Husain, Hinduism, Hindustan: Testing Tolerance

#454 by Mantolives

[The difference between Ramanujan and bjKumar is the difference between Savarkar and Gandhi indeed...

As Maulana Zafar Ali Khan, a protege of Sir Fazli-Hussain (another Sadna favorite), who said:


Ik heen hain savarkar-o-gandhi,
Jhoot ka chalta hai ik Jhakkar, makkar ki uthti hai ik Aandhi

Savarkar and Gandhi are one and the same,
One is storm of lies, the other a tempest of deceit ]


All that`s fine, but don`t let the ``cartoon`` crowds in Karachi or elsewhere find out that you are actually an Ahmadiya (or some such garbage cult). They`ll skin you alive (Peace be Unto them).

You should be okay as long as you move around incognito.

#453 Ramanujan/Ajeya

(Side note to chowk staff: can you please restore this interactor`s original nick and interact index so I don`t have to type in such a long hybrid name.)

[If you really want to solve India`s problems, I think you should take a step back and reconsider your strategy. I suggest that you either join politics, or some NGO, or some other kind of social service organization, or better still, some multinational that is investing in India, instead of posting on Chowk.]

Honestly, most people who have spent a bit of time here are well aware that the solutions do not come out of this or ANY web site. Most of the time, the end result has been that individuals get defensive and dig into their heels. However, the fact that people can talk about their feelings is a good thing - it means that they are not out there expressing those same feelings using more destructive means. At least that`s how I see it. (Sometimes I even think that only solution will come from time - as new generations emerge who are not trapped into the old mindset. I notice it here in USA a lot - and perhaps it is also happening in the subcontinent.)

As you probably know - I am a US citizen - that`s where my interests and fidelity belong. Like most other Indian Asian Americans, I do retain an interest in what happens in the ``old country``. That is a healthy thing. I certainly do not know most of the answers to the countless problems that have plagued and hobbled the sub-continent - and unlike some here, I do not see an underlying difference between different segments of populations which occupy diffeerent geographies. We are the same people with the same underlying strengths and weaknesses.

The ability to question long-held beliefs must never be undervalued. Most innovation in our day-to-day life results from that. The ability to stand up to fierce criticism is also a rare quality and must never be undervalued. When combined (and only when combined) with an ability to be open to questions, scrutiny and to be able to revise one`s thought process continuously - it makes a winning combination!

I urge you to try to come up with an honest answer to the question of ``solutions`` rather than staying stuck on the ``blame game`` - a game which gets played all over the world in various manifestations - something long-term immigrants have encountered everywhere over time.

Think it over.

(Note: I need to take TYO to an academic event, so I must take leave - perhaps I can pick up the threads later.)

#456
Which Azad quote?

btw, you are from a nation which doesn`t even recognise the right of ordinary Muslims to a vote, because being in an Muslim majority state and having Muslim leaders to rule over him is deemed sufficient to safeguard the rights and concerns of an ordinary Muslim.

That was precisely Jinnah`s argument which he demanded Congress must accept and Congress didn`t, that having exclusively Muslim leaders was the primary requirement for the wellbeing of ordinary Muslims.

Unlike Pakistan, India is trying to outgrow this legacy or artefact of history and Indians need to understand where it comes from.

PS: The issue is not your (faulty) conception of the Pakistan movement and/or Muslim League objectives... the issue here is why Muslim Family Laws exist in India in their most regressive form. And the answer to that is: Congress coopted the Deobandis against Muslim League (which commanded the loyalty of almost all other sects of Islam) and have no given the Muslim Family Laws entirely to the Mullahs who are amiable allies in their grand scheme.

Dear Sadna,

You can repeat the same old same old but history is there and it does not correspond to your claims-.

Congress` mass contact scheme fell flat on its face because Congress was actively discriminating against the Muslims- (recall the Azad quote you ran from) ... and also because they had put up a poem from Anand Math an anti-Muslim novel as the ``national anthem`` and because of the actively Hindu-centric policies of Congress government 1937-1939....

Congress played the Mullahs against the Muslim League repeatedly- in 1920, 1930 and 1940 and till 1947.

#432
``Mullahs as the leaders of Muslims would not demand share in power.``

Muslims already had a share in power - they had more than their population share of seats in legislatures in Muslim minority provinces and unlike Hindus in any province, Muslims in Muslim majority provinces had been granted permanent statutory majorities in legislatures of those province.

What Jinnah wanted over and above that was that Congress must deal with him as the sole leader of Muslims, and leave the seeking votes of ordinary Muslim electorate to Jinnah`s and Muslim League as their exclusive domain.

In 1937-38 when Congress said no we will approach the Muslim electorate on our own behalf through our Muslim mass contact program on a platform of daal-bhaat issues, that was when secular Jinnah said that Hindus seeking Muslim votes equalled Islam in danger.

After Independence the approach Jinnah demanded (of leaving the Muslim electorate as an exclusive domain of Muslim leaders alone) has largely been the approach the Congress has used.

It `s approach has been to rely on support of Muslim leaders and give them what they(the leaders) demand, not attend to the needs and concerns of Muslim electorate directly. Every time it has looked as if Congress will not fulfil these Muslim leaders` wishes, Islam has been in danger, such as in the Shah Bano case.

For a ``Hindu`` party to compete for votes of ordinary Muslims over their noncommunal nonreligious concerns is what Congress wanted in 1937 and it was the highly secular Jinnah who said then that that equalled Islam was in danger.

The difference between Ramanujan and bjKumar is the difference between Savarkar and Gandhi indeed...

As Maulana Zafar Ali Khan, a protege of Sir Fazli-Hussain (another Sadna favorite), who said:


Ik heen hain savarkar-o-gandhi,
Jhoot ka chalta hai ik Jhakkar, makkar ki uthti hai ik Aandhi

Savarkar and Gandhi are one and the same,
One is storm of lies, the other a tempest of deceit

#425 by bjkumar


[Most of what you say here appears innocuous enough.]


I was not aware that you were sitting there judging the ``harm``lessness of my words. This reveals to me that perhaps you have some personal involvement in all of this. Tell me, is there someone in your life close to you who is a Muslim?


[The last two short paragraphs need some clarification, though.

[But more of Islam will always equate to less of education and more of poverty. Worldwide. To prosper, they need less of Islam. Which is anathema to Muslims.]
Islam is a religion - what has that got to do with the level of education? (Aren`t some of the most fanatic individuals in the world - irrespective of religion - highly educated in the conventional sense?)]


Okay. How about this line - ``More of drugs will always equate to less of education and more of poverty``.

Now you could say, ``A drug is a chemical - what has that got to do with the level of education? (Aren`t some of the most fanatic individuals in the world - irrespective of drug use - highly educated in the conventional sense?)``

I think you should be able to figure out the answer to your question from this example.



[Also, aren`t you equating all ``islam`` with fanaticism? Is everyone of the one billion Muslims a fanatic?]

Yes, ``islam`` does equate to fanaticism. You don`t want me to repeat the quran suras that I have posted countless times that display a Nazi-like mindset.

Why don`t you quote the line for me where I said ``everyone of the one billion Muslims`` is ``a fanatic``? However, it IS true that EVERYONE who has read and tried to understand all of the Quran and STILL thinks it is a good book and the inviolable word of God is INDEED a fanatic.



[Is every one of the 150 million or so Indian Muslims a fanatic?]

No, all excepting the Muslima you are close to. ;)



[If not, aren`t you doing a disservice to the Indian nation by lumping the secular-outlook patriotic Indians who happened to be born Muslim with the fanatic crowd? ]


Which of my sentences indicates that I am ``lumping`` them together?



[I don`t see any solutions mentioned in your response. Are you giving up?]

If you really want to solve India`s problems, I think you should take a step back and reconsider your strategy. I suggest that you either join politics, or some NGO, or some other kind of social service organization, or better still, some multinational that is investing in India, instead of posting on Chowk.

Dear BJ,

Please recall that the pictures you posted have already been removed - possibly for being offensive.

``patience is a good thing!``

Very- and I have patiently read all the hogwash you`ve put up and imagine my patience having read Gandhi`s collected works earlier. Had I not done so, I would not be able to challenge your hagiographic nonsense on the man,

#447 Manto

[...Thank you for enlightening me...]

You are most welcome.

I will be happy to do so again - and again - patience is a good thing!

And do let everyone know the specific picture that you mentioned - or it will be only fair to conclude that YOU are not above making ``facts`` as you go along (something you eagerly accused Ms. Sadna of).

Beej bhai...

So this is scrutiny! So the solution to the world`s problems is squatting and defaecating in public? In that case ... lagay raho... you are doing good following the Mahatma atleast metaphorically.

Look my objection is not to your conception of ``scrutiny`` but using such evidence as a counter-argument to very serious criticism of Gandhi.

#444 Manto

[Yaar BJkumar,
Have any Pakistanis put up a picture of Jinnah or anyone else squatting as a counter argument?]

Perhaps not, dear Manto - because there ARE no such pictures. Perhaps there aren`t because he was not the type that could open himself to the degree of scrutiny necessary to have something so revealing shown to the world!

Very few can. Therein lies the difference.

By the way, which specific picture you are talking about? Or is that simply something you imagined?

Mohar...

``I mean, we are all discussing Gandhi`s s@x life ad nauseam``

Gandhi`s sex life? How is discussing Gandhi as a metaphor for Ayn Rand`s Witchdoctor, his views on black people or his casteist mentality ``discussing Gandhi`s sex life ad nauseam``

Unless you are suggesting - oh my gawd!

Dear bjkumar,

Thank you for enlightening me that my usage of phrase can somehow be misconstrued.

I apologise to any people of african origin who have been offended and please substitute the words ``speak plainly`` for every time I have used the god awful phrase.

However..since you are so sensitive about the issue, I must ask you your views on Mahatma Gandhi`s clear and factual racism against all black people as well as lower caste Hindus?

Hey - who flitered my post #416? :))))......

Come on, it was just a comment about YLH`s morbid s@x life... I mean, we are all discussing Gandhi`s s@x life ad nauseam - why can`t we talk about YLH`s?..... is YLH any less a man than Gandhi?.... no, right? :)))

But then - we know that editor is favorbly disposed towards YLH..... so I guess one can never get justice against politically connected people, can we? [wink wink wala icon].... :)

#442 Manto

[Please enlighten me]

Will do so quite gladly, dear Manto - my old and also most recent ``sweetheart``!

The way I understand it, the phrase has been around for ages and was not considered an ethnic slur originally. I understand that you perhaps did not use it in that sense. (And there is still some ambiguity regarding this phrase and there are other individuals who use it innocently enough - I used to be one of them.) But for your information, let me quote the following which is off the web:

``Rosalie Maggio, in The Bias-Free Word-Finder, writes: ``The expression is associated with a racial slur and is to be avoided``, and recommends using ``to speak plainly`` or other alternatives instead. In another entry, she writes: ``Although by definition and derivation `niggardly` and `nigger` are completely unrelated, `niggardly` is too close for comfort to a word with profoundly negative associations. Use instead one of the many available alternatives: stingy, miserly, parsimonious...`` Beard and Cerf, in The Official Politically Correct Handbook, p. 123, report that an administrator at the University of California at Santa Cruz campaigned for the banning of such phrases as ``a chink in his armor`` and ``a nip in the air``, because ``chink`` and ``nip`` are also derogatory terms for ``Chinese person`` and ``Japanese person`` respectively. In the late 1970s in the U.S., a boycott of the (now defunct) Sambo`s restaurant chain was organized, even though the name ``Sambo`s`` was a combination of the names of its two founders and did not come from the offensive word for dark-skinned person.``

Just telling you like it is! It is a good idea to keep up with the times, Manto.