The theory of terrorism and restraining moderates

[Solomon2]

You have the privilege of knowing what Hitler would lead Germany into doing, something which German parties didn't have. Declaring a revolution during a time when Germany was in the middle of several takeovers by both Communist and far-right Nationalists would be suicidal to most Germans.

For the majority in a Convention to have declared Revolution against an unarmed minority was unlikely to have been fatal. The police were mostly pro-Weimar. And a Convention would likely swayed the armed forces - from post-war memoirs one can discover that high-ranking officers wouldn't act against Hitler because he came to office democratically and saw it as the job of the German people to oppose him. That was probably known via informal discussion to various party leaders already.

 

[Hiptullha]

For the majority in a Convention to have declared Revolution against an unarmed minority was unlikely to have been fatal.

Unarmed minority? If there was to be a revolution, this "unarmed minority" would have most definitely been supported by the right-leaning paramilitary groups across the country, who the Weimar Republic desperately turned to at one point in time.

 

[Solomon2]

Solution: don't tinker with identity. The only reason Pakistan is in the position that it is because of how leaders like Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (who was ironically a staunch socialist) decided to create his own national identity after the debacle in East Pakistan.

Z.A.B. should get a large share of the blame, yes. But I can't blame him for all of it. I remember 1971 and the conundrum of my neighbors, themselves Pakistani diplomats. They had known Jinnah. They were keenly acute about the muddled identity problem. They finally declared, "Whatever Pakistan was supposed to be this [the orders given the Army re:E. Pakistan] wasn't it." and decided to become Bangladeshis.

Unarmed minority? If there was to be a revolution, this "unarmed minority" would have most definitely been supported by the right-leaning paramilitary groups across the country, who the Weimar Republic desperately turned to at one point in time.

A revolutionary Convention would have been liberal democratic Germany's last chance. Years before that the liberal enlightened impulses of Germans, as expressed through their political parties, had been fading. They could not (or would not) command much vocal support or street presence - in short, their support was shallow and weak. Hence, once Hitler wielded absolute power many of them opportunistically joined the Nazi party, simply for better material prospects.

 

[Hiptullha]

They finally declared, "Whatever Pakistan was supposed to be this [the orders given the Army re:E. Pakistan] wasn't it." and decided to become Bangladeshis.

If you've read the Hamoodur Rahman Commission, you'd know that the last thing the people who ran the government were, were keen ideologues who wanted to create Jinnah's Pakistan. They were alcoholics who frequented brothels, were involved in smuggling, shady land and property deals and still believed in the concept of "Martial Race". Whatever 1971 was, it wasn't an identity crisis.

They could not (or would not) command much vocal support or street presence - in short, their support was shallow and weak.

German parties certainly didn't think so, because the only reason Hitler was able to end democratic rule in Germany was because many believed that the Communists possessed the strength to take Germany.

 

[Solomon2]

If you've read the Hamoodur Rahman Commission, you'd know -

Thanks, looks like a must-read - but perhaps more to shoot it down than anything else, especially if it resorts to blaming "alcoholics".

German parties certainly didn't think so, because the only reason Hitler was able to end democratic rule in Germany was because many believed that the Communists possessed the strength to take Germany.

Doubtless that was a factor - but that was itself because the liberal parties could not demonstrate strength on the streets. Pre-WWI Germany had lots of demonstrations by liberal Germans - Albert Einstein recalls liberals and nationalists marching on alternate days. Such strength was largely absent in the years before the Nazis took power.

 

[MastanKhan]

But what do you respond to Pakistani leaders who say that without the bigotry, intolerance, and hatred they can find no justification for Pakistan - that they would merely be North Indians?

Hi,

As you might know---the religious parties were not in favor of a separate muslim state---ie Pakistan.

The bigotry, hatred, intolerance is a character issue----but as it has been aligned and practiced by the religionists---it is portrayed as a religious issue as well.

When the Islamic church ie the mosque has lost its character----when the preacher standing up at the pulpit starts to tell lies and to spread hatred---and one after the other---all of them start towing the line---it is very difficult for the public not to be effected by the lies---and specially when those lies are made to be coming from a place of sanctity.

How does one justify when a mullah stands on his pulpit and justifies stealing from the christian nations---but he did it for the longest period of time---80's 90's---and what is the result-----we have all turned into petty thieves at first---and with the progression of time---we have become highway robbers---.

So---what was the result---it took our inherent character of honesty away from us---. Once that trait started disappearing---other sins became justifiable---because now there was nothing to hold back---there was no pulling back of strings---no one telling you---it is not right---.

The concept of right and wrong did not disappear---it is there---that cannot be changed----but those believing in the concept became a minority---a powerless minority---and those who took advantage of the situation---gained wealth---and when they realized that in order for them to gain more wealth---if they have some power behind it---they will be more successful---. Thus they changed gears and started displaying and enforcing their power.

Whatever distrust and issues that you see in the muslim world are the doing of the imam masjid---either an imam of a small mosque or one of a large mosque---. The pulpit gave him power and used that power for his personal agenda to get more power by the use of force.

 

[EasyNow]

Allowing religious parties into politics achieved 2 things mainly:

1 it legitimized the views held by radical backwater leaders and brought them to the attention of the mainstream.

2. It emboldened the radicals in the rest of the country. A lone extremist in my village would have had no friends and no work at one time. Today he has a nationally publicized group that he can be a part of, campaign for, make a living though.


The Arab states have proven that a zero tolerance approach to religious politics is the only way to maintain a stable society in the long run.

 

[Dubious]

Gufi highlights one of the the traditional Pakistani responses, telling others to look in their own navels. It hampers discussion of change and thus serves the status quo.

So avoid discussing about your own country and discuss about other people's country and issues....THAT is what you are preaching!

for the sake of the argument give a two liner response which suits best and move on.I know its an issue

Hi you seem to support his idea of stamping on another person's country and issue but god forbid if the tables were turned...then you see single channel news trying to justify killing of children but we are the ones with the issues worth discussing by a foreigner? AWESOME least to say!

Try discussing Judaism or Israel (because issues are same religious bigots in parliament), its making, its history of coming to existence, the blood of children on their hands thanks to religious bigots who think anyone non Israeli is less human than rest...Heck their minister called the children less than human OPENLY...Yet god forbid we discuss that but lets all bash Pakistan and its issue....Very biased person dont you think?

On topic...Sure there are issues but like your pal here wont let anyone talk about his religious nation why should one be openly bashing another is beyond me....shouldnt be throwing bricks when your own home is far fragile than glass!

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Well, I agree with you where Pakistan is concerned because I think that Jinnah promised Pakistan would be different things to different peoples and didn't sincerely work to resolve them.

Mr.Jinnah had little choice. He had to take along a huge polyglot of people to get what he wanted. In fact Jinnah himself ended up being different things at different times. It has been described as his "morphing" process, in the recent book "Midnight's Furies" by Nisid Hajari, Pub:Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 328 pp. $ 28.

At the end of the "morphing", that culminated in Partition; it was hard for even Jinnah to reverse the process...... not to mention too late. But he did try a bit (like in his speech about freedom to all to profess whatever they believed in); but the genie was out of the bottle. Most of his closest lieutenants turned their back on his ideas, just as soon as he was lowered into the ground. The exceptions such as M.Zafarullah Khan got either side-lined or hounded out. Fatima Jinnah was finally pushed out in a Khaki Putsch.
Jinnah's Pakistan died with him.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Let us take @Solomon2 as an asset on this board----one of the most valuable----. Regardless of what our differences are---this man puts so much energy and effort that there is nothing but to commend his services.

He has posted an article that effects the gist of which our countries are suffering from---he is bringing forth the cancerous issues of the religious bigotry and hate.

And there is nothing to be ashamed of talking aloud our problems and issues---. If we don't admit---then how can we correct ourselves.

It is us, that needs to discuss it more often and in an open manner.

 

[TankMan]

Pakistan is a nascent, highly diverse state in a highly unstable region - it'll take time to develop, and a national identity will form eventually. All those worried about Pakistan's national identity and spewing their pessimist 'objectivity' and 'free-thinking' should put things into perspective and realize that it took what is now called the US a century of independence and a civil war to settle on a national identity.

We Pakistanis have confusions and problems - yes, we do, and there's no running away from the truth - but so did all the 'great nations' of today, when they were developing. That obviously doesn't mean we should sit on our backsides and wait for a miracle to happen, but one thing is certain: all those abandoning their hopes like rats abandon a sinking ship and spreading short-sighted pessimism about Pakistan are very mistaken.

As for some of our foreign friends, while their contribution is appreciated, this must be said:

"facile omnes quom valemus recta consilia aegrotis damus
when we are healthy, we all have advice for those who are sick"

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Culturally and socially---Pakistan and the people of Pakistan are an ancient society---with a long heritage of culture, war, art, history, successes and failures.

The thing is that we are not abandoning the ship per say----but the disappointment comes from the fact that the nation when it is convenient recalls its 1400 years of religious heritage----but when it come to the rule of law---and governing a nation----it all gets lost in murky waters.

Pakistanis have allowed multiple states being run within a state---like the religious fanatics---like the muhajjirs---like Pakistan people party---like Nawaz Shareef's party---and the interesting thing is that none of these party's agenda is for the welfare of Pakistan but rather to fill their own pockets.

Pakistanis will have to admit their failures loud and open and then start to build up on them.

Just because a person is a new driver---will not absolve him of the accident that he committed because he did not know how to merge into the freeway traffic from the on ramp.

 

[TankMan]

Culturally and socially---Pakistan and the people of Pakistan are an ancient society---with a long heritage of culture, war, art, history, successes and failures.

I disagree. Today's Pakistanis are an amalgamation of various peoples and their own long heritages - a Pathan, for example, has a completely different 'long heritage' and a Muhajir has a different one; yet both are Pakistanis. One Pakistani might be a descendant of Ibrahim Lodhi, while another might be a descendant of Babur - two heritages that, at one point in history, opposed each other - yet both these descendants are Pakistanis.

So, which 'heritage' do you want to choose? The one that says Pakistanis are all the descendants of the people of the Indus Valley, the one that says we are all Arabs because of Bin Qasim, or any of the other heritage narratives?

All these approaches are equally flawed. By picking the 'indigenous Indian roots', you're excluding all those who have 'foreign' heritages, and by picking the 'foreign/Arab/etc' one, you're excluding all those who have 'indigenous' heritages.

You mention war and victories, but what of those fought between groups that are now both Pakistanis? Is it to be considered a success or a failure for us when the ancestors of one Pakistani defeat the ancestors of another Pakistani?
I hope you realize the flaws in the heritage idea.

It's time to move on and recognize that:
Pakistan, Pakistanis and our heritage began on the 14th of August, 1947. We should embrace our historical roots, but not dwell on them. Otherwise, we will ultimately drive ourselves insane chasing our heritage, because we, as Pakistanis, do not have one single, unified heritage from before 1947. We have many that were united under one banner in 1947, that banner being the flag of Pakistan.

There's nothing wrong with history, heritage, and being aware or even 'proud' of it, but it shouldn't be taken too far, lest it become a divisive factor - which in many cases it already has.

The thing is that we are not abandoning the ship per say----but the disappointment comes from the fact that the nation when it is convenient recalls its 1400 years of religious heritage----but when it come to the rule of law---and governing a nation----it all gets lost in murky waters.

First of all, I'd like to know of this nation you speak of, the one with a hive mind that recalls 1400 years of religious heritage in unison when its hive mind deems it convenient. Because Pakistan, like all other human nations I know of, is not like that and unfortunately does not possess a unified hive mind.

Generally, when people bring up 1400 years of religious heritage, it is because Muslims identify with Muslims from other countries along with their own countries - Islam has qualities that make it extend beyond national boundaries. I don't see what's wrong with that - as long as you don't claim that Muslims' 1400 years heritage is somehow Pakistan's heritage. It isn't.

Why are you disappointed that the 1400 years worth of religious heritage does not govern our nation for us? We will have to govern our nations ourselves - the Rashidun Caliphs or Mughal Emperors won't descend from the heavens and do it for us.

Of course the religious heritage does not apply to our nation's governance, nobody is expecting it to. The two are completely different things. There is nothing wrong if Pakistanis discuss their religious heritage in its own context, and no, it does not 'get lost in murky waters' when our nation isn't governed properly. Our rulers are the ones lost in murky waters. Our heritage remains clear and radiant.

Pakistanis have allowed multiple states being run within a state

Sounds a lot like the United States. Even today, they have fifty states within one state. Does that make them a failure? No, of course not. There is nothing wrong with ethnic, religious, and political diversity - as long as the diversity doesn't turn into division or enmity.

It will take some time for Pakistan to find the right balance. But it will happen.

like the religious fanatics---like the muhajjirs---like Pakistan people party---like Nawaz Shareef's party---and the interesting thing is that none of these party's agenda is for the welfare of Pakistan but rather to fill their own pockets.

The religious fanatics are definitely a problem and will continue to be until we either clean up our understanding of our religion and defend it from the fanatics, or we abandon it. I will strive towards the first option because that is what I believe in - you may agree with me or disagree, at the end, we're both doing what we think is best.

The ethnic politics being played with the Muhajir tag are a symptom of the differences we have not yet embraced properly. We still have people 'chasing their heritages', or however you want to term it - at the end of the day, what we have is some Pakistanis thinking they belong to other lands because of their heritage, and other Pakistanis thinking the former don't belong here because of the same reason.

Certain malicious elements taking advantage of this is to be expected. It will take time. Mindsets will eventually change. Some initiative to speed this process up would certainly be helpful, but its current absence isn't a reason to despair.

As for the politicians, nothing more than parasites.

The thing is that we are not abandoning the ship per say

Maybe you are not, but others are. And there is no 'abandoning the ship but not per se'. You either abandon it or you stay on it. Can't have half of yourself on a ship while the other half abandons it.

Pakistanis will have to admit their failures loud and open and then start to build up on them.

Definitely, you are right. But there's a difference between admitting your failures and hitting your head on them and not getting anywhere. I'm all for introspection and admission of mistakes.

But not for self-deprecation. Self-respect is just as important as introspection. If we won't respect our nation and keep taunting 'it' for 'it's' failures, how can we expect others to respect us and our nation?

That is the issue I have with most of our self-professed 'liberals'. Bashing everything Pakistani, whether it be Iqbal, aaloo parathe or the Pak Army, praising everything Western/foreign, but then offering no solutions or lessons at all - except for what can be inferred from their statements, which is usually nothing more than ''we are inferior and should throw our culture(s)/identity out the window and copy the West'' like some made-in-China photocopier.

Of course, this is not to discredit the entirety of Pakistani liberals - many aren't like that.

Just because a person is a new driver---will not absolve him of the accident that he committed because he did not know how to merge into the freeway traffic from the on ramp.

Obviously not. But now that the accident has happened, should this new driver proceed to abandon all hope of ever becoming a good driver, set fire to his car, and confine himself to walking? No, not at all. He is a new driver, after all.

He'll learn in time. In Sha' Allah.

My apologies for the long-winded reply, but I hope you recognize that a shorter one wouldn't do justice to the topic.

 

[MastanKhan]

@TankMan

Okay---if that is what you.think.

 

[Solomon2]

If you've read the Hamoodur Rahman Commission, you'd know that the last thing the people who ran the government were, were keen ideologues who wanted to create Jinnah's Pakistan.

Reading it now.

My first impression is that it was an insult to the intelligence, patriotism, and sense of justice of every Pakistani and Bangladeshi to keep it secret, then pretend it was destroyed.

My second impression is that recommending alcohol be banned from the barracks is rather useless considering the only personnel described as drunk were three generals.

None of the recommended inquiries or prosecutions in the report actually happened, did they?