Youth Without Borders

anonymous,

Dude... Ayesha Jalal and Khalid Bin Sayeed don`t write fiction literature nor are they western writers... they are historians who are Pakistanis. I am being critical of my OWN homeland... because I love it, and I want it to succeed... I am not going to gloss over our faults... I am not going to sweep the dirt under the carpet.

Rabbani is a liar, and it is people like him who try and pass off Islamist lies as History, who are Pakistan`s greatest enemies. They have cut off our youth from the facts..


Naqshbandi,

Mir Jaffar was not found in the ranks of Tipu Sultan. Mir Jaffar was Nawab Siraj ud daula`s General, and was later installed as the Nawab at Murshidabad. He probably never even came into a 500 miles radius of Tipu.

-Manto

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

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

A very happy independence day to all Indians and Pakistanis on this site. Hope you had/have a nice day

Vijay

#317 Stuka

{{They were different only in the sense of geography and religion. Both were expansionist rulers.}}

No sir. There is a far more salient difference. In Punjab, Ranjit Singh was a local, a Sikh ruling Punjabis and in the main appointing Punjabis, of whatever religion, as his subordinates, with his roots firmly in the soil. It is to his eternal credit that he gave the Afghans, traditional foes of Punjab, a monumental thrashing. Whereas Hyder Ali in Mysore was an adventurer with North Indian (apparently Punjabi) and eventually middle-eastern antecedents. He and his son Tipu had no ancestral ties to Travancore/Kerala at all and were rank interlopers there. On attaining power in Mysore, these two, in the typical fashion of Islamicate rulers in various parts of India, adopted Persianised manners and culture, which are totally unrepresentative of Karnataka (let alone Kerala., which they tried but failed to conquer). In further accordance with the familiar Islamicate pattern, Tipu described his campaign against Travancore as a jehad and tried to gift the perfect religion to the locals, massacring those (not just `Hinoods`, BTW) who declined.

{{``In any case the historical record of Islamicate dynasties in India has been abysmal. …”

A fair case can be made of the exact sentiment for the likes of the Peshwas, the Sikhs etc. The term dynasty is used loosely by you ... British rule had its pros and cons. Beyond minor details, the pros and cons hold trye for Islamic as well as non Islamic dynasties.}}

Yes, I am using the term dynasty loosely (similarly with ‘Persianate’).

There is a specific pattern characterising five/six odd centuries of Persianate rule in various parts of India, which is that, without fail, they imported worthless fortune-hunters from Central Asia, Persia, Afghanistan and the like to lord it over the locals as administrators. Also, without fail, Persianate dynasties sooner or later throw up religious fanatics like Aurangzeb (or Zia-ul-Haq, to use a more recent example). This is the abysmal record I was referring to. Kerala was very fortunate to completely escape the joys of Persianate rule – Tipu was the closest they got.

The Marathas got as far south as Thanjavur (which was, for a period, their southern capital). The families of the administrators they sent south became completely Tamilised in language and culture – it is difficult (for an outsider, at any rate) to tell them apart from other locals. A striking contrast from the normal pattern with those who came from Central Asia seeking their fortunes in the service of Persianate rulers.

British rule had plenty of cons – the greatest of which two centuries of impoverishment by the giant sucking sound – but it did have the one great benefit of extinguishing Persianate political power once and for all. That was essential to eventual representative government of Indians by and for Indians.

The Tiger of Mysore, the great ghazi and shaheed, His Excelleny Hazrat Muhammad Tipu Sultan--the pride of the musulmaans of al Hind and al Sind, the great martyr, may Allah perfume his resting place and raise his stations even higher. He is far above any criticism which sick minds can throw at him as he enjoys a life which we can not even imagine. (It is understandable why the horrible hinoods hate such a great Muslim ruler who kept the British at bay for so long--because he was a great Muslim warrior but it is sickening and sad to see so called Muslims also slandering him). He was unfortunate to have traitors like Mir Jafar and Mir Sadiq in his ranks--it seems their ideological descendents are still alive and well today to slander such great shuhada as Hazrat Haider Ali and his son Tipu Sultan--rahmatullah alayhima wa ridwaan.

razz #307 you write ``Kashmir IS the core issue because our politicians, generalists and nationalists have made it one....``

I see that you avoid saying ``because the people of Pakistan`` or the ``people of Kashmir`` consider this to be the core issue. Instead you talk about ``politicians, generalists (I assume you mean generals) and nationalists.

From this it is clear that you are precisely the type of scumbag people rant about on chowk when they talk about the hijacking of Pakistan. That is, you identify the national interest not with the interest of the people of Pakistan, but with the subset of individuals who happen to have come to power through force. There is nothing left to discuss, since you and I have different goals: I am concerned with the interests of the vast majority of Pakistanis, you are concerned with the interests of the 0.001 percent of the population that happens to be in power. End of discussion.

mantolives_
awwk (shakes me head) listen homie all i had ta say was lets stop denouncing our books and stuff. there is absolutely nothing wrong with liking ayesha jalals book or khalid bin sayeeds indeed i admire such literature although i have yet to finish reading either! ure right i am frustarted. frustrated at how naive and stupid all of us are in beimng so carelessly over critical of our homeleand! the fact that we all feel so strongly against most things in our country yet do minimum about it is a true proof of our doublestandardness and sorry mate but hypocrisy gets my steam going! no hard feelings but i do find it a little harsh to be dismissed as an ignorant fanatic just coz i have a different view! and well while we can claim rabbanis text book aint all that good a little encouragement to its attempt might go a long way! you might want to check out its new version it sure is a proffessional display if unapealing to you! neways your the master of your own gutt!! :):) s`all fine by me! as for my sanity?? talk about claiming other ppl dont know wwhat theyre talking about! but like i said common cornered response! guess i m not the only one frustarted and confused around here nor the only ignorant one somewhere along the line a manto lives.........:):) ciao

Aleph Null:

``There are very big differences between the cases of Ranjit Singh and Hyder Ali/Tipu Sultan. Their situations are in no way comparable.``

They were different only in the sense of geography and religion. Both were expansionist rulers.


``Tipu was not above using the justification of jehad when it suited him. He is rightly execrated in Kerala, and not just by Hindus. ``

Similarly, Ranjit Singh used the call of the Khalsa to fight against the Pathans. Just as Tipu has a negative portrayal in parts of Kerala, Ranjit Singh`s benevolence did not extend to Pathans or even to the battles fought with the hill Rajas of Kangra or for that matter the Dogras before they swore allegience to him. Religion was used as a tool for conquest by both and yet within the parameters of internal administration, both were secular.

``In any case the historical record of Islamicate dynasties in India has been abysmal. It was absolutely essential for India’s eventual self-rule that the likes of Tipu be crushed. If it had to be done by the British, so be it. ``

A fair case can be made of the exact sentiment for the likes of the Peshwas, the Sikhs etc. The term dynasty is used loosely by you. If you are referring to a system of monarcchy, then every individual ruler has to be similarly assessed. British rule had its pros and cons. Beyond minor details, the pros and cons hold trye for Islamic as well as non Islamic dynasties.

Mantolives #310

{{From what I understand, which has now been reinforced by your post, is that Ranjit Singh was a Tipu Sultan like figure... only from my own city.}}


Stuka #311

{{It is interesting that you compare Ranjit Singh to Tipu Sultan. There are Hindus who demonize Tipu as a Moslem Jehadi which is far from the truth….Similarly Tipu Sultan did not attack Malabari Hindus because of their religion, he did so to expand his kingdon. The religious bent is provided later.}}


There are very big differences between the cases of Ranjit Singh and Hyder Ali/Tipu Sultan. Their situations are in no way comparable. Tipu was not above using the justification of jehad when it suited him. He is rightly execrated in Kerala, and not just by Hindus. In any case the historical record of Islamicate dynasties in India has been abysmal. It was absolutely essential for India’s eventual self-rule that the likes of Tipu be crushed. If it had to be done by the British, so be it.

Yogiraj,

You are right... but India is on the right track as you admit. My aim is to put Pakistan on the right track as well. Slow progress is better than no progress.


anonymous,

While we are on the topic, explain to me what books did I mention which struck you the wrong way? I mentioned Khalid Bin Sayeed`s formative phase... show me how that is anti-Pakistan... The problem is your confusion. You are so confused and frustrated that you have lost all sanity. As for my comments about you... I do feel if a person who criticizes something who he doesn`t know anything about is an ignorant fanatic. That is just a gutt feeling I have.. I might be wrong.


Rabbani`s textbook is a horrible book, indicative of the fact that O level standards have gone down in a spiral ...

-Manto

Mantolives,

``#293 Now I`ve seen everything...

To think that one day, I, ylh, an avid Jinnah admirer, and a proud Pakistani nationalist, would be denounced as anti-Pakistan by an ignorant and uneducated fanatic just because I support the facts and I support peacemakers?``

Friend,

Do not worry. We have equal or more idiots on our side. We just seem to have a more tolerent populace.

Come and visit India once my friend, and I will take you to places where there is no sanitation, healthy drinking water or a hospital. And that to me is what my nation and my people need.

I would have to accept one point though. We do think we are going on a right path, and this is not a browny point I am scoring. Problem is we are slow..too slow... agonizingly slow.

Yogiraj Patil

312

Yeah dude.. whatever...

We all know who is cornered...

-Manto

manto lives _
tutut looks like mr manto lover took things to heart! look my good man, in no way am i saying all the books published by oxford or cambridge have some ulterior anti muslim motive but if we are going to be denouncing our own publications blatantly then we really shouldnt expect much! in ure ``sophisticated`` tastes u forgot books like the pathway to pakistan and the supremacy of leadership ``a tributre to jinnah`` low quality paper and pakistani printing kind of makes it agreeably unpalatable at first site but trust me the material in it is worth evry cheap penny it costs! my point being that not all pakistani books suk and none that i know dubb ole jinnah as a mullah on the contrary they highlight the fact that many a time the mullah types have been against his ideologies even ure beloved favourite writer for whom u drip with affection yes i mean rabbanni! so u know take a minute and think about thiungs before u so carelessly dismiss pakistani books and remeber there are always people to criticise us so why should we do it ourselves! and that i believe is a common trait in all u stupid naive we know it all coz hum angreezee boltai hain elitists!
asa for calling me ignorant thats ok i am used to it most of u hoity toities revert to that logo wen cornered :):) i m kinda immune to it! dont forget to chekk out these books love
bubye

Bhagat Singh is a hero in the Indian lexicon. Unfortunately he was also a socialist. It is interesting that you compare Ranjit Singh to Tipu Sultan. There are Hindus who demonize Tipu as a Moslem Jehadi which is far from the truth. Ranjit Singh did not victimize Pathans because they were Muslim. He just wanted to capture their land. Similarly Tipu Sultan did not attack Malabari Hindus because of their religion, he did so to expand his kingdon. The religious bent is provided later.

Tthere is no uniformity amongst people. Look at Aurangzeb and Dara Shikoh, two brothers and what a great contrast.

Stuka,

Thankyou for that information. You are right... running down Ranjit Singh is a post-Pakistan phenomenon, as a matter of fact, only of recent (25 year) origin. However I know Pakistani historians and columnists who glorify the great man. Like I said, my personal view of Ranjit Singh is based on little observations I have made, like reading the slab at the Badshahi mosque, and I have concluded that Ranjit Singh has been demonized unfairly. Ranjit Singh`s Mari is a historic shrine and a landmark in Lahore. From what I understand, which has now been reinforced by your post, is that Ranjit Singh was a Tipu Sultan like figure... only from my own city. Isn`t it amazing that my generation has been divorced from the knowledge of great men of the land that is now Pakistan... while we glorify distant heroes?

I was introduced to another great son of the soil, Bhagat Singh, by accident... while reading up on Jinnah`s life... It was Jinnah`s speech in the legislative assembly in defence of Bhagat Singh, which made me curious as to who this Bhagat Singh was ( I had only heard the name before)... I found him to be an amazing hero, a revolutionary in Che Guevera mould.


-Manto