Questions about Pakistanis, Indian Muslims and Bangladeshis

[niaz]

Bangladesh and Pakistan should never have been a single country. It was a strategic blunder. Just like choosing a language from Bharat as the national language of Pakistan.

In my humble opinion, this attitude is based on incorrect presumptions. Reason for the 1971 debacle was not that Two Nation Theory was wrong. Pakistan was supposed to be a Federation, such as the US. Indian politicians were sagacious and they adopted a constitution as early as 1949.

Gandhi asked a Dalit, Dr BR Ambedkar (aka Babasahib) to write Indian Constitution so that minorities should not feel deprived. Indian constitution was adopted in November 1949 with India becoming a Republic on Jan 26, 1950. It is a different matter that now BJP (a high caste party) wants to amend the constitution to minorities’ disadvantage.

Sadly Muslim League comprised mainly of landed Muslim gentry who are by nature autocratic. We had to wait unit 1956 for a constitution and to this day smaller provinces feel short changed. East Pakistanis also felt at a disadvantage. One must not forget that Mujib did not ask for Independence. His famous 6 points were:

1. The constitution should provide for a Federation of Pakistan in its true sense on the Lahore Resolution and the parliamentary form of government with supremacy of a legislature directly elected on the basis of universal adult franchise.

2. The federal government should deal with only two subjects: Defence and Foreign affairs, and all other residuary subjects shall be vested in the federating states.

3. Two separate, but freely convertible currency for two wings should be introduced; or if this is not feasible, there should be one currency for the whole country, but effective constitutional provisions should be introduced to stop the flight of capital from East to West Pakistan. Furthermore, a separate banking reserve should be established and separate fiscal and monetary policy be adopted for East Pakistan.

4. The power of taxation and revenue collection shall be vested in the federating units and the federal centre will have no such power. The federation will be entitled to a share in the state taxes to meet its expenditures.

5. There should be two separate accounts for the foreign exchange earnings of the two wings; the foreign exchange requirements of the federal government should be met by the two wings equally or in a ratio to be fixed; indigenous products should move free of duty between the two wings, and the constitution should empower the units to establish trade links with foreign countries.

6. East Pakistan should have a separate militia or paramilitary forces.


Accepting the above meant that Pakistan would have become a Confederation of two wings with a weak Centre. Governor of East Pakistan, Vice Admiral Ahsan was strongly against the military action and resigned in protest.

By saying that West & East Pakistan should never have been one country you are indirectly implying that India should not been partitioned at all. There was a strong Unionist movement in Punjab, NWFP under Bacha Khan wanted to remain in India and Jamiat Ulema Hind as well as Jamaat Islami were also against partition. Without the combined effort of Muslims of India including the Bengali Muslims; India would not have been partitioned; hence no Pakistan and no Bangla Desh.

 

[third eye]

By saying that West & East Pakistan should never have been one country you are indirectly implying that India should not been partitioned at all.

I think it was meant that the two wings need not have been a part of the same nation.

It is a different matter that now BJP (a high caste party) wants to amend the constitution to minorities’ disadvantage.

What give you this impression ?

 

[Stephen Cohen]

By saying that West & East Pakistan should never have been one country you are indirectly implying that India should not been partitioned at all.

No instead if Pakistan and Bangladesh had parted ways amicably and peacefully
just after independence ; then West Pakistan could have been saved a LOT of Pain and heartburn

partition was inevitable ; the Muslim majority areas would never have stayed in India

But the problem of Bangladesh happened due the urge to DOMINATE
the meek ; dark and weak Bengali by the West Pakistanis
or rather the Martial race theory

 

[Max]

Just out of curiosity do you agree with my view on the national language as well?

Yes of course... we dont need any foreign language... and Urdu is foreign aka Farsi+ Hindustani.. we must adopt any of our regional language as National language... dont make big one bcoz it will make differences between Big ethnic groups.. what about Hindko,or GIlgiti or maybe brahvi as our National language? clean from Farsi or any thing else if i am not wrong...

 

[Grevion]

partition was inevitable ; the Muslim majority areas would never have stayed in India

You really think that partition of India on religious basis was inevitable?

 

[SarthakGanguly]

You really think that partition of India on religious basis was inevitable?

No. But it would have had consequences.

Hindus would have been wiped off vast tracts of India by now. The remaining ones would have been more fanatic than we are now. There would be civil war until one side accepts defeat. It would have been the Hindus most likely.

 

[Grevion]

No. But it would have had consequences.

Hindus would have been wiped off vast tracts of India by now. The remaining ones would have been more fanatic than we are now. There would be civil war until one side accepts defeat. It would have been the Hindus most likely.

Why do you think Hindus would have been wiped off given the fact that we were a majority during partition?
Civil war maybe but a civil war would have resulted in a partition of today's India not the Hindus being defeated.

 

[niaz]

I think it was meant that the two wings need not have been a part of the same nation.



What give you this impression ?

Hon Third Eye

I came across this :

Republic Day blunder: Modi govt ad omits 'Socialist, Secular' from Constitution preamble

by FP Staff Jan 28, 2015 10:47 IST

#India #Narendra Modi #NewsTracker #Politics #Republic Day #ThatsJustWrong


On a day when the entire country is expected to honour and celebrate the enactment of India's 66-year strong Constitution, the Modi government, in a print advertisement issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, made a glaring error in the Preamble of the Constitution removing the words socialist and secular.



A close up of the advertisment issued by the government

In its advertisement - DAVP22201/13/0048/1415, which was published on 26 January - the government quotes the preamble of India's Constitution as "We the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC...." as opposed to thegenuine version (after the 42nd amendment) that states: WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens..."

While the error could well be an oversight by the designer of the advertisement, the fact that the word 'secular' has been omitted is significant. That this has happened on Republic Day, which celebrates the diversity of all Indian cultures, makes it all the more problematic.

The government would do well to issue a clarification, given that the last few months have seen continuous protests by the opposition as well as religious outfits after several Hindutva outfits including ruling BJP legislators have made controversial remarks against religious minorities, and a 'ghar wapsi' campaign, based on the premise that all citizens of India were originally Hindus has generated outrage across the country.

Republic Day blunder: Modi govt ad omits 'Socialist, Secular' from Constitution preamble - Firstpost

And this:

Politicos reiterate 'BJP's allegiance to RSS and not to Indian constitution' post Venkaiah's remark


Politicos reiterate 'BJP's allegiance to RSS and not to Indian constitution' post Venkaiah's remark
New Delhi, Sep 06 (ANI): Post Parliamentary Affairs Minister M Venakiah Naidu justified the BJP leaders at the helm including Prime Minister Narendra Modi attending RSS three day meet by saying 'it is like a son meeting his mother' politicos reiterated 'BJP's allegiance to RSS. Congress leader PC Chacko advised the BJP top leaders to take corrective measures to deal with the non-secular ideologue of RSS. BSP leader Sudhindra Bhadoria said Naidu's statement evinced the commitment of BJP towards RSS and not to the constitution of India.

Politicos reiterate 'BJP's allegiance to RSS and not to Indian constitution' post Venkaiah's remark, Video Gallery - Business Standard

If you deliberately omit part of the preamble, in my opinion, you are in effect amending the Constitution. At least that is how I see it.

 

[tsinga]

Hon Third Eye

I came across this :

Republic Day blunder: Modi govt ad omits 'Socialist, Secular' from Constitution preamble

by FP Staff Jan 28, 2015 10:47 IST

#India #Narendra Modi #NewsTracker #Politics #Republic Day #ThatsJustWrong


On a day when the entire country is expected to honour and celebrate the enactment of India's 66-year strong Constitution, the Modi government, in a print advertisement issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, made a glaring error in the Preamble of the Constitution removing the words socialist and secular.



A close up of the advertisment issued by the government

In its advertisement - DAVP22201/13/0048/1415, which was published on 26 January - the government quotes the preamble of India's Constitution as "We the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC...." as opposed to thegenuine version (after the 42nd amendment) that states: WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens..."

While the error could well be an oversight by the designer of the advertisement, the fact that the word 'secular' has been omitted is significant. That this has happened on Republic Day, which celebrates the diversity of all Indian cultures, makes it all the more problematic.

The government would do well to issue a clarification, given that the last few months have seen continuous protests by the opposition as well as religious outfits after several Hindutva outfits including ruling BJP legislators have made controversial remarks against religious minorities, and a 'ghar wapsi' campaign, based on the premise that all citizens of India were originally Hindus has generated outrage across the country.

Republic Day blunder: Modi govt ad omits 'Socialist, Secular' from Constitution preamble - Firstpost

And this:

Politicos reiterate 'BJP's allegiance to RSS and not to Indian constitution' post Venkaiah's remark


Politicos reiterate 'BJP's allegiance to RSS and not to Indian constitution' post Venkaiah's remark
New Delhi, Sep 06 (ANI): Post Parliamentary Affairs Minister M Venakiah Naidu justified the BJP leaders at the helm including Prime Minister Narendra Modi attending RSS three day meet by saying 'it is like a son meeting his mother' politicos reiterated 'BJP's allegiance to RSS. Congress leader PC Chacko advised the BJP top leaders to take corrective measures to deal with the non-secular ideologue of RSS. BSP leader Sudhindra Bhadoria said Naidu's statement evinced the commitment of BJP towards RSS and not to the constituthasion of India.

Politicos reiterate 'BJP's allegiance to RSS and not to Indian constitution' post Venkaiah's remark, Video Gallery - Business Standard

If you deliberately omit part of the preamble, in my opinion, you are in effect amending the Constitution. At least that is how I see it.

I wonder how you call BJP a high caste party when its leader, basically the one guy who is its unchallenged head and has an iron grip on the party is low caste - Narendra Modi.

And that old timers of BJP who have been sidelined are bristling that BJP has become 'undemocratic' and servile of Modi implying that the party is his alone to control now.

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

I partly understand the hostility towards Indian muslims in Pakistan. I mean when we were being killed and massacred why did these loyal muslims and ghulams not raise their voice for us even once. Not one muslim rights group is even focused on the death of our people outside the Andhra Pradesh high court.

Second those who stayed forgot the core reasons and the despondency muslims felt which forced them to vouch for Pakistan. Similarly those who migrated were dominated by religious zeal and forgot the benefits of the secular system-both in my eyes were wrong. Then we migrants did not try to Pakistanize and merge the muslims left in Lucknow with Pakistan.

One reason for this anti migrant mentality is that we formed a mafia like the MQM and started voting for it regardless of the fact that it was heavily involved in violence. Born in 1984 from 1986-1996 10000 people were killed in Karachi. Syed Jamaluddin asked for the break up of Pakistan. These were the same children of Indian muslims who migrated from Indian occupied lands. Instead of the betterment of Pakistan muhajirs concern became gaining (extra) rights and kicking the pashtuns out of Karachi.

I want to apologize to my brothers like @ghilzai and @KPK for the behavior of our people. I only request them that despite our mistakes do not give up on us and some of us are trying our best to integrate locally and respect the culture. I intend to merge as a pashtun.

You don't need to apologise to anyone and its not good habit to paint whole group with same brush whether Indian, Bengali, Afghan or Arab Muslims as you will find all sort of people in these ethnic groups. I met many Hyderabadi, Gujrati Muslims and they were nice folks who had great respect for us . My experience with afghan on internet is very bad as found them racist, arrogant full of hate for Pakistani especially Punjabi but i have some friends in real life who treat me like brother so i give them same response so yea we need two hands for clapping and we should judge people individually

Secondly not all Indian Muslims had this opportunity of migration to Pakistan and many had no option but just to stay in there even when they voted for Pakistan and wanted to leave. I feel sad for those Indian Muslims who has to prove their patriotism just by hating Pakistani Muslims or Pakistan.The Muslims in India have been influenced by certain traditions of the Hindu communities around them which had impact of Hindu culture on the lifestyle and beliefs of Indian Muslims. moderate confuse muslim ho kar be be yea haal hai k they were told to go to Pakistan

[video]

 

[niaz]

I wonder how you call BJP a high caste party when its leader, basically the one guy who is its unchallenged head and has an iron grip on the party is low caste - Narendra Modi.

And that old timers of BJP who have been sidelined are bristling that BJP has become 'undemocratic' and servile of Modi implying that the party is his alone to control now.

I have come across his Modi's caste debate before. Here is one:

Narendra Modi belongs to Modh-Ghanchi caste, which was added to OBCs categories in 1994, says Gujarat government
Friday, 9 May 2014 - 6:10am IST | Place: New Delhi | Agency: dn

• 
  The Congress has alleged that Narendra Modi was born in an upper caste ‘Vaishya’ family.

Responding to Congress charge thatNarendra Modi was a 'fake'OBC, Gujarat government cited its two-decade old notification which says the Modh-Ghanchi (oil-pressers) caste, to which Modi belongs, was inlcuded in Other Backward Castes (OBCs) categories. "The Social Welfare Department of the Gujarat Government has passed a notification on July 25, 1994 which included 36 castes as OBCs and at number 25(b) Modh-Ghanchi caste has been mentioned to which Narendra Modi belongs. The caste has been included amongst OBCs," Nitin Patel, the state government's spokesperson, said.

The Congress claimed on Thursday the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi doesn’t belong to any backward caste, but was in fact born into an upper caste “Vaishya” family, that is given title of “Modh”, for being super rich, like Mod Brahmin and Modh Bania.

Alleging Modi was a “fake OBC”, former Gujarat Assembly opposition leader Shaktisinh Gohil armed with documents said Modi belonged to a Vaishya sub-caste the “Modh Ghanchi”, a microscopic minority found only in Gujarat. “He, in fact, belongs to the upper caste since he comes from a prosperous business community,” said Gohil.

Gohil further contested Modi’s claim of being a tea-seller, saying his uncle ran a canteen at a state road transport office, where Modi used to sit occasionally. Gohil’s disclosure came at an AICC press briefing here, when he said, “Here comes the “fake OBC” of Gujarat after the state is already getting a bad name for fake encounters.”

He went on, “If Modi is speaking the truth that he used to sell tea, he should disclose from which “larri” (cart) he used to do so, and there must be still many people of his age who used to have tea stalls in the area to vouch for his authenticity.”

Gohil flaunted a Gujarat government resolution dated January 1, 2002 that he had procured through the Right To Information Act (RTI) to show how Modi usurped the rights of Other Backward Castes (OBCs) by placing his rich “Modh Ghanchi” caste in the OBC category within four months of becoming chief minister.

Asked why he was making the disclosure so late in the day when Modi has been flaunting his OBC credentials all these months, Gohil said he was supplied the government resolution only two days ago, after the second RTI appeal, and he could make it to Delhito share it with the media only after polling was over on Wednesday in the Abdasa Assembly by-election, which he was contesting in Gujarat.

He explained the “Modh Ghanchis” are not of “Teli” caste like the Muslim Ghanchis of Gujarat who enjoy OBC status. They are “Vaishyas”. He also quoted from the authentic Gujarati lexicon ‘Bhagvadgomandal’, which says the Modh are rich people living in a particular village. Gandhiji was a “modh vanik”, he said.

Modh is an adjective showing the prosperity status of a particular caste or community. “By acquiring OBC status for his selfish motives, Modi has in fact encroached upon the right of members of OBC. Modi is a man born in upper caste and indulging in low level politics. A man’s actions have nothing to do with his caste. The best example of this was Dr BR Ambedkar,” Gohil said.

Narendra Modi belongs to Modh-Ghanchi caste, which was added to OBCs categories in 1994, says Gujarat government | Latest News & Updates at Daily News & Analysis

 

[tsinga]

I have come across his Modi's caste debate before. Here is one:

Narendra Modi belongs to Modh-Ghanchi caste, which was added to OBCs categories in 1994, says Gujarat government
Friday, 9 May 2014 - 6:10am IST | Place: New Delhi | Agency: dn

• 
  The Congress has alleged that Narendra Modi was born in an upper caste ‘Vaishya’ family.

Responding to Congress charge thatNarendra Modi was a 'fake'OBC, Gujarat government cited its two-decade old notification which says the Modh-Ghanchi (oil-pressers) caste, to which Modi belongs, was inlcuded in Other Backward Castes (OBCs) categories. "The Social Welfare Department of the Gujarat Government has passed a notification on July 25, 1994 which included 36 castes as OBCs and at number 25(b) Modh-Ghanchi caste has been mentioned to which Narendra Modi belongs. The caste has been included amongst OBCs," Nitin Patel, the state government's spokesperson, said.

The Congress claimed on Thursday the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi doesn’t belong to any backward caste, but was in fact born into an upper caste “Vaishya” family, that is given title of “Modh”, for being super rich, like Mod Brahmin and Modh Bania.

Alleging Modi was a “fake OBC”, former Gujarat Assembly opposition leader Shaktisinh Gohil armed with documents said Modi belonged to a Vaishya sub-caste the “Modh Ghanchi”, a microscopic minority found only in Gujarat. “He, in fact, belongs to the upper caste since he comes from a prosperous business community,” said Gohil.

Gohil further contested Modi’s claim of being a tea-seller, saying his uncle ran a canteen at a state road transport office, where Modi used to sit occasionally. Gohil’s disclosure came at an AICC press briefing here, when he said, “Here comes the “fake OBC” of Gujarat after the state is already getting a bad name for fake encounters.”

He went on, “If Modi is speaking the truth that he used to sell tea, he should disclose from which “larri” (cart) he used to do so, and there must be still many people of his age who used to have tea stalls in the area to vouch for his authenticity.”

Gohil flaunted a Gujarat government resolution dated January 1, 2002 that he had procured through the Right To Information Act (RTI) to show how Modi usurped the rights of Other Backward Castes (OBCs) by placing his rich “Modh Ghanchi” caste in the OBC category within four months of becoming chief minister.

Asked why he was making the disclosure so late in the day when Modi has been flaunting his OBC credentials all these months, Gohil said he was supplied the government resolution only two days ago, after the second RTI appeal, and he could make it to Delhito share it with the media only after polling was over on Wednesday in the Abdasa Assembly by-election, which he was contesting in Gujarat.

He explained the “Modh Ghanchis” are not of “Teli” caste like the Muslim Ghanchis of Gujarat who enjoy OBC status. They are “Vaishyas”. He also quoted from the authentic Gujarati lexicon ‘Bhagvadgomandal’, which says the Modh are rich people living in a particular village. Gandhiji was a “modh vanik”, he said.

Modh is an adjective showing the prosperity status of a particular caste or community. “By acquiring OBC status for his selfish motives, Modi has in fact encroached upon the right of members of OBC. Modi is a man born in upper caste and indulging in low level politics. A man’s actions have nothing to do with his caste. The best example of this was Dr BR Ambedkar,” Gohil said.

Narendra Modi belongs to Modh-Ghanchi caste, which was added to OBCs categories in 1994, says Gujarat government | Latest News & Updates at Daily News & Analysis

My friend, these allegations are by Congress to dent support of backward caste's in favour of Modi. The teli caste is considered backward. Infact the student wing of Congress even mocked Modi for it.
NSUI uses PM Narendra Modi’s caste to lampoon him - The Times of India

Regardless of this however, for the purposes of our discussion - they still point clearly to one thing...that Modi is not of the forward castes. And he does have absolute power over BJP. So I find the thought that BJP is a party of high castes faulty.

 

[django]

There are many pashtun born people in Lucknow-we don't have any proven ancestry but some of us could have been pashtun along with our ancestors. Fatehpur is full of pathans and Rohillas also dominate UP-the only difference is our people have forgotten the gift of pashto. Saif Ali Khan and Shahrukh Khan are proven pashtuns. Other actors with khan surname are unproven ones but are suspected to have pashtun background.

Jinnah intended us to merge with local ethnic groups when we came to Pakistan so I believe merging as a pashtun can be a solution to our ethnic problem and since I have had more exposure to pashtuns-I'd like to become a pashtun.

Sir their are nakli pashtuns in KPK let alone far far away Lucknow, any tom dick and harry can attach the name khan and claim afghan ancestry, for heaven sake even babar ghauri claims to be yousafzia pashtun lol

Just out of curiosity do you agree with my view on the national language as well?

What would you suggest persian or arabic

 

[third eye]

If you deliberately omit part of the preamble, in my opinion, you are in effect amending the Constitution. At least that is how I see it.

I see your concern.

However ads do not amend constitutions. The hawks in the opposition who have gained strength after Bihar elections are way too shrewd to let anything change. Besides , the BJP cannot do without the votes of the minorities.

Next democracy is way too deep rooted in India to allow any such changes. Hopes which the BJP had of being able to control the upper house are diminishing.

No, there is no threat to changes in the constitution. With a near 50 % in J&K it has not been able to make much headway . This should say something.

 

[Bang Galore]

If you deliberately omit part of the preamble, in my opinion, you are in effect amending the Constitution. At least that is how I see it.

Not really. What was shown was simply the original preamble of the constitution. You can argue that they should have shown the preamble post the 42nd amendment(which would the correct position) but there is nothing much more that can be read into that. That preamble too is part of our history.