Monday, August 29, 2011
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Coffins, coffins, coffins, coffins, coffins is what is Karachi... Nincompoops are governing!
Regionalism, parochialism and nepotism will give these results only...
When there were riots in England immediate arrests of 1,500 people were made. And here people are dying endlessly since July no arrests are made. Why are they looking elsewhere and not taking action?
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Nero is fiddling while Rome is burning!
What is important what is urgent?
Fred Mayer/Getty Images
Mary Francis Gyles offers another interpretation of the story: Nero's fiddling may not have anything to do with music at all, but rather is a metaphor for his ineffectiveness. Fiddling, after all, can also mean that a person is expending energy on something useless or misguided. If the measures Nero took following the fire were perceived as misdirected or inadequate, then saying Nero fiddled while Rome burned takes on a whole new meaning. It's possible that the idea is a relic of propaganda so effective that it's survived 2,000 years.
Although history has cast him in an unfair light regarding the fire, it's difficult to feel sorry for Nero. The emperor has a well-documented history of brutality. He ascended to the throne after his mother killed his uncle; Nero later had her killed. In the face of blame for the great fire, he chose to look for scapegoats. His persecution of the early Christians was the first the religion would endure, and it resulted in the martyrdom of the apostles Peter and Paul, both of whom were executed during the persecutions.
Ultimately, the great fire helped bring Nero down. Discontent with his reign, his infantries threatened mutiny, and he was declared a public enemy by the Senate. Facing execution, Nero pushed a dagger into his throat and took his life four years after the fire [source: New York Times].
For more information on Rome and other related topics, visit the next pages.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Subsequently we got petty and selfish and see what happened. While one great man with his higher values got a country for the Muslims of the sub-continent the minions later on could not even get a yard of occupied Kashmir despite having a UN Resolution in favor. Nay they with their shortsightedness, selfishness and pettiness lost half of the country with the feudal and tribal mindset playing huge role in the debacle.
When the greater vision and the big picture and the real cause is forgotten and lost and our ideas degenerate into petty regionalism, parochialism and nepotism etc. we get results as we are getting now. It is getting worse by the day. Hate is ruling us rather love and concern for the Muslim Ummah.
Whether you like the bitter truth of history or not Pakistan was made only and only on the basis of a Two Nation theory. Nothing else. Not for any Punjabi, Sindhi, Balochi or a Pathan. Although it was never envisioned as a theocratic state. Muslim State yes. For Muslims yes but it had full guarantees for all minorities. Quaed e Azam envisioned a modern state, he was himself very modern.
The criteria was one and only one. Muslim or Hindu - exactly as Israel, Muslim or a Jew - not an Arab or a Jew. This is a bitter truth of history. Only two nations till recently were made on the basis of a two nation theory one Pakistan and the other Israel. A few years ago it was Aceh and this year South Sudan. You have to swallow this bitter or sweet pill depends on what you believe in - truth or fiction.
If you want to re-construct history it is entirely up to you. Then there is no difference between you and the RSS Hindus who want to reconstruct history of India. Libraries worldwide are being filled with this fictitious history. You want to copy them, go ahead. At least they do not leave their co-religionists in the lurch like we want our to be.
Theories that give birth to a country are never time bound either. Even a Muslim child born today in India and thinks Pakistan is his country, you cannot stop him as per the original vision. Great sacrifices have been made in life, blood and money. All Muslim centers have been destroyed in India like Lucknow, Bhopal or Hyderabad, to name a few at the alter of Pakistan.
If the religious people at that time objected it was not that they did not want a Muslim Country. It is just that they were concerned that Muslim is in every nook and corner of India, what about him? How will you save him? All did not have the resources to move. Even Quaed e Azam always worried about it. When he was in Ziarath nothing else was on his mind. He cried all the time while Fatima Jinnah gave him napkins for his tears. Read it please.
Even the 1940 Allahabad declaration addressed by Allama Iqba called for Muslim majority states. At that time also they did not ask for a Muslim Country. Ask Najam sethi, he will testify to it. Or if you want I will send you the link listen to him yourself.
Now we can't get petty and selfish and all for our self. Some people's allusion to the thought that the writer (this article was written in response to an article and comments) may not be a Pakistani is a moot point. How does it matter even if he is not a Pakistani, a fact we do not know. Sitting in Dublin he must at best be a Muslim and an Irish. He seems to be a Muslim by his name, it is fine. Even that is not important. The important thing is what is he saying. Right or wrong? Truth or fiction? Whoever he may be.
What are you trying to suggest? Let's not stoop low. See what he is writing? There are a lot of historians including Stanely Wolvepert who are not Pakistani so will you say they are all anti-Pakistan? No. That is far too narrow minded a view.
We have to rise above all this pettiness and selfishness as we have been since the death of another great - Liaquath Ali Khan. In any case there have been only two heroes - The Quaed e Azam and Shaheed e Millath. Barring Suharwardy most others are considered as heroes but villains.
Stanley Wolpert in 1983 in fact resurrected and re-built the image of The Quad e Azam after it had taken a battering in the film Gandhi by Richard Attenborough. It was a non-Muslim that came to his rescue. No Muslim or a Pakistani did. "Jinnah of Pakistan" by Stanley Wolpert then restored his image.
The history is full of facts that show the struggle for Muslims of India and no other regional or tribal or racist consideration. Period. Quaed e Azam has repeatedly mentioned a homeland for Muslims of the sub-continent - one of the two nations, now if we we want to twist it for selfish reasons do it.
The history and objective of Pakistan will not change. But it will have its consequences. The only way of retaining Balochistan and reinforcing the claim on Kashmir is with the same Two Nation Theory. Nothing else. Like it or not.