'Constitutionally' Different Neighbours

...what`s happening here...hundred plus interacts and no salim chauhan with anti-punjabi anti-pakistani agenda...i hope he is not sick...physically...;)

HP #106
You are being modest! You are correct in stating that we must learn from history. Jinnah was certainly a very good implementor (or a do-er). Once he decided on a mission, he accomplished. However, he never had a plan for what he will do with his success (or if he had, than he never announced it). This has resulted in everyone coming up with all sort of plans attributed to MAJ.

It is strange that we neve got a well defined plans from MAJ.

You are correct about Indian Union struggling for first 50 years and democratic succession helping us in correcting the situation. Whatever fault Congress`s planning had, at least everyone knew what the plans were. We did get lunatic political groups coming to the top once in a while, but fortunately, people got a choice to push them out through election. Ouster of Lallu/Rabri is a case in point. Current scenario in UP where Mulayam Singh, Mayawati and Kalyan Singh are playing musical chairs is another such case. Whatever flaws democracy has, we can always hope to get rid of idiots through a democratic vision given by our founding fathers.

Unfortunately, Pakistan didn`t get such vision. Pakistanis need to sit together and decide upon their vision for future.

Regional political parties have given voice to the aspirations of a country so diverse as India and this has actually strngthened the nationalism/ federalism. Every one has a stake , every one thinks it is their own country. Only Kashmir valley muslims and a few ethinic groups (tribal identities) in NE have not joined this.

Nothing is imposed from the mythical center to any ethnic, religious groups in India. If the groups portoest the Center timidly backs off. Alliance politics ensures that no group dominates others completely.

A Dravidian DMK party originally with separatist ideology in the south made the biggest donation to the war effort when a few mountains were occupied in Kargil by Northern Light Infantry of Pak army in 1999. Some of the most jingoist tricolor waving Indians can be found in the Madras. A Muslim from the south who designed missiles for India does not even speak Hindi, yet it did not prevent him from becoming the President

When the instituitions and civil bureacracy are strong no group can reach the top and change things dramatically.

#101 by friend

“HP#92 has summarized the cause of Pakistan`s existing situation very well”

Not true at all. I pointed out some historical realities but nowhere did I claim what you are attributing to me.

IMO, as a nation we must understand what historical mistakes were made and where we were successful. The open discussion on issues without fear of someone looking over our shoulders has to form the basis for the dialog and a future course of action. So, I write what I think is something that future Pakistani leaders like Yassar should understand. My opinions about the Pakistan struggle were formed some 20-25 years ago and now what I write is based on the exact understanding I had then.

However, not having a program in 1947 did not lead to the current situation. What If Jinnah had a program in 1947? We cannot assume that some overwhelming political factors could not have changed that program.

I can quote several countries that started out with a program and a plan but faltered majestically and some of them are not in any better position than what Pakistan is in today. I can cite many countries, that were never occupied and still don’t have well defined political future for them.

Since people are comparing Pakistani situation with India, I might add here that for the first 50 years India struggle mightily with its economic or even the political message. Basically, what Congress planned and visualized for India came to naught in only 50 years and India had to change course after suffering many setbacks.

What has so far worked for India is the system of succession in the form of democracy but the fear in democracies like India is that that some lunatic political group can get to the top and change the structure fundamentally.

All Indian problems have not been resolved because they had a plan in 1947. Every plan is good until it meets the ground realities. In India’s case, the ground reality has altered many features of the original plan. This correction would continue because you cannot sit on laurels.

This perhaps is beyond the scope of this article but the rise of regional parties and alliances is opening a dangerous political situation for India.

What if the next federal government in India is an alliance of regional parties without any national party dominating?
Where would India head in such a situation?

Pakistan has helped people of that region. So Jinnah was right in going after his goals and he got to it despite the hurdles thrown at him. We must also accept that he was not perfect and move on.

Re: # 91 Ranjit
>>>>>>>>The creation of Pakistan will go down in Islamic history as one of the biggest setbacks to Islam comparable to the defeat of Islam in Cordoba, Spain. No wonder the mullahs opposed it tooth and nail. Effectively, Jinnah withdrew muslims to two corners of the subcontinent that they once had ruled and handed over the rest in a religiously clensed manner to hindus. It was a perfect solution for hindus and a complete mistake for muslims, who gave up all hope to be the masters of South Asia. <<<<<<<<

RIGHT ON TARGET!

Terrorism, nuclear intimidation, ``Gujarat riots prove that Pakistan was not a mistake``, etc are consolations to hide this painful reality from consciousness. ..............



That`s all fine if only they could pull together and focus on economic development and stop shooting professors in Bangalore, planting bombs in temples, etc.........

re: Mantolives

Yasser, let me expand on my interact # 72.

There is a serious problem in Pakistan today. The problem comes from the reality of Pakistan, as it exists today in the present, and as it might exist tomorrow in the future. The reality is Pakistan is not operating on the reasons, which were claimed for its existence. The present day reality of Pakistan would suggest the reason of its being a bonzai Mughul empire.

In this sense, it really does not matter historically what others might have thought of Jinnah and what Jinnah wanted of Pakistan as a nation-state. As a realist, I am not interested in the lessons of history, because I live in a world where there are choices and they are consequences. History does not offer Pakistan any meaningful guide on how to solve our problems, because we have to deal with the very real and serious limitation of our present situation and we have to find an answer to our problems from within the constraints of our limited choices.

We cannot re-create history and in that sense, even though I understand the circumtances of Pakistan`s birth in 1947, I believe that those circumtances are a moot consideration in our present predictment. It has been awhile, but my sense/instincts of realism are finally overpowering my sense of wishful thinking and I am coming, very fast, to the conclusion that it does not matter what happened in the last 60 years. What matters and is now the only consideration is what happens tomorrow in Pakistan.

We, as a nation, no longer can take refuge in the pages of history and use history as tool for abdicating our collective responsibilities towards the future. In that sense, I believe that we have to influence our future on the basis of using our intelligence and not on what was hoped for, as our future 60 years ago. Whether Jinnah had plan for Pakistan or not is immaterial, because we should be more concerened about whether we have an idea of where Pakistan is headed or not.

There is a very dire and pressing question because each and every Pakistani and that is:

Do we live in a common future for our nation or not?

Everything else will come from the answer to this question and if we do; then we must forget what history wanted or wished us to do and we should make our own history by shaping a future.

In a nut shell, the question is not what Jinnah might have wanted but what we want as a nation. Do we even know what we want as a nation? To most of our citizens, Jinnah is only a historic memory and nothing more and this generation does not really care what he might have said or thought or wanted, because the issues in their lives are more common and more urgent - like potable water, good schooling for their kids, safe streets, law and order and jobs for all.

In many ways, Jinnah`s speech of August 11, 1947 was an evocation of a dream but we never created the right tools to build that dream into a reality. I am not denying the importance of that speech, but I am stating that it has no bearing on our future. Speeches motivate the people and it is the people, who them craft a future on the basis of those speeches but a people who do not believe in a future will not be motivated by any speech; no matter how inspiring.

The task before us, as a nation, is to convince - not motivate - our people that there is a future ahead of them and then, we have to deal with the problems facing them and making their lives more gentle and happy and safe. Once they are convinced that they have a share in this nation, then they will motivated to work towards a common future but we must show them that future, not on the basis of a few speeches, but in real and practical and tangible terms.

The question is - can we do it?

If not; then the reality is what I suggested in my interact # 72.

Ciao

``The ML was not able to resolve the tension that can arise between a new set of formal rules and existing informal constraints (housed in norms, conventions etc) resulting in frequent constitutional violations and experiments. The Congress party on the other hand, due to its historical embedded ness amongst the peasant population was able to successfully pursue its objective of institutionalizing its role within a democratic Indian polity. ``



Can we have some sanity in these obscure statements made by the author.........someplain english would be good enough.................do we need to speak jargon to say clearly that Pakistan`s imagined identity was flawed in its very conception and that TNT or its variants now being propounded by OBL is not a viable political theory in modern times.............

Manto#96

``Ofcourse the person who was offered the chance to become ``shahinshah`` but refused emphatically and whose family never claimed any dynasty to rule in the country he founded... and whose relatives live a low middle class life in Karachi`s lower middle class neighborhoods ... wanted to be sole emperor..

But people who ruled for 18 years straight and whose families have made great ruling dynasties and whose daughter in laws have been claiming power despite being foreign... are democrats...

so you are back to your old games! When left with no arguments, you will resort to a comparison game. Nehru`s cabinet was not handpicked by him. It was full of people who there own mass appeal.

In retrospect, Jinnah should have done what Gandhi did. He should have taken a director or script writer role and let other act according to his script.

HP#92 has summarized the cause of Pakistan`s existing situation very well
``The truth is that Jinnah had no program for Pakistan. He never outlined any economic or social policy for the country nor did he work to set up a political system.``

Even Yaseer, a diehard fan of MAJ, ``more of less agrees`` with this conclusion given by HP.

Yaseer mian, you still claim that MAJ`s ideal was a new, curtailed Mughal Empire in the tradition of Akbar, democratized and modernized but embracing people of all faiths. You are quite adept at quoting Ayesha Jalal, Ambedkar and Hodson. Quote something from MAJ that supports this theory and elucidates how Jinnah was planning to have a democratized and modernized Mughal Empire, that would embraced people of all faiths I would suggest that this so called plan is just a wishful thinking on your part, unless you can quote something from Jinnah`s writings.

Re: # 98 nasah

Gandhi was a fool as far as real-politic is concerned .... jinnah was indeed smarter - but he was trying to be too clever by half and ended up doing good for enemy hinuds :)))

Re: # 94 YLH

OK - so this Hudson guy is pulling it from his a$$...where do you get these guys anyway?

``Jinnah was far smarter than Gandhi.``(HP)

indeed -- the conditions that the two countries find thesmselves today -- `proves` your contention......:)

Re: # 93 YLH
[....spare me this obsession that you have with some how proving me wrong (something that you have done for many years)...]

With vast ``knowledge`` you have on this topic - who can ever prove you wrong?....not me... I am more of an observer here - it has been an interesting discussion, I learnt quite a few details, ideologies, idiosyncracies of the partition game.... But I do push and prod various people... that makes the discussion interesting and fast-paced.... I guess I do jab you more frequently - but nothing personal - so don`t be a pu$$y....:))

Ofcourse the person who was offered the chance to become ``shahinshah`` but refused emphatically and whose family never claimed any dynasty to rule in the country he founded... and whose relatives live a low middle class life in Karachi`s lower middle class neighborhoods ... wanted to be sole emperor..

But people who ruled for 18 years straight and whose families have made great ruling dynasties and whose daughter in laws have been claiming power despite being foreign... are democrats...

But ofcourse...

This is logic...

What jinnah wanted or what Seervai thought of Jinnah has no bearing on the state of affairs in today`s Pakiland..a land bustling with jihadi terrorism..

FEATURE - Pakistani jihadi videos thrive on execution scenes

By Arshad Sharif

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - The movie salesman was selling jihad to the converted.

The buyers thronging his stall on the sidelines of a late-night rally in the Pakistani capital belonged to a crowd organised by a sectarian Sunni Muslim group.

``This is the latest video of the beheadings,`` he told his customers, as they pored over titles including ``Slaughter of Americans in Iraq``, ``Slaughter of Traitors in Afghanistan`` and ``Taliban Celebrations``.

In Pakistan, compelled to join a U.S.-led global war on terrorism after al Qaeda`s Sept. 11, 2001 attack on the United States, anger has risen over what many see as an attempt by the West to suppress Muslims around the world.

The video seller didn`t have the latest action from the conflict on the Afghan border, but he had something just as gruesome.

``This one is about the activities of mujahideen in Waziristan and Afghanistan,`` the seller said.

Dated in December, and supposedly shot in Miranshah, the main town in North Waziristan, it had footage of hangings ordered by influential militant clerics.

The bodies of the hanged men, described as criminals and bandits, were then dragged through the streets by pick-up trucks, in a grisly demonstration of rough justice in an area where the civil administration has, according to tribesmen, collapsed.

``And I thought jinnah never wanted pakiland in the first place?.... so how was he going to create a ``democratic version of mughal empire``?....``

When I quoted the latter I was presenting a point of view that exists and was expressed by H V Hodson. I actually believe that HP has summed up the situation.. that the creation of Pakistan was not non-negotiable... it was open to negotiation... and that is proved by H M Seervai and Ayesha Jalal.