bench. Mercenary public prosecution. The police and the judiciary are festering sores on the body politic. No amount of complaints of low pay can excuse their abuse of their fellow citizens.)

And, foreign journalists have been wondering if it is the next failed state:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EC01Df03.html

From a book review: ``Pakistan: In the Shadow of Jihad and Afghanistan, by Mary Anne Weaver``

(Profusion of drugs, arms, private militias, fundamentalist ideologies and sectarian violence has led to an ``accumulation of disorder in Pakistan such that it could well be the next Yugoslavia`` (p 7). Whichever place in Pakistan Weaver visited in 2001, ``there was a tangible fear that Pakistan was drifting, perhaps inexorably, toward chaos ... one of the most frightening places on Earth``. Weaver`s gut feeling expressed in the preface is that Pakistan`s structural weaknesses are so advanced that it ``could well become the world`s newest failed state - a failed state with nuclear weapons`` (p 10). The next major day of terror in the United States could also come from this combustible and volatile country, whose military rulers halfheartedly agreed to assist Washington against the Taliban when cornered with implied threats of diplomatic and aid embargo.)

So, how does it matter today if muslims ruled India or not in the past. The country for which Jinnah fought, the country that was supposed to be the home of all muslims of the subcontinent has less muslims today than in India and it is failing fast as a nationstate.
Sridhar

Well first of all you should realize that the NWFP people did indeed have a referendum,either to join india or pakistan the third option for a seperate option was not given to them by none other Mr.Nehru his government of khan abdul ghaffar khan was in the NWFP, the casue of veto for the third option was becasue he thought Pkaistan wouldnt come inot existance and givving this type of option would make the future integrity of ``his`` vision of india at stake.Jinnah knew of this, so the pathan decided to vote for Pakistan instead of india.

now the baluchis sardars themslevs decided though their own jirga(council of elders) to join pakistan.there wasnt apleblicite there becasue this is the way hitngs are done there even today.Yes they rose up in the seventies but how can u compare that case to kashmir?baluchistan isnt a disputed territory .... kashmir is.Balushitan case is more like the other countless states u have that are seeking independance.The difference is your states were never asked also. like baluchistan of thier choice.

The lastly is your misconception about baltistan and gilgit , i have yet to see a freedom movement come across like that in kashmir and them asking for independance, lest you know it those parts were part of the state of kashmir. And this shia sunni divide is also i firmly belive propagated and supported by your intelligencies agency of RAW.

And India points to the documents that the maharaja of kashmir gave , but tell me when the nizam of hyderabad as going to throw his weight behind pakistan, and hyderabad even bigger than kashmir , why did india send in the army?it was also a princely state just like kashmir!and when the junagargh esate HAD joined pakistan and jinnah was alive india didnt dare do anything, Jinnah death came, india sent in forces and also took in junagargh.And then in a very civil way had a pleblicite there...a pleblicite which canoot be held willingly in kashmir for the simple reason ....india will loose.

logic is not with you; what you only have is , yah we have done it what are you going to do about it........this was the same attitude of the marhatta, before Ahmed Shah Abdali came , we all know what happened then.

#163 by arjun_m on May 3, 2004 2:39pm PT

No, I am not interested in any marching armies because I still believe that we are civilized enough to find diplomatic ways to resolve outstanding problems. If you think Pakistan did something wrong by giving land to China, does that make it ok for India to do something worse by killing 20+ Kashmiri civilians/month? Unfortunately, we have had this kind of competition going for quite sometime now. Your last comment essentially proves the point I have been trying to make. Indians consider Kashmir (a disputed region) their possession, and use brutal force to maintain their illegal occupation without any regard for the will of the majority of Kashmiri people. Thanks.

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

#159 by harish_hyd on May 2, 2004 11:01pm PT

Harish bhai, I appreciate your opinion that Kashmiris are first and foremost Indians for you. But is this an opinion shared by the Kashmiris as well? I think that`s the most important question here. And that’s a question only Kashmiris can answer if they are given a chance to answer that. Unlike unrest in your north eastern states, freedom movement in Kashmir is not an internal problem of India. Kashmir is an internationally recognized disputed region, so it is not a matter of partitioning India, because it isn’t a part of India (or Pakistan) in the first place. Pakistan’s hint at dropping UN resolutions is a sign of great flexibility from Pakistan. We are waiting for India to reciprocate that gesture by dropping the “atoot-ang” position. Obviously, both Pakistan and India have interests in Kashmir, but ultimately it should come down to what Kashmiris want. Regarding your concerns about the demographics of voters in a plebiscite, that is something which can be addressed through involvement of the international community.

#160

`` Do you not understand the point I am making``

pray tell me what exactly is the point you are making?

``Ever hear of Battle of Assaye? Khadki? Anglo-Sikh wars?``

Very amusing !! As if Assaye, Khadi or Sikhs were the rullers of so called ``Akhand-Bharat`` !!

I already pointed this out that it were Muslims who were dethroned by British, and if there ever was a Unified Bharat, it was under the rule of Muslims.

The very fact that instead of a unified front, you mention different fronts by different communities against the British, proves the point that there was no such thing as `One India`. Do I need to elobrate this point any further ?

``47 really, are you sure? Ever heard of Mangal Pande, Tatya Tope, Rani of Jhansi, Nana Phadnavis, Holkars of Indore?``

Ok. It was 57. my mistake. So? does this weaken the argument ?
Nice that you dig out few names from the books of history. Do you not understand the point I am making? Were these names rulers of ``One India`` ?


dost-miter said:
``...Did I say that muslims did not take part in the freedom movement? Thousands did, went to jail and were beaten by the British sticks. But they were fighting for the freedom of India, not for the creation of Pakistan.``

I never tried to prove the point that Muslims took part in the freedom movement. This point does not need to be proved. If you be any means feel that I have been wasting my effort trying to prove this then you are mistaken.

Unfortunately you are trying to teach us what freedom means. You are trying to tell us what we muslims have been fighting for. We have made a history here, we have taught the people of this continent what freedom means. The indian sub continent had always been receptive to external invasions. We taught them how resist the invasions.

bongdongs said :
``The PAkistani admiration for Tipu/Haider always amuses me. ``
It did amuse folkes like you at that time when British changed the fate of India and such spectators were amused to see Tipu/Haider.

#150 by AhmadBilal on April 30, 2004 2:04pm PT

[The debate should not be on what India and Pakistan are willing to give to each other. We are talking about people of Kashmir, not commodities. Most important thing is their collective will, and their right to decide their future. And that`s where a change in attitude on both sides is required.]

Ahmad Bhai, we here are of the opinion that Kashmiris are first and foremost Indians. They have had grievances with the state, but so do a host of other states (the North Eastern states for example). That does not mean another partition is the solution. A majority of Indians are firmly of the opinion that the various secessionist groups (aided and abetted in no small measure by your government) have no option but to work within the framework of the Indian union. The UN resolution are passe today. They were to be acted upon immediately after they were passed, not 57 years after they were passed. The blame for this rests solely with the Pakistan government for not withdrawing its troops and irregulars from the territory they controlled and creating favorable conditions for a fair plebiscite. And today, the demographics of ``Azad`` Kashmir has changed so much that Kashmiris are a minority and Punjabis and Pushtoons are a majority, unlike in Indian Kashmir where no non-Kashmiri is allowed to buy land or settle down. How will your government guarantee that in case a plebiscite is held in Kashmir today, there won`t be more Pakistanis than Kashmiris in the vote?

And if Pakistan`s heart so bleeds for Kashmiris, why didn`t it allow a plebiscite in NWFP when the Pathans revolted against the state not long after partition and in Baluchistan when the Baluch rose against it in the late seventies? And more recently, why doesn`t your government allow a plebiscite in Gilgit and Baltistan where the Shia majority is demanding independence?

I agree that we must treat Kashmiris as human beings and not as a commodity, and it is precisely because of this that we refuse to recognize any other distinction based on religion, race, or sex.

[I don`t think Pakistan would have any problem withdrawing from Azad Kashmir if India agrees to a roadmap towards a plebiscite under international supervision for a peaceful solution of the Kashmir problem according to UN resolutions.]

Have you been reading news lately? Gen. Musharraf himself has said that Pakistan is willing to drop the UN resolutions as a solution. Now what does that tell you? I think it just goes to say that Pakistan thinks it`s more about territory and less about the Kashmiris.

The PAkistani admiration for Tipu/Haider always amuses me.
I think there even is a ship called PNS Tipu Sultan. Its as if the USN operated a ship called ``Peter the Great`` :-)

sohaib_hamid#153

``Go and read the history of the wars of Pani-patt, the Hayder Ali and the Tipu Sultan. It was more than holding a `quit India` placard.``

...I didn`t know that they were fighting for the freedom of Pakistan.

...Did I say that muslims did not take part in the freedom movement? Thousands did, went to jail and were beaten by the British sticks. But they were fighting for the freedom of India, not for the creation of Pakistan. Pakistan was, as I said before, a bye-product of the movement for the freedom of India.

#153
``Go and read the history of the wars of Pani-patt, the Hayder Ali and the Tipu Sultan. It was more than holding a `quit India` placard.``

Panipat? what? could you elaborate?

Ever hear of Battle of Assaye? Khadki? Anglo-Sikh wars?

``To take you a little further in history, it were the muslims who sacrificed their lives in the 1847 war of independence.``
47 really, are you sure? Ever heard of Mangal Pande, Tatya Tope, Rani of Jhansi, Nana Phadnavis, Holkars of Indore?

I didnt take all this talk about history textbooks in Pakistan seriously, but now ...

Oh Lord have we come down to this today, My mind reels .....

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

#151 by dost-mittar on April 30, 2004 6:55pm PT

Yes, we share the pain of the bloodbath at the dawn of freedom. It is amazing that in the end we are all so human after all. Personally, I don`t think one really has to go to jail or fight (physically) in a movement. Indian Muslims felt insecure about living as a minority in a united India, and that translated into overwhelming support for Muslim League and formation of Pakistan. For me, that was enough of a movement, and a case well-fought by the distinguished lawyer Mr. Jinnah. :) Anyway, I read your Lahore travelogue and it was great that you enjoyed the traditional Pakistani hospitality. I also hope to have a detailed tour of India someday. Thanks.