Myths about the Golden Age of Islam

friend:
P.S. I also am under no illusions as to Gandhi`s profound, if not politically readily visible, effect on the collective pysche of both Indians and non-Inidans alike. Take whatever I might have said here about the mahatama with a pinch of salt.

P.P.S... Whatever gave you the idea that my opinion on Nehru was formed from reading only ONE book by Wolpert? Also, the quotes you provide from the Jinnah papers lend themselves to the suggestion that Jinnah was dictatorial, but i don`t think megalomaniacal.

anilkv #289

The fortunes of a state should not tied to a single person. I hope Pakistan`s is not tied to Musharraf.

PM
//...am I possibly mistaking icons and history books here?...//

You are mistaking pretty much everything. You have NO clue whatsover :)

First of all - it was the great grand-nieces, not grand-daughters. Jeez man - get your facts right before you start fa@ting away on chowk. Because, here in chowk we are very particular about such things :)

Anyway - who told you that the fasting, praying half-naked faqir achieved the alleged independence for India? Anybody who claims that, is trying to brain-wash you. Stay away from such people - you got that Mian?

Now - british were already shamed to death in that big-a$$ war which was supposed to end all wars. They didn`t need any more shames - either by a jacka$$ lawyer`s ``constitutional arguments`` or by the prayers of half-naked faqir. They were tired and one fine morning in Aug 1947, they just left. And 12 million fools started killing each other - a million were masacred within a few days.

That`s the way you got your ``independence``. ``Shaming by argument`` or ``shaming by naked great grand-nieces`` has nothing to do with it.

PM

PostScript: Please read that piece on ``How Patrick Masih Got His Independece From British`` very carefully. That concludes the first lesson on your re-education process.

On your way out, please pay $375 [which includes a 25% premium, since you started completely clueless] at the front desk. If you don`t have the resources - you can apply to the CPEF [ Clueless Pakis re-Education Fund] - set up by the generous chowk staff for helping people like you to get a re-education on things that matter.

If you need deatails - contact YLH, Tahmed. They are the stars of the alumni. [Even though , Tahmed may need a few more classes. He has lapsed a bit lately.]

Good luck :)

PM #286
1. Impression based on only one book (it appears that too a cursory reading) can be misleading. References quoted by me are from Jinnah papers- Jinnah`s own output. You used a very specific derogatory term against Nehru, and spared Jinnah from that label. My objection is to that. Use same yardstick.


2. Coming to your another statement on Gandhi - What did he achieve in South Africa by his peaceful protests. Read ``punch`` and other British news papers (1909 and later).. If you do not have time than just look at editorial cartoons in papers of that time. They will indicate what impact Gandhi was making on policies in South Africa.

Patrick Massih,
I thought you were old enough to stay away from ``experiments with his naked granddaughters``..
I guess you are not, and you are inviting some interesting comments. Resorting to personal life of Gandhi is only option when people are not able to find flaws in his professional life.

#281 taqat-e-p

The lis of CSIS speakers typically includes, apart from US politico-economic leaders, leaders from sudan, georgia, slovakia, turkey, albania, kyrgyz, heads of some political parties in japan, south korea, bostwana, azerbaigan etc... all regions of active or semi-active US interventions.. so Iam not sure musharrafs speech ther eis a cause for pride.. it`s pure US interests.. I would rather Manmohan use his talents for india instead of wasting time in foriegn countries giving useless speeches...

``So Jinnah achieved independence for muslims by ``shaming and persuading`` the birtish with ``law and constitutional arguments``?

No, duh!! he got it not only for the Muslims but for all of India by shaming the British by fasting, praying, satyagraha and thru experiments with his naked granddaughters.

ummm.. or am I possibly mistaking icons and history books here? :-)

friend,
An answer to the questions in your @273 demands an amount of time I simply don`t have on my hands. The short answer, however, is that my impression of Nehru has been formed chiefly from Wolpert`s accounts. And don`t dimiss him either. The man has probably read more on Indian politics and history than any Indian!

Which is not to say i dislike Nehru. He was a socialist to the core-- impossible for someone like me to dislike!

#275 by Manto,

Nehru`s megalomania is apparent in all of his actions...Let us not forget that he jailed his friend Abdullah and then lied about it for many years...This is just one of the examples...

The last time Manto mentioned treatment of Abdullah by Nehru in the context of the terrorist maqbool butt, I replied with the trechery of Abdullah (reproduced below), in reply to which, Manto, without a single comment against it, diverted to my lack of ``basic english comprehension`` and zeroed in on one word ``eulogy of Busharraf``.

This matches up with Manto`s pattern of raising hue and cry over foul personalities and when presented with facts; ignore, divert or relegate to personal abuse.

What the below mentioned cleary highlights as opposed to what Manto wishes you to believe, is that Nehru treated Abdullah the way he deserved it, as any trator should be.

About Traitor Abdullah:
please do explain what prompted him to jail Shaikh Abdullah

Communalism of Sheikh Abdullah

Sheikh Abdullah was the product of that Aligarh Muslim University which had produced many leaders for assisting the Indian Muslim society in adopting the path of separatism. The founders of the ``isms`` of Muslim nationalism, Muslim fundamentalism and creation of Pakistan were produced from the same university. Sheikh Abdullah had received M.Sc. degree from the university and was appointed a science teacher in Government High School, Srinagar. From this very place he started his political activities.

In order to establish his political base in Kashmir the Sheikh decided to collect and incite Muslim youths against the Maharaja. He gave up his service to intensify his political activities. However, Dr. Gori Nath Rastogi has, in his book ``Our Kashmir``, written that the Sheikh was sacked because of immoral behaviour. He had already received, as a gift from the Aligarh Muslim University, the seeds of communalism in his mind and the sacking from the services further inflamed him. His mind was inflammed with hatred against the Maharaja and he started plans for promoting religious passions. The British diplomacy had the need for such a person in Jammu and Kashmir.

Sheikh Abdullah started encouraging communalism openly. He launched a movement on the basis of the demand for Government posts for the Muslims, their share in the administration and religious freedom. Inflammatory speeches from mosques began communalising the entire atmosphere. The Sheikh also succeeded in giving Islamic hue to the entire movement. How was this dye ? Gopinath Shrivastav has given information about this dye in his book ``Kashmir``.

.....

PM
//... he read the situation and knew exactly who he was dealing with-- an Empire on its knees, yet one capable of being shamed or persuaded to do things with an appeal to law and constitutional arguments...//

So Jinnah achieved independence for muslims by ``shaming and persuading`` the birtish with ``law and constitutional arguments``??? :))))

Boy, you are an one-man freak-show. Look - we all appreciate your belated effort to shore up Jinnah Defence - but you are not helping at all. In fact, you are making it worse. ``Shaming the british to give muslims independence`` sounds like a line straight out of Saturday Night Live :))

So leave Jinnah Defence to Manto - he can handle it alone. OK, big guy!!

taqat-e-parvaaz # 281

`` i love it when indians rant and rave about musharraf. it proves he`s got them by their tiny yoohoos. if musharrafs just a dismal general (a glaring indication this was written by a frustrated indian), whens the last time manmohan singh, or any PM of india, spoke at harvard?? or ISIS? ``

#280 was a LA Times editorial. I should have indicated it. My mistake.

I care less about Musharraf. In the beginning I thought he would be different from Zia or Ayub. Did he promise to step down in 3 years ??? 5 years ??? But he has gone down the same path as both of them.

In response to your question when was the last time Indian PM spoke at CSIS or Harvard ?
Personally I did not give a squat. I hope most of them don`t give a diddly squat about giving speeches at CSIS or Harvard :-) What is this slavish mentality towards Harvard and CSIS ? I have nothing against either of them.

#280

i love it when indians rant and rave about musharraf. it proves he`s got them by their tiny yoohoos. if musharrafs just a dismal general (a glaring indication this was written by a frustrated indian), whens the last time manmohan singh, or any PM of india, spoke at harvard?? or ISIS?

There were three great minds of that era: Ambedkar, Iqbal, and Gandhi.. These three had the most original and comprehensive theories of the futures they were trying to create.

re: # 257
The article that avenger has posted should be an eyeopener for most Indians who think they can be friends with Pakis.
Sridhar

Just Another General

January 9, 2005

On Sept. 11, 2001, the main protector of the Taliban — and Al Qaeda — outside Afghanistan was the government of next-door Pakistan. But by the next day, President Pervez Musharraf had responded to Washington`s ``with us or against us`` ultimatum by throwing in with the United States. Sort of.

Musharraf then had been running Pakistan for two years, having seized power in a coup. After the 9/11 attacks he promised to step down as army chief of staff while keeping his presidential post, a promise he repeated as each year dawned. But when 2005 arrived, there was the president on television, telling the nation he just couldn`t take off the uniform yet: He needed to keep his army post so he could continue fighting terrorism.

That argument is not totally specious — Musharraf has twice survived assassination attempts by Islamic fundamentalists — but unless he does a far better job of using his combined civilian and military posts to improve Pakistan`s economy, educational system and political institutions, he`ll be just the latest in the country`s dismal list of generals who seized power and refused to let go.

Musharraf has rigged elections, proclaimed himself president and constantly insisted to Washington that it`s him or terrorism. After turning to hard-line Islamic parties for support, he is now trying to use the secular Pakistan People`s Party to undercut the Islamists.

The best thing for Pakistan now would be for him to let the PPP`s leader, Benazir Bhutto, back into the country and let her party and the rival but also secular Pakistan Muslim League choose their own candidates in elections.

When Pakistan promised to help hunt Osama bin Laden and block Al Qaeda fighters from fleeing across the border with Afghanistan, Washington rewarded it by ending sanctions and ordering an aid package of up to $3 billion. But the U.S. should insist on value for the money. The Bush administration should demand that Pakistan establish secular public primary schools to compete with fundamentalist madrasas that preach hatred of all religions except Islam.

Musharraf also has stiff-armed Washington in its attempts to talk with Abdul Qadeer Khan, who helped North Korea, Iran and Libya pursue nuclear weapons. The general claimed Khan was a ``rogue scientist`` and then pardoned him. Musharraf`s claim that Khan acted without the knowledge of top generals and civilian leaders is laughable.

Pakistan has alternated for most of its 57 years of independence between rule by corrupt civilian governments and by army generals. If Musharraf does nothing to improve his country, Washington should call him to account. The U.S. has billions of dollars worth of leverage; leaving it idle does no one any good.