Jinnah right, Mahatma Gandhi wrong, says the jalebis of Southall.

Arts & Culture Culture, Arts, Literature & Linguistics
1

Southall jalebis deepen India-Pakistan divide

LONDON: Anyone who calls Southall a ghetto misses the essential political point about the place. Where else, after the partition of India, do you have Indians and Pakistanis living together so close to one another?

Sure, you can think of places like Dubai and even New York. But Southall is a mass of small homes stuck to one another, its streets are narrow and crowded, its streets are bazaars that leave you little room to walk on a Saturday afternoon.

The space, or lack of it, makes it more sub-continental than any other place outside.

An important experiment, therefore, to test what undivided India might have been like, particularly undivided Punjab. It would be nice if Southall presented the picture of all living together as fellow Punjabis, as though we were all one. Sadly, Southall stands as living justification today for the division of Punjab.

The divide is getting wider and wider. It has failed the ‘jalebi’ test, and that failed, nothing can succeed.

For years everyone has seen that stall outside the shop called - as only a shop in Southall can be called - Tandoori Express on Jalebi Junction. The man outside the stall has made and sold great jalebis for years; and given the nature of jalebis, they cannot get much better. The shop and stall are Pakistani owned.

But now there is a change. Indians are beginning to stop more and more at a relatively new jalebi stall that has come up on the other side of the road outside Chandi Chowk restaurant. And slowly you see the split at other shops; more and more Indians go to Indians shops, Pakistanis to “their” shops.

A flood of Pakistani restaurants called Lahore something or the other do business for Pakistanis who now live in Southall in increasing numbers, and they draw Pakistani visitors from Slough and around London.

Indian Punjabis go to an Indian restaurant in the area. That is understandable to an extent because the Sikh restaurant serves jhatka meat while the Pakistani restaurants of course serve halal. But if differences arise over an innocent jalebi, there can be no togetherness.

Mohammed Ali Jinnah right, Mahatma Gandhi wrong, says the jalebis of Southall.

…

2

interesting...rather sad.

3

i disagree.what if there had been no partition? all shops would have been indian. the present polarisation is only because india and pakistan r different countries with a bitter feud between them. so the fact is that gandhi was right and jinnah was wrong.

4

^ Maybe for you, but not for us

5

even if india becomes 100% islamic both are different.

6

If India becomes 100% ISlamic, then no division, no problem!

So when are you guys becoming Muslims?
;)

7

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by laeeqkhan: *
If India becomes 100% ISlamic, then no division, no problem!

So when are you guys becoming Muslims?
;)
[/QUOTE]

why you did you separate with bangaldesh? cant you live as one nation under allah?

8

Religion has held together Pakistan for long, though religion does not hold countries together. One just have to take a look at Shaam (Arabia), it’s divided into pieces because they all come from different tribes and races.

Jinnah isn't just responsible for dividing the Punjabis; he is also responsible for dividing the Pakhtuns.

9

^ Oh of course he is.... I suppose Pakori Naak would have saved the Pakhtoons so that they would be labelled as "Hindus" and reviled by thier "Dera Shah de" speaking Kandahari cousins as they are even today.

10

[QUOTE]
i disagree.what if there had been no partition? all shops would have been indian. the present polarisation is only because india and pakistan r different countries with a bitter feud between them. so the fact is that gandhi was right and jinnah was wrong.
[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, having been to this place before I must disagree with you. The sad truth is that the divide is based completely on religious grounds and is largely unrelated to nationality. The Indians in question are actually Sikh, and most of them are Khalistanis. They actually care very little for India. In fact many of them have the same problems with Hindus as they do with Pakistanis (i.e they wont support Hindu stores). The Pakistanis are mostly Punjabi but mix freely with Indian muslims and expecially Gujraati's. All though much of the tension was due to seroius youth gang problems between the two communities, things have worsened over the years. Sikhs are especially annoyed at the massive growth in the Pakistani/muslim population which is gradually moving towards outnumbering them in a community that was once mostly Sikh.

11

How on earth would the Pakhtuns be labeled as Hindus when it was their forefathers that converted millions of them to Islam? Pakistan didn't name its missiles Suri and Abdali for the heck of it. Who would even dare call th Pakhtuns Hindus? Those who came to Islam because of Pakhtuns? Its funny, but I wont laugh.

And what about the Khandaharis? Don’t beat behind the bushes like an ape, spit what you gotta say son.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mufakkar: *
^ Oh of course he is.... I suppose Pakori Naak would have saved the Pakhtoons so that they would be labelled as "Hindus" and reviled by thier "Dera Shah de" speaking Kandahari cousins as they are even today.
[/QUOTE]

12

In shaam they are not together coz they have different relegion. Although most and majority of the Shamis are semetic and Arabs. But there there are many relegions like shia, alawi,sunni, druze etc.

13

interesting perspective....saddening however.

The way i see it is that it's palatable to assume that subconsciously one tends to favor it's own kind. earlier on, the indians may be not had an option, however once they spotted a fella of their 'own' they just got attracted towards the shop because of the 'apna-pun' May be it's all just unintentional...huh? :~)

14

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by KhanAbadosh: *
How on earth would the Pakhtuns be labeled as Hindus when it was their forefathers that converted millions of them to Islam?
[/QUOTE]

so what were pakhtuns before islam reached the region :) or have they been practising panj waqta namnaazi muslims since hazraat adam?

15

[quote]

How on earth would the Pakhtuns be labeled as Hindus when it was their forefathers that converted millions of them to Islam? Pakistan didn't name its missiles Suri and Abdali for the heck of it. Who would even dare call th Pakhtuns Hindus? Those who came to Islam because of Pakhtuns? Its funny, but I wont laugh.

And what about the Khandaharis? Don’t beat behind the bushes like an ape, spit what you gotta say son.

[/quote]

The Pakhtoons of Afghanistan label their Pakistani cousins as hindus, no wonder there is no love lost between the two.

16

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by reza khan: *
In shaam they are not together coz they have different relegion. Although most and majority of the Shamis are semetic and Arabs. But there there are many relegions like shia, alawi,sunni, druze etc.
[/QUOTE]

from when did shia and sunni become different religions?

17

Whats in relevance of your post to mines?

Regardless of what they were, they made sure that not a single trace of their non-Muslimness is left. Thats why today many claim they are Bani-Isreali, Aryan, White Huns, Greeks blah blah blah.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *

so what were pakhtuns before islam reached the region :) or have they been practising panj waqta namnaazi muslims since hazraat adam?
[/QUOTE]

18

That’s odd, because I have family members that have done business and lived in Kandahar though they never mentioned such a thing. How come I don’t know of this since I stay in contact with many Afghans? If there are some, then they are mostly Tajiks, Hazara or Uzbeks (Non-Pakhtun) who can go for Pakhtuns. Only an experience eye can tell the difference.

There are a lot of Hazarajat in Rawal Pindi who are called "Pathan" and "Afghani" by the locals, though they are not. I had the pleasure of correcting a few people.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mufakkar: *
The Pakhtoons of Afghanistan label their Pakistani cousins as hindus, no wonder there is no love lost between the two.
[/QUOTE]

19

I'd rather not read about your experienced eye since it does seem to be jaundiced by perhaps your own afghan origins. I said Pakhtun as in people who are Pakhtun not people who are called Pathan or Afghani. If need be I can direct you to other Pakistani Pakhtuns who perhaps lack your experienced eye. As for me, half of my own family are Bangash and I have had the privelege to serve in the scouts so I can confidently say that I do know more on this and on Pakhtuns than you do.

20

For your information all Pakhtuns are Afghans hence they do have "Afghan origins" no matter if they are Afridi, Khattak, Shinwari, Mommand etc. The term "Afghan" was used for Pakhtuns, not for Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazarajat. These ethnic minorities belong to those invading armies that once entered Afghanistan though never came out of it. It is the lack of education that has taken the best of Pakhtuns arrogance.

Btw, a while back, it was Pakhtuns of Pakistan that doubted the Pakhtun origins of Bangash. There was an article posted on Frontierpost. Now, how can you blame the Afghans for labeling their own with names while the Pakhtuns of Pakistan do the exact same thing? They say the same thing about Banuchis, Buttkhel and majority of the people from Attock.