tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1664474623650181692.post5504110777474077751..comments2023-08-29T04:48:14.525-07:00Comments on pakpotpourri2: America is a Federation Pakistan is Not: Naveed TajammalYASMEEN ALIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10748945833762147296noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1664474623650181692.post-46818331344120504942010-08-16T22:09:31.205-07:002010-08-16T22:09:31.205-07:00THANK YOU FOR YOUR KIND WORDS SIR (ARIF)THANK YOU FOR YOUR KIND WORDS SIR (ARIF)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17660511507942825496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1664474623650181692.post-78362368217425585092010-08-16T12:43:27.516-07:002010-08-16T12:43:27.516-07:00Mr N.T is a highly researched Historical Scholar w...Mr N.T is a highly researched Historical Scholar who has studied this Scenario with "Critical thinking skills " which 90% of people in Pakistan lack.. He has proved it beyond a doubt that Pakistan is NOT a real Federation, as the US so different set of rules apply to Pakistan and cannot be compared with the US federationUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10577718774485141419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1664474623650181692.post-81615000053840782812010-08-16T10:05:06.508-07:002010-08-16T10:05:06.508-07:00Even if he is in America, A HINDU IS A HINDU, IS A...Even if he is in America, A HINDU IS A HINDU, IS A HINDU, IS A HINDU, and he can't help show his mentality.Latifhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05503558250414548879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1664474623650181692.post-42662091117815063112010-08-16T04:39:29.628-07:002010-08-16T04:39:29.628-07:00Tanvir sahib:
TROLLS like SHAHKER abound on the ne...Tanvir sahib:<br />TROLLS like SHAHKER abound on the net, in each blog you find them,one can never satisfy them, just ignore them as i have been time and again advised by good friends, but sometimes when free, i take time out and give them a tit for tat,but they are so thick skinned neither reason nor a rationale effects them,they come as females and males.and thankyou again tanvir sahib for reading out this extra long article.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17660511507942825496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1664474623650181692.post-32169057885659089132010-08-16T01:46:59.818-07:002010-08-16T01:46:59.818-07:00Dear Tanvir
In most cases, you find the hindu set ...Dear Tanvir<br />In most cases, you find the hindu set against Pakistan, irrespective of what they project to the media on the world front.Let them rant.Enough western writers read this blog. Let them read what a TRUE hindu mind set is all about.YASMEEN ALIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10748945833762147296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1664474623650181692.post-57274506569986438682010-08-15T22:36:46.074-07:002010-08-15T22:36:46.074-07:00Mr. Shahker Said:"The fact is Pakistan is a f...Mr. Shahker Said:"The fact is Pakistan is a failed state....."<br /> <br />Instead myself I would rather prefer Mr.Naveed Tajammul/ YAA to kindly respond Mr. Shehkars's insulting / derogatery comments reflecting his personal hatered about Pakistan...I have a typical "tit for tat" comment that i reserve at this point of time..But still I would like to tell Mr. Shahker that One day You Have To Go Over What You Discard.. You Have the Right to be Happy but You have no right to shed hate.Tanvir Ahmed Siddiquihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17657630413726947002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1664474623650181692.post-61336042436903992442010-08-15T07:24:34.564-07:002010-08-15T07:24:34.564-07:00Tajammal Sahib , It is irrelevant whether Pakistan...Tajammal Sahib , It is irrelevant whether Pakistan is a confederation or America.The fact is Pakistan is a failed state. Although it has a per capita GDP similar to India, he points out that it scores low on political rights, ranks fifth in the world for group grievances, scores low on the State's legitimacy to represent the people, and has the army as a State within a State ("If the army is the State, the Inter Services Intelligence is its cabinet"), and is among the countries with the most factionalised elites at the highest levels of government.<br />For a State to be successful, you would assume, as a necessary condition, that it is legitimate. And for a State to be legitimate, it has got to follow the principle of popular sovereignty. It is pretty hard to find a country that says it doesn't represent the will of the people.<br /><br />The central problem for Pakistan is that there's a great disagreement among the people about what Pakistan should look like. In the same way, there was a time. at least in the US when we looked at Iraq, where we would think, 'How do I make a better country for the Iraqis?'<br />So dear Sir........let's return to NOW.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05396951124733779310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1664474623650181692.post-47123691893456275192010-08-14T21:57:43.066-07:002010-08-14T21:57:43.066-07:00Sahibzada Yaqoot:
Thankyou for your detailed comme...Sahibzada Yaqoot:<br />Thankyou for your detailed comment;The good will and well being of any Minority is a MUST;i quite agree,where the sword fails the Pen must be USED.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17660511507942825496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1664474623650181692.post-64480662212003946932010-08-14T21:43:34.302-07:002010-08-14T21:43:34.302-07:00I have received a comment from Sahibzada Yaqoot th...I have received a comment from Sahibzada Yaqoot that I post here:<br />It's beautifully explained and chronologically detailed article. Every Pakistani should read it, understand it and absorb it. Thanks for reconfirming that the white color that the Pakistani flag begins with, in fact represents the Minorities. <br /><br />It's crystal clear that the founder(s) of Pakistan, from Sir, Illama Iqbal, to Mohammad Ali Jinnah were all mindful of the support and solidarity that was given them by the Christian dignitaries of that time.<br />Quid-e-Azam was surrounded by Christian contemporaries like Dewan Bahudar,S.P. Singha, B.L.Raliaram, Sir.Chandulal and a renowned teacher and a Poet Mr. Sharraf. S.P. Singha was the speaker of Punjab assembly and it was his deciding vote that finally made Pakistan come into existence. One can very well imagine that the concept of incorporating "white" in the flag was a gesture of gratitude, to reciprocate the indebtedness to the Christians, that the Quid and other leaders must have realized as the country began to appear on the face of the world map. <br /><br />What an Idea of using the spectrum of light to allocate its colors for representation of various minorities. Synthesis of all colors gives us "White", a color, which is also a symbol of peace, grace, purity, and Dignity. Clearly, its meaning stands for "unconditional liberty,harmless and equal coexistence, and sharing of resources, for of all minorities within the boundaries of Pakistan. <br /><br />But presently, it's the height of Irony that Christians who are the major representatives of the color "White" in Pakistani flag, are being Mal-treated through biased laws conducive to unjustified cruelty and daylight trespasses of their property, dignity,honor and God given life. <br /><br />Isn't that an utmost insult being inflicted to the flag and the founder himself. Being honorable citizens of a proud nation of a modern world, every Muslim should respect the core tenets that were written by the founding father(s). It's their duty to follow the tenets of Quid e Azam. <br />And that includes respecting and protecting all minorities of Pakistan. <br />This would be the best tribute to the founder, whose spirit must be pretty displeased lately, witnessing the "white" of his flag being stained with the innocent blood of the representative minorities. <br /><br />My hat goes off to salute Mr. Naveed Tajammal for explaining the color scheme and its inherent meaning to our nation. Quid e Azam said the strength of a pen is more than a thousand swords. Sir, may I request that with your prowess in penmanship, you may write a little in support of minority's concerns and welfare. No one is listening to them in any other form. Allow me to borrow one of your words in stating that today the Pakistani government is acting despotic and is turning deaf ear, especially, when it comes to the protection of a poor and benign minority... The Christians. In the present situation, the use of a pen seems the only option open.YASMEEN ALIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10748945833762147296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1664474623650181692.post-11871084079681049132010-08-14T21:30:13.943-07:002010-08-14T21:30:13.943-07:00Thankyou latif sahib, for reading the article in f...Thankyou latif sahib, for reading the article in full,and your comments on it.The job of any writer is to create awareness, but it is for later generations to ACT on it.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17660511507942825496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1664474623650181692.post-13241445229749112402010-08-14T20:41:33.051-07:002010-08-14T20:41:33.051-07:00Wonderful research, Naveed...! Thank u so much for...Wonderful research, Naveed...! Thank u so much for this very logical paper. You have really increased my knowledge on the subject. <br /><br />Yes, we know from American history that that country came into being as a result of many independent states joining together. Those states were independent because they had been carved out by different mother countries in Europe, who had conquered or paid for and purchased their respective territories for their own sovereign purposes. Every state had its own system of governance, its own laws, mostly its own religious practices peculiar to her mother country and even its own language and culture. They joined together alright, but till today they are keeping their own very strong identities in constitutional rights and legal practices. So much so that when they got together, they preferred to be called a Federation of States.<br /><br />That situation does not at all apply to Pakistan, especially today's Pakistan. When East Pakistan was there, could be yes to some extent, but not at all today. And I feel it is unnecessary, unnatural and rather a dangerous notion to continue calling ourselves a Federation. <br /><br />Likewise, your elaboration of the background events leading to making of Govt of India Act, 1935 is very knowledgeable. British and Hindus wanted India to somehow stay as one country, with all the hundreds of Princely States remaining in the fold of Indian Federal Union. <br /><br />Even when Quaid-e-Azam's demand for Pakistan as an independent country was finally conceded to by the British and the Quaid used to say that 'India will be divided into two countries, Pakistan and Hindustan', Mr. Nehru used to get upset. He still wanted to stick to the name 'India' for his part of the country, with the hope and in keeping with his declared slogan that, 'Pakistan will not exist more than six months and will fall back to the Indian Union, if not as an integral entity, at least as a federating unit.'<br /><br />Adoption by India, of the Act of 1935 as a basis of their constitution is quite understandable from their point of view. They had to absorb (rather digest) hundreds of Princely states including parts of Pakistan namely, Junagadh, Hyderabad and Kashmir on the pretext of Federation. However, Pakistan had no such problems to tackle. Hence adoption of The Act even as an interim constitution is not understandable. (I am sure things would have been different if The Quaid had not fallen to the death bed immediately after partition and finally departed from this world). <br /><br />But the most amazing thing is that we are still calling ourselves a Federation and the Central Govt as Federal Govt, Federal Minister/Ministry, Federal Secretary and Federal Department etc............! <br /><br /><br />Thank you once again.Latifhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05503558250414548879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1664474623650181692.post-60785518193336312312010-08-14T20:39:55.369-07:002010-08-14T20:39:55.369-07:00Wonderful research, Naveed...! Thank u so much for...Wonderful research, Naveed...! Thank u so much for this very logical paper. You have really increased my knowledge on the subject. <br /><br />Yes, we know from American history that that country came into being as a result of many independent states joining together. Those states were independent because they had been carved out by different mother countries in Europe, who had conquered or paid for and purchased their respective territories for their own sovereign purposes. Every state had its own system of governance, its own laws, mostly its own religious practices peculiar to her mother country and even its own language and culture. They joined together alright, but till today they are keeping their own very strong identities in constitutional rights and legal practices. So much so that when they got together, they preferred to be called a Federation of States.<br /><br />That situation does not at all apply to Pakistan, especially today's Pakistan. When East Pakistan was there, could be yes to some extent, but not at all today. And I feel it is unnecessary, unnatural and rather a dangerous notion to continue calling ourselves a Federation. <br /><br />Likewise, your elaboration of the background events leading to making of Govt of India Act, 1935 is very knowledgeable. British and Hindus wanted India to somehow stay as one country, with all the hundreds of Princely States remaining in the fold of Indian Federal Union. <br /><br />Even when Quaid-e-Azam's demand for Pakistan as an independent country was finally conceded to by the British and the Quaid used to say that 'India will be divided into two countries, Pakistan and Hindustan', Mr. Nehru used to get upset. He still wanted to stick to the name 'India' for his part of the country, with the hope and in keeping with his declared slogan that, 'Pakistan will not exist more than six months and will fall back to the Indian Union, if not as an integral entity, at least as a federating unit.'<br /><br />Adoption by India, of the Act of 1935 as a basis of their constitution is quite understandable from their point of view. They had to absorb (rather digest) hundreds of Princely states including parts of Pakistan namely, Junagadh, Hyderabad and Kashmir on the pretext of Federation. However, Pakistan had no such problems to tackle. Hence adoption of The Act even as an interim constitution is not understandable. (I am sure things would have been different if The Quaid had not fallen to the death bed immediately after partition and finally departed from this world). <br /><br />But the most amazing thing is that we are still calling ourselves a Federation and the Central Govt as Federal Govt, Federal Minister/Ministry, Federal Secretary and Federal Department etc............! <br /><br /><br />Thank you once again.Latifhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05503558250414548879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1664474623650181692.post-71398762140002922982010-08-14T12:28:09.623-07:002010-08-14T12:28:09.623-07:00A very good article ... setting up some very impor...A very good article ... setting up some very important questions ..Nabob of Lucknowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04766464009698532324noreply@blogger.com