Drama of Succession - Pakistan People’s Party

Strange that you should have said all these things when the PPP has controll of all the provincial assemblies and the National Assembly of Pakistan. Stranger still that you believed that the menace of establishment is getting stronger and not weaker. Shocking that you cannot understand the stage of the struggle and how well it is being waged. Opponents of democracy continue to frighten the people of the feudal demons but we cannot see any.

Harimau,

(And you think we would be better off under Raoul G@ndu?)

No but then Raoul G isn't the dictator nor likely to become one. And if the electors vote Raoul G as India's PM, then the Injun public is well a bunch of G****s.

Regards

ISlamIslam:

Jinnah was drinking Chaudhri Rehmat Ali's kool-aid.

Indian Muslims were drinking the water personally passed by Jinnah-bhai, giving new meaning to the term "Musalman Pani".


That doesn't negate what I said.

Chaudary Rehmat Ali was so pissed off at Jinnah for accepting the "moth eaten Pakistan" that he started ex-coriating Jinnah and was made a persona-non-grata in Pakistan for some time. He died a sad lonely man in England, i think.

Ref majumdar #222

[We can opt for a dictatorship but it if we do, it is not necessary that we will end up with a Pinochet or a Deng or a Lee. We cud end up with a Kim or an Omar or a Pol Pot or a ZAB. Just think about it.]

And you think we would be better off under Raoul G@ndu?

Remember Sanjay G@ndu?

Ref masanamuthu #258

[The Muslims of the regions that constitute India now thought Pakistan would be a strong military state and would safeguard the Muslims remaining in India and voted overwhelmingly for Pakistan. They were drinking the kool-aid of Jinnah.]

Actually, you are wrong.

Jinnah was drinking Chaudhri Rehmat Ali's kool-aid.

Indian Muslims were drinking the water personally passed by Jinnah-bhai, giving new meaning to the term "Musalman Pani".

Re: # 256

TNT is about "muslim" identity.

"Muslim" identity comes from Islam (as defined by the five pillars).


Thus, TNT is defined by Islam.

Thus, by inference TNT is a non-secular and a communal ideology!!

QED!

MeraPakistan:

you are right that hindus were confined to South India for thousand of yrs, because they were never powerful enough to invade the other countries. On the other hand invading countries just on the basis of power is not right. But that was happening in those days.

That's right. If you think about it, the 1971 victory over Pakistan is probably the first time in almost 1000+ years that a Hindu dominated army won a significant victory over Muslims. It was never imaginable in the days around 1946/1947.

As I said, if we want to analyse the behavior of people around that time frame we need to transport ourselves to that time period. I'm interested in learning more about the speeches of Jinnah from 1940-47. I have read in one place about his reference to "Sudetenland" when asked about the plight of 'leftover' Muslims in India if his scheme of Pakistan was implemented.

Anyways, the Muslims (esp. of the Muslim minority regions) were drinking the "kool-aid" of Jinnah and shot themselves in their own foot by voting for Pakistan and being the most vocal supporters of the idea. Now they are begging for some kinda "lollypop" / "reservations" that the "Dalits" get from the government. What a change.. Just a few hundred years back, Aurangazeb was mowing down the Hindus by the thousands for questioning the re-imposition of Jaziya in the same region.

Who knows, history can turn again. :-)

Masanamuthu,

you are right that hindus were confined to South India for thousand of yrs, because they were never powerful enough to invade the other countries. On the other hand invading countries just on the basis of power is not right. But that was happening in those days.

This is the most intriguing part. Why were the Muslims of Muslim minority provinces agitating for Pakistan when their homes wud end up in India? I can still understand the Mojos who voted for Pak and ended up migrating to it. But more puzzling was the attitude of UP/Bihar Muslims who stayed back in India after wholeheartedly endorsing Partition. These guys surely deserve some medal in woolly-headedness.


I think you need to imagine yourself in that time period to understand things in the right perspective. You can search for an excellent "Outlook" article by C.M.Naim, a Shia Muslim from United Provinces and a member of the Muslim league about the important days of 1946/1947. He was a school student and part of the gang that celebrated Pakistan's independence day in 14th Aug' 1947 and pulled down and obstructed the celebrations of Indian Independence the next day. Guess, where not any place in Karachi, but in heartland U.P.

Hindus were not known to rule or dominate for the last 1000 years and Muslims from the Northwest were known for their exploits. Just recently, the powerful German state was taking up the issue of Germans settled in other places in Europe. (Read up on Sudetenland and the cause of world war 2).

The Muslims of the regions that constitute India now thought Pakistan would be a strong military state and would safeguard the Muslims remaining in India and voted overwhelmingly for Pakistan. They were drinking the kool-aid of Jinnah.

Actually, I'm happy for that. United India would have been the worst nightmare. :-)

Re: # 249 Bulleya

Yes, it is indeed encouraging that free enterprise is finding a way despite the governments' obstacles. Adam Smith was right all along. The wealth of nations does not flow from a resolution of Kashmir. So, while it would be nice to have it settled, it is not a precondition. The market will influence the politics as much as the vice versa. Yoking business to a settlement of Kashmir is a Pakistani bluff that Indians snigger at.

Re: # 215 majumdar
[...What I do know for certain is that MAJ (pbuh) never intended Pakistan to be anything but a secular state and certainly not a theocracy...]

Well, I am not that sure. for example - why didn't MAJ pubh found a secular/non-communal party? that's the question I have always asked - haven't found a satisfying answer yet. "Muslim League" was a communal party, the name says it all.

If MAJ really wanted secuarlism - then he would have founded a party that encommpassed all communities, expressly at the outset, and would have run the party completely on a secular basis. How the heck would one expect a Muslim Party running on Muslim Nationalism deliver a secular polity?...

The fact is we don't know what MAJ,pubh really "intended"... He has said and done differnt things at differnt times - depending on situation, personal ambition and opportunity... first he was all about communal unity - but when he couldn't handle the rough and tumble of the politics of the time, he flipped to communal acrimony... he has flip-flopped like a emperor penguin :)

Even if he did intend secularism - did he send that message to rank and file?... Did he make sure everybody understood what's this all about?... was there express writings, speeches, actions?... If intention were everything, even beggars would ride horses...

All we got is one speech after the whole communal debacle has taken its toll... that's all every worshipper at the High Church of MJA is hanging on to... everything considered, that speech was a cruel joke, it was the last flip-flop from MAJ,pubh... it didn't make any sense to anybody - not then, not now...

Sorry dude, MAJ pubh scr!ewed it up for pakis... right from the beginning... His actions speak louder than his words[of which there was very little to begin with], there was no way in hell his actions would lead to a secular polity...

In addititon to #254 ZAB never killed any member of the "opposition"- rhetoric is not the same as the deed or half of those on chowk would be "murderers". The opposition on the other hand killed him literally. Regarding the US/UK they might not "threaten" their political rivals but they sure as hell literally help assassinate leaders in other nations and very often threaten whole countries with annhialation.....you miss all that because youre a peon of the West...

majumdar writes "And you can bet Prez/PMs in the great Satan (US/UK) have yet to resort to violence against their Leader of Opposition at least post 1918."

You should watch political news from the "giants" Taiwan and S. Korea more closely, fist fights are common occurences and then watch c-span more closely for republican on democrat and vice versa rhetoric. Emotional outbursts say nothing about how much people support democracy or not, and your example is at best an ad hominem attack on ZAB that takes nothing away from the fact that the people were far distant from the entire power equation in this country and from any democratic spirit of the kind that was injected into them via the PPP- the doing, like it or not, of one man....

bulleya writes about ZAB "he could have resigned and asked for a re-election, if we assume his intention was true democracy and that he did not support the army action against mujeeb"

If he didn't have a clue about who the power brokers were in Pakistan, and wanted to undo his own work, or alternatively if he possessed the brains of a PMA graduate (like you), he would have done that. Regarding mujib forming the government based on the people's mandate he did say "idhar hum udhar tum" did he now? Stating that he was calling the shots when the Army would never have settled for Bangali rule over the West and he was through and through subordinate to the military is naivety and BS, both of which we have come to expect of you...

hey capt clueless...

What if the Indian company flag telecom that provides pakiland with internet service decided to cut pakiland off because India made it illegal for them to do business with pakiland?

#249 Posted by bulleya on February 14, 2008 2:46:19 am


so perhaps i am an authority on this subject....


yeah pal...you're the authority on it because you've been to india...


indian business and pakistan business have learnt to work with each other seamlessly


Pakiland has nothing to offer..there isn't a paki business that can hold it's own in the world...no equivalent of infosys,sipro, tata or reliance...none...zilch..nada..

paki companies aren't players on the international scene..


does he stop the projects and kick out the singapore company......or does he work out a backdoor deal with the indian companies........


seeing as how indian IT exports are more than a few billion $$, go ahead..kick out the company...

of course, we know Indian IT companies can't survive without paki management skills...because you told us so...

so it would suck for the indian company..