Is Thackeray a Terrorist?

Ref ylh #: 417

This is the funniest post I have read in a long time. I am still trying to hold my sides together as I type this reply. Yasser, you should really try the Comedy Club of Karachi next. You will go over like a rock... I mean like Chris Rock with a black audience.

[Unlike Israel, in Pakistan non Muslim minorities can own property as much as they like, and atleast theoretically in Pakistan, 200 million Hindus from India can migrate and become citizens of Pakistan, changing the very `Islamic` nature of the Pakistani state (ofcourse this is only theoretical).. much unlike Israel where only a jew can now migrate to.]

Yasser, you slay me! 200 million Hindus can migrate to Pakistan, huh? How about letting in 200,000 Biharis from Bangladesh first? Ha, ha, ha!

[Unlike Rsaxena`s `secular` Israel ofcourse, `Islamic` Pakistan doesn`t have a supreme council of religious leaders superceding the rule of the secular politicians, and unlike `secular` Israel, Pakistan only pays lip service to Islam, and its laws, other than the ones imposed by the dictator Zia and which are seldom used anymore as a precedent, ... laws in Pakistan, not even the horrible draconian blasphemy law, are based on anything remotely Quranic but instead on British common law, torts, and the Magna Carta ( Note: 295 C is an adaptation of British Government of India act 1935 295 A and is not a fundamental principle of Islam.. if anyone has an objection to this statement please show me the precedent for draconian 295 C in any of 5 Islamic jurisprudence traditions or any Islamic Law put in place by any state)... ]

What about the Sharia Court that has ruled interests un-Islamic and ordered that Islamic banking be introduced?

As to the ``rarely-used`` law on blasphemy, how about telling that to the Christian boys of Lahore, the illiterate Hindu woman who was accused of disrespect because she supposedly used pages from a Koran to wrap things up, or that Anatomy Lecturer who has been sentenced to death and your brave new Ataturk hasn`t gotten around to doing anything about it?

The Blasphemy Law is based on the Magna Carta? That is about as good as your earlier statement that Abdul Ghaffar Khan was the father of the Taleban.

Ref sarwari #: 454

[Nice. And then you question why we made Pakistan? To be rid of you, to be rid of you and others like you.]

You are wrong. WE are rid of YOU. Sardar Patel said it was time to cut off the diseased limb rathen than have the entire body succumb to gangrene.

Pakistan is the ultimate segregation of the unfit in South Asia. Those Mandal Commission candidates who realized that even if they had a quota system they cannot get anywhere in a united India formed their own country. Just like those of us in India who have made it on our merit pity our Mandal Commission candidates, Indians as a whole pity Pakistanis. That explains the superiority complex you accuse Indians of having.

re tvarad

{{Actually, Jinnah destroyed something far bigger: the composite Islamic culture of the sub-continent. Metaphorically speaking, the creation of Pakistan was an apology for Islam`s presence in the sub-continent.}}

good point.

take pity on ylh...you are crushing him...

``Is Thackeray a Terrorist ?``

YES!!

Well, Pakistan can take Thackerey anytime in exchange for Musharaff for his act(s) in Kargil.

Never mind. Actually, most of the politicians in India are hoodlums anyway, save Manmohan Singh.

Take all of them. Uncle Mush can do repentence by standing for election from Delhi and who knows, win by a considerable margin.

Thanks

RE: Reply #: 457 ylh

``Quite the revisionists aren`t we... now throwing in abstract terms like composite Islamic culture?``

ylh,

I can throw those terms around because I am comfortable with my Muslim heritage. I have grown up around Muslims my entire life like most Indians so it`s not a strange culture to me. I take issue with what Jinnah did because he tried to destroy it for his personal gain.

As for Harimau et. al.., other than pointing out his fallacies, just like I`m pointing out yours, I cannot shut his mouth. This is a public forum. If we go by the likes and dislikes of every person on the planet, we will be reduced to declaring our home a sovereign republic. The question then is to see what we have in common and in my opinion, there is more in common between religions than there are differences. I view anyone who harps on these differences as suspect.

As for your spirited defense of Jinnah, I have asked you a lot of pointed questions which you have not chosen to answer. For example, if he took on the mantle of leadership for the Muslims of pre-partition India and claimed Pakistan for them, where did the Muslim from erstwhile Mysore fit into his scheme of things. You choose not to answer because you know that it points out the basic fallacy in his theory.

Further on Weak Parallels:

Similar weak parallels, as Jinnah and L K Advani w.r.t nationalism, can be drawn between Gandhi and Mullah Omar when it comes to dislike of western civilization, eccentric religiousity and opposition to women working outside their houses... But does that make Gandhi as horrible as Mullah Omar? I hope not.

tvarad,

Quite the revisionists aren`t we... now throwing in abstract terms like composite Islamic culture?

Ever get a chance try and read `Anand Math` for India`s composite anything culture. And if that doesn`t suffice, read the great Harimau`s statement that he often repeats about Maharaja Ranjit Singh and his horses.

In any event your latest intrusion into the debate is quite irritating. Kindly don`t make emotional feel good statements or sarcastic ones without any roots in reality. The question was can Jinnah be compared to L K advani.. the answer is NO. In order to compare Jinnah and L K Advani one has to make the conditions... Did Jinnah behave like Advani when he was a Majority and in power in pakistan. The answer according to the facts is an overwhelming NO.

Some weak parallels can be drawn between Jinnah`s Minority Nationalism of 1940-1947 and L K Advani`s Majority Nationalism of our times.. but that is the key... Jinnah was a Minority in India not a Majority.. the standards are different. A Black person in the US can say `Black is Beautiful` and `Black Power` and `Muh Black Brothas` and he is seen to be asserting his identity and his `black pride`. But If a White man in the US says: `White is beautiful` and `my white brothers` and `White power` he should be called for what he is... A Klan member.

Furthermore, Jinnah was called the best Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity by your Greatest Leaders.. Advani hasn`t been called that even by your much lesser leaders like Sonia Gandhi etc. Minorities in Pakistan have always quoted Jinnah as their savior and hero and have sought to use his words against tyrannical dictators like Zia... Advani is feared by the Indian Minorities. Lest I say more.

Harimau`s Shameless Selective Quoting of Hodson:

Uncle Harimau is very us-mart if you know what I mean. He continues to misquote Hodson because I have lost my copy but fails to quote Hodson`s summation of Jinnah`s career... in which he calls Jinnah, incorruptible, honest, man of integrity commpassion, brutal honesty, a selfless and righteous man who even his opponents couldn`t accuse of being power hungry... a sophisticated and passionate man. As soon as I will locate a copy of the said book, I will expose to the world Harimau`s selective and bigoted quoting of Henry Vincent Hodson, the man who was a balanced historian, an admirer of Jinnah and understood the Pakistan demand much better than many others. For those interested the tribute to Jinnah in the book The Great Divide can found under the sub heading of `Two Great Personalities` and this occurs in the beginning of the book.



In 1976 the most famous Historians and authors in the west came together with the most famous Historians and authors of Pakistan and India to pay a tribute to Jinnah, on his 100th Birth Anniversary, in a form of a book called

simply `Pakistan, Past and Present`. It includes contributions from Hodson, Ian Stephens, faiz ahmed faiz and close to 100 authors from all around the globe.

The book, Pakistan, past and present, starts off with a comprehensive Political Biography penned by No other but the very same Henry V. Hodson... page 14-38

On Page 31 he sums up Jinnah`s career and his reasons for making Pakistan:

``He was indeed a superb tactician, but he was much more. Every Military Commander needs sound tactics to win battles but tactical gains have lasting value only in so far as they serve a strategic objective and strategic Plan. Jinnah`s eyes never left his strategic goal, whether it was

Hindu Muslim Unity or the achievement of Pakistan.

Defeat in former campaign gave way to the single minded conduct of the latter. Nationalism- freedom for his people- was an inspiration for both. For many years he saw a Hindu-Muslim Pact as the essential condition for freedom. Gradually its pursuit drove him to see Muslim Solidarity and the recognition of Muslim nationhood as the prerequisite of the condition itself. Finally he came to see separation and partition as the only way to crown and perpetuate Muslim Nationhood. That is how his early ideal and his eventual achievement utterly contrasted as they appear to be, were linked by an unbroken continuity of evolving thought and policy. Indeed there is evidence that right up to the end of 1946, his seventieth year, he has not yet abandoned all hope of a Hindu-Muslim (or Congress-League) reconciliation in a minimal All India Union on the basis of negotiation as equals, once the acceptance of Muslims` right to national self determination had been irrevocably sealed.``

The Publishers are: Stacey International London.

RE: Reply #: 451 ylh

``Jinnah never presided over the destruction of a temple or anything, Advani we know is a chief architect of Babri Mosque debacle.``

Actually, Jinnah destroyed something far bigger: the composite Islamic culture of the sub-continent. Metaphorically speaking, the creation of Pakistan was an apology for Islam`s presence in the sub-continent.

Haramua

``Maharaja Ranjit Singh was right in converting Lahore`s mosque to a stable for his horses. Pay them back in their own coin!``

Nice. And then you question why we made Pakistan? To be rid of you, to be rid of you and others like you.

Those who are so inclined to assess things academically:

A detailed discussion of Ch.Rahmat Ali`s eccentric plan for Pakistan is available in `Jinnah, Pakistan and the Islamic Identity` by S Akbar Ahmad. His plan called for a confederation of various Muslim states that were to be formed out of India and they would come together in a confederation called P.A.K.I.S.T.A.N, or the land of the Pak-Nations.

Here is a map of that `confederation` so to speak.

http://www.khyber.demon.co.uk/history/pakistan/paknat.htm

If Hindus were so unwilling to give up the Muslim Majority areas, would they agree to Muslim Utopias carved out from the heart of the India?

Whereas the Lahore Resolution envisaged a Muslim Majority state and a Hindu Majority state with no exchange of populations, the Rahmat Ali plan spoke of small city states and provinces exclusively Muslim and Exclusively Hindu and Exclusively sikh.

If it is ok to quote from Ch.Rahmat Ali and the like to somehow try to make Jinnah look bad, should I start quoting from Veersavarkar to make Gandhi look bad? What is this hate that drives Harimau.

Harimau oh Uncle Harimau, educated in Nehru`s time:

Ch.Rahmat Ali was an eccentric fool and make no mistake about it. I am grateful that he coined the name (though if not Pakistan we would have another name) but I am glad that we don`t have anything in common with the Pakistan envisaged by Ch.Rahmat Ali. Thank God Quaid e Azam distanced himself from Ch.Rahmat Ali`s theories and visions of Pakistan. So Ch.Rahmat Ali`s reviled in Pakistan? Eventhough he is mentioned every single text book unnecessarily as one of the founding fathers but lets say he is reviled So? So he chose to stay away from Pakistan? So? Clearly the guy had a very one sided vision of the confederation of Islamia with Pakistan Osmanistan BangeIslam etc. Kind of like what the Mughalistan demand is all about and his theories of Dinia in India...Oh god give me a break.

Pyaray Uncle educated in `Nehru`s time`, I don`t know what you are doing ... Did you like stumble upon Ch.Rahmat Ali like yesterday? I mean Do you even know what Ch.Rahmat Ali was proposing... I mean honestly... the analogy would be if I quoted Veersavarkar to prove that Gandhi was bad.

In essence Ch.Rahmat Ali was to Jinnah, what Veersavarkar was to Gandhi. So quote his life all you want, but it only shows how desperate you are to cling on to the sinking ship of your (il)logic.

Pmishra2,

The folly of comparing Jinnah to Advani:

Eventhough I know that the statements you are making are to incite me and not to engage in fruitful dialogue... I`ll take you on. Comparing Jinnah and Advani is like Apples and Oranges.

Jinnah was a Minority in India. Advani is a Majority. Now in the intellectual circles its a given that Minority Nationalisms are heroic symbols of resistance... Majority nationalisms are oppressive. Jinnah when in position of power never once mentioned TNT, but infact turned around and completely renounced {hindus will cease to be hindus muslims will cease to be muslims etc}... Advani is in the position of power.. and look at what he is doing. Jinnah never presided over the destruction of a temple or anything, Advani we know is a chief architect of Babri Mosque debacle. Jinnah, after the creation of Pakistan, is known to have attended Church and Mandir and Gurdawara services.. Can you imagine Advani in a mosque... Jinnah became after the creation of Pakistan what Sri Prikasa, the Indian high commissioner in Jinnah`s time, calls `Protector General of Hindus`. Can you call Advani the protector general of Muslims? 30 out 40 years of Jinnah`s career was spent bringing Hindus and Muslims together on one platform, .. Jinnah earned the title of best Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity from people like Gokhale, Tilak, Gandhi, Sarojini Naidu, and the Nehrus.. Did Advani even earn that endorsement from Sonia Gandhi?

It is sad that you wish to slander Quaid e Azam`s memory. I can do the same... by using the kind of warped logic that you are using, I can take Gandhi`s anti west and anti women statements from his collected works and then make Gandhi and Mullah Omar look like brothers... but that would only be as true as your shameless assertion about Quaid e Azam and your L K Advani.



``re: ylh

so you don`t care what indians think, but yet you continue to use up tons of space here to prove who knows what about jinnah to indians? or is it pakstanis you are trying convince?``

Dear Dear Rsaxena... I am not trying to convince anyone. Jinnah, whether he was the best ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity in India or whether he was a communalist, has clear pronouncements that Pakistan should be a secular state... and thats why Cowasjee and others keep repeating his words so that Pakistan becomes one.



Harimau,

Still so so many words... and no point... Shame on you... what did you learn in `Nehru`s time`?

So how does it feel to be beaten by a person less than half your age? care to comment?

Re ylh on his innumerable number of posts on Jinnah:

Instead of a Jinnah Resources page on the web, how about opening one on Chaudhri Rehmat Ali, the man who coined the term Pakistan, the man who was reviled in Pakistan, and the man who was exiled from Pakistan.

Here is what Chaudhri Rehmat Ali had to say about the country he envisioned. Read it and weep. This tells the story of Muslim treachery (actually, the treachery of the Muslim League because there were literally hundreds of thousands of Nationalist Muslims active in the Independence movement but unfortunately CR Ali chooses to codemn Muslims as a group).

Careerism and Quislingism

Extracts from `Pakistan or Pastan-Destiny or Disintegration`, 1950 by C.R.Ali

The next danger is that of Careerism and Quislingism. That is, of subordinating and sacrificing everything, including the good of Islam, the Nation and the Millat, to one`s own personal gain - gain that may be social, material or political.

It is plain that to do this is to violate that code of honour and morality, of duty and devotion which constitutes the basis of national being and well-being.

In our case, this careerism has been a calamity. It has ruined us as a people, wrecked us as a power, and frustrated us as a polity. It was the decisive cause of our military defeat in 1757 [defeat of Mughal Viceroy by British in the Battle of Plassey]; of our Milli (national) downfall in 1857 [uprising against British mperialism], of our Milli demoralisation after 1857; and, finally, of our Milli disintegration in 1947 [Moth-eaten creation of Pakistan]. In other words, it was the source of all the treacheries we have committed and all the disasters we have suffered since 1757 (Battle of Plassey).

You may ask how ?

The best answer to that question is provided by the contrast between our actions and those of the Hindoos during the past two centuries.

While the Hindoos, defying the British, created and followed a leadership that was the embodiment of Hindooism and the expression of its protest against Britishism, we Muslims succumbing to British reaction, created and followed a leadership that was the embodiment of the negation of Islam and the expression of our subservience to Britishism.

While the Hindoos raised their orthodox men to the status of Mahatmas, we Muslims ridiculed ours as `Mad Mullahs` and `Fanatical Faqirs`.

While the Hindoos fostered martyrdom and heroism among their masses for the cause of Hindooism, we Muslims fostered minionism and helotism among ours against the cause of Islam.

While the Hindoos inspired their youth to defy, and to die fighting, against the British, we Muslims taught and tempted our youths to obey, and to fight and die for, the British.

While the Hindoos organised a `Quit India` campaign against the British, we Muslims rejected the Pakistan National Movement`s idea of launching a `Quit Pakistan` campaign, played the quisling to the British, served as their barking dogs in the Hindoos` campaign, and helped them to prolong their rule in India.

While the Hindoos, in loyalty to the Jati, opposed the British designs on the Hindoo Kingdom of Nepal, we Muslims, in treachery to the Fraternity, enlisted as mercenaries in the British forces to first destroy our own power in India and then the independence of other Muslim countries, including that of our own Caliph

(Ottoman).

Finally, and most damning of all, while the Hindoos acted so patriotically in spite of the fact that the British were their `defenders and liberators`, we Muslims behaved so slavishly in spite of the fact that the British were the destroyers of our Empire, the enslavers of our Millat, and the saboteurs of our whole Fraternity. I need hardly add that, had the position been the reverse, it is certain that the Hindoos` manly opposition, and our unmanly submission, to the British would have been a thousand times greater than they were throughout the past two centuries.

Such, in brief, is the record of our Careerism and Quislingism. It is a record of dirty, damnable, and destructive things - things which we did to please the British to secure, personal, petty gains; and by which we crippled the cause of the Millat - and of the Fraternity.

The tragedy is that this not the end of the record of our Careerism and Quislingism. NO. It is only the end of a chapter. For we are still adding to it and there is every sign that we shall keep adding to it. We shall, because on the whole, unselfish service and sacrifice have lost their appeal to us and `Government service`,

mercenary work, and commercialisation of Ideals have come to possess a morbid and an irresistible appeal for us. In fact, we have become a nation of stooges, strutters, and materialists, of job-hunters, office-seekers, and gold-worshippers. The result is that to get a job, to hold an office, or to make money, has become the be-all and end-all of our lives. And no wonder. For, in our society, to be an ordinary citizen has come to mean failure in life and loss of face.

I know this from personal experience; for even my `joblessness` and `officelessness`, which to me are a source of pride, are to some of my `friends` the cause of their greatest disappointment with me, perhaps because this has reduced my `usefulness` to them. Although in this very Pakistan they have seen the Hindoos

renounce every idea of jobbery, refuse to swear allegiance to the British, and devote their lives to the service of the Jati, yet these `friends` cannot understand why, in my conviction, it is a crime and a sin for me to seek or accept either office in the government or election to any legislature, which to do so involves or implies an

oath of allegiance to a non-Muslim king. They cannot see why, when `Qaids` are taking such oaths on the Holy Quran, I consider it a betrayal of my faith and of my cause.

This attitude of our people is a clear indication of the fact that, from the highest down to the lowest, careerism in one form or another has become the most dominating passion of our lives and has created a sad, indeed, an ominous, state of affairs. I say ominous because it is charged with the danger that, if an enemy appears on the scene tomorrow, thousands of our own people might, without any compunction, betray the Islamic cause for the sake of jobs and offices, just as some betrayed it to the British in 1757 [defeat of Mughal Viceroy by British in the Battle of Plassey], to the Sikhs in 1799, again to the British in 1857 uprising against British Imperialism, and, finally, to the British-Bania Alliance in 1947 [Moth-eaten creation of Pakistan].

This is all the more possible because our quislings have developed careerism into a plausible science and they can palm off any of their actions as good deeds in the interests of Islam, the Nation, and the Millat; and owing to the ignorance of our masses, they can be sure of finding a sympathetic audience among our people.

Let no one be surprised at that statement. It is supported by the record of these quislings. To realise that, one has merely to refer to some their recent doings. Here are a few of their masterpieces of perversion:

When they betrayed us to the British, with whom they collaborated, they told us that the British being `the People of the Book`, their collaboration with them as against the Hindoos - `the People of the Kufar` was in the interest of Islam. Again, when they sensed that the Hindoos might replace the British as the rulers of

India, they joined the Congress, supported `United Indian Nationalism`, and told us that, as `Sons of the Soil` it was their duty - and ours to fraternise with the self-same Hindoos. Finally, when they saw the Ideal of Pakistan might materialise, they at once rediscovered their love for Islam and the Hindoos hostility towards Islam, realised for the first time the `alien nature` of the 200-year old British rule, and proclaimed that, it being inconsistent with their Islamic pride to support the `United Indian Nationalism` and to keep their hard-earned `British-bestowed Titles`, they were withdrawing their support from the Hindoos, were renouncing their `British-conferred Titles`, and were pledging their lives and labours to the sacred cause of Pakistan. In fact, some of them went so far as to state that they had had `Basharat` to do so; and some that they had been actually summoned to the `Darbar-i-Nabvi` and ordered there by the Hazoor himself to transform their lives.

Such jugglery of our quislings should serve us as a warning that we have living amongst us some of the most cunning careerists in the world and that they are a most deadly danger to our nation. Indeed, they are a danger which might become active any day; and to avert which we must take immediate, effective steps to eradicate the evil spirit of careerism that animates our people.

RE: Reply #: 442 harimau

``It was turned into a museum comparatively late in its life. So let us not assume that the Muslims were all for the preservation of other people`s religious buildings.``

Thanks for the history lesson. To further it, let`s also mention that it was destroyed twice by Christians themselves and sacked once by those paragons of Christian fervor, the Crusaders who converted it to stables for their horses. But I digress. I believe the point I was making was that Christians and Muslims can walk into the Sofia Mosque today as civilized people and get from it whatever history they want. I think we could use that as a precedent for the Babri Masjid.