The Mahatma’s Progeny

Re: sigalph

{{``it is like KKK kicking out all the non-whites, Jews, and non-catholics ``

You mean non-Protestants of course}}

yes...thanks for the correction...

re: tantrologician #166

right on

Rsaxena,

My claims about Jinnah are the truth and nothing but the truth. I have no claims about Pakistan, except that I wish to make it according to Jinnah`s vision of a secular democracy.

In any event If there one word that fit you wonderfully .. it is Hypocrisy.

You say

``nations built on the premise of religion - one religion - cannot purport to be secular, or at best can only do lipservice to theconcept...unless they start off that way and over time fluorish as multi-religious, diverse nations with strong democratic principles...``

Dude didn`t you like Support Israel till a few days ago, which is an exclusivist theocratic Jewish state, with a law ingrained in its constitution which allows for only Jewish immigration. Or do you think by throwing out the Arabs by force, Israel became a multi-religious multicultural diverse state? That has to be the biggest lie and further elaborates your skewed mentality which is an indication of your inferior intelligence and lack of depth when it comes to objective knowledge.

Pakistan is based on a concept atleast 1000 times MORE just than Israel.

1) Unlike ISRAEL Pakistan did not say that every Muslim in the world was a citizen of Pakistan, ...

2) Unlike Israel, Pakistan didn`t claim 70% of the land while having 30% of the population.

3) Unlike Israel, Pakistan is not based on some religious millenial aspiration of a wandering jewish people, but on the principle of the right of self determination which was EXERCISED only after the `Best Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity` M.A.Jinnah had failed in his life Long mission of keeping Hindus and Muslims together in India.

4) Unlike Israel, Pakistan didn`t bring millions of its correligonists to maintain a certain character. Yet you call Israel secular. Wonderful. And you admit that religion-based states can start off that way, but become multiethnic secular democracies in due course of time. Israel has never endeavored to be anything but a theocratic Jewish state. And For the record, only homogenous states can become multiethnic multicultural democracies through tolerance, while in artificial Unions such as India, Gujurats happen..

5) I don`t think Pakistan is perfect or a secular democracy but that it was envisaged as such.

6) Jinnah`s views are very clear, he had created Pakistan out of compulsion, but it wanted Pakistan to evolve into a state, where Hindus will cease to Be hindus and Muslims will cease to be muslims and everyone will evolve a Pakistani identity instead of a religious one. This vision has NOT been realized, partly because Jinnah died so early. But

then people like you love jumping down the throat of people like me ..

7) No objective Historian can accuse Jinnah of partaking in exodus of Hindus. Even your first high commissioner calls Jinnah `the

I have already expressly made clear my views and I have always followed them up with proper historical evidence. If you have problems with them, please go and take up the issue with intellectuals like Patrick French and many of your own countrymen including the JNU Professor Dr.Ajeet, whose works I have quoted, and who have the exact same view of history as I. A closer examination of Jinnah`s life, which obviously you don`t have the courage to do, in its entirety and his political career, and the fact that no honest historian can accuse him of throwing the non muslims out will lay to rest your ill founded concepts of reality.

That Jinnah appointed a Hindu as Pakistan`s first law minister, and that the Pakistan Movement had complete support of the Punjabi Christian Parties and scheduled caste Hindu parties, and Dalit parties, should suffice to undo your horribly bigoted analogy with KKK. Maybe it will serve you some good, to learn some history of how ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Punjab aided and abetted by the Indian Government started a cycle which undid the delicate balance of Minorities that was envisaged by the Lahore Resolution. You have to remember that the Partition arrangement clearly spoke against a transfer of populations, but rather the creation of two Secular states, one Muslim Majority and one Hindu Majority.

That you continue to argue with me about this, while my posts are not aimed at you shows your obsession and mania. That you have never picked up a book on the topic and actually posted any historic evidence relying to 2+2 strategy of learning history through TV, shows that your Ivy League education didn`t do you any good.

In any event, Secularism is a practical necessity for Pakistan and not some goody goody liberal view. According to a new estimate there are close 15 million christians in Pakistan, close to 3 million Hindus, and 100 000 sikhs, parsis and Buddhists, plus the presence of nearly all of 73 sects of Islam.

For the record I have never laid claim to any multi ethnic multicultural country. Pakistan is a Muslim Country, and it will continue to be so. If Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state and create exclusive immigration laws for jewish people, Pakistan too has a right to exist as a Muslim country. Nevertheless, I stand for a separation of church and state... and thats it. That is a practical demand.



Appendix Jinnah`s Speech which answers why he made Pakistan... and in which he clearly states that he never believed in religion-based nationalisms except as a reality which had posed itself and which should be undone.

Jinnah`s 11th August Speech:

I know there are people who do not quite agree with the division of India and the partition of the Punjab and Bengal. Much has been said against it, but now that it has been accepted, it is the duty of everyone of us to loyally abide by it and honourably act according to the agreement which is now final and binding on all. But you must remember, as I have said, that this mighty revolution that has taken place is unprecedented.

One can quite understand the feeling that exists between the two communities wherever one community is in majority and the other is in minority. But the question is, whether it was possible or practicable to act otherwise than what has been done, A division had to take place. On both sides,

in Hindustan and Pakistan, there are sections of people who may not agree with it, who may not like it, but in my judgement there was no other solution and I am sure future history will record is verdict in favour of it.

And what is more, it will be proved by actual experience as we go on that was the only solution of India`s constitutional problem. Any idea of a united India could never have worked and in my

judgement it would have led us to terrific disaster. Maybe that view is correct; maybe it is not; that remains to be seen.

All the same, in this division it was impossible to avoid the question of minorities being in one Dominion or the other. Now that was unavoidable. There is no other solution. Now what shall we do? Now, it we want to make this great State of Pakistan happy and prosperous, we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well-being of the people, and especially of the masses and the poor. If you will work in co-operation, forgetting

the past, burying the hatchet, you are bound to succeed. If you change your past and work together in a spirit that everyone of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what is his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this State with equal rights, privileges, and obligations, there will be on end to the progress you will make. I cannot emphasize it too much.

We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community, because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish.

Indeed if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free people long long ago. No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for this. Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this.

You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State. As you know, history shows that in England, conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed

and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. The people of England

in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and

Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the

Nation.

Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State. Well, gentlemen, I do not wish to take up any more of your time and thank you again for the honouR you have done to me. I shall always be guided by the principles of justice and fairplay without any, as is put in the political language, prejudice or ill-will, in other words, partiality or favouritism. My guiding principle will be justice and complete impartiality, and I am sure that with your support and co-operation, I can look forward to Pakistan becoming one of the greatest nations of the world.

I have received a message from the United States of America addressed to me. It reads: I have the honour to communicate to you, in Your Excellency`s capacity as President of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, the following message which I have just received from the Secretary of State of the United States: On the occasion of of the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly for Pakistan, I extend to you and to the members of the Assembly, the best wishes of the Government and the people of the United States for the successful conclusion of the great work you are about to undertake.

Sadna,

Quite Frankly you haven`t read about Jinnah enough. Your comment was sad and misguided. Given that Rsaxena is uneducated, I could understand his mistake in understanding the issues, but I thought you were not so unaware. Your comment shows how Jinnah`s many contributions have been obscured in India due to unnecessary hostility and demonization.

In 1915 at Lucknow, he had not stood up as the leader of the Muslims. He was a Member of the Congress Party as well as the Muslim League, which he had joined on the condition that Muslim League wholeheartedly supported the Congress Party in its fight for self government. If you pick up Jinnah`s speeches in the Legislative Council, and then the `National Assembley of British India`, you will see that most of his speeches are on (between 1910-1939) :

1) The uplifting of Dalits and scheduled castes

2) Condemnation of Imperialism Jinnah had resigned twice, one time at the behest of Gandhi to protest Rowlatt Acts. His speeches make fascinating reading.

3) Educational Reforms including bills on basic literacy and expanding government schools. He was instrumental in the bill that was passed in the council expanding education to the masses.

I will quote his speech in this regard

He said

``It is naive to equate education with sedition. It is the duty of every civilized government to educate the masses, and if you have to face unpopularity, if you have to face a certain amount of danger, face it boldly in the name of duty ..... You will have the whole educated public with you in the struggle on the battlefield.``

4) Equal benefits for Indian Soldiers in the British Army. M.A.Jinnah`s major contribution was getting Indians commissioned in the British Army.

5) Opposing 295 A the Blasphemy Law passed by the British, which Jinnah thought would infringe on academic freedom to criticize Religion and its origins. (Ironic Pakistan now has 295 C)

Jinnah had lead mass protest against Lord Wellingdon (for which J.M.Hall in Bombay was dedicated to Jinnah.. it stands for Jinnah Memorial Hall.) This protest was done to speak against the injustice that the British Government was doing to Tilak. In 1927 Jinnah had organized another strike to protest the Simon Commission which had no Indian Members. Both times Jinnah`s followers were mostly Hindus.

The fact is that Jinnah did more than enough for the Hindus of India. But his fault was that he was a Muslim and a westernized one at that, and a Muslim could never get the same popularity as a Hindu Mahatma pretending to Mahavira and Buddha. Being a cool calm and rational lawyer, he couldn`t use the emotional tactics of the Mahatma, nor could he see the unleashing of religious forces to be fruitful...

As Gandhi put it so eloquently `Mr.Jinnah from the Minority community`. Ah if only people like you were objective and able to look beyond the unnecessary hagiography of Gandhi.

Sigalph 158,

As is obvious from his other posts especially with respect to his love of the occam`s Razor.... Rsaxena is a naive little boy with little or no knowledge about anything. His theories are based on his casual flipping of channels and catching a sound byte here and there.

How can he know that Klu Klux Klan is entirely White protestant. How can he know that Catholicism is a minority religion in the US, with

hispanics (and italians amongst whites) forming the majority.

His comparisons, his analogies, are often apples and oranges.. based on simplistic notions of History, without any regard for the complexities of the Human interactions, and the paradoxes which are abnormally as high an occurence as the normal happenings. His comparison of the India`s war in Kashmir, to US`s civil war was another sad representation of his mal-formed brain, with deficient brain cells probably caused by over excessive use of Nitrus Oxide.

-YLH

Re: Raveena, the Suxman, #155

``between your pop, 2 uncles, and grandpop, what`s the need for a 4th``

Alas, they are dead and gone, pumpkin. Their behind would`ve been all old and crumpled, unlike yours, which is tight and smooth. They wouldn`t have any teeth left and their gums gone bad, unlike your nice teeth and strong gums and a tongue just to die for, munchkin. Mmm, Mmm, good. 4th one? No my pumpkin, munchkin. No need to worry about that. Who`s talking about getting married, pumpkin. My Suxman, munch, munch, my munchkin.

I have never read a more eloquent reply than 130... how do you do it Ms.Versey?

`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? Wouldwe call them saints?``

And this:

``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 beingpractised 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.``

No answer from the Indians... this is TOO fine, Too Realistic, so very true for Philistines on these boards!

Thankyou

Atleast there is some sanity left in this world.

temporal (#23):

[...cannot help but notice this ...whereas there are hindus who hang their heads in shame AND are actively criticising modi and company...

...we do not find even a few who are ashamed or actively criticise the targetted killing of minorities in pakistan...]

The latter part of your statement could best be answered by Pakistanis, though it would be a pity if there is no expression of solidarity towards minorities. However, that should not be mere lip-service.

This brings me to your statement about Hindus hanging their heads in shame over Gujarat. I have already posted a note on Harsh Mander’s Board, but since it has been brought up here, let me quote and explain…

Apr-4-02 13:22:48 EST Reply #: 10

Farzana Versey

This article has got extensive coverage in the Indian media, and a good thing it is. But the people who have suffered cannot say they will not be able to sing `Saare Jahaan se accha` again, they cannot dare to say they are ashamed of being Indians. No secularist is going to pat them on the back. Because the Indian Muslim uttering these very same words of anguish will be expected to first go through the acid test of patriotism. Has any Muslim, even among the liberals, come out and said that he/she feels like hanging their heads in shame? No. Don`t ask me why. Ask yourselves, and then Harsh Mander will make more sense.]

There have been Indian Muslims who expressed anger over the Godhra train massacre, but they were not specially appreciated for it. Individuals hanging their heads in shame is no palliative and I can say with certainty that once the political process moves ahead, all those incidents will be forgotten.

Atal Behari Vajpayee visits the state after one month and is more worried about how he will show his face to the world. How can he show his face to us? And what does he do on his tour of Gujarat? He spends 50 minutes in the mangled coach of the train, and 20 minutes each at a Muslim and Hindu relief camp. What the hell does this mean? What message is he trying to convey to the minorities in the state? Forget Modi, can we trust this man?

lh,

F

Since Studebaker and Shammi also want a clarification to this post…

When I said that we haven’t seen even Muslim liberals saying that they felt like hanging their heads in shame, I was not alluding to Godhra (pardon my saying so, but why was it the first thing that came to your minds? I had not mentioned Godhra in my note)…I meant why could they not as other Indians feel ashamed to be citizens of this country over what has happened in the rest of Gujarat.

I have been reading some posts about how India has a secular constitution, a secular judiciary, a secular this and a secular that. On paper it has all of these. But if a state cannot protect its citizens, and political parties do not follow judicial orders, then it is a farce of a democracy. I do not understand why we have to constantly compare ourselves to Pakistan or some other Islamic countries whenever the Hindutva proponents act up.

Shammi (57, 59,121):

I think by now you have got the gist of what I was trying to say…you have even explained it to others…and if I get into long-winded discussions, it might only make things worse. However, let me look at some of the points you make…

[Continuing failures are largely OUR fault -- the fault of the present generation -- we cannot talk, argue our way out of OUR moral lapses by blaming some in the past. For the current times, WE must accept responsibility.]

Agreed about the latter bit. But, history does have a snowballing effect. We are victims of it. Don’t forget that the current political situation is entirely due to the Hindutva need to prop up Lord Ram. And it is done in a very organised manner. Every week I get at least two huge packets by courier from the VHP with literature promoting their cause and critical of anything else. So, this does seep in to create a movement.

[These organizations disavow Gandhi`s main thesis -- truth, tolerance and non-violence.

If they borrow some of his symbolism (fasting, non-cooperation) then that can hardly constitute `following` in his footsteps.]

The following in his footsteps need not be literal. The saffron lot too believes they are upholding truth, I hear them talk of tolerance all the time (just heard Praful Goradia dismiss secularism on TV and say we should instead be tolerant) and while they may not avowedly talk of non-violence they do claim that they want to march peacefully to their Ram Lalla’s janmasthan. Now, whether you beat up or get beaten up (as in the case of Gandhi’s followers) violence becomes a part of the credo.

[There have been other leaders who have been inspired by religious morals and have earned world respect beyond their immediate religious flock -- Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., Dalai Lama. Mother Theresa (missing any?) and Gandhi belongs in that category. The one thing that they shared with Gandhi was non-violence and tolerance.]

All the three are legitimate people of religion. King fought for civil liberties for the Blacks, a minority group; the Dalai Lama is fighting for a legitimate land for the Tibetans; Mother Teresa was for the displaced, poor and dying in the tradition of Christian charity. They had a core group they were/are addressing. Gandhi, at a time of political sensitivity, was making use of religion to justify political goals.

And if he did not accept any office in Independent India, that is exactly what the stalwarts of the VHP, Bajrang Dal etc believe in.

[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]

Einstein propounded a theory; Gandhi practised it. We have been told Hindutva has varied connotations.

[I could not understand some of your statements, `The anathema and anachronism get transformed into Authority.` -- What does that mean in plain English?]

Okkkaayy…the rebel and the outsider get sucked into the Establishment and become its greatest proponents.

And thanks for keeping the discussion alive and maintaining the dignity of this Board.

Regards

dost-mittarjee (#62):

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on the major point. And you must be up to your gills with the surfeit of views already expressed. But yet…

[The Hindus do not ALWAYS start a communal trouble but the Muslims ALWAYS end up being the biggest victims because the police collaborates with the cowardly Hindu mobs.]

I think your definition of cowardice is certainly different from the Mahatma’s.

[As far as Gandhi`s use of Ram Rajya is concerned, I`m sure you are aware that to Hindus, the term is similar to Suleiman`s wisdom or Adl-e-Jehangir,i.e., devoid of any religious significance. You could probably more justly accuse him, as Jinnah did, of using muslim religious passions re. Khilafat for his political ends.]

Yes, I do believe Jinnah was right. But I do not think you can dissociate Ram Rajya from Hinduism. The Ramayana has religious sanctity; it is not just another epic. When the televised version was being screened people would light incense sticks, and treat that hour as puja and touch the feet of the actors. Muslims go by the Book and anything else is denied a religious stamp whereas Hinduism does offer a veritable choice and it is upto its practitioners as to how they use or abuse it.

I wish we could get to the root cause of vandalism. Until then, we can only wait.

Regards,

Farzana

Stuka (129):

You don’t seem to have any violent disagreement with me in your post, except that you had to read the article twice. Guess how many times I have had to read it :)

Godot (#104):

Well, thank you etc…you might now have problems getting much help in your translation of Premchand :) Ok, now may I request you to desist from indulging in the unseemly battle here? Really, the language is yuck…sorry about this, but I think you will understand. Besides, I don’t think Jinnah needs to be sanctified by the West. A good leader is one who sets the tone of what his own people ought to do and is remembered for that.

Yasser:

Thank you for your kind words. I guess I can lecture you a bit now. I have been following your posts. There is no doubt that you know your history and contemporary politics, and I don’t care whether you are objective about these or not. However, I am often disappointed to see you get into futile arguments with those who do not deserve such indulgence. Where is the need to ‘explain’ a point over and over again, if you say you have already done so? Many a time you lose a war because you get into a duel. Your arguments ought to be left as they are without getting into mud-slinging, and it does not matter who has started it. You may take this ‘advice’ or leave it. But think about it.

Regards,

Farzana

Einestein`s comments about Gandhi need to be looked at with suspicion, given that old Uncle Albert was a major contributor to the A-Bomb panic and hysteria, which finally led to the deaths of Millions... It is this kind of lipservice which is dangerous.

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

Dear Farzana:

I find it funny that the people you are trying to equate Gandhi are the one`s who killed him. I never realized until I read what you wrote that murderers and their victims can be equated.

Gandhi is known and shall remain know YLH or not YLH, whether people like it or not, for his philosophy and implementation of non-violence and non-cooperation as the movement. This quest for such action is just as much part of human nature as hunger is.

Gandhi, like any other persons of his time, including Jinnah, used religion at one time or the other, in their own way. When we move down from Philosophy to religion to further down the gutter, only then you find the murderers of Gandhi and maurading crowd in Gujrat of today. These mauraders are so far away from Gandhian philosophies, that you may have to a lot more to understand the phenomenon. Many years ago when I visited New Delhi, I had such a discussion with a couple of hindu fanatics. After five minutes they were only trying to convert me, I had to simply sit and listen to their contradiction for several hours, every time I would say something, atleast 30-minutes were added to this attempted brainwashing.

Please point to me a Hindu-Pakistani who writes or has written about Jinnah in the way you wrote about Gandhi. It is the beauty of the Indian system that you live in and I remain proud to be associated that we can express ourselves. Indian system will move toward more political correctness. Your expressions would be just as important in this shift, as the resistance from the mauraders. During my student days in 70`s I saw resistance to change among certain group of students in the UK and the US. They were supportive of the massacare at Kent State. Where are they now, probably in a dumpster somewhere. Make it happen, Farzana. That would be the most important contribution toward making India more politically correct.

Both minorities and fragmented Hindu majorities would have to accomodate, for the past wrongs done in the name of religion, whether imagined or real. I would continue to encourage you to keep expressing your views, as it such expressions which allow political correctness. I feel political leaders and economic leaders in Gujrat must own all the blame.

I am confident, your Gandhi character, if he were alive today, would have acted right away. He wanted to visit hindu-muslim riot torn areas of the Punjab with Jinnah, before he was killed. He would not have been silent observer, like rath yatri - Advani, or Modi. Gandhi would have done what he did in 1946, moved into a muslim home with Suhravardy in Calcutta. You must not forget such historical facts when you pull you pen or keyboard out next time. More research on Gandhi on your part is needed.

I know it must be very emotional for people like yourselves who so much believe in Indian system. Your writings show it to me, but see continued assault on your value system, as if it must not be counted. The time is not to despair, but bring powerful expressions. The fragmented hindus are not behind such mauraders.

Keep at it, Farzana.

ANIL

Zafar:

``My feeling is that India does not want a polity totally divorced from religion - it wants one which acknowledges the divine - Gandhi articulated one which had room for many understandings of the divine - therefore one which the most of us aspire to.``

I dunno about you, but I am totally ready to send these religious types to the place they belong...with God. If God can create Praveen Togadia, Urstruly etc etc..then he is welcome to enjoy their company as well. Secularism in India means ``respect for all religions``...wonder which deranged idiot thought that one up..what about Wiccaism? should we respect that too? Does Nihilism qualify as a religion as well...

What is I set up a religion called Stukaism, which calls for the elimination of every non Stukaist..How the hell anyone`s gonna respect that.

Problem with Hindus is that they think they are so godamn enlightened that everyone should but naturally follow their example. That`s what Gandhi`s problem was too...I know where he could shove his inner spiritual voice too.

tantralogician-various

Shrimaan ji,

I can feel your anger against prophet Mohammed.

Unfortunately he is dead but there are over 100 million muslims in India.Why dont you go there and kill some to take your revenge.I would have

invited you to Pakistan to kill the muslims here

but I don`t think you will be very keen to come

to this `hell hole`.Happy killing.

PS: Are you by any chance related to Mukhya Mantri

Shri Narendra Modi?