Posts Tagged ‘Pakistan’

Gandhi, Jinnah And British Responsibility For Indian Subcontinent Division

Wednesday, June 19th, 2013

The following is a conversation between myself and Ken Surridge on the causes of the separation of the Indian subcontinent and the responsible parties, British, Muslim and Hindu, focusing on Gandhi and Jinnah as key players. This discussion took place on Facebook June 18 and 19, 2013. Link with pictures

Gary Crethers: Pakistan’s military has long supported fundamentalists and separatists in Kashmir, in a proxy war with India. Now the Baluchi independence movement is, as the cartoon shows, burning the military in the butt. My own contention is that the nation states of India and Pakistan were colonial creations, compromises made by the British as they headed out the door after WW2. I also think that the two state solution was like in Palestine a poison pill planted by the British in the hopes of keeping things unstable and pliable for British long term interests, with an eye to return, something that didn’t happen and now the consequences of such ill thought out actions are being lived by the people. It will be interesting to see if Pakistan in particular survives.

Ken Surridge: Gary. I think you underestimate the role that Ghandi played in the division of the country. I don’t doubt that my country wanted to keep influence in the country but I think they did that with the system of government with different states and Rajahs. Ghandi deserves huge credit for forcing the British to grant independence to the region but he was very divisive among his own people. I think Ghandi’s inflexibility was the prime cause of separation.

Ken Surridge: He is credited with his non-violence in achieving independence and in my opinion rightly so, but the conflict he caused that lead to the partition of the country into India and Pakistan brought about many, many deaths and I think his stance played a part if not the main part in bringing about the bloodshed that preceded partition. I would argue that hundreds of thousands died and were displaced as a direct result of the conflict Ghandi caused among the parties negotiating the future of the region with the British.

Gary Crethers: Gandhi was against the separation. He opposed Jinnah in that. But ultimately gave in to pressure from others in Congress. I would say it was more due to Jinnah’s insistence and British appeasement than Gandhi, also there was the war, the cooperation of Congress was dependent on some promise of Independence after the war. If Labor hadn’t won the 1945 parliamentary elections, the British might have stalled a lot longer. But Labor had a social agenda at home and the war debt was enormous, so the empire was a judicious sacrifice. My poison pill theory is more a proposition than anything else at this point without access to British policy files. That sort of thing would not be easily accessible even at this late date. “Jinnah’s inscrutability and stubborn support for his Pakistan demand frequently frustrated Mountbatten during the series of meetings which took place between them early in April 1947. After one marathon session during which Jinnah appeared not to have been listening to any of his arguments, Mountbatten wrote in exasperation that ‘Jinnah must be a psychopathic case’.”

Jinnah and the Making of Pakistan
The worldwide Islamic revival of the 1970s has overshadowed the attempts made by Muslims earlier in the century to unite religious and political authority. Muslims led the revolt against the colonial…(see link)

Ken Surridge: Ghandi was against separation. Jinnah was initially against separation too. Ghandi though wanted the independent country to be created on his terms and he was completely unwilling to compromise. Because of his public standing the British did not feel he could be pressurised into compromise which lead to a very frustrated Jinnah. Jinnah wanted formal assurances that the minority muslims of the country would be treated as equal citizens in the new country. Ghandi refused to agree to any such reassurances and insisted that the basis of the new country would be Hinduism. Ghandi was totally inflexible, trust broke down, and the British chose not to intervene. Jinnah felt the only way he could safeguard muslims in the region was to push for an independent Pakistan. I would hardly consider Mountbatten a credible judge of character - his admiration for cruel dictators is well-documented.

Gary Crethers: Interesting analysis of the separation of the subcontinent putting a lot more blame on British administrative practices.

» Partition of India Postcolonial Studies @ Emory
“A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance.” - Jawarharal Nehru, “Tryst With Destiny” speech celebrating Indian independence…(see link)

Gary Crethers: this BBC version is very close to my own understanding. I know Gandhi was opposed to separation but I don’t think he was about to impose Hinduism. He was killed after all by Hindu Nationalists who thought he was an appeaser of Muslims.

BBC - History - British History in depth: The Hidden Story of Partition and its Legacies
by Dr Crispin Bates

Ken Surridge: I agree with most of the analysis but I think it ignores a few important points. Firstly, Jinnah was an ardent anglophile with no apparent religious convictions. Instead of praying, he would sit on his verandah drinking whiskey; he loved whisky. He dressed like an English gentleman of the day usually. He considered himself culturally muslim. I think he would turn in his grave if he saw what the company had become. Secondly, the region allocated for Pakistan included only a minority of the muslims in the region. In fact, there are more muslims in india today than there are in Pakistan. Thirdly, the analysis acknowledges the anti-muslim feeling in the country but underestimates the strength of it. Hindus talked openly on muslims getting their just desserts. Forth, the analysis acknowledges Ghandi’s vision of a Hindu india but it does not deal with his many pronouncements that it would a hindu country only. Lastly, it doesn’t deal with the conflicts that developed and the reasons for them between the parties negotiating the terms for independence.

Gary Crethers: True, Jinnah was not exactly a good Muslim, he was interested in power, and Islam was for him a tool, perhaps as a means of pressuring the British, perhaps as a way to counter the influence of the Hindu nationalists. As has been written Muslims supported the British war effort while Congress opposed and many went to prison. As a result Muslims gained influence during the war years and that added pressure on the British to grant a separate state. The Labor government also wanted out. due to the post war situation at home, remember Britain had rationing in place until the 1950’s and was in bad shape for years after the war.

Ken Surridge: I agree that Britain just wanted out and as a result made some very poor decisions. However, I think both the articles you have presented do not take into the following items into account - (1) Ghandi’s determination that India would be hindu and a refusal to provide assurances for muslim citizens, (2) the hostility in the country towards muslims and their genuine fear of reprisals after the British left, and (3) Jinnah’s initial commitment to a united country.

Ken Surridge: I would argue Gary that a close analysis of Ghandi reveals a very different person to the only that is publically bandied about. I think the image of Ghandi generally presented is very romanticised as is often the case with popular heroes.

Gary Crethers: This site is very critical of Gandhi but they are critical not because he insisted on Hindu nationalism but just the opposite for being a dreamer and idealist who believed in an ecumenical state. This is a site advocating nationalism and has little good to say about Gandhi. I just don’t see him as being intransigent in favor of Hinduism. Can you site some sources?

The Gandhi Myth
The lesson of Gandhi’s failure is clear: In interracial relations a group that defines itself by its tolerance will lose against a group that doggedly pursues its own self-interest. Shrewd ethnocentrism is more politically powerful than compromising tolerance.

Ken Surridge: Gary, that’s a fair question. You will need to give me some time to dig through my books. Some them may even be in storage but it will be a good test of my memory. I will update as I find relevant sources.

Gary Crethers: Thanks, I have researched enough to know that Gandhi was a pragmatist and his pacifism was more a tactical response also ultimately became part of his world view. For a critique of Gandhi from a pacifist viewpoint see

A Pacifist Critique of Gandhi | Peacework Magazine
Peacework Magazine, a peace and social justice webzine, investigates, uncovers, highlights, catalyzes, and mobilizes the nonviolent success stories of today — and tomorrow.

Gary Crethers: But all in all, despite his flaws, he was a great man and advanced the cause of human freedom, at least to the extent of being an inspiration for people like Martin Luther King, who went to India. “From the early days of the Montgomery bus boycott, Martin Luther King, Jr. referred to India’s Mahatma Gandhi as ‘‘the guiding light of our technique of nonviolent social change’’ (Papers 5:231). Following the success of the boycott in 1956, King contemplated traveling to India to deepen his understanding of Gandhian principles.”

India Trip (1959)
From the early days of the Montgomery bus boycott, Martin Luther King, Jr. referred to India’s Mahatma Gandhi as ‘‘the guiding light of our technique of nonviolent social change’’ (Papers 5:231). Following the success of the boycott in 1956, King contemplated traveling to India to deepen his understanding…(see link)

Gary Crethers: Now I am no pacifist, but I am a pragmatist and seeing people getting killed for political ends is not my idea of how to conduct a social revolution, but on the other hand there are times when as Maximilian Robespierre said in 1790 “On ne saurait faire une omelette sans casser des oeufs.” Translation: “One can’t expect to make an omelet without breaking eggs.”

Ken Surridge: A Hitchens article, although I have better sources and will find them.

The Real Mahatma Gandhi
Questioning the moral heroism of India’s most revered figure

Ken Surridge: If you read Gandhi’s letters and articles while living in South Africa, he comes across as deeply racist. He objects to the treatment of Indians but takes no issues with the treatment of kafirs and low caste Indians. The word ‘kafir’ is the South African equivalent of nigger. It is a deeply offensive and racist word. Read the original letters at

M.K.Gandhi, mahatma, Philosophy, non-violence, photographs of mahatma gandhi, Ghandi, Mahatma, Mohandas, peace, conflict resolution. Comprehensive site for Researchers Scholars Activists Students everyone. Includes a large collection of links on Gandhi, Non-Violence Peace and Conflict Resolution.

Ken Surridge: Note Gandhi’s support for ‘Purity of Race’ when he stressed racial separation and the leadership of whites with approval.

Gandhi wrote in his Indian Opinion of 24 September 1903:
“We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do, only we believe that they [the white leadership of South Africa] would best serve these interests, which are as dear to us as to them, by advocating the purity of all races, and not one alone. We believe also that the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race.”

On 24 December 1903, Gandhi added this in his Indian Opinion newspaper:
“The petition dwells upon `the co-mingling of the colored and white races’. May we inform the members of the Conference that so far as British Indians are concerned, such a thing is particularly unknown. If there is one thing which the Indian cherishes more than any other, it is the purity of type.”

Ken Surridge: Jinnah was the architect of the Lucknow pact for which he earned the title of “the Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity”. Jinnah was a member of both the Congress Party and the Muslim League when the Lucknow pact was created in 1916. He fought hard for a united India in which Muslims would be fairly represented. The main clauses of the Lucknow pact were presented to the British as a united front. Jinnah was the main driver for a united India until the collapse of the Lucknow pact when he concluded that the hindu majority would limit the rights of muslims.

Ken Surridge: This is brief article that draws some attention to Jinnah’s role but does not do it justice. It is useful in that it points out that Jinnah was committed to a united India in the beginning and he, not Gandhi, was the main force behind the unity of Muslims and Hindus.

The Lucknow Pact
When All India Muslim League came into existence, it was a moderate organization with its basic aim to establish friendly relations with the Crown. However, due to the decision of the British Government…(see link)

Ken Surridge: The text of the Lucknow pact can be seen on the following web-site.

Lucknow Pact between Congress and Muslim League 1916
Agreement between Congress and Muslim League in 1916.

Ken Surridge: The main clauses of the Lucknow Pact were:
•There shall be self-government in India.
•Muslims should be given one-third representation in the central government.
•There should be separate electorates for all the communities until a community demanded for joint electorates.
•System of weightage should be adopted.
•The number of the members of Central Legislative Council should be increased to 150.
•At the provincial level, four-fifth of the members of the Legislative Councils should be elected and one-fifth should be nominated.
•The strength of Provincial legislative should not be less than 125 in the major provinces and from 50 to 75 in the minor provinces.
•All members, except those nominated, were to be elected directly on the basis of adult franchise.
•No bill concerning a community should be passed if the bill is opposed by three-fourth of the members of that community in the Legislative Council.
•Term of the Legislative Council should be five years.
•Members of Legislative Council should themselves elect their president.
•Half of the members of Imperial Legislative Council should be Indians.
•Indian Council must be abolished.
•The salaries of the Secretary of State for Indian Affairs should be paid by the British Government and not from Indian funds.
•Out of two Under Secretaries, one should be Indian.
•The Executive should be separated from the Judiciary.

Ken Surridge: The Nehru report was produced in 1928. It was shaped by Nehru the protégé of Gandhi and rejected everything agreed in the Lucknow pact. Jinnah responded in 1929 with 14 points from the 1916 Lucknow pact for a united India from the 1916. The now Hindu Members of the Nehru committee rejected all the points outright. A meeting of all the Muslim parties subsequently rejected the Nehru report. If the Nehru Committee had shown some flexibility and willingness to incorporate some of the demands of the Muslim leadership, partition might have been avoided. The inability of Congress to concede any points was a major factor in the eventual partition of India.

Ken Surridge:[1928].html

Nehru Report

Ken Surridge: The above report is right on the facts even if its pro-Pakistan sympathy is rather obvious.

Ken Surridge: Was Nehru Report a Reversal of Lucknow Pact?
Yes. The Motilal Nehru Committee Report, published in 1928 recommended reservation of seats for Muslims only in provinces where they were in a minority. The report proposed to abolish separate electorates, to discard reservation of seats for Muslim majorities in the Punjab and Bengal and to rekect the principle of weightage for Muslim minorities. This was a reversal of the Lucknow Pact. The Nehru Report asked for a political status of India as a dominion, which should be the same as that of British dominions like Canada, South Africa. It asked for a similar reservation for Hindus in NWFP. The provinces of Sindh and Karnataka shall be separate any further reorganisation of proposed report was good but not practical. The joint and mixed concept was practically unacceptable for the Muslim league.

Nehru Report 1928
Moti Lal Nehru Report 1928 At the annual session of the Congress in Madras in December 1927, a resolution was passed which advocated the boycott of
Ken Surridge Sorry Gary, I realise that I am overwhelming your notifications so I will finish with some book recommendations. India 1900-47 by Rosemary Rees, and the Lancaster Pamphlets on British Politics of the time.

Gary Crethers: I would not say he was deeply racist, but typically racist at that time racism was fairly common. But it is certainly a blight on his early days. I have noted that above in the Peacework critique. Gandhi certainly was no saint, remember he also slept with his young nieces, not having sex with them, but still it was a kind of creepy thing and several of his fellows left his movement because of it. But it does not take away from the fact that he was an influential force for liberation of the Indian subcontinent from colonial rule and did his best to do it without violence. The violence that occurred after partition cannot be blamed on him, he did his best to stop it. I would say it was more a result of the withdrawal of British troops, the demobilization of Indian forces, the rush to independence, the lack of experience on the part of many Congress politicians and the agitation of Hindu and Islamic fundamentalists and nationalists who spread fear and panic, also the lack of adequate police forces, lack of clear border demarcation, and inadequate preparation of the population at large, besides the fact that it was a bad idea to start with as far as I am concerned.

Ken Surridge: The Lucknow pact was agreed before Gandhi took the leadership of the Congress party. The Nehru report was created when lead, in fact, ran the Congress party having reorganised and put in place only people deeply loyal to him and his views. Had he been willing to compromise the Muslim League may have accepted the Nehru report and partition could have been averted along with the killing. Jinnah certainly indicated support after the publication of the Nehru report for a united India.

Gary Crethers: This site has an interesting description of Gandhi supporting the British war effort, his rather idealistic position, that by being good Commonwealth citizens, the British would reward Indians with greater political freedoms was naive and put him out of favor with his more realistic brethren. Gandhi had withdrawn from independence agitation and focused on labor issues working for workers rights during the war. Although in 1918 he helped recruit soldiers for the war effort and earlier had organized an medical unit at the war’s outbreak. He felt betrayed by the British when at the wars end the British determined that Indian civil liberties were to be curbed.

Gary Crethers: the site

Mahatma Gandhi : Pictorial Biography
This is the first pictorial biography of Gandhi in which the narrative-concise, readable and incisive is illustrated with contemporary photographs and facsimiles of letters, newspaper reports and cartoons, adding up to a fascinating flash-back on the life of Mahatma Gandhi and the struggle for India…(see link)

Gary Crethers: As for the 1916 Lucknow Pact between Congress and the Muslim Brotherhood that was as you say largely the work of Jinnah, also as a result the radical Tilak faction and the moderate Gokhale factions in Congress were brought together. The ultimate goal was to gain access to concessions from the British for self government as well as to protect Muslim interests. They saw World War One as an opportunity to pressure the British. Gandhi was not involved in this process being opposed to using the war to pressure the British. Things began to change after the Chauri Chaura incident in 1922 during the non-cooperation campaign after the war. Gandhi and Congress decided to call off the campaign when enraged protestors burned down a police station killing some 21 officers trapped inside. Leaders of the Muslim Khilafat Movement became disenchanted with Congress for ending the campaign. Later in 1928 the Nehru report written as a response to British claims that Indians could not come up with a constitution, provided an outline of a path to Dominion status and Independence. Unfortunately it did not include provisions for separate Muslim elections or protections that were included in the Lucknow pact and caused members of the Muslim league and Khilafat movement to become more critical of Congress. This becoming a point that led to increased support for Sir Syed Ahmad Khan’s two state solution, as was proposed in 1930 by Allama Iqbal in a speech. The 1935 Government of India Act had adopted many of the concessions requested by the 1928 All-Party Muslim Conference which had demanded a 33% representation in a unified government. At that point a unitary state was still possible as the separate state movement could only garnish a small percentage of Muslim support, gaining only 5% of Muslim votes in a 1937 election. But under Jinnah’s leadership they pressed on and in the Lahore resolution of 1940 presented the two state solution. I don’t see Gandhi being the primary player in this process of separation between Muslim and Hindu interests, he certainly was a factor, but I don’t think he was as critical as you suggest. As to why Jinnah decided to give up on a unitary state and push for separation, there were many factors, Gandhi may have failed to understand Jinnah, and Nehru may have pushed him into a corner where he felt he had no option after the Nehru Report. Jinnah’s ambition may have led him to conclude that a separate power base using Islam as a means was the only way to have the impact he desired. He certainly was no devout Muslim and was a secularist. Ultimately the factors in the failure to form a unified country are complex and have their roots in history as well as in the personalities and forces of the times. Certainly the British divide and conquer methodology contributed to the current states.

Gary Crethers: I don’t agree with your analysis of the Congress Party at the time of the Nehru Report. Gandhi was not on the committee and he was not some omnipotent force in Congress.

Gary Crethers: On the other hand Gandhi was a very influential figure and his own rejection of a legislated approach to the communal problem in favor of an apocalyptic civil war as a sort of purifying experience for Indians was in my view both irresponsible, idealistic and ultimately led to his not taking Jinnah’s demands seriously enough. This is in marked contrast to his insistence on Non-violent struggle for independence. This is reported in “Gandhi: A Political and Spiritual Life”
by Kathryn Tidrick, on page 221. Although Gandhi did tell Jinnah that he personally would agree to the demands of Jinnah, he suggested that the Sikhs would withdraw their support. “Gandhi: The Man, His People, and the Empire” by Rajmohan Gandhi page 297. Gandhi was more concerned with the split between the elder and younger Nehru who disagreed over whether to accept Dominion status or complete separation. Gandhi brokered a compromise in which they would give the British a one year ultimatum for dominion. if it was not accepted then complete independence would be on the table. This is an interesting link to the British reaction and the various parties involved

Gandhi and British Public Opinion Part Two: Nehru Report to the Lahore Conference 1928-29
The Nehru report, published in 1928 began a sequence of dramatic events in which the Indian Independence Movement became central to British Politics for the following three years. These events would…(see link)

Gary Crethers: Ultimately I think you have some good points and Gandhi certainly is not the idol some people make of him. His Hinduism was both a strength and a hindrance to his success. Also his reading of history, particularly the way he interpreted the American Civil War suggested that he anticipated a violent future for India before a truly communal state would arise. Was he being prophetic or help create the conditions of the ultimate bloodbath of the separation is debatable. Certainly the worst of two worlds resulted, a war and a separation, rather than peace and unity. Although he certainly was a key player, I still don’t believe that his actions determined the ultimate course of history, but they did play an important part.

Ken Surridge: Gandhi was not party to the creation of the Lucknow pact or a supporter of its goals but he was behind the decision to ignore it and the concerns of Muslims in the creation of the Nehru report.

Gandhi became president of Congress in 1921, and immediately reformed the party. He restructured the hierarchy filling many positions with loyal followers. He reduced the membership fee, opened new party branches and campaigned aggressively. Party membership grew rapidly and Gandhi became the darling of the public. Gandhi became very powerful with his control of Congress and his public image.

Gandhi expressed regret for the Chauri Chaura incident in 1922. It is true that officially Gandhi and Congress decided to call off the campaign, however, the party was at this stage very much doing his bidding. Gandhi was indeed very powerful and it was not easy or wise to disagree with him. Along with some other members, the Khilafat Movement did become disenchanted with the campaign ending. Gandhi’s control of the party is underlined by the fact that while Gandhi’s was in prison internal factions formed within the Congress party which looked at one stage like it might split the party. On leaving prison Gandhi took control of the party and reunited it.

The 1928 Nehru report was the second attempt at a constitution for India. There were 2 Muslim representatives who were part of the committee that drafted it. They refused to sign it because it ignored Muslim concerns. It was rejected by the All Muslim league shortly afterwards. Jinnah’s 14 points were the only attempt made to see if any common ground could be found. Nehru as a loyal supporter of Gandhi made sure the report reflected his vision for India. The Congress party very much under Gandhi’s influence ignored Muslim concerns.

I see Gandhi’s influence and his beliefs as the main cause of the stance that the Congress party adopted towards the concerns of the Muslim league. I believe his speeches and actions show that as his influence grew so did his confidence to assert himself and his refusal to compromise. He is known in meetings to have simply refused to even respond to questions or discuss topics on which he had made up his mind. He left many British officials deeply frustrated because of his refusal to enter into negotiations. He drove Jinnah and his allies to conclude that the two-state solution touted by others was the only way to safeguard Muslims. It is true that once Jinnah believed this to be the case, he threw himself behind the idea and campaigned aggressively for it.

I agree that there were other factors at play, but I think you underestimate Gandhi’s influence. Even after he relinquished the leadership of the Congress party no decisions were taken without consulting him.

Gary Crethers: As much as I would like to continue this discussion I have other matters to attend at this point. I will say that the debates over the Nehru Report at the time indicate that many in Congress saw Jinnah as petulantly sticking to a position that insisted on a 33% Muslim stake as opposed to the 25% offered, a compromise of 27% was not accepted by Jinnah. Shuaaib Qureshi was the only one of the panel members who seems to have not signed it according to the Wikipedia article but that could be wrong. Gandhi certainly was influential, I guess what we disagree on is how much that influence impacted the ultimate results. A very interesting analysis indicates that it was due to the inept work of Jinnah’s aid M. C. Chagla. “In the summer 1928 when these negotiations went on and a draft of Nehru Report was being finalised Jinnah had gone to London and Paris – his wife Ruttie was on her deathbed in Paris at the time. Around the same time, the Nehru Report was finalised. Under pressure from the Hindu Mahasabha, the Nehru Report did not go far enough to meet the Delhi proposals. Instead of the 33% proposed reserved representation, the Hindu Mahasabha insisted on a lower number, agreeing ultimately at 25% i.e. 1/4th instead of 1/3rd. A meeting of the Nehru Report attended by M C Chaga on behalf of the League became the turning point. While Motilal Nehru was ready to even accept separate electorates as an interim measure to allay the minorities, M C Chagla forcefully advocated joint electorates on behalf of Jinnah’s faction and also went on to accept the Nehru Report on League’s behalf. When Jinnah returned, M C Chagla went to receive him at the harbor only to find his mentor furious. For Jinnah the Nehru Report was a counter proposal and with 1/4th instead of 1/3rd reserved representation was a non-starter. In this he was right. Muslims were giving up their separate electorates and the Hindu majority was expected to give something in return – an increase in reserved representation.”

Gary Crethers:
Gandhi according to this author is only mentioned in the context of having a positive opinion. “The package Jinnah gave for a settlement became famously known as the Delhi Muslim proposals. There is enough evidence to suggest that Motilal Nehru and Gandhi were thrilled by this proposal.” Thus all I can say is this subject is still being debated and as I am not an expert, I will have to leave it lie as it stands perhaps in the future I shall attempt a paper on the subject.

Jinnah, M C Chagla and the Nehru Report | Pak Tea House
The All India Reporter in its obituary on Jinnah wrote this very revealing line: “The change in his views and ideals leading to such cataclysmic developments in our national annals will remain one of the strangest things in history.”

Getting Real American Foreign Policy, Debt And Health Care

Monday, October 12th, 2009

Tonight I heard Chris Hedges on KPFK being interviewed about his new book ‘Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle’.

He was speaking about the lack of intellectual depth in America. He was speaking about the fact that we have become a celebrity worshiping consumer culture. Specifically he says that Americans are deluded by the illusions that they have been sold and that we have become divorced from reality.

He claims that Americans are the most delusional people in the world.

This is serious.

Advertising Age today has released a white paper that says the average American no longer exists. The 2010 census will reveal that the nuclear family of white middle class couples with 2.4 children and a dog with a house in suburbia is simply no longer true. We are a nation of niches. This is the article hyping the paper that is available at a price.

“LOS ANGELES ( — The 2010 Census is expected to find that 309 million people live in the United States. But one person will be missing: the average American.

“The concept of an ‘average American’ is gone, probably forever,” demographics expert Peter Francese writes in 2010 America, a new Ad Age white paper. “The average American has been replaced by a complex, multidimensional society that defies simplistic labeling.”

2010 America, a new 32-page white paper by Peter Francese, analyzes what the 2010 census will reveal about the changing face of consumers. The message to marketers is clear: No single demographic, or even handful of demographics, neatly defines the nation. There is no such thing as “the American consumer.”

The Census Bureau will begin releasing data in spring 2011. Mr. Francese, demographic trends analyst at WPP’s Ogilvy & Mather, New York, and founder of American Demographics magazine, now offers projections and insight on what the census will show.

Selected findings of 2010 America:

■U.S. households are growing ever more complex and varied.

“This census will show that no household type neatly describes even one-third of households,” Mr. Francese writes. “The iconic American family — married couple with children — will account for a mere 22% of households.”

The most prevalent type of U.S. household? Married couple with no kids, followed closely by single-person households, according to Mr. Francese’s projections.

The Census will give Americans 14 choices to define household relationships. Mr. Francese says this will “enable the Census Bureau to count not only traditional families but also the number and growth since 2000 of blended families, single-parent families and multigenerational families, as well as multiple families doubling up in one household.”

That presents boundless opportunities for marketers and media in how they target and segment households.

■Minorities are the new majority. “One fact says it all,” Mr. Francese writes. “In the two largest states (California and Texas), as well as New Mexico and Hawaii, the nation’s traditional majority group — white non-Hispanics — is in the minority.” And in the nation’s 10 largest cities, he says, “no racial or ethnic category describes a majority of the population.”

Mr. Francese notes how diversity varies greatly by age, “with the younger population substantially more diverse than the old.”

Consider these 2010 projections: 80% of people age 65-plus will be white non-Hispanics. But just 54% of children under age 18 will be white non-Hispanics. Mr. Francese observes: “White non-Hispanics will surely account for fewer than half of births by 2015.”

In 2010, Hispanics will be both the nation’s fastest-growing and largest minority (50 million people).

■The nation is moving. Over the past decade, Mr. Francese says, 85% of the nation’s population growth occurred in the South and West. “During the still-nameless decade from 2000 to 2010,” he writes, “a total of about 3 million people have moved out of the Northeast, and another 2 million have left the Midwest” for the South and West.”

What does this mean? Only that data mining will be more and more prevalent as advertisers work on specializing on the niche they want to reach. The largest group in the immediate future will be the aging baby boomers. This is pretty obvious just look at the prevalence of advertising for Viagra, pills in general, and various insurance plans. It is all about old people and their wealth and health.

But lets drop all this BS. Liz Cheney put it out there on Fox News, she said that the Nobel Committee wants to see the end of US Dominance in the world and that President Obama is a believer in ending US Dominance. She is a firm believer in the USA as the leader of the world. This is clear in statements she makes like “Norwegians sleep well at night because American soldiers protect them.” She was advocating giving the Nobel Peace prize to a mother of a dead veteran. I wonder if she would want Cindy Sheehan to get the Nobel Peace Prize? Cindy is certainly the mother of a Veteran and an advocate of peace.

Steve Clemons of the Washington is saying that Obama is attempting to revive America’s relevance tonight on MSNBC. This is the establishment position. He is here as the janitorial president to clean up the mess left by Bush Neo-liberalism. The Obama administration is traditional liberalism lite. Because as we all know there is no money left for real Johnson liberal reforms. The Chinese are worried about the USA letting the dollar decline in value. This means very simply that the Chinese are telling Obama that what we need is neo-liberal structural reform. This is the ultimate Irony. Why won’t Obama meet the Dali Lama, the Chinese won’t like it. Why do we care, because the Chinese hold all our debt and if they stopped buying American debt then we would have to pay for our debt from our own economy and guess what? We don’t have an economy, we out sourced it all.

World War Two was a time of greater national debt but it was bought domestically and so when we paid it back we were paying Americans. Now the debt is held by China, Saudi Arabia, the Netherlands and Great Britain mainly. That means we have to care about what they think. We no longer have a strong domestic manufacturing economy. What we do have is a financial sector that handles other peoples money for them. We have been a safe haven for other peoples money.

America is a big spacious empty country. It has lots of room for rich people from all over the world to stash their wealth. The poor are mostly isolated in the cities and the propaganda machine works better here than in most places. Our media has pushed the concept of believing that a positive attitude and a can do approach will always win out. This is not a bad approach but when it is combined with a pathological fear of being called a looser and a shame at reaching out to others in solidarity because of the dream of individual success, it has crippled all organs of labor unity because of this propaganda. It has turned every attempt to form a viable left in the United States into a joke.

So what do we do? We stop believing the hype. As Chris Hedges says we have to get real. We have to face the facts. We then have to prioritize. America cannot afford a real comprehensive health plan because we are spending too much money on the military and bailing out the banking industry. We need to prioritise do we want to be an oasis for the rich of the world with a little trickle down to the rest of us or do we want real economic democracy? If that is what we want then are we willing to do the work to make it happen? First we have to stop believing the get rich quick hype. We have to form unions and join progressive political groups. We need to boycott and and protest and blockade the business as usual. We need to stop cooperating with the rich and work for our collective benefit.

This does not mean we become jingoistic nationalists. It does mean that we restructure our economy and our laws to benefit the working people and not the multinational corporations. We need to separate the interests of people from that of corporations. They are not the same.

It starts with things like health care for all. And I mean all, including so called illegal immigrants. Poor people are people and deserve to be treated with respect no matter where they are from. The rich have tried to get us to believe that we are a poor nation and need to cut back on who we help. Look at this debate over health care. It has turned into a debate over what we can afford because the President has been convinced that we can not afford any more debt. This is the Chinese, and the other wealthy speaking. It is not the american manufacturers. We could use a weak dollar to export. No it is the investors from other countries who don’t want to see their investment in American debt lose value.

This is crucial for people to understand. American Health Care is being cut back due to the return on investment required by foreign investors. The second factor is that disposable income is going to the war effort. Why because America has made a deal with Israel and India to out flank China in South Asia. India needs oil and if we move out of Afghanistan then India does not have the leverage it needs in the middle east. It then will have to take a more aggressive position vs a vie China and Pakistan. But that forces Pakistan to fund the Taliban and Kashmir’s resistance fighters to counter act India. What Americans don’t realize is the extent to which India is invested in Afghanistan. Pakistan sees this as a pincer movement on the part of India to surround it. Bush made a deal with India, we would support their illegal nuclear program if India would give material support in Afghanistan. Pakistan saw this as an act of aggression and that is the reason why they attack the Indian Embassy in Kabul and attacked Mumbai.

That is why Afghanistan is a trap. We are damned if we do and damned if we don’t. The Afghanis know the USA is only a temporary visitor. We are not going to stay forever, but we also have to stay because we have made commitments to other powers that mean if we leave that we will have to change those commitments. If India cannot count on the USA then it might return to counting on Russia, or make a deal with China. All this is simply politics.

But it is done behind the backs of the people and we are simply left in the dark. We have to be aware of what our country does in our name and then decide if this is what we really want. India is a democracy. But so is Pakistan. Neither India or Pakistan have oil but they both have a lot of people. Afghanistan has almost nothing we need unless Opium is a vital resource. But it it weak and thus easy to dominate. This ease of entry is the trap because it also makes whomever is there a target. The United States and NATO is the new target. Like the Tar Baby it is seemingly an easy mark, punch it and you get no resistance, but your hand is stuck. Punch with another fist and that hand is stuck. Pretty soon you are totaly immersed in a seemingly non resistant body. How did we get here? The Russians found out. It almost destroyed their military machine. We had that happen once in Vietnam. Does the United States really want to go through that again in Afghanistan? We bribed our way out of Iraq by paying off the tribal leaders who then turned on Al Qaeda. We got lucky there. Why press our luck?

Be aware America. Be aware. The best policy is one of multilateralism. Working with the world. If we don’t then we will be in a subtle war that we cannot win. Just as the Japanese could not overwhelm the Unites States with our superior manufacturing capacity, we are soon running up against the same situation with China only in this case we are the Japanese and they are the Americans. Think about it.

Notes From the Afghani War, Pakistan & World Allocation

Saturday, October 10th, 2009

I picked this up from a posting on a site I subscribe to. It is not particularly new information. The War in Afghanistan is being fought without the people of Afghanistan. They are bystanders and are simply waiting for the westerners to get tired and leave. When the west leaves then the Afghani people will decide what to do.

*American troops in Afghanistan losing heart, say army chaplains
The Times (London)
October 8, 2009

*American troops in Afghanistan losing heart, say army chaplains *

American soldiers serving in Afghanistan are depressed and deeply
disillusioned, according to the chaplains of two US battalions that have
spent nine months on the front line in the war against the Taliban.

Many feel that they are risking their lives — and that colleagues have died
— for a futile mission and an Afghan population that does nothing to help
them, the chaplains told The Times in their makeshift chapel on this
fortress-like base in a dusty, brown valley southwest of Kabul.

“The many soldiers who come to see us have a sense of futility and anger
about being here. They are really in a state of depression and despair and
just want to get back to their families,” said Captain Jeff Masengale, of
the 10th Mountain Division’s 2-87 Infantry Battalion.

“They feel they are risking their lives for progress that’s hard to
discern,” said Captain Sam Rico, of the Division’s 4-25 Field Artillery
Battalion. “They are tired, strained, confused and just want to get
through.” The chaplains said that they were speaking out because the men
could not.


October 7, 2009

*Afghan Taliban say they pose no threat to the West*

By Sayed Salahuddin Sayed Salahuddin

KABUL – The Afghan Taliban pose no threat to the West but will continue
their fight against occupying foreign forces, they said on Wednesday, the
eighth anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion that removed them from power.

U.S.-led forces with the help of Afghan groups overthrew the Taliban
government during a five week battle which started on October 7, 2001, after
the militants refused to hand over al Qaeda leaders wanted by Washington for
the September 11 attacks on America.

“We had and have no plan of harming countries of the world, including those
in Europe … our goal is the independence of the country and the building
of an Islamic state,” the Taliban said in a statement on the group’s website

“Still, if you (NATO and U.S. troops) want to colonize the country of proud
and pious Afghans under the baseless pretext of a war on terror, then you
should know that our patience will only increase and that we are ready for a
long war.”

As for the Taliban claim that the war on terror is a pretext to impose control, other than as a transit point for oil from central Asia and a means to insure that India stays in the western camp, I don’t see much point in the USA being in Afghanistan. It is simply to provide a hedge against Russian and Chinese hegemony and as a threat to Iran which is facing Americans on two sides. Afghanistan itself is of little value to anyone except for the poor people of Afghanistan who simply want to live. Its only economic value is for its opium crop that is controlled by warlords and the various interested parties.
The USA is acting as a criminal nation trying to impose its will upon the Afghani people in the name of the war on terror. As we all know Pakistan is where Al Queda lives.
But Pakistan has its own set of problems. It is a nation that was formed out of the old British imperial province of India. But more than that it is a reflection of the gradual spread of Islam across the center of Asia. Pakistan is the second largest Muslim nation after Indonesia with India being the third. The encroachment of Islam upon this largely Hindu land has been taking place for centuries. Moguls ruled much of India for centuries before the British came. But the appeal of Islam with its simplicity and relative egalitarianism has forced the Hindu religion to reform, this can be seen in the various Vaishnavite movements for equality among the castes where a devotee upon initiation is taken as a Brahman thus creating an equal opportunity movement and a counter attack to some of the appeals of Mohamedism. But that is a problem specific to India where tensions between the haves and the have nots sometimes are expressed in religious ans sometimes a secular manner.
Pakistan itself is wracked with the contradictions of a nation that is on the one hand attempting to live out the promise of Islam where all men are treated as equals and women are to be respected and the modern state with it secular tendencies Marxism with its alternate promise of equality through state control of the economy and capitalism with its promise of affluence if the state and religion are suppressed for the sake of economic interests of the captains of industry. These forces contend and underneath them all are the traditional practices of the people who have lived on the land and have their folk ways that predate the state, Islam and capital. All of these forces come to play in Pakistan and it is in this cauldron that the USA is now putting on the heat.
This is from the NY Times.

“Aid Package From U.S. Jolts Army in Pakistan
By JANE PERLEZ and ISMAIL KHAN Published: October 7, 2009
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — In an unusual move, the Pakistani Army expressed public anger Wednesday at the terms of a large American aid package, saying it interfered with Pakistan’s national security, a posture that set the military at loggerheads with the American-backed civilian government.
The legislation passed by Congress last week gives Pakistan $1.5 billion over the next year for the Zardari government to build roads, schools and other infrastructure, a gesture intended to shore up the weak civilian government and turn around the widespread antipathy toward the United States among Pakistanis.
The section of the legislation that has outraged the army says the secretary of state must report to Congress every six months on whether the government is exercising “effective civilian control over the military.”
The secretary must assess the extent to which the civilian government has oversight over the military chain of command, promotion of generals and the military budgets, provisions that even Pakistani politicians have taken strong exception to as meddling in Pakistan’s business.
The legislation also says Pakistan must show progress in ending support for terrorist groups, and dismantle groups operating out of Quetta and Muridke.
The generals were specifically infuriated by mention of Quetta, which the Obama administration says is a base for Taliban who fight American forces in Afghanistan, and of Muridke, which is a well known base for Lashkar-e-Taiba, a militant group formed two decades ago by the Pakistani government to fight India.
In a conciliatory address to Parliament on Wednesday evening, the prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, argued the legislation was not binding. He assured Parliament that the government would “never” allow a foreign power to have access to Pakistan’s nuclear assets.
His reference to nuclear capability was apparently to allay anger over a reference in the legislation asking Pakistan to continue to cooperate with the United States in efforts to dismantle networks trying to acquire nuclear weapons-related materials.”

This is nothing new but the problems of Pakistan are of importance to the rest of the world because it is a nuclear power. In fact I would argue that Afghanistan is a sidebar, Pakistan is the real issue. If Muslim militants were to gain control here then problems with Iranian nukes would be a moot point. The problem is that the nuclear genie is out of the bottle and at some point one of these nations are going to be tempted to use it just as the USA did at the end of World War Two. We justified it saying it saved the lives of millions at the end of the war, but in reality it placed the entire planet in a situation where at any time extinction could be unleashed upon the entire planet.
This is no joke. It is the reality that every one of us lives with every day and until every nuke is dismantled it will remain a threat that hangs over the entire planet. America has no real interest in Afghanistan. But we all have an interest in Pakistan. If you have any interest in achieving peace it is important that we deal with Pakistan. The people there deserve a decent life as any people in the world do and the interests of international Capital or any other system should not be allowed to jeopardize the peaceful development of that country. If we do then we are threatening to turn the land over to the fundamentalists. In any case much care and trepidation must be used when it comes to dealing with the people there. Or we will reap the whirlwind.
I recommend that we act with intelligent watchfulness. Respecting the local interests and letting them know when they step on our interests but otherwise let them determine their own course. I am speaking on several levels here. There is the spiritual one in which each person seeks liberation or salvation, there is the political in which states act. There is the economic in which parties have interests and there is the cultural in which we express our sense of collective purpose.
Ultimately the USA has tried to play the role that the British Empire played and that game of world dominance cannot be sustained. There are too many players in the field all wanting a piece of the action and a more sophisticated means of allowing this play to occur without endangering the lives of the collective whole must be developed. That is the multilateral approach that the Nobel Prize was meant to encourage and why it was given to Obama. Will it lead to liberal enlightenment or a new age of warring states, we shall see.
Resources have to be allocated. Are the markets the best way? Who determines who gets the oil, the highest bidder or the most efficient user or the one with the biggest military machine? Right now bidders and military machines dominate. What would make more sense is allocation based on efficient us sage. Whomever could most efficiently transform that resource into energy would seem to be the sensible one to send it to. Unfortunately that is not the case.
Rational prioritising of allocation until there has been a sufficient change over to renewables in an international system mutually agreed upon would be the best course to follow. This would imply a rational discernment of need, a practical analysis of who has capability to properly refine and transport and the development of efficient consumption that penalizes waste. Every person in the world should have a minimum allotment of fuel for heating. lighting, cooking, transport. Each locality should have systems that most efficiently allocate for these needs. A rational grid of electrical allocation should be spread across the planet with the right to not participate respected on the part of those who have their own resources. But because of the disparity of allocation of resources it seems that a world system of distribution would make more sense. This should be in place for all basic commodities in which there is an established need and a scarcity that requires some controlled allocation. Sunlight would not be in this, and up until recently water would not have been. Now water is becoming scarce and a fair and equitable distribution just as with electricity should be made. But there is a difference water is an essential requirement for life and thus should be a social good made available at cost and subsidized for those who cannot afford it. But electricity is not as basic. We can live without it. Although we do need some means of generating heat in cold climates. It should be fairly distributed and the cost of generation should be covered and sustained by the users. It is a social benefit that allows for what we call modern civilization. And on it goes. Allocation needs to be fair and equitable based on need and rational decision making. It should not be based on the profit motive. Greed is not good. It represents a failure to communicate. Enough said.

Pakistan Celebrates and America Bemoans Loosing Musharif

Tuesday, August 19th, 2008

You got to love Americans. We.they love to get in there and fuck shit up. Look at Pakistan, we had a dictatory there, he was our man, but the American way was not the Paki way and the people got riled up at haveing a dictator propped up by Americans. Even when that dictator gets lots of money from America to do not much except make friendly noises.
But that is tanatmount to my saying I don’t like hippies. And I don’t, not much. I came shortly after them and because I am going to Denver to protest this weekend and you are sitting on you fat ass and not, that gives me the right.
I work my ass off, I even paid taxes for the first time in like 20 years and now I feel like I have earned a little slack.
Lee Harvy Oswald was a marine, Charles Whitman was a marine, Captain Kangaroo and my nephew was a marine. I was not, I joined the protesters before I was old enough to join, fuckin’ Vietnam, ruined my career in the miltary.

  • famvir
  • hardi sprayer booms
  • moen danika 82833
  • death defying hoodoo gurus wiki
  • meds peds
  • astelin
  • i'm bringing the party to you gif tumblr
  • bontril
  • argo 6x6 top speed
  • superdrive macbook pro not working
  • epipen
  • wow privat pvp server instant 80 deutsch
  • macrobid
  • new screamo heavy metal bands
  • carbohydrate deficient transferrin normal range
  • hyzaar
  • kennedy group home kinston
  • important facts elizabeth van lew
  • haak austin video
  • d100 wifi router manual
  • why can you only take prevacid for 14 days
  • oreck sweeper parts
  • cod world war nocd
  • freecycle baltimore yahoo group
  • timolol
  • famciclovir
  • antivert
  • sure romance online apotheke
  • medroxyprogesterone
  • sony dsc-t99 charger
  • lamotrigine
  • tadalis
  • coller .001
  • poornam boorelu moong dal
  • rosuvastatin
  • tiffen dfx mac free
  • paddock publications inc company
  • azathioprine
  • happy wanderer vine lilac care
  • can i take ambien and benadryl
  • suncoast rv koa campground in lake park ga
  • educomp smart class
  • direccion comision estatal de derechos humanos xalapa
  • jokiel grzegorz marcin
  • lorna wikipedia singer
  • paranoid black sabbath video
  • slowdown football 2010
  • polycell mould killer
  • dail dinwiddie wikipedia
  • vial crimper tool
  • plaque stability atherosclerosis
  • you've attempted to upload a document but the feature
  • completion contract method tax
  • code of chivalry of european knights
  • leave the pieces lyrics youtube
  • minion mod yogbox
  • cabinet belletoile maisons-alfort
  • yoga pier malibu kiis fm
  • oracea
  • kaczmarek electric mtb
  • nebivolol
  • system abend 80a
  • prodigy omen song download
  • skin care products chemo patients
  • aldactone
  • anatomy ribs male female
  • nokia 5800 software download for pc
  • amlodipine effects
  • luana rodriguez suarez
  • what kind of choke for 00 buckshot
  • mapa aeropuerto cancun zona hotelera
  • castelli italiani famosi
  • b-cell chronic lymphocytic lymphoma
  • ntsb safety recalls
  • blunauta roma villa paganini
  • sarge's heroes n64 rom
  • mertz 9716
  • uroxatral
  • coverall buildings
  • animales sin hogar foro
  • pages blanches canada sherbrooke
  • damn regret lyrics meaning
  • disable hotkeys autohotkey
  • incisional biopsy vs excisional biopsy
  • used auto parts rockford il
  • provincia di enna
  • momo wang violin
  • escentric molecule perfume
  • ponder gondho
  • cheatham palermo & garrett
  • paroxetine hcl oral suspension
  • lorelei hammond ukiah ca
  • acadian lines antigonish
  • diablo iii characters wiki
  • amoxil
  • gnomish army knife mop
  • max prilosec dose
  • homogeneous vs differentiated oligopoly
  • husqvarna sewing embroidery designs
  • 2000 diesel pajero for sale
  • neoral
  • air canada aircraft a319 seating
  • route demonstration saturday 26th march
  • celadon pokemon fire red
  • sony dsc-s40 white screen
  • 10 worst serial killers usa
  • bahama momma drink recipes
  • evernote plugin safari lion
  • paroxetine qt prolongation
  • dhc-6-300 wiki
  • universidades particulares ciudad xalapa
  • best buy honeywell air purifier
  • knotted plow line
  • dragonball z tenchi budokai 3
  • libreria arquitectura santiago chile
  • .avi codec for kmplayer download
  • when do babies lose their gag reflex
  • posturepedic foam mattress reviews
  • 2-56 countersink
  • darmowe gry dla dzieci dora poznaje swiat
  • shift-jis art generator
  • antabuse
  • crofton skating rinks maryland
  • st anthony padua cyo basketball
  • ssbb subspace emissary 100 walkthrough
  • fcr breakpoints diablo 2 sorc
  • movies does amanda bynes play
  • ingmar relling siesta
  • abacavir
  • que es hydroxyzine pam
  • what is this thing in the jewish doorway
  • generic paxil price
  • tribble testing rewards
  • flora llanos orientales venezuela
  • birte quitt xing