Advani in Karachi

England , Germany, France, Japan. One blood, one history, one culture? Is western Europe a nation, did u say? Precisely what I said. In the context of USA western European could be a nation. Similarly in our context Indian subcontinent is one nation. Its more like a meeting of minds or add hearts to it. We can still make these fickle entities meet. We have Mirza Ghalib and MA Jinnah to look upto.

Re: # 503 soutasian ``England , Germany, France, Japan. One blood, one history, one culture? ``

Yes, the English nation, the German nation and the rest are composed of peoples who share a blood, a history and culture, just like the Tamil nation, the Sindhi nation or the Kashmiri nation.

``Is western Europe a nation, did u say?``

No, I didn`t say that. They are basically of one blood, but their languages etc are different.

``Similarly in our context Indian subcontinent is one nation.``

No. A Frenchman and a German are MUCH closer to each other than a Pathan or a Punjabi is with a Tamil. Only an accident of history, the British occupation, connects Punjabis with Tamils.


It`s people like you with your one nation fantasies who are responsible for the rape, murder and torture of Kashmiris and will just as happily rape, murder and torture Pakistanis into submission, if they ever get the opportunity. And it`s because of people like you that Jinnah is so revered in Pakistan.

Re: #496 by dionysus


[But since you ask, a nation is a group of people bound together by common blood, language, culture, land and history. Neither India nor Pakistan satisfy these criteria.]



And neither does Kashmir.


Muslim Kashmiris have a culture that is a essentially their Hindu forefathers’ culture with Arabic/Islamic culture grafted onto it to produce a grotesque mix.

Hindu Kashmiris have none of that Pedophile-inspired culture in THEIR culture.

So in that sense, their cultures are QUITE different.

The commonality they have is those customs and traditions that were HINDU customs and traditions for THOUSANDS of years.

And Hindu Kashmiris DO NOT want to live separately. They want to be with India.

If majority decides to ignore them strictly along the lines of religion, then it is not a democratic KASHMIRI solution. It is a MUSLIM solution.

Because then we are not talking about a “majority” as in a democracy. We are talking about “majority” as in religion.

So stop talking about KASHMIRI independence.

Call it what it is – MUSLIM INDEPENDENCE.

Bloody hypocrites!

These are age old entrenched positions everyone should steer clear of. Nothing is achieved along these lines. Even APHC guys are seeing some light (some piece of news on sify).

#493 by dionysus on June 12, 2005 11:00am PT

[Re: # 487 southasian

You don`t seriously expect us to ignore India`s atrocious behaviour in Kashmir, do you? You want us to pretend that the illegal Indian occupation of Kashmir, and the torture and the brutality never happened? Sorry, no can do. And if you can do it to them with a perfectly clear conscience you can certainly do it to us too.]


ILLEGAL occupation is Kashmir? By WHICH international law? The Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir DECIDED TO MERGE WITH INDIA as per the deal signed on to by that incarnation of god, also known as Mohammad Ali Jinnah.

HE IS THE ONE WHO VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW AND ILLEGALY SENT THE PAKISTANI TROOPS INTO J&K.

Like the consummate liar he was, he later came up with the threadbare defense that THE SOLDIERS WERE ON LEAVE FROM THE ARMY (coincidence, coincidence), AND HE HAD NOOOOOOO IDEA ABOUT THE WHOLE THING.


And if you use the logic that the muslim majority in Kashmir should have decided that, I have this to say.

You can argue that the government of a geographical area can either be decided:

a) at the beginning, when such matters are being decided, as when India and Pakistan were formed,

or,

b) at any point of time after that.



If you go with a) ,

my question is: WHY DIDN’T MUSLIMS IN J&K SPEAK OUT ABOUT IT THEN? AND BECOME PART OF THE AGREEMENT?

If you go with b),

then my contention is: IF THE LAND OF J&K, THE LAND OF OUR FOREFATHERS, IS TO BECOME INDEPENDENT FROM THE REST OF THE COUNTRY JUST BECAUSE IT IS MUSLIM MAJORITY, THEN HINDUS HAVE TO BE WATCHING OUT IN EVERY OTHER STATE AND WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IN PURGING THE MUSLIMS FROM THEIR STATES, BECAUSE AT THEIR CURRENT BREEDING RATES, EVENTUALLY THEY WILL BECOME THE MAJORITY, AND THEN WHAT IS TO STOP THEM FROM DEMANDING FREEDOM FROM INDIA, ONE STATE AFTER ANOTHER, TO LIVE UNDER THE GLORIOUS UMBRELLA OF ALLAH, THAT CONCEPT DREAMED UP BY THAT PEDOPHILE.


And “torture and brutality”? How about the torture and brutality of the jehadis in Kashmir? How about the torture and brutality of the Pakistani governmnet that aids and abets them, in Balochistan, and NWFP, and Sindh?

All you hypocrites are the same.

Shishapa #476: ``So Mr. Jinnah, a shia, could visualize what Hindus would do to the Muslims, but he could not visualize what Sunnis would do to Shias.
And Sir Zafarullah Khan could visualize need to protect muslims from Hindus but could
not visualize need to protect Ahmadiyas from Shias and Sunnis.``

Jinnah did not visualize anything in the form of who would do what to whom. In fact, in this category, I think he was behind the curve and quite naive. He, in a romantic sort of way, for a major portion of his life, kept thinking that no one do anything to anyone and everyone would live happily ever after, in a United India. As did Nehru.

This is why Jinnah kept pushing for United India and then Federated India and United Punjab and United Bengal etc. Even till the last days of creation of Pakistan, he wanted a Federated India, with secured rights for Muslims.........He even, naively felt that the Sikhs wanted a United Punjab......

It is, in fact, the peoples` opinion that forced him to change his views. As I mentioned earlier, one leader cannot in such a short period of time, get so many people to diametrically change their views and follow him. The concept of Jinnah being a communal man, who like a misguided Pied-Piper mis-led tens of millions of Muslims, who otherwise were fat, dumb and happy, in a United India, just doesn`t hold water (unfortunately, nearly all of our Indian colleagues have been taught this, at some level, and they seem unwilling to change their minds, regardless of how many facts and logic is provided to them).

Even individuals who have successfully founded religions, like Buddha, Muhammad, Christ etc. were not able to get so many people to change their tracks and follow them......Howe could Jinnah.......He couldn`t......

The fact of the matter is that the people had made up their minds, independent of Jinnah, and they needed a leader. That is what they got in Jinnah. He morphed his views on United India, after he saw the feelings of the people..........Not the other way around........

This doesn`t have anything to do with Hindus being evil. Just like the Sikhs wanting to split Punjab doesn`t have anything to do with the Muslims being evil. A whole majority does not need to be evil to cause problems for a minority. One good-sized chunk of it is enough. This is what the Muslims feared and this is what the Sikhs feared. The Sikhs, in fact, tried to separate again, from India itself, in 1984. And the Bengalis separated from Pakistan in 1971.

So the provinces that were split, eventually weren`t happy with the states they had originally become voluntarily a part of.........This indicates the tough situation that minorities (or weaker groups) - ethnic or religious - face in third world countries.........

As I keep saying, it is the responsibilty of the majority to make the minority feel secure. This is why, I cannot complain the Sikhs for paritioning, not an artificially created country like the Sub-Continent, but an organically created civilization - Punjab - that I am a part of. It was the job of majority Punjabis to make them feel secure. Similarly, I cannot argue against Bengalis, splitting my country. It was my job to look after them........and I couldn`t.........so they left..........

This is the attitude you need to develop about the creation of Pakistan. It was your job to look after the Muslims and make them feel safe............You still have a huge chunk of Muslims.........You should try hard to make them feel secure, and make sure they progress........If you are hell-bent upon proving Jinnah wrong, then get the Indian Muslims to a point where they are significantly ahead of Pakistani Muslims..........At that point, you will have made your point.........However, don`t try to make your point, by trying to bring Jinnah or Pakistan down.............Make your point positively, not negatively.........

As for Shias: They are not threatened in Pakistan (other than single individual or group terrorism). Unless they all migrate to a Western country or to Iran, they will be in much worse position, as a Shia minority in any other Sunni majority state.

If they do feel threatened, then it is their right to demand their rights. Jinnah correctly never saw a Shia/Sunni divide............Because there isn`t one in Pakistan. There is one in Iraq and other places though......

Ahmedis were doing fine till the 70s..........Jinnah or even the Ahmedis, themselves, could not have foreseen what would happen in the future. To find out what to do next, you would have to ask an Ahmedi. Maybe Sattar2 can answer what the Ahmedis` wishes are............In my opinion, if they want autonomy, they should get it. Since they are the one group in Pakistan, which does qualify..........

Even 4 years before the famous Lahore resolution Jinnah said:

``If out of 80 million Muslims, I can produce a patriotic and liberal minded nationalist block which will be able to march hand in hand with the progressive elements in other communities, I will have rendered a great service to my community. What India requires is a united front.``

---

Another some what balanced article from the Indian side...


http://www.ndtv.com/morenews/showmorestory.asp?slug=Jinnah`s+legacy+%96+Was+he+secular%3F&id=74421

Was Jinnah a secular person, or will he only be remembered for the bloody partition?

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

This was the part of Mohammad Ali Jinnah`s historic speech to Pakistan`s Constituent Assembly in 1947 which LK Advani referred to when he was accused of calling Jinnah a secular man.

But far removed from the outrage and anger Advani`s comments created back home in India, lies a much more complex debate – on Mohammad Ali Jinnah`s legacy and his secular credentials.

``Jinnah epitomises that saying: one man`s freedom fighter is another man`s terrorist. In Pakistan, he`s the father of the nation, but in India, he took on divisive trends, is seen as being responsible for killings and therefore is looked at as a demon. There`s no meeting ground between the two,`` said Swapan Dasgupta, journalist.

Jinnah`s contradictions

And it is those contradictions that mark Jinnah`s life – both his own character and the course of his political career.

Historians say he led his personal life far removed from that of a conservative Muslim. Jinnah drank alcohol, ate pork, wore stylish suits stitched at Saville Row and married a Parsi. Some say he was more anglicized than the English.

Most scholars agree that Jinnah did stand for Hindu-Muslim unity at one time. He even bitterly fought with Mahatma Gandhi for mixing religion with politics.

In fact, as late as 1936, he said in a speech:

``If out of 80 million Muslims, I can produce a patriotic and liberal minded nationalist block which will be able to march hand in hand with the progressive elements in other communities, I will have rendered a great service to my community. What India requires is a united front.``

But just four years later, in Lahore, Jinnah was a completely different man. And in a speech to the Muslim League, he talked for the first time about the Two Nation theory.

``It`s a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has gone far beyond the limits and is the cause of most of our troubles. Hindus and Muslims belong to two different civilizations, based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions,`` Jinnah had said.

``Mr Jinnah`s political life will have to divided into two parts – before 1937 and after 1937. Before 1937, he was undoubtedly one of the most outstanding political leaders, a great freedom fighter and more then that a champion of Hindu-Muslim unity,`` said Rafiq Zakaria, author, Man Who Divided India.

Though he left the Congress in 1921 due to differences with Gandhiji over the question that Gandhiji was trying to mix religion with politics, he believed that politics should be kept away from religion.

``And then after `37 with all the efforts that he had made to come to an understanding with the Congress, he came to the conclusion that Hindus will not share power with the Muslims,`` added Zakaria.

Questions remain

So what was behind Jinnah`s transformation? What made the man once called the ambassador for Hindu-Muslim unity lead a cry for direct action by Muslims which led to bloody communal riots that killed a million people?

That`s a question which baffles many, even today. Some scholars say the explanation lies in the Congress` inability to address the interests of the Muslim community. Others say it was political opportunism where Jinnah used religion as a political tool.

``For 20 years, Jinnah tried hard to play a central role in politics but he was pushed into the margins by Gandhi and Nehru. And then in 1939 he found the space for a leader of his skill, when the congress ministries resigned, there was a tremendous vacuum and he filled in,`` said Mushirul Hassan, historian.

So was Mohammad Ali Jinnah an inherently secular man who was forced by circumstances to use religion as a political weapon?

``It`s wrong to use terms like secular or communal for Jinnah. He was secular in personal lifestyle, but he also laid the foundation of an Islamic state,`` said Dasgupta.

``Basically he was secular but in order to obtain his objective he made the worst use of communalism,`` said Zakaria.

Vision of Pakistan

His objective was the creation of Pakistan, but many argue that Jinnah`s vision for his state was that of a modern, secular state.

Several months after his famous speech in the constituent assembly, Jinnah said in a broadcast in February 1948:

``Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught equality of man, justice and fairplay to everybody. In any case, Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state, to be ruled by priests with a divine mission.``

``He was very wary of theologians, he thought they were rustics. Of course, he himself was western, but after Partition, he gave a lot to these theological groups,`` said Hassan.

``When he got Pakistan, he did try to establish a secular state. He told the mullahs waiting on him - I know what you want, you want a theological state, I shall never allow that. Pakistan will become a modern secular state. But the environment that he had created had made it impossible to be a secular state. On the contrary it became a military state,`` said Rafiq Zakaria

Countering Hindu dominance?

So if Jinnah wanted a secular Pakistan, why divide a secular India? The answer, some say, lies in that he questioned India being a secular state at all - he feared Hindu dominance.

``What his main concern has been was to safeguard the minorities from any discrimination. That is the hallmark of his personality, which he remained consistent throughout about this issue,`` said G M Banatwala, President, Muslim League.

In the end, Mohammad Ali Jinnah`s legacy really depends on which side of the border you live on - such is the contrast in the way Indians and Pakistanis view the man.

Perhaps LK Advani tried to bridge that in some ways, but the hostile reaction back home has served as a reminder that the bitterness of Partition still runs deep, even though Jinnah`s legacy is much more complex than labelling him secular or communal.

Re: # 492

Dear Romair,

After many years I am truly thrilled to read a post from you. You have nailed it! Thank you for writing so succintly the real issues at hand.


BTW our friend Ayaz Amir has written a gem of a piece:



http://www.dawn.com/weekly/ayaz/ayaz.htm

A travesty of history
By Ayaz Amir

STRANGE that one of history`s cradles, the Indian peninsula, should
have so little truck with genuine history, as opposed to myth-making
and mythology.

Is there any Indian Herodotus? Or Thucydides or Tacitus? One of the
richest histories of the world, full of blood, conquest and great
achievement without any chronicler, not even an apology of a Gibbon.
Before Alberuni who accompanied the armies of Mahmud Ghaznavi, we
have the Hindu holy texts, the Upanishads, Kautilya`s Arthashastra
and Megasthene`s account of the court of Chandragupta Maurya. But
nothing that can be credited as historical writing.

Indian history — that is, historical writing — begins with the coming
of the Muslims. This is a remark made not in the spirit of drum-
beating because we of the sub-continent are prickly to an inordinate
degree, apt to stand on our dignity and pick quarrels about the wrong
things, but just a bald statement of fact.

Before the coming of the British it was but dimly understood in India
that the birthplace of Buddhism was India, that the divine Siddharta
was a prince of India, not of any faraway land. So complete was the
extermination of Buddhism from India in the early centuries of the
last millennium that the fact that such a faith had once existed and
indeed flourished ceased to form part of India`s historical memory.

Muslim historians — for the most part court historians — sang the
praises of their own kings. Except for Alberuni, they had little
interest in the India that had existed before them. Theirs are
contemporary accounts not explorations of the past. It was the
European arrival in India which spurred interest in Indian studies
and, in time, through scholars such as Max Muller who translated the
Upanishads laid the basis of the Hindu revivalist movement which grew
towards the end of the 19th century.

Two conclusions arise: firstly, about the poverty of Indian
historiography; secondly, about the lack of a developed historical
sense as late as the second half of the 19th century.

Given this poverty of history-writing, is it any wonder if history
has a strong parochial bias in both India and Pakistan, with scholars
on both sides of the divide viewing the confused and tumultuous
events of the first half of the 20th century, culminating in the
partition of India, through their own rose-tinted or hate-filled
glasses?

True, the black-and-white approach to history is more securely
ensconced in Pakistan than in India, Pakistanis glorifying their
champions and refusing to see any fault in them while demonizing the
Indian side completely. India, by contrast, has produced a better
tradition of historical writing. Even so, the biases and prejudices
which rise to the surface when, say, the birth of Pakistan or the
role of Jinnah is discussed, continue to be breathtaking.

Small wonder then if there has been such a storm in the dovecots of
the Hindu right because of L. K. Advani`s not flattering but fair
remarks about M. A. Jinnah during his Pakistan visit. What did Advani
say? That...``His (Jinnah`s) address to the Constituent Assembly of
Pakistan on August 11, 1947 is a classic, a forceful espousal of a
secular state in which every citizen would be free to practise his
own religion but the state shall make no distinction between one
citizen and another on the grounds of faith.`` Since this is no more
than the truth, why such a reaction in India?

Because the image of Jinnah thus evoked runs counter to his
demonizing which has been standard fare in India since 1947. Every
child in India is brought up on the belief that Jinnah played the
communal card by invoking the two-nation theory and this is what led
to the breakup of Mother India. It`s a good line as far as selective
history goes but nowhere near the truth.

Jinnah was a leading light of the Congress, a figure on the Indian
stage, before Gandhi arrived in India from South Africa. That he was
a staunch nationalist who stood uncompromisingly for Indian freedom
goes without saying. What Indians of this generation find hard to
understand is that far from being a communalist, he abhorred any
intrusion of religion into politics. And it was on this very point
that his differences with Gandhi first arose.

For what Gandhi did when he took up the mantle of Congress leadership
was to bring to the politics of mass mobilization words and slogans
steeped in Hindu symbolism. What was the objective of the freedom
struggle? The setting up of Ram Raj. How on earth could Muslims be
expected to rally to such a call?

The Muslim demand as articulated most ably by Jinnah was that Hindus
and Muslims, before anything else, represented two distinct
communities, each with their different outlook on life. The
recognition of this reality far from dividing the nationalist
movement would strengthen it by bringing Muslims and Hindus under a
common flag of struggle.

That Hindus and Muslims were two communities was not something
invented by Jinnah, as most Indians would like to believe, but a
simple recognition of reality. Hindus and Muslims did not become two
communities in the 19th or 20th centuries. They were two communities,
and remained as such, from the moment the first Muslim set foot on
Indian soil.

This was a truth best captured by Nirad Chaudhri in
his `Autobiography of An Unknown Indian`, one of the most perceptive
observers of the Indian condition, and perhaps for this very reason
not universally loved in India. He writes:

``When I see the gigantic catastrophe of Hindu-Muslim discord of these
days I am not surprised, because we as children held the tiny mustard
seed in our hands and sowed it very diligently. In fact, this
conflict was implicit in the very unfolding of our history, and could
hardly be avoided. Heaven preserve me from the dishonesty, so general
among Indians, of attributing this conflict to British rule, however
much the foreign rulers might have profited by it. Indeed they would
have been excusable only as gods, and not as man the political
animal, had they made no use of the weapon so assiduously
manufactured by us, and by us also put into their hands. But even
then they did not make use of it to the extent they might easily have
done. This, I know, is a very controversial thesis, but I think it
can be very easily proved if we do not turn a blind eye to the facts
of our history.``

The Muslims of India did not begin with the demand for Pakistan.
Indeed, before 1940 only a few hotheads or political dilettantes
spoke about it. Even Iqbal in his famous Allahabad address spoke
about a special dispensation for Indian Muslims `within` not without
the framework of a united India. Haunted by the fear of being swamped
by a Hindu majority — fears which the more questionable tenets of
Hindu revivalism did nothing to dissipate — they wanted to be
recognized as a separate community entitled to special constitutional
safeguards. (Not all that strange a demand if we consider the
constitutional dispensation in force in a country like Lebanon.) Only
on the Congress`s refusal to accept this point of view, did the
Muslim League leadership, very late in the day, move towards the
demand for Pakistan.

Along the way there were other slip-ups. In the words of Ram Gopal
whose `Indian Muslims` should be a must read for students of that
period, ``When the Congress decided to accept office (in the U.P.
after the 1937 elections) and proceeded with its ministry-making
efforts, the League put forward its claim for a share on the strength
of its pre-election understanding with the Congress. There were
prolonged negotiations between the leaders of the two bodies, but
there was no workable arrangement reached. It was one of the most
fateful and distressing failures in the political history of India;
it gave strength to the belief, held by some adventurous Muslim
leaders, that the Muslims should have a separate homeland.``

What most Indians of this generation do not realize, or haven`t been
told with enough emphasis, is that as late as 1946 the Muslim League
leadership accepted the Cabinet Mission plan envisaging a united
India. The Congress too accepted it before Nehru went back on the
Congress`s committed word by introducing fresh reservations which
wrecked the accord.

Maulana Azad`s `India Wins Freedom` gives one of the best accounts of
this episode. In vain did he plead with his colleagues to accept the
Cabinet Mission plan which would have preserved a united India. Patel
and Nehru were adamant. Accepting the plan would have meant
compromising with the Muslim League which they were not prepared to
accept. Towards the end it was not the Muslim League but the Congress
which was hell-bent on partition.

Did Jinnah and the Muslim League not play the communal card in the
1946 elections? They did, the battle-cry of the League in those
elections was the slogan, ``Muslim hai to Muslim League mein aa`` (if
you are a Muslim come to the Muslim League). But the dragon`s teeth
had been sown much before and the fire spouting as a result led not
only to partition but one of the worst orgies of plunder, rape and
blood-letting in the history of the 20th century.

Who`s to blame? Jinnah or a massive failure of understanding on the
part of the Congress leadership? Not that Pakistanis regret
partition. Far from it. It would, however, help if with the calming
of the storms accompanying partition we could somehow arrive at a
more judicious writing of history.

You know, when I first started driving, and some driver in the next lane would behave deplorably – shout at me or curse at me, I used to be very upset. There is nothing more direct, personal and humiliating than another human being cursing at you in public. Used to drive me crazy.

But over the years I have thought this over, and I do not get upset any more. I have realized that that person’s behaviour is anything BUT personal. He doesn’t know me, doesn’t know anything about me. If it was anyone else sitting in my car at that time, he would have behaved in the same way. And I have found this insight helpful in other situations in life as well. In the workplace, if someone is rude or downright nasty, you can be sure that you are not the only one he’s behaving like that with – it’s his nature, and he’s bound to behave like that with some other people as well, and over time, there would be a general consensus about him in the office. And sure enough, I’ve noticed that happen every time.

So it is with Muslims. For hundreds of years, and recently over the Kashmir issue, Islamists have been at their usual role tormenting Hindus, and the world in general has looked the other way, sometimes even taking advantage of the fact in their geopolitical dealings. The Cold War, the immensely precious Gulf oil and other geopolitical imperatives have created an atmosphere where the USA and the West have done whatever it takes to keep Islamic Pakistan and their Islamic friends in the Gulf happy.

I used to tell my friends that all we need is patience, that the day will come when the world will reach a consensus about this evil.

Well that day seems to be not so far away. Everywhere you look in he world, wherever there is trouble, violence, murder and mayhem, adherents of this “peaceful religion” are involved.

Everybody else is bad. The Hindus are bad, and oppress Muslims, and cannot be lived with (hence the Partition) – just ignore the hundreds of years of evidence when Muslims pretty much had their way with the infidels in India and their temples. The Zoroastrians are bad, that’s why they were persecuted so badly they fled in terror to distant lands. The Jews are bad – that’s why they are not permitted to even set foot in Medina, which was once 100% jewish. The Christians are bad – just ask Osama. The Buddhists are bad – just look at the escalating Muslim-Buddhist violence in Myanmar – especially south Myanmar where Muslims are the majority. The Bahais are bad, and must be persecuted in Iran and elsewhere.

And when there is no one else to fight with, Muslims fight amongst themselves. Shias killing sunnis, sunnis killing shias, then there’s Ahmadiyas and other sects - one sect persecuting the other.

I think that as Gulf oil loses its importance, things will start changing even more. Already hybrid cars are becoming popular in the west. Alternative forms of energy generation for transport are being researched. As the Iraq war stretches on indefinitely, and more and more american boys and girls are killed by the jehadis, the American public perception will begin to change. Europe, too, is similarly beholden to the Gulf for oil. If that changes, there will be a sea-change in attitutes.

I hope that happens sooner, rather than later. Because this Islamic problem is silently spreading like cancer all around the globe.

Americans think that the muslim with the American accent is somehow different. What they do not know is that when the time comes to show allegiance, they will either join with the forces of Islam, or keep silent and let atrocities continue.


Because that is how Islam became such a force in this world.

Re # 483

Why do you term them (before you read the next paragraph) as crocodile tears? When I support the palestinian cause or Tibetan cause, would you term them as crocodile tears?

Anyway, I really do not want Pakistan to be divided any further. I mean it.
I hope it prospers.

These were my attempts (however silly) to show how silly and dangerous these arguments are when one group starts blaming other for their pet causes insetead of working it out
without unreasonable terms and conditions.

I do neither begrudge partition nor want it reversed. Me or my family was not affected
by it in any remote way. Only thing I believe unfortunate was how families were destroyed
during the process and the causes attributed i.e. Hindu this, Hindu that instead of Muslims
blaming their own demons.

Manto, the arguments that you give, ``a product of those two streams, am doing just fine in Pakistan.``, ``Officially Shiites are well placed in society ``, I am sure existed in pre-partition India as far as Hindu/Muslims are considered. But that was not enough for Muslims to change their desire to go separate way.

Any way, I have spit out whatever I had in me ever since I started reading chowk.
These are all dead and depressing topics, need to move on.
Work is catching up, PBC ratings have to be maintained.

I will read the reply/ies if anyone cares to reply and will go back to being occasional reader/observer that I was on chowk.

Re: # 488

Refer to post 477 I have responded. You are mixing the issues. As for your analogy... again apples and oranges.

In Pakistan`s case, the man who led the struggle was for more than 30 years hailed as the staunchest Indian nationalist and the best ambassador of Hindu Muslim unity who snubbed anyone who suggested any blame game. And according to his contemporaries including Hodson, Gandhi and Ambedkar he was incorruptible and no opportunist or weathercock.

It was precisely because it was this man and not some religious divine like Azad who led the struggle that should suggest to you that perhaps, just perhaps the diet of official mythology that you have been brought up on can not be digested.

-YLH

#482 southasian-ji what good has your high and holy secular democracy done the Kashmiris? Has it prevented their homeland from being occupied by India? Has it brought them their democratic right to self determination? Has it protected them from the raping, murdering, torturing Indian occupying army?

NO.

And if it hasn`t done them any good what makes you so sure it will do us Pakistanis any good?

Re: # 484 I knew Kashmir had to come sooner or later. I have a feeling that Kashmir will show us the way. Kashmir will not be a problem but a part of the solution. This problem amply shows all that is wrong with the two nation theory. Here was a society at peace with itself. Kashmiri pandits and Kashmiri muslims sharing a common culture and living peacefully. All of a sudden someone decides they are different. How were the solutions attempted in 1948, 1965 and later (I forget the Kargil year, 1999 I think) through the barrel of a gun. Who gave them the right to choose their own representatives and who everytime gave a call to boycott or else face death. They are not the kind of people you and I are talking about. I would be indulging in the same game ``mine is better than yours`` if I continued down this lane. I wish someone deleted and rewrote 1947 for all of us. For our generation the job is cut out. Let`s reclaim what is left of us. I will again emphasise that Kashmir has the potential to throw up a better bilateral environment : porous border, more interaction, and a political bridge between two countries which embody one nation essentially. Remember siamese twins.

Re: # 487 southasian

You don`t seriously expect us to ignore India`s atrocious behaviour in Kashmir, do you? You want us to pretend that the illegal Indian occupation of Kashmir, and the torture and the brutality never happened? Sorry, no can do. And if you can do it to them with a perfectly clear conscience you can certainly do it to us too.

``Let`s reclaim what is left of us. I will again emphasise that Kashmir has the potential to throw up a better bilateral environment : porous border, more interaction, and a political bridge between two countries which embody one nation essentially. Remember siamese twins.

But this is the whole problem. We aren`t one nation. We are 40 or more nations brought together by a historical accident and held together by deciet and fraud, and when those fail, brutal violence.

#489 southasian ``Even though I don`t see any problem of this sort in East Punjab (I am quite near)``

Go to any Sikh website and see them complaining about the Bihari and UPite invasion of their land and how they will soon be a minority in their own land. Some even advocate ethnic cleansing. What guranatee can you give us that the same won`t happen to us in Pakistan. You can`t. And in fact the invasion of Hindustanis into non-Hindustani speaking areas of South Asia, the huge demographic changes, suit the Hindustnai imperial agenda perfectly. One the Hindustanis become the a majority in any South Asian land, Hindustani occupation is sealed is forever.

Re: # 493 What is this curious bird called nation by the way. Our notions of nation are essentially different. You see the glass half empty and I see the glass. Without the glass nothing holds. The point is the notion of nation has to be inclusive and not divisive.

As for Kashmir, the whole thing is obviously far more complicated than what it seems. You are looking at one side of the picture. The other side is quite gruesome, believe me. PTV never showed you that picture.

Re: # 494 ``What is this curious bird called nation by the way.``

You were the first to talk about the `nation`, not me. But since you ask, a nation is a group of people bound together by common blood, language, culture, land and history. Neither India nor Pakistan satisfy these criteria.

``The point is the notion of nation has to be inclusive and not divisive.

No, you are talking nonsense. You can`t simply define things the way you want to. And the very notion of a nation is exclusive and divisive. You believe in an ``Indian nation`` that covers the whole of South Asia but that automatically excludes the whole of the rest of the world from your ``nation``.

``As for Kashmir, the whole thing is obviously far more complicated than what it seems. You are looking at one side of the picture. The other side is quite gruesome, believe me. PTV never showed you that picture.``

And what side of the picture is this? The side where India is the poor, innocent little victim and not the illegal and brutal occupier? Sorry, but nobody in the world sees this side, apart from Indians themselves.

I repeat, if you can do it to them, you can do it to us too. How can you now come to us talking about brotherhood, one nation, siamese twins and all that crap?