Remembering the Presidential Election of 1965

Anyways, I do not wish to turn this fine discussion on your one-time hero into a MKG-MAJ sparring match. You can have the last word.

#74 by MantoLives

And who died and made you the fuhrer to decide whether or not I can quote credible historians to show why I feel a certain way?

You were a big fan of Stanley Wolpert till I pasted some damning excerpts from his writings. Then he stopped being credible to you. If your definition of "credible" is so flexible, please pardon us for taking everything you say with a ton (not pinch) of salt.

#73 by MantoLives

OK, so your objections to Gandhi are because Ambedkar, a Dalit raised some objections against him? By that token, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, a staunch Sunni Muslim was bitterly opposed to Jinnah. Do we draw the same conclusion as you have drawn?

BTW, where did I abuse you? Are you seeing stars in the day?

Re: # 70

"Now that you agree that it is your point of view, I have absolutely no problems with it. It is when you try to cherry pick incidents and opinions to bolster your POV and then try to pass it off as a fact, that I have problem"

My point of view is that it is a fact Jinnah was in all possible ways a much finer human being than Gandhi. Your point of view might be different. That is your point of view.

And who died and made you the fuhrer to decide whether or not I can quote credible historians to show why I feel a certain way?

Harish mian,

Wrong again as usual. Now don't start your abuse.

Could you tell me where I have said that my previous views on Zulfikar Ali Bhutto don't count. I admired him for all the reasons people admire him.... and infact it is evident from this article that I still consider him to be one of the most talented politicians produced by this country who squandered his potential.

Now coming to the link you hurriedly produced. As I pointed out earlier it does not address the problems and issues that Dr. Ambedkar raised in his booklets "What have Gandhi and the Congress Party done to the untouchables" and "Gandhi and Gandhiism"... nor can they be considered relevant in the case of Gandhi's racist views against black people.

Majumdar bhai, here's a link I found in a hurry. This adequatly addresses your concerns about Gandhi's alleged casteist nature. This shows how Gandhi's views evolved from being a thorough casteist to one who truly believed in the oneness of all humanity.

http://www.bfg-muenchen.de/caste.htm

Harishbhai,

Chill. Manto mian never hinted that MKG had a dalliance with the said lady. It was just me adding some masala from my side.

Regards

#68 by MantoLives

The problem with Harish mian is that he does not himself hold the standards vis a vis evidence that he wants from others.

That is uniquely your problem Yasser mian. You claim you changed your views on ZAB and that your previous views should not be considered, yet you are unwilling to extend the same consideration to Gandhi's views of blacks. Isn't that saying something?

These symbolic gestures did not address the real issue... which Gandhi did not wish to be addressed i.e. the existence of caste system which he described as a natural organisation of humanity and integral part of Hindu cultural life.

If that is the extent of your knowledge of Gandhi's views on the caste system, then there is nothing left to argue. If this is the best you can do - selectively picking and choosing information that reinforce your own POV, then all pretensions to your scholarship just come crashing down.

But that is my point of view... why should it bother you so much if I hold this view? Why such insecurity?

Now that you agree that it is your point of view, I have absolutely no problems with it. It is when you try to cherry pick incidents and opinions to bolster your POV and then try to pass it off as a fact, that I have problem.

#64 by majumdar

And I do appreciate the fact that in his books he has often pointed out to his shortcomings. He has hidden nothing except his dalliances with a certain Mrs. Anne Doherty.

Please Majumdar bhai, there were enough people who would have been willing to let themselves be used by the British if only to discredit the man and by extension the whole freedom struggle, of which he was the most visible face. But beyond that deposition, if there is anything solid to prove that Gandhi did have something to do with the lady, why not prove it?

I am really glad to hear that.

You wouldn't believe it, but I started reading up on MKG only after I came to Chowk and read Yasser's vitriolic and hate-filled posts against the man.

Majumdar,

The problem with Harish mian is that he does not himself hold the standards vis a vis evidence that he wants from others.

That Gandhi at some point started cleaning harijans toilets to me does not address the issues that Dr. Ambedkar as a Dalit raised even after Gandhi was cleaning toilets. These symbolic gestures did not address the real issue... which Gandhi did not wish to be addressed i.e. the existence of caste system which he described as a natural organisation of humanity and integral part of Hindu cultural life. Gandhi held it to be so... so his toilet cleaning antics were compensation.

And it would be fair enough if Gandhi realised his mistake. In that sense... did Gandhi apologise for or distance himself from his views that he held in 1901-1912 vis a vis black people?


Harish mian,

The question was never of inferiority or superiority vis a vis Jinnah and Gandhi. To me there is no question that Jinnah was a finer human being than Gandhi in almost every conceivable way. But that is my point of view... why should it bother you so much if I hold this view? Why such insecurity?

Mantolives - your last line where you quote Asghar Khan " we never learn from history" is both correct and incorrect (IMHO).


(1) It is correct in as much as that you learn history, and understand it within your own particular framework. Understanding it does indicate that you learn from it soemthings.

(2) On the other hand, since your framework is not generic nor is is sufficientlly universal, the what is learnt is not enough to have a lasting impact. Nor is it sufficient enough to tackle new problems which arise.

Unfortunately Jinnah man did not say much beyond uttering a few lines on his thoughts. By now he should have been forgotten and left to decorate offical walls or various sqaures in pakistan. However, he is used as a peg to hang all the deritus of the land. Unfortunate, really unfortunate for it shows a lack of ideas and an inability to think beyond received wisdom.

anyway enuf of this....you seem to have your usual gaggle and giggles on the jinnah-gandhi-nehru Menage a Trois.

YLH,

here is the most depressing news from pakistan, the jihadis are killing off the cricket.

What did jinnah think of cricket

from dawn of today..

INTEREST in cricket has plummeted. Gone are the days when street after street was lit by neighbourhood boys playing cricket all night with taped balls. Whatever caused the interest in cricket to fall — Pakistan’s shocking exit from the World Cup’s preliminary round or Bob Woolmer’s death — another source of entertainment for the young is gone.

With every form of entertainment — film, drama, music and fashion shows — declared un-Islamic or frowned upon, cricket was the one channel in which the young ones directed their energy without being censured. Now only one form of entertainment is available to them — arson. Sociologists and psychologists must debate whether there is a relationship between violence and lack of entertainment. In other words, will our boys be normal if they had some extracurricular activity to enjoy.


If hostility towards all art forms and entertainment were to be mute, things could perhaps have been less traumatic. Instead, as one can see from the attacks by the Lal Masjid brigade, and in Fata, on CD shops, hostility towards all entertainment is being expressed through violence.

Scholars and non-political religious divines now must debate whether the war on such innocuous entertainment forms as music and movies has been worth its while. If the idea behind this war was to check sexual waywardness, then there is nothing to suggest that things in Pakistan are better than, say, in Egypt or Indonesia or Malaysia where intellectuals have better things to do than wage war on entertainment.

...... ... who thought the way the bowler rubbed the ball was “obscene�. It was thus wonderful to see a boy having a bat and ball in his hand instead of a Kalashnikov. Let us hope cricket is revived, Bob Woolmer is remembered as a wonderful coach, and cricket bounces back on our streets so that boys have a hobby other than burning buses.

YLH ,

Even ayaz amir of dawn thought of reminding this on the day your article is published. From dawn of today

The army operation in the two Waziristans is becoming a joke. Army units there dare not move out of their fixed positions for fear of being kidnapped by tribal militants. One day we hear of 10 captured, the next day 19, a few days later a mind-boggling 150 (the militants say 300).

I suppose every military convoy rash enough to move in Waziristan will need an additional convoy to guard its flanks and a fleet of Cobra helicopters to provide it with air cover. Baitullah Mehsud is one of the leading commanders of the Waziristan militants. He must be laughing up his sleeve. His major problem these days seems not to be about how best to resist the army but how to arrange adequate prison space.

How to guard the guardians? That seems to be our foremost problem at present. Not since the fall of Dhaka — and this is not said lightly — when our Eastern Command led by the heroic Gen Niazi set a new world record in meek surrender, has the army faced such embarrassment.

Manto mian,

It does not matter whether you are 20 or 30 or 60 you can make mistakes or suffer from prejudices at any age. But if you are honest enuff to realise your errors that is fair enuff. I certainly hope someone who is a MKG expert can bring fresh evidence (if any exists)on his views on your pet peeves.

Harishbhai,

(If this isn't enough, I don't know what would.)

Nothing really. MKG's life is a fairly open book and people just have to reproduce his writings and deeds if they want to defend him, that's all.

And I do appreciate the fact that in his books he has often pointed out to his shortcomings. He has hidden nothing except his dalliances with a certain Mrs. Anne Doherty.

(I am by no means a supporter of Gandhi - I find a lot of the stuff he advocated totally out of whack)

I am really glad to hear that.

(Please stop being charitable, you know Yasser mian himself can hardly be accused of being an innocent bystander. )

I had no intention of pointing a finger at anyone or defending anyone. Sorry about that. I guess it is meant for all us, including me. It would be better if we could refute other people's arguments with facts and logics rather than resort to abuse.

Regards

Thanks YLh for the timely article and as usual you have focussed on the individual, let me talk about the historical juncture.

300 pak soldiers have been captured by 30 tribals, a ratio of one to ten, approximately same as when 90,000 pak sodiers surrendered to around 12000 indians. Again the paks were in hostile territory, the same as in waziristan.

It was bhutto who got teh soldiers released by recognising bangladesh. hence it is only timely that benazir is back to secure the release of pak soldiers and hand over waziristan to teh US to sort out.

Yahya surrendred to bhutto, and mushy will surrender to benzir.

Eventaullay there was a coup and bhutto was killed, the same will happen to benazir, it will be a beareded general and benzir will be killed under sharia law.

You concluded the article correctly, pakistanis will never learn from hisotry and hence history will repeat.

#60 by MantoLives

Could a 20 year old's change of opinion be equated to that of a successful Indian barrister like Gandhi of age 45 or a saint/Mahatma like Gandi at age 65 ... the evidence for which I am yet to see?

I see...so Yasser is comparing himself with a man who was born more than a 100 years earlier when society was not as broad-minded and evolved as it is today, when there was no TV and Internet, some human beings were equated with animals, when a Hindu who crossed the seas was considered an outcaste and when even water was classified as Hindu paani and Muslim paani. How sensible!!