The Mahatma’s Progeny

re ylh 105

``God Save Pakistan and Islam from people like you.``

The Good Lord has his work cut out for Him!

WIth a little help from you, He may still pull it off. Good luck. It is tought but not impossible to pull off the Quaid-e-Azam`s dream in Pakistan. DOn`t worry about the detractors: they are the ones, no matter what they say now, who privately called Mr. Jinnah the `Kafir-e-Azam`. As a Pakistani journalist said it recently, these are people `jinko Pakistan muft may milgaya tha`.

Vaishnav Jan translation:::

(Disclaimer: This is my first attempt at translating anything, so please excuse the absence of eloquence. Also its not very accurate, and someone else will surely come up with a better translation here)

( Narsaiyyo === Narsinh Mehta, a medeival Gujarati poet + reformer, a Bhakti movement member of Gujarat)

Vaishnov Jan to taynay kahyeeye

Jay peerh paraaye janneyray

[[A true Vaishnav is the one who understands the pain of others]] [[ Vaishnav = follower of the Vishnu worshipping sect of Hinduism -- can be also understood as a devout, pious person]]

Par dukkhey upkar karey teeyey,

man abhiman na anney ray

[[He is generous in helping others in grief, but never thinks overly highly of himself]]

Sakal lokma Sahuney bandhey,

Ninda Na karye kainee ray

[[He bows down to everyone in the entire universe and never criticizes anyone]]

Baach kaachh, Man nischal Raakhey,

dhan-dhan jananee tainee ray

[[In all situations he keeps his mind pure and steady, we bow down to his mother (who produced such a son)]]

Samdrishi nay trishna tyagee,

par-stree jaynay mat ray

(dont know what samdrishi is))

[[ He has renounced all greed, and all woman except his wife are like mothers to him]]

Jihva thaki asatya na bolay,

par-dhan nav jhaley haath ray

[[Never in his life he lies, and never eyes other people`s wealth]]

Moh maaya vyaayey nahin Jeynay,

dridh vairagya jana manma ray

[[He is not bound by `moh -maya`, and is ready to renounce everything ]]

Ram-nam-shoom taalee laagee,

Sakal teerth seyna tanma ray

[[All he cares about is Raam-Naam, all the pilgrimages are in his body itself]]

Vanloohee nay kapat rahit chhay,

Kaam, Krodh nivarya ray

[[He is non-greedy, and un-manipulative, and has gottend rid of all Kaam(Lust) and Krodh(Anger)]]

Bhane Narsinhyo tainoo darshan karta

kul ekotair taarya re.

[[And Narsaiyyo says, one `darshan` of such a man, tumhaare 71 generations ka kalyan kar dega]]

Dukhi Ram 108

Why lament on demage to four walls of a certain Dergah in a City called Ahmedabad whoes population is mainly Hindu but signifies Islam. If Rawalpindi is called Islamabad and Layalpur is called Faizlabad, then why rub salt into the wounds of Hindus when Ahmed has is no more the predominant factor in the lives of Hindus here.

The list of Hindu temples and Gurudwaras decimated by followers of Islam is thousand times longer than what you submitted. This is not Pakistan.

re: Nasah on Julio Ribeiro

What we have just witnessed is the Hindutva version of the Nazi pogroms (Kristallnacht - The Night of Broken Glass). Then, too, onlookers watched as the police and the fire department stood aside as preventing certain houses from being burnt, but doing nothing to stop others from burning.

Kritallnacht too was provoked by the killing of a German diplomat by a 17-year old Jew in Paris.

For Adolf Hitler and Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels, the shooting in Paris provided an opportunity to incite Germans to ``rise in bloody vengeance against the Jews. Much like Gujarat CMs lecture in Newtonion Physics -- `Every action has an equal and opposite reaction`.

After Kristallnacht about 25,000 Jewish men were rounded up and later sent to concentration camps where they were often brutalized by SS guards and in some cases randomly chosen to be beaten to death. In Gujarat nearly 100,000 are interned in neo-concentration camps (aka refugee camps).

SS leader Reinhard Heydrich requested new decrees barring Jews from any contact with Germans by excluding them entirely from economic life in the Reich by transferring all Jewish property and enterprises to `Aryans,` with minor compensation given to the Jews in the form of bonds.

After the Gujarat riots, the VHP distributed leaflets calling for an economic boycott of Muslim businesses.

We know where the Nazis led Germany. We have the clearest warning yet of where the VHP/Bajrang Dal`s are leading India. Hitler came to power through elections -- and that is exactly what the Gujarat CM wants to call for now. A failure to act for the cause of tolerance now is tantamount to aiding and abetting murder. One can stay quiet only at the cost of destroying the future.

Farzana:

I reviewed that tag line under your article heading on Chowk`s main page which said, `How Responsible is Gandhi for Hindutva?`

I think that the counter question would be how responsible was Einstein for the nuclear bomb after he discovered the E=MC2 equation? Or, how personally responsible was Christopher Columbus for the decimation of native Americans? I think that these issues are in the same league

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Nasah,

Are you Hasan M.Rizvi?

From the Washington Post today:

Muslim Gets Due As Hero

New York Honors Sept. 11 Victim Associated Press

Saturday, April 6, 2002 NEW YORK, April 5 -- For six months after Sept. 11, the family of Salman Hamdani had to endure the rumors that he was a fugitive terrorist, or that he was in federal custody. Today, he was remembered for what he truly was: a hero who died in the rubble of the World Trade Center.

The 23-year-old Muslim, his remains in a flag-draped coffin at a Manhattan mosque, was praised at his long-delayed funeral for a selfless and fatal choice: heading to ground zero to help his fellow Americans...Hamdani, a Pakistani-born laboratory research assistant who also had training as a medical technician, was missing for more than six months after the terrorist attacks that killed more than 2,800 people. His remains -- along with his medical bag containing an ID -- were finally recovered near the north tower. Hamdani was not positively identified until March 20...

rsidhar #111: ``I apologise if i have offended you. I went into a fit when i read your post saying Gandhi took advantage of the Hindu-Muslim divide.``

I think there was a misunderstanding. Infact, all my posts were to try to prove that Gandhi did not belive in this divide. Or that if he did, then that too at an early stage in his political career, and that even that claim is debatbale (de·bat·a·ble: Open to dispute; questionable. www.dictionary.com)

``One could argue, one way or the other,`` were my exact words. Which means one cannot be sure if he did or did not do this even at the early part of his career (which the author of this article might be trying to claim that he did). However, it is quite a certainity that he didn`t do this anytime afterwards; infact he did exactly the opposite, as you have highlighted.

You will not find too many people who think low of Gandhi in Pakistan. This should be obvious from the replies on this site. The article I quoted from, which furthur quoted Wolpert, was actually written by a Pakistani writer.

So far the only negative views I have seen from Pakistan are from the secular fanatics (who are different from normal folk tending towards a moderate secularism). They seem to think that Gandhi was an evil, since he does not fit into their definition of secularism, or did not fit into that definition at some stage of his life. The fact that he is the only major Indian leader to outright (yes, outright and very strongly) reject India`s stance on Kashmir on the basis of human rights, is invisible to them. The fact that he was one of the only Indian leaders who tried to ensure that Pakistan survived in 1947, rather than crumbled, like many other Indian leaders wanted it to, is also invisible to them, etc. etc.

They are fanatically locked into trying to figure out whether throughout his life, he came up to their textbookish standards of secularism. A phenomenon which to fanatics is even more important than humanism. Just like religionism is more important a phenomenon to the fanatics on the opposite side, than humanism.

This is what happens when people tend to get lost in the secularism/religionism debate, and forget that these are mere means to and end, not ends in themselves. That end is humanism, and a society filled with human rights. One cannot rank anyone on how secular or religionist they are. One can only rank them on how humane they are. For, what good is secularism if it does not lead to humanity, and what good is religion, if it does not lead to humanity either.

And while Gandhi is still a study in progress from my side (I have only read up on the last stages of his life, so far), he gets quite high marks as a humane person, as far as I am concerned.

I think the next target of such fanatics will be Prophet Muhammad and Mother Teresa. After all, they were great humanists, but not a secularists.

Farzana

This awesome. Ii read this article a couple of times to get the gist of it.

Examine LK Advani:

``Today, the man who represents all that India is supposed to want is perhaps more rootless than many. From Karachi to ‘kar seva’ has been a long journey. ``

Very true. Yyes, that sense of rootless existence is pervasive among refugees of that age group, and to a certain extent has been passed down. The Sindhis tend to be more fanatical in this regard than the Punjabis, because the Punjabi refugees had Punjab to come to, and Delhi that was converted. The Sindhi Hindu refugee is truly rootless, and the idealogues of that genre are fanatical.

``Which is why he clings to his RSS/Jana Sangh background; it makes him feel a part of the action. In some ways he is like a new convert – he tries too hard. ``

What action do you refer to? Political? I think what you describe as trying too hard is actually a very intense desire to belong.

``Today we have a handful of people celebrating the man, reading out his will at memorial services, and a full-fledged fan club that was orchestrated by his brother.``

The handful of people have been around since 1947. It is an inconvenient fact that in 1947, the pinnacle of the freedon movement, during the time of India`s independence Gandhi was widely reviled and hated by a substantial number of Hindus.

``This gives it an underground operation legitimacy, somewhat like what happened during the freedom struggle. What we ought to know is whether Godse was possessed of a desire to further a cause, wreak vengeance or merely ensure his 15 minutes of fame.``

Consider the way Abraham Lincoln treated the South after the civil war. The South believed in a lost cause. Yet, after the war, Lincoln had the foresight to allow the South to retain it`s symbols, thereby draining the bitterness of defeat. In India, the government tried to whitewash the issue, pretending that the very existence of Godse was an anomaly. The unwillingness to confront these issues head on have lead to the present state of ``secular`` India today.

Farzana

This awesome. Ii read this article a couple of times to get the gist of it.

Examine LK Advani:

``Today, the man who represents all that India is supposed to want is perhaps more rootless than many. From Karachi to ‘kar seva’ has been a long journey. ``

Very true. Yyes, that sense of rootless existence is pervasive among refugees of that age group, and to a certain extent has been passed down. The Sindhis tend to be more fanatical in this regard than the Punjabis, because the Punjabi refugees had Punjab to come to, and Delhi that was converted. The Sindhi Hindu refugee is truly rootless, and the idealogues of that genre are fanatical.

``Which is why he clings to his RSS/Jana Sangh background; it makes him feel a part of the action. In some ways he is like a new convert – he tries too hard. ``

What action do you refer to? Political? I think what you describe as trying too hard is actually a very intense desire to belong.

``Today we have a handful of people celebrating the man, reading out his will at memorial services, and a full-fledged fan club that was orchestrated by his brother.``

The handful of people have been around since 1947. It is an inconvenient fact that in 1947, the pinnacle of the freedon movement, during the time of India`s independence Gandhi was widely reviled and hated by a substantial number of Hindus.

``This gives it an underground operation legitimacy, somewhat like what happened during the freedom struggle. What we ought to know is whether Godse was possessed of a desire to further a cause, wreak vengeance or merely ensure his 15 minutes of fame.``

Consider the way Abraham Lincoln treated the South after the civil war. The South believed in a lost cause. Yet, after the war, Lincoln had the foresight to allow the South to retain it`s symbols, thereby draining the bitterness of defeat. In India, the government tried to whitewash the issue, pretending that the very existence of Godse was an anomaly. The unwillingness to confront these issues head on have lead to the present state of ``secular`` India today.

ARE YOU OKAY?

In the best Indian tradition, let me first offer my heartfelt gratitude for the kind words heaped upon me by my fellow countrymen. I don’t think I need to point out the irony …that the Gandhian values you claim to support do not give such liberties. Unless, of course, this is what the Mahatma would have done in these trying times.

It is not only ridiculous, but unfortunate, when it is implied that I am “taking out my anger for what is happening in Gujarat” on Gandhi. This position of mine is not new. I do not care much for the digs about how much I have read etc simply because irrespective of what I read, I do not accept other people’s words at face value. I form my own opinions based on how I see a society develop. I may be representing my views, but it does not mean that they do not find an echo in others. While I do not claim to be a spokesperson for the ‘intellectual’ Muslims or the rest, I think I would be in a better position to gauge what the ordinary Indian Muslims think than those sitting in the USA.

I do not need to blame Gandhi for all the evils that beset Indian society, but I have every right, at a time when we are “giving it to those Muslims for the barbarism of the Mughals”, to do a historical check and see where it fits into the contemporary context. Aren’t many people constantly asking for certain religious texts and outdated personal laws to be reinterpreted? So, why a problem with a politician, even if he is a symbol of the Indian Freedom Movement? I find it strange that his being a ‘saint’ is enough to make him above reproach. How quick we are to canonise people. If he led a simple life, was celibate and cleaned toilets, does that make him a saint? I can quote many examples like Jayaprakash Narayan, Vinoba Bhave, to some extent even Morarji Desai…and may I add virtually all those who live below the poverty line? Would we call them saints?

If one individual is being given the credit for Independence, then he ought to be judged for the consequences as well. So, he travelled to villages…there are hundreds of grassroots workers doing so. But he also made full use of the munificence of the Birlas, living in the comfort of their mansion. And the fact that he could not sustain the lower castes to his side is borne out by the followers of neo-Buddhism as propounded by Dr. Ambedkar. And this allegiance applies even today. If Gandhi resisted Partition, so did a whole lot of leaders. In that respect, did not Maulana Azad take a bigger risk?

Regarding the main thrust of the article, I am surprised that so many of you agree that he declared Hinduism nonviolent, yet you cannot stomach it when I say that he introduced religion into politics. He constantly used religious references when we were fighting against a foreign power. Where was the need for it? And when another individual used it to create a nation, he became the villain. Why these double standards? Wasn’t he, in his own inimitable style, playing leaders against one another, knowing their fragile egos? Come to think of it, I think this tokenism that is being practised today by the saffron brigade can be traced to Maulana Azad’s fairly uncomplicated equation with the Mahatma. Which is why his role was reduced considerably and he became the showpiece and, god forbid, an Islamic scholar at that. What better stereotyping do we need? His meetings started with the chanting of bhajans at the ashram. (When madrassahs are promoted they are immediately linked to terrorism.) When his son converted to Islam, why did he make such a hue and cry? It is all right to go around preaching, but when it comes to the crux and your immediate environment, there is always a problem.

And the Muslims and Dalits are being called “ingrates” simply because they are questioning certain Gandhian ideals. If a man chooses to project himself as a messiah, then his inability to deliver the goods is his failure. The Muslims and the Dalits would have suffered a fate similar to the one they are now in, but at least there would not have been this huge neon light of their savior blinking at them before they reached the tunnel. And then to say he sacrificed his life at the altar of communal harmony…he was shot dead after the Partition, and it is already well-known that the words on the lips of every Indian Muslim was, please, please it should not be one of us. Why? Had the insecurity not set in?

Gandhi wasn’t a leader of men, but a shepherd.

PS: I suppose I must thank some of you for being so inspired by my “blabbering”, “anger”, and “whining” to insist on replicating it. And honestly, despite what I have written here, I do not think a “guttersnipe” like me saying these things should be in “the Mahatma’s favour”. I am sure he wasn’t that small a man.

PPS: Some individual replies will follow later.

Rsaxena,

I have already explained many times to you the difference between the concept of State Secularism (to which Jinnah adhered) and secular nationalism. To read both sides of the argument and my final analysis please read my article `Pakistan and Secularism`

http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/articledetails.php?artid=39

You will see that no one is denying that Jinnah supported Muslim Nationalism from 1940-1947, as he supported secular Indian Nationalism from 1906-1939 atleast, that is besides the point. I call him a secularist only because he wanted a complete separation of church and state, whether such a state was homogenously Muslim or a multicultural multiethnic state. If you read closely you will realize that both you and I are eventually arguing the same thing, while Romair is the one who is arguing the other way around.

If you persist with attacking me, it will only show that you have an agenda and you don`t want to even recognize what I am trying to say.



Romair,

I am saddened by your constant ignorant attacks on my person which are provoked by your ignorance and your own personal feeling of inadequacy and not to mention lack of a proper education in the field of Humanities (given your yes sir no sir PAF background, objectification of the `other` as wholly evil). I left the PAF for these reasons. They are so damned one track without rationality or reason. If you ever had a non-religious Madrassah institution, it was the Pakistan Military... where the Dogma is quite different. They make you so limited in your thinking that beyond what your job, you are unable to think without the nod from the daddy Mush above.

You persist on calling me a secular fanatic when you don`t even understand what I am trying to say. Furthermore you are misunderstanding my criticism of Gandhi which was repeated by most leaders of His time including the Poet Rabindranath Tagore (a close friend and admirer of the man). Gandhi is criticized for all those who have read him, including his most devout admirers, for supporting out right religious movements like the Khilafat Movement and the Shudhi Sanghtan Movements. This is the point this article makes.. Even his grandson makes the same point in his books!

Gandhi is unwittingly responsible for the religious chaos of the Subcontinent for he, in all good intentions, unleashed the forces of religious zealotry and piety, believing no doubt that religion is inherently good but the masses took to a whole new level. This is an accusation levelled by Gandhi`s Closest friends and is recognized even in the most hagiographic pro-Gandhi book `Freedom at Midnight` close to the end of the first chapter. As for Gandhi`s support for Kashmir or lack thereof, I really don`t care. I don`t think he is evil infact I believe he was probably well intentioned.

This is a serious question now : What do you think I believe in? Why do you keep calling me a Secular fanatic?

1) Do you think I am an atheist?

Ans: Cuz I am not. I am a practising Muslim, no matter how bad.

2) Do you think I want to westernize Pakistan?

Ans: I personally would like to see some westernization, but that is completely divorced from my view of `Secularism`.

3) Do you think I want to make Pakistan a `Secular` country/Nation?

Ans: I don`t care if its a secular country or Not or a secular nation or not!! Read this: I want Pakistan to be a `Secular` State. Pakistan is an Islamic country given its demographic, and a Muslim Nation given its leading civic value base. No one is changing that, and no one will be able to. But I want a secular state ie a state impartial to religion...

I adhere to John Locke`s idea of Government... The true end of the Government is only one... Provide Law and Order to protect Life liberty and Property of an Individual without any regard for religious, racial, or linguistic considerations. That is WHERE my secularism STARTS and ENDS.



I doubt that Mr.Umair Raja will understand what I am trying to say, and even if he did, he will continue to call me a `secular fanatic` just like he calls Sigalph an enemy of Pakistan, and calls the wahabi hating fundamentalist Naqshbandi, a Saudi Lover. Mr. Raja never could understand the complexities involved in Human interaction. It is either or... oversimpification... the sort of nasty over simplification that now Musharraf for the detriment of Pakistan is undertaken. God save Pakistan from such fools.

Pray tell Romair, what extremist secularism is and moderate secularism is, and whats the difference. I was under the false impression apparently, that either you can give your minorities equal rights or you can`t. Either you could be a theocracy or you can`t.



A Story for All:

Now I will tell all you kids a story. There was once a young Military Officer (unlike other officers he did have a mind of his own, who went into Battle after reading Quran because he was so damned superstitious. He won almost every battle he led his troops into. One such battle in the first world war, gave him a collossal opportunity to get into the driving seat of his nation.

In 1919, our hero gave a sermon as the Imam in Erzurum Mosque... He made the following points:

1) Islam is the most natural religion. It enjoins the pursuit of Knowledge on everyone.

2) Islam is a religion of reason and rationality.

3) Islam should be freed from the clutches of the clergy and everyone especially the common man should know the true meaning of Islam.

4) The best interest of the nation is the best interest of God and the prophet.

Later on this officer resigned his commission, and became the President of his nation through a parliamentary election. In the first constitution, he included the clause `Islam shall be the religion of the state`. Furthermore he told a french reporter : `The Islam that I practise is completely compatible with reason and progress.`

This officer-turned-president was hailed all over the Muslim World as the `Champion of Islam`, the `warrior of faith`, and his name soon became so popular that everyone was naming their kids after him. His pictures were all over the mosques and he became the number 1 hero of the Muslim World and the most glowing symbol fo Islamism.

Using this influence, the Officer-President started a noble mission. To reform Islam and make it compatible with modernity and the 20th century. In order to do this he did away with the theocratic system of the Khilafat, introduced latin alphabets, and ordered immediate translation of the Quran in Turkish. The mullahs attacked him calling him Kafir.. the undisputed hero of the Islamic world was declared by the Mullahs to be a heretic and a kafir.

He continued this campaign, but the Mullahs won`t let up, so in the end, he instructed the Grand National Assembley to take the `religion of Islam` clause out of the constitution. He came to the conclusion, disappointed by the Mullahs, that Islam was the enemy. He was forced in the other direction. Amazingly however, even in 1936 he was found trying to get his Islamic reforms implemented, but the `muslims` were way to reactionary and obscurantist to give way to his bold endeavor.

Moral: Moderates are usually forced into becoming extremists, by fools!

Romair,

`secular or religionist`

I believe in Islam and its eternal message as a Muslim. I also believe in the state being secular (note NOT Country or Nation but state).

So what am I? A secular fanatic or religionist?

Seriously your nonsense doesn`t make sense. Now you are trying to find support from Indians for your ill founded positions against me by making a strawman fallacy about me. I have nothing against Gandhi or his religiousity. I have only objecting to his politics, an issue that has been brought up by many people as I have mentioned in my previous post.

In essence I have the same objection to Gandhi, that Tilak, Jinnah, C R Das, Chaman Lal, M C Rajah, Rabindranath Tagore (who admired Gandhi greatly), Dwarkadas Kanji, Motilal Nehru, Srojini Naidu (and she too was Gandhi`s greatest supporter), Dr. B R Ambedkar, and other such leaders of his time had! Given that you have little or no knowledge of the History, outside of Wolpert`s analysis which is only part of the story, I don`t expect you to understand.

But here is something that might help you understand. Gandhi, inspite of the religious maniac that he was, seemed to endorse the Nehruvian Secular state that India was to become in 1947. So here it is... I am only as much a secular fanatic, as Gandhi (the religious mahatma), Pandit Jawahalal Nehru or M.A.Jinnah were!

Read my previous post. Maybe it will broaden your limited victim-of-the-PAF horizon.

-YLH

PS Old Adage : Little Knowledge is Dangerous.