The Mahatma’s Progeny
Farzana Versey April 4, 2002
#857 Posted by Lajwanti on April 23, 2002 12:09:25 pm
Reply Semipreciousme # 196
[ “;-)....what is this aggression coming from?SPM?”
…..sigh…you could test the patience of a saint what to speak of me….]
Behain, I am advice you, SHOOT! SHOOT!
Hav no merciful on Deepka! Hei s DonJane!
(Deepka!y ouowe me apolgy. Whyyoua renot apolgise to me like shreef parson? HaiN??)
[ “;-)....what is this aggression coming from?SPM?”
…..sigh…you could test the patience of a saint what to speak of me….]
Behain, I am advice you, SHOOT! SHOOT!
Hav no merciful on Deepka! Hei s DonJane!
(Deepka!y ouowe me apolgy. Whyyoua renot apolgise to me like shreef parson? HaiN??)
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#856 Posted by progressive on April 23, 2002 12:09:25 pm
Especially for YLH.
Francois Gautier
`Gandhi was a misfit in India`
`Nationalism is not a mere political programme; nationalism is a religion`
__________________________________________________
Nehru, writes French historian Alain Danielou, ``was the perfect replica of a certain type of Englishman. He often used the expression `continental people`, with an amused and sarcastic manner, to designate French or Italians. He despised non-anglicised Indians and had a very superficial and partial knowledge of India. His ideal was the romantic socialism of 19th century Britain. But this type of socialism was totally unfit to India, where there was no class struggle and where the conditions were totally different from 19th century Europe.``
It should be added that Nehru was not a fiery leader, maybe because of his innate ``gentlemanship`` and often succumbed not only to Gandhi`s views, with which he sometimes disagreed, not only to the blackmailing of Jinnah and the fanatical Indian Muslim minority, but also to the British, particularly Lord Mountbatten, whom history has portrayed as the benevolent last viceroy of India, but who actually was most instrumental in the Partition of India, whatever Freedom at Midnight a very romanticised book, says. (Remember Churchill`s words on learning about Partition: ``At last we had the last word``!).
It may be added that the British had a habit of leaving a total mess when they had to surrender a colony, witness Ireland, Palestine, or India-Pakistan.
Mahatma Gandhi was indeed a great soul, an extraordinary human being, a man with a tremendous appeal to the people. But, unfortunately, he was a misfit in India. Karma or fate, or God, or whatever you want to call it, made a mistake when they sent him down to the land of Bharat. For at heart, Gandhi was a European, his ideals were a blend of Christianity raised to an exalted moral standard and a dose of liberalism `à la Tolstoy.` The patterns and goals he put forward for India, not only came to naught, but sometimes did great harm to a country, which unquestionably he loved immensely.
Furthermore, even after his death, Gandhism, although it does not really have any relevance to Modern India, is still used shamelessly by all politicians and intellectuals, particularly Congressmen, `secular` Muslims and pseudo-Marxists, to smoke-screen their ineffectiveness and to perpetuate their power. To understand Gandhi properly, one has to put in perspective his aims, his goals, and the results today.
One has to start at the beginning. There is no doubt that after his bitter experiences with racism in South Africa, he took to heart the plight of fellow Indians there. But what did he achieve for them? Second class citizenship! Worse, he dissociated them from their black Africans brothers, who share the same colour and are the majority. And today the Indians in South Africa are in a difficult position, sandwiched between the Whites who prefer them to the Blacks but do not accept them fully as their own, and the Blacks who often despise them for their superior attitudes.
Ultimately, they sided with the Moderate Whites led by de Klerk and this was a mistake as Mandela was elected and the Blacks wrested total power in South Africa -- and once more we might have an exodus of Indians from a place where they have lived and which they have loved for generations.
The Mahatma did a lot for India. But the question again is: What remains today in India of Gandhi`s heritage? Spinning was a joke. ``He made Charkha a religious article of faith and excluded all people from Congress membership who would not spin. How many, even among his own followers believe in the gospel of Charkha? Such a tremendous waste of energy, just for the sake of a few annas is most unreasonable,`` wrote Sri Aurobindo in 1938 (India`s Rebirth, page 207). Does any Congress leader today still weave cotton? And has Gandhi`s Khadi policy of village handicrafts for India survived him? Nehru was the first to embark upon a massive ``Soviet type`` heavy industrialisation, resolutely turning his back on Gandhi`s policy, although handicrafts in India do have their place.
Then, nowhere does Gandhi`s great Christian morality find more expression than in his attitude towards sex. All his life he felt guilty about having made love to his wife while his father was dying. But guilt is truly a Western prerogative. In India, sex has (was at least) always been put in its proper place, neither suppressed, as in Victorian times, nor brought to its extreme perversion, like in the West today. Gandhi`s attitude towards sex was to remain ambivalent all his life, sleeping with his beautiful nieces ``to test his brahmacharya,`` while advocating abstinence for India`s population control. But why impose on others what he practised for himself?
Again, this is a very Christian attitude: John Paul II, or Mother Teresa, fifty years later, enjoined all Christians to do the same. But did Gandhi think for a minute how millions of Indian women would be able to persuade their husbands to abstain from sex when they are fertile? And who will suffer abortions, pregnancy and other ignominies? And again, India has totally turned its back on Gandhi`s policy: today its birth control programme must be the most elaborate in the world -- and does not even utilise force (except for a short period during the Emergency), as the Chinese have done.
For all the world, Gandhi is synonymous with non-violence. But once more, a very Christian notion. Gandhi loved the Mahabharata. But did he understand that sometimes non-violence does more harm than violence itself? That violence can also be ``Dharma,`` if it is done for defending one`s country, or oneself, or one`s mother, or sisters? Take the Cripps proposals for instance.
In 1942, the Japanese were at the doors of India. England was weakened, vulnerable and desperately needed support. Churchill sent Sir Stafford Cripps to India to propose that if India participated in the war effort, Great Britain would grant her Dominion status (as in Australia or Canada) at the end of the war. Sri Aurobindo sent a personal letter to the Congress, urging it to accept. Nehru wavered, but ultimately, Gandhi in the name of non-violence put his foot down and the Cripps proposal was rejected. Had it been accepted, history might have been changed, Partition and its terrible bloodshed would have been avoided.
Gandhi also never seemed to have realised the great danger that Nazism represented for humanity. A great Asuric wave had risen in Europe and threatened to engulf the world and it had to be fought -- with violence. Calling Hitler ``my beloved brother,`` a man who murdered 6 million Jews in cold blood just to prove the purity of his own race, is more than just innocence, it borders on criminal credulity. And did not Gandhi also advise the Jews to let themselves be butchered?
Ultimately, it must be said that whatever his saintliness, his extreme and somehow rigid asceticism, Gandhi did enormous harm to India and this harm has two names: Muslims and Untouchables.
The British must have rubbed their hands in glee: here was a man who was perfecting their policy of rule-and-divide, for ultimately nobody more than Gandhi contributed to the Partition of India, by his obsession to always give in to the Muslims, by his obstinate refusal to see that the Muslims always started rioting, Hindus only retaliated. By his indulgence of Jinnah, going as far as proposing to make him the prime minister of India.
Sri Aurobindo was very clear about Hindu-Muslim unity: ``I am sorry they are making a fetish of Hindu-Muslim unity. It is no use ignoring facts; some day the Hindus may have to fight the Muslims and they must prepare for it. Hindu-Muslim unity should not mean the subjection of the Hindus. Every time the mildness of the Hindu has given way. The best solution would be to allow the Hindus to organise themselves and the Hindu-Muslim unity would take care of itself, it would automatically solve the problem. Otherwise we are lulled into a false sense of satisfaction that we have solved a difficult problem, when in fact we have only shelved it.`` (India`s Rebirth, page 159)
Gandhi`s love of the Harijans, as he called them, was certainly very touching and sprang from the highest motivations, but it had also as its base a Christian notion that would have found a truer meaning in Europe, where there are no castes, only classes. Glorifying the scavenger as a man of God makes good poetry, but little social meaning. In the words of Sri Aurobindo: ``The idea that it needs a special `punya` to be born a Bhangi is, of course one of these forceful exaggerations which are common to the Mahatma and impress greatly the mind of his hearers. The idea behind is that his function is an indispensable service to society, quite as much as the Brahmin`s, but that being disagreeable, it would need a special moral heroism to choose it voluntarily and he thinks as if the soul freely chose it as such a heroic service to the society and as reward of righteous acts, but that is hardly likely.
``In any case, it is not true that the Bhangi life is superior to the Brahmin life and the reward of special righteousness, no more that it is true that a man is superior because he is born a Brahmin. A spiritual man of pariah birth is superior in the divine values to an unspiritual and worldly-minded Brahmin. Birth counts but the basic value is in the soul behind the man and the degree to which it manifests itself in nature``. (India`s Rebirth, page 201)
Once more Gandhi took the European element in the decrying of the caste system, forgetting the divine element behind. And unfortunately he sowed the seeds of future disorders and of a caste war in India, of which we see the effects only today.
Non-violence, you say? But Gandhi did the greatest violence to his body, in true Christian fashion, punishing it, to blackmail others in doing his will, even if he thought it was for the greater good. And ultimately, it may be asked, what remains of Gandhi`s non-violence today? India has fought three wars with Pakistan (four, if you count Kargil), had to combat the Chinese, has the second biggest army in the world and has to fight counter-insurgency movements in Punjab, Assam and Kashmir. Gandhi must have died a broken man indeed. He saw India partitioned, Hindus and Muslims fighting each other and his ideals of Charkha, non-violence and Brahmacharya being flouted by the very men he brought up as his disciples.
However, his heritage is not dead, for it survives where it should have been in the first instance: in the West. His ideals have inspired countless great figures, from Martin Luther King, to Albert Einstein, to Nelson Mandela, the Dalaï Lama or Attenborough and continue to inspire many others. Gandhi`s birth in India was an accident, for here, there is nothing left of him, except million of statues and streets and saintly mouthings by politicians, who don`t apply the least bit what Gandhi had taught so ardently.
History will judge. But with Nehru on one side and his Westernised concept of India and Gandhi on the other, who tried to impose upon India a non-violence which was not hers, India was destined to be partitioned. Thus when the time came, India was bled into two, in three even, and Muslims took their pound of flesh while leaving. India never recovered from that trauma and today she is still suffering from its consequences. Yet has anybody really understood the lessons of history?
Francois Gautier
Francois Gautier
`Gandhi was a misfit in India`
`Nationalism is not a mere political programme; nationalism is a religion`
__________________________________________________
Nehru, writes French historian Alain Danielou, ``was the perfect replica of a certain type of Englishman. He often used the expression `continental people`, with an amused and sarcastic manner, to designate French or Italians. He despised non-anglicised Indians and had a very superficial and partial knowledge of India. His ideal was the romantic socialism of 19th century Britain. But this type of socialism was totally unfit to India, where there was no class struggle and where the conditions were totally different from 19th century Europe.``
It should be added that Nehru was not a fiery leader, maybe because of his innate ``gentlemanship`` and often succumbed not only to Gandhi`s views, with which he sometimes disagreed, not only to the blackmailing of Jinnah and the fanatical Indian Muslim minority, but also to the British, particularly Lord Mountbatten, whom history has portrayed as the benevolent last viceroy of India, but who actually was most instrumental in the Partition of India, whatever Freedom at Midnight a very romanticised book, says. (Remember Churchill`s words on learning about Partition: ``At last we had the last word``!).
It may be added that the British had a habit of leaving a total mess when they had to surrender a colony, witness Ireland, Palestine, or India-Pakistan.
Mahatma Gandhi was indeed a great soul, an extraordinary human being, a man with a tremendous appeal to the people. But, unfortunately, he was a misfit in India. Karma or fate, or God, or whatever you want to call it, made a mistake when they sent him down to the land of Bharat. For at heart, Gandhi was a European, his ideals were a blend of Christianity raised to an exalted moral standard and a dose of liberalism `à la Tolstoy.` The patterns and goals he put forward for India, not only came to naught, but sometimes did great harm to a country, which unquestionably he loved immensely.
Furthermore, even after his death, Gandhism, although it does not really have any relevance to Modern India, is still used shamelessly by all politicians and intellectuals, particularly Congressmen, `secular` Muslims and pseudo-Marxists, to smoke-screen their ineffectiveness and to perpetuate their power. To understand Gandhi properly, one has to put in perspective his aims, his goals, and the results today.
One has to start at the beginning. There is no doubt that after his bitter experiences with racism in South Africa, he took to heart the plight of fellow Indians there. But what did he achieve for them? Second class citizenship! Worse, he dissociated them from their black Africans brothers, who share the same colour and are the majority. And today the Indians in South Africa are in a difficult position, sandwiched between the Whites who prefer them to the Blacks but do not accept them fully as their own, and the Blacks who often despise them for their superior attitudes.
Ultimately, they sided with the Moderate Whites led by de Klerk and this was a mistake as Mandela was elected and the Blacks wrested total power in South Africa -- and once more we might have an exodus of Indians from a place where they have lived and which they have loved for generations.
The Mahatma did a lot for India. But the question again is: What remains today in India of Gandhi`s heritage? Spinning was a joke. ``He made Charkha a religious article of faith and excluded all people from Congress membership who would not spin. How many, even among his own followers believe in the gospel of Charkha? Such a tremendous waste of energy, just for the sake of a few annas is most unreasonable,`` wrote Sri Aurobindo in 1938 (India`s Rebirth, page 207). Does any Congress leader today still weave cotton? And has Gandhi`s Khadi policy of village handicrafts for India survived him? Nehru was the first to embark upon a massive ``Soviet type`` heavy industrialisation, resolutely turning his back on Gandhi`s policy, although handicrafts in India do have their place.
Then, nowhere does Gandhi`s great Christian morality find more expression than in his attitude towards sex. All his life he felt guilty about having made love to his wife while his father was dying. But guilt is truly a Western prerogative. In India, sex has (was at least) always been put in its proper place, neither suppressed, as in Victorian times, nor brought to its extreme perversion, like in the West today. Gandhi`s attitude towards sex was to remain ambivalent all his life, sleeping with his beautiful nieces ``to test his brahmacharya,`` while advocating abstinence for India`s population control. But why impose on others what he practised for himself?
Again, this is a very Christian attitude: John Paul II, or Mother Teresa, fifty years later, enjoined all Christians to do the same. But did Gandhi think for a minute how millions of Indian women would be able to persuade their husbands to abstain from sex when they are fertile? And who will suffer abortions, pregnancy and other ignominies? And again, India has totally turned its back on Gandhi`s policy: today its birth control programme must be the most elaborate in the world -- and does not even utilise force (except for a short period during the Emergency), as the Chinese have done.
For all the world, Gandhi is synonymous with non-violence. But once more, a very Christian notion. Gandhi loved the Mahabharata. But did he understand that sometimes non-violence does more harm than violence itself? That violence can also be ``Dharma,`` if it is done for defending one`s country, or oneself, or one`s mother, or sisters? Take the Cripps proposals for instance.
In 1942, the Japanese were at the doors of India. England was weakened, vulnerable and desperately needed support. Churchill sent Sir Stafford Cripps to India to propose that if India participated in the war effort, Great Britain would grant her Dominion status (as in Australia or Canada) at the end of the war. Sri Aurobindo sent a personal letter to the Congress, urging it to accept. Nehru wavered, but ultimately, Gandhi in the name of non-violence put his foot down and the Cripps proposal was rejected. Had it been accepted, history might have been changed, Partition and its terrible bloodshed would have been avoided.
Gandhi also never seemed to have realised the great danger that Nazism represented for humanity. A great Asuric wave had risen in Europe and threatened to engulf the world and it had to be fought -- with violence. Calling Hitler ``my beloved brother,`` a man who murdered 6 million Jews in cold blood just to prove the purity of his own race, is more than just innocence, it borders on criminal credulity. And did not Gandhi also advise the Jews to let themselves be butchered?
Ultimately, it must be said that whatever his saintliness, his extreme and somehow rigid asceticism, Gandhi did enormous harm to India and this harm has two names: Muslims and Untouchables.
The British must have rubbed their hands in glee: here was a man who was perfecting their policy of rule-and-divide, for ultimately nobody more than Gandhi contributed to the Partition of India, by his obsession to always give in to the Muslims, by his obstinate refusal to see that the Muslims always started rioting, Hindus only retaliated. By his indulgence of Jinnah, going as far as proposing to make him the prime minister of India.
Sri Aurobindo was very clear about Hindu-Muslim unity: ``I am sorry they are making a fetish of Hindu-Muslim unity. It is no use ignoring facts; some day the Hindus may have to fight the Muslims and they must prepare for it. Hindu-Muslim unity should not mean the subjection of the Hindus. Every time the mildness of the Hindu has given way. The best solution would be to allow the Hindus to organise themselves and the Hindu-Muslim unity would take care of itself, it would automatically solve the problem. Otherwise we are lulled into a false sense of satisfaction that we have solved a difficult problem, when in fact we have only shelved it.`` (India`s Rebirth, page 159)
Gandhi`s love of the Harijans, as he called them, was certainly very touching and sprang from the highest motivations, but it had also as its base a Christian notion that would have found a truer meaning in Europe, where there are no castes, only classes. Glorifying the scavenger as a man of God makes good poetry, but little social meaning. In the words of Sri Aurobindo: ``The idea that it needs a special `punya` to be born a Bhangi is, of course one of these forceful exaggerations which are common to the Mahatma and impress greatly the mind of his hearers. The idea behind is that his function is an indispensable service to society, quite as much as the Brahmin`s, but that being disagreeable, it would need a special moral heroism to choose it voluntarily and he thinks as if the soul freely chose it as such a heroic service to the society and as reward of righteous acts, but that is hardly likely.
``In any case, it is not true that the Bhangi life is superior to the Brahmin life and the reward of special righteousness, no more that it is true that a man is superior because he is born a Brahmin. A spiritual man of pariah birth is superior in the divine values to an unspiritual and worldly-minded Brahmin. Birth counts but the basic value is in the soul behind the man and the degree to which it manifests itself in nature``. (India`s Rebirth, page 201)
Once more Gandhi took the European element in the decrying of the caste system, forgetting the divine element behind. And unfortunately he sowed the seeds of future disorders and of a caste war in India, of which we see the effects only today.
Non-violence, you say? But Gandhi did the greatest violence to his body, in true Christian fashion, punishing it, to blackmail others in doing his will, even if he thought it was for the greater good. And ultimately, it may be asked, what remains of Gandhi`s non-violence today? India has fought three wars with Pakistan (four, if you count Kargil), had to combat the Chinese, has the second biggest army in the world and has to fight counter-insurgency movements in Punjab, Assam and Kashmir. Gandhi must have died a broken man indeed. He saw India partitioned, Hindus and Muslims fighting each other and his ideals of Charkha, non-violence and Brahmacharya being flouted by the very men he brought up as his disciples.
However, his heritage is not dead, for it survives where it should have been in the first instance: in the West. His ideals have inspired countless great figures, from Martin Luther King, to Albert Einstein, to Nelson Mandela, the Dalaï Lama or Attenborough and continue to inspire many others. Gandhi`s birth in India was an accident, for here, there is nothing left of him, except million of statues and streets and saintly mouthings by politicians, who don`t apply the least bit what Gandhi had taught so ardently.
History will judge. But with Nehru on one side and his Westernised concept of India and Gandhi on the other, who tried to impose upon India a non-violence which was not hers, India was destined to be partitioned. Thus when the time came, India was bled into two, in three even, and Muslims took their pound of flesh while leaving. India never recovered from that trauma and today she is still suffering from its consequences. Yet has anybody really understood the lessons of history?
Francois Gautier
#854 Posted by ylh on April 23, 2002 12:09:25 pm
Sadna,
You know what I am `ranting` about... as for knowing the enemy.. believe me I have made a conscious effort to learn about India and Indian culture.. you won`t find me lacking in any questions.
It will serve you well however NOT to propagate Eichmann`s theories ... you don`t want me becoming your Adolf Eichmann... pray to Ishwar that I don`t for the sake of your kind..
-YLH
#853 Posted by Banjaara on April 23, 2002 12:09:25 pm
sadna # 878
``The `banana republic` term is yours not mine.``
I never claimed that you are the author of this
delectable definition of Pakistan.I simply said
that it was one of the well wishers from your side who used this term.And believe me there are
a lot more well wishers of Pakistan, from your side, other than you:)
BTW why so defensive..
Regards
``The `banana republic` term is yours not mine.``
I never claimed that you are the author of this
delectable definition of Pakistan.I simply said
that it was one of the well wishers from your side who used this term.And believe me there are
a lot more well wishers of Pakistan, from your side, other than you:)
BTW why so defensive..
Regards
#852 Posted by ylh on April 23, 2002 12:09:25 pm
``I agree. That is why I support the creation of Sindudesh for the Sindhi people in Pakistan.I hope they find a leader like Jinnah who can help them create a Sindudesh, so that they can improve their repesentation in US colleges.``
If indeed that is the wish and the will of the Sindhi People... that shall be, unless Pakistan gets more egalitarian and gives them what they want before hand...
#851 Posted by Banjaara on April 23, 2002 12:09:25 pm
sadna # 878
`` In the public eye, we have sentimental pre-Partition`ers like Khushwant Singh, Gujral and Kuldip Nayar, I am not aware of any Pakistani counterparts?``
Oh there are quite a few on our side as well.. the
pre Partitioners,don`t worry about that.Let`s
get back to the Institutional Studies on Pakistan
which has nothing to do with sindhi-punjabi or UP
cultural study or the chairs of Urdu,Persian and
Arabic.I would appreciate to know the specific
institutes dealing specifically about Pakistan
and its weaknesses/strengths.
Regards.
`` In the public eye, we have sentimental pre-Partition`ers like Khushwant Singh, Gujral and Kuldip Nayar, I am not aware of any Pakistani counterparts?``
Oh there are quite a few on our side as well.. the
pre Partitioners,don`t worry about that.Let`s
get back to the Institutional Studies on Pakistan
which has nothing to do with sindhi-punjabi or UP
cultural study or the chairs of Urdu,Persian and
Arabic.I would appreciate to know the specific
institutes dealing specifically about Pakistan
and its weaknesses/strengths.
Regards.
#850 Posted by sadna on April 22, 2002 7:30:52 pm
Banjaara #873
The `banana republic` term is yours not mine. Re religion, India celebrates its Muslim heritage, has centres of Islamic learning. Re culture and languages, well India shares some part of the Sindhi/Punjabi/UP part of the culture, has streams of study right from school level and chairs in Arabic, Persian and Urdu.
Regarding grassroots-to-national-level social environment in Pakistan, I can`t say whether there are serious studies or not. Re grassroots-to-national-level power dynamics of Pakistan, I can`t say either. I can`t say how much these studies would help if its the military which runs things in Pakistan?
Re newspaper op-eds, I know Indian ex-spooks/ex-armed forces people speculate a lot about the details of the Pakistani economy and what the Pakistan Army is really up to :). Their counterparts in Pakistan seem to concentrate more on blanket recriminations of India.
I have seen sati mentioned as a reason for Pakistan to steer clear of detente with India in a Pakistani oped piece in a major newspaper, I don`t recall similar stupid `civilisational` arguments made about Pakistan in Indian counterparts, though I might have missed it. I am interested to know, have you? In the public eye, we have sentimental pre-Partition`ers like Khushwant Singh, Gujral and Kuldip Nayar, I am not aware of any Pakistani counterparts?
The `banana republic` term is yours not mine. Re religion, India celebrates its Muslim heritage, has centres of Islamic learning. Re culture and languages, well India shares some part of the Sindhi/Punjabi/UP part of the culture, has streams of study right from school level and chairs in Arabic, Persian and Urdu.
Regarding grassroots-to-national-level social environment in Pakistan, I can`t say whether there are serious studies or not. Re grassroots-to-national-level power dynamics of Pakistan, I can`t say either. I can`t say how much these studies would help if its the military which runs things in Pakistan?
Re newspaper op-eds, I know Indian ex-spooks/ex-armed forces people speculate a lot about the details of the Pakistani economy and what the Pakistan Army is really up to :). Their counterparts in Pakistan seem to concentrate more on blanket recriminations of India.
I have seen sati mentioned as a reason for Pakistan to steer clear of detente with India in a Pakistani oped piece in a major newspaper, I don`t recall similar stupid `civilisational` arguments made about Pakistan in Indian counterparts, though I might have missed it. I am interested to know, have you? In the public eye, we have sentimental pre-Partition`ers like Khushwant Singh, Gujral and Kuldip Nayar, I am not aware of any Pakistani counterparts?
#849 Posted by rsridhar on April 22, 2002 6:45:05 pm
re: An amazing muslim scholar
Muslims including his own family members have distanced themselves from him because of his scholarship in sanskrit and vedic studies. Hindus flood to him for advice!
http://autofeed.msn.co.in/clippath/InnerHTMLs/{A963FD16-66DD-4509-BC79-8AE2A7C03A7E}.asp.
Sridhar
Muslims including his own family members have distanced themselves from him because of his scholarship in sanskrit and vedic studies. Hindus flood to him for advice!
http://autofeed.msn.co.in/clippath/InnerHTMLs/{A963FD16-66DD-4509-BC79-8AE2A7C03A7E}.asp.
Sridhar
#848 Posted by AAmir on April 22, 2002 6:45:05 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#847 Posted by rsridhar on April 22, 2002 6:45:05 pm
re:Reply #: 864
Banjaara,
I had already read the article before i commented on it. I suggest you read it again. Especially the paragraphs i had pasted. One cannot infer anything else.
Sridhar
Banjaara,
I had already read the article before i commented on it. I suggest you read it again. Especially the paragraphs i had pasted. One cannot infer anything else.
Sridhar
#846 Posted by Banjaara on April 22, 2002 6:45:05 pm
Rediff.com April 22,2002
Pakistanis at Chowk should not comment on the
Gujarat killings as it is an internal affair of the Indian people.
[Taking exception to criticism of the Gujarat situation by foreign leaders and visiting dignitaries, India on Monday said that it ``does not appreciate interference in our internal affairs``.]
Pakistanis at Chowk should not comment on the
Gujarat killings as it is an internal affair of the Indian people.
[Taking exception to criticism of the Gujarat situation by foreign leaders and visiting dignitaries, India on Monday said that it ``does not appreciate interference in our internal affairs``.]
#845 Posted by Banjaara on April 22, 2002 6:45:05 pm
sadna # 866
``Is there a single institute or body in Pakistan devoted to studying India, its current affairs, its religions, its cultures in any authoritative way?``
Forget Pakistan,it`s a banana republic as claimed
by some well wishers from your side.How about
India, which are the institutes devoted to the
study of Pakistan and its inherent weaknesses and
the strengths,if any.
``Is there a single institute or body in Pakistan devoted to studying India, its current affairs, its religions, its cultures in any authoritative way?``
Forget Pakistan,it`s a banana republic as claimed
by some well wishers from your side.How about
India, which are the institutes devoted to the
study of Pakistan and its inherent weaknesses and
the strengths,if any.
#844 Posted by ali2 on April 22, 2002 6:45:05 pm
YLH,
{
Look at the real progress... look at the progress my family made because of partition... Today for every 10 Indians there are 4 Pakistanis in Colleges Abroad especially in the US... do you think Muslims in United India would have achieved a similar ratio?
}
I agree. That is why I support the creation of Sindudesh for the Sindhi people in Pakistan.I hope they find a leader like Jinnah who can help them create a Sindudesh, so that they can improve their repesentation in US colleges.
{
Look at the real progress... look at the progress my family made because of partition... Today for every 10 Indians there are 4 Pakistanis in Colleges Abroad especially in the US... do you think Muslims in United India would have achieved a similar ratio?
}
I agree. That is why I support the creation of Sindudesh for the Sindhi people in Pakistan.I hope they find a leader like Jinnah who can help them create a Sindudesh, so that they can improve their repesentation in US colleges.
#843 Posted by ylh on April 22, 2002 6:45:05 pm
Audio-video-radio...
Did you ever ask your mother about me?
#842 Posted by ylh on April 22, 2002 6:45:05 pm
Fawad I was just kidding. There wasn`t any such function... I was just pissed off that the South Asianist-Pakistanis just like the Islamist-Pakistanis care more about Palestine than Pakistan or even Kashmir which is in a far worst situation given that Israelis are honorable enemies and Indians are most often not!.
#841 Posted by ylh on April 22, 2002 6:45:05 pm
Pagal aka tvarad,
Your logic doesn`t make sense.Why the hell would you just be thinking in terms of West Pakistan, when the determination was done on the basis of East and West Pakistan? It shows your stupidity. Jinnah didn`t make only West Pakistan but East Pakistan as well remember? The point was to free these Muslims from caste Hindu domination. In any event, the `self determination` was on the basis of the Muslim Majority Areas and not the Two Nation theory. Your obscure arguments don`t work nor are they relevant to this case. Your declaration of the `three nation` theory is almost as stupid. Jinnah lived in 1947 and not 1971 you idiot... read some history. Whether the `Homeland` is under two governments or one, the Muslims of those areas are free of Hindu Raj.
The point is that your condoning of Murder of Muslims just because they wanted a separate state in areas a b c and d ... just shows how cruel you are.. As for the question I have answered your question very well. Roughly 24 % of the population couldn`t hold the rest of the 76% hostage...
As for the 1951 census.. Again you know that is a lie. 1951 still had 35 Million Muslims in West Pakistan, 47 Million Muslims in East Pakistan, and some 24 Million Muslims in India. It is important to note that Pakistan and India had a solemn agreement to protect the Minorities and give them equal rights. Both Pakistan and India have failed.. but that doesn`t mean the scheme was faulty...
-YLH
Your logic doesn`t make sense.Why the hell would you just be thinking in terms of West Pakistan, when the determination was done on the basis of East and West Pakistan? It shows your stupidity. Jinnah didn`t make only West Pakistan but East Pakistan as well remember? The point was to free these Muslims from caste Hindu domination. In any event, the `self determination` was on the basis of the Muslim Majority Areas and not the Two Nation theory. Your obscure arguments don`t work nor are they relevant to this case. Your declaration of the `three nation` theory is almost as stupid. Jinnah lived in 1947 and not 1971 you idiot... read some history. Whether the `Homeland` is under two governments or one, the Muslims of those areas are free of Hindu Raj.
The point is that your condoning of Murder of Muslims just because they wanted a separate state in areas a b c and d ... just shows how cruel you are.. As for the question I have answered your question very well. Roughly 24 % of the population couldn`t hold the rest of the 76% hostage...
As for the 1951 census.. Again you know that is a lie. 1951 still had 35 Million Muslims in West Pakistan, 47 Million Muslims in East Pakistan, and some 24 Million Muslims in India. It is important to note that Pakistan and India had a solemn agreement to protect the Minorities and give them equal rights. Both Pakistan and India have failed.. but that doesn`t mean the scheme was faulty...
-YLH