The Naked Fakir

Mantolives popular opinion is not the same as academic inquiry. Every historian worth his salt knows Gandhi`s biggest weakness was his social conservatism, it was inevitable in a soul that was religious, for the caste system was an integral and living part of hinduism. But still gandhi is a positive icon on the whole, just as the majority of the muslims follow the good teachings of mohd. so do Indians follow Gandhi`s positive aspects. His ``maun vrats`` may look disingenuous, since he took one also on the day of final partition negotiations, but the thinking behind them was well thought out just as Mohd.`s revelations were.

dost mittar

In interact 30 u are right on the whole but here you are again unconciously revealing anti muslim bias in this statement ``or to stop anti-muslim riots in Calcutta, he never used the same weapon in Lahore or to force Muslims to give up their demand for Pakistan, because he knew that his weapon would not work with the Muslims. ``

Gandhi used his `` weapon `` to stop anti hindu rioting in a pedominantly muslim district of Noakhali as well, he used to use it where he felt the demonstration effect would be maximum and where he had a chance. Gandhi didnt use his weapon in Lahore, but then he didnt use it in Ferozpur or Patiala or Jullunder either, even in Delhi he was ineffictive.

Both Jinnah and Gandhi were not sexy and that should be counted against them.

Other than that they were a product of their own environments and acted that way. If Gandhi was a racist then at least he was honest enough to come out and state whatever he believed in. That to me is a qualification when we look at Gandhi’s persona overall. He never denied what he wrote in SA and he never repeated his politics from South Africa to India and adjusted to Indian realities of several religions and respect for every religion while following his own beliefs the way he saw them.

Jinnah was more of a constitutionalist and he adopted western thoughts readily. However, he too respected all religions without probably subscribing to any. He took up the Muslim case and fought like an honest lawyer and did justice to his client. I seriously doubt that he at anytime was emotionally taken over by the extreme fanaticism that is often part of religious politics.

Strangely, Godse was possibly, more liberal in his religious outlook than Gandhi but Godse ended up being known as a religious big0t and fanatic and Gandhi held the secular flag firm.

Jinnah probably an agnostic led the struggle for a homeland for Muslims that ended up in the hands of obnoxious religionists and heavily influenced by fanatics. Gandhi led to create a nation of many faiths and his country too is drifting towards the religious fanaticism.

Let them both rest in peace…They both were beaten by the countries they created.

Mantolives #72
I did not mention the Gandhi-Irwin pact in #63, I quoted and cited Durga Das on Gandhi meeting personally with Irwin to appeal for clemency and commutation of death sentences of Bhagat Singh and his colleagues. And btw, Durga Das was himself present in the Central Assembly during the attack as anyone who reads the link for himself will know.

But I don`t think a majority of chowkies are honest enough to read that link (or the African National Congress one of AlephNull`s in #69) so I encourage you to keep ranting and they will continue to believe your lies.

CINEMA & HISTORY

A tale of two Bhagat Singhs

Two recent films on the legendary revolutionary draw attention - one for its inaccurate rendering of history and another for its largely objective narration of facts.

SUDHANVA DESHPANDE


THIS monsoon, it is raining Bhagat Singh in Mumbai. There are five films on the revolutionary in various stages of completion. Two or three have been released.

This event has been greeted with considerable cynicism. Far from signifying an upsurge of Left ideas in the commercial film industry, the five films are seen as examples of the cannibalisation of an authentic, anti-colonial people`s hero for the sake of profit and jingoism. Two of these films come with the prestige and money power of big banners attached to them. One, Shaheed: 23 March 1931, is produced by Dharmendra and features his younger son Bobby Deol as Bhagat Singh, while elder son Sunny Deol plays Chandrashekhar Azad. The other, The Legend of Bhagat Singh, comes from Tips Films with Ajay Devgan playing the lead under Rajkumar Santoshi`s direction.

THE HINDU PHOTO LIBRARY
Bhagat Singh.

There is more than enough reason to look at both films sceptically. Sunny Deol starred in the biggest box office success of 2001, Gadar, one of the most communal and jingoistic films in recent times. Subsequent- ly, he evolved a brand identity around a potent combination of anti-Muslim, anti-Pakistan rhetoric in films such as Maa Tujhe Salaam and Indian. Getting younger brother Bobby Deol to do Bhagat Singh is clearly an effort to cash in on the brand image.

Rajkumar Santoshi`s films, on the other hand, have been a mixed bag. His early hits included Damini, where a rape victim is defended by an alcoholic lawyer (played by Sunny Deol), and Ghayal, where a youth (Sunny Deol again) is caught in the vortex of mafia violence. While in these films Santoshi displayed touches of sensitivity normally absent in commercial directors, his recent films have included Pukar, a jingoistic, rabidly anti-Pakistan film, for which its hero Anil Kapoor received the National Award for the Best Actor from a jury that included the editor of the mouthpiece of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

The Deol version of the cinematic life of Bhagat Singh has been entirely predictable: historically inaccurate, loud, tasteless and pop-patriotic. The other, the Rajkumar Santoshi version, has sprung a surprise: contrary to the fears of sceptics including this writer, it has turned out to be well-made, historically more or less accurate, sober, and, in the context of commercial cinema, politically progressive.

Bhagat Singh, of course, is one of the most enduringly charismatic figures of the Indian anti-colonial struggle. A martyr at the age of 23, his life and struggles have passed into countless folk songs, plays and films. In popular perception, Bhagat Singh is seen as a fearless patriot who did not hesitate to sacrifice his life at the altar of freedom for his country. If all that one had as evidence of Bhagat Singh`s life was the first of these two films, Shaheed: 23 March 1931, one would not be faulted for thinking that he was just a romantic, raving and ranting, nearly jingoistic youth. He wears designer jackets as an ethereal Aishwarya Rai not only sings and dances for him, but even presses his legs. Worse, he seems perpetually to wear an expression that says, ``Look at me, I`m so cool.`` In a recent interview to a film magazine, when asked how he had prepared for the challenging role, Bobby Deol claimed that while he did not read a single word on Bhagat Singh, he was told stories of the hero by his grandmother. Hence Bobby Deol knew that Bhagat Singh loved his mother a lot, but also that he loved his country more. Fittingly, then, Bobby Deol`s Bhagat Singh looks thoroughly moronic throughout the film.

The film is full of inaccuracies. For instance, Lala Lajpat Rai, the Congress leader who later went with the Hindu Mahasabha, is shown to be a Ghadar Party leader! Even the basic chronology is sometimes unclear, as is the location of several scenes. The film is a typical product of the Mumbai film industry, where the market and its perceived preferences overrule all else. As a result, none of the comrades of Bhagat Singh, played as they are by lesser-known actors, register. Forget about Bhagwati Charan Vohra or Phanindranath Ghosh, even Sukhdev and Rajguru appear merely as appendages to the hero. As one leaves the film hall, one is hard-pressed to remember even what Rajguru looked like. However, his is probably a better fate than that which befalls poor Sukhdev, who is played by a glamorous model and is remembered only for that reason.

The film, like any Mumbai potboiler, showcases the hero, Bobby Deol, at the expense of all else. Except, of course, elder brother Sunny Deol, who appears as Chandrashekhar Azad, the legendary revolutionary who, when cornered by the British police, preferred to shoot himself than be captured alive. In fact, initial reports had indicated that Sunny Deol was going to direct the film. When it became clear that Santoshi`s film was going to be released in June, Sunny Deol, hard-pressed for time, handed over the direction to his cousin Guddu Dhanoa. Sunny Deol himself stepped into the role of Azad to boost the star value of the film. Sunny Deol merely repeats his by now well-known film persona - a loud, jingoistic, what some call earthy but is, in fact, merely an uncouth he-man with rippling biceps. Expectedly, Bobby Bhagat and Sunny Azad monopolise screen time. And on screen, the two brothers seem merely to play out their real life relationship - kid brother forever deferential, forever hoping to match the achievements of big brother. In the event, the film becomes a love story between two brothers.

There is not a single scene or dialogue in the film that tells us anything about Bhagat Singh`s ideology. But what is most unforgivable is that he is turned into a theist and a Hindu nationalist. Early in the film, we see Bhagat Singh singing a patriotic song at a function where the backdrop on the stage has an image of `mother` India, a woman`s picture rising out of the suitably saffron map of the country. This, of course, is an image one sees everywhere, and is systematically disseminated by the RSS. And in the RSS image, as in the film, the country is seen in its original, undivided state, which is also the fascist fantasy of the future akhand Hindu rashtra. In the Dushehra bomb scene, Bobby Bhagat metomorphosises into a Ram-like figure, setting the effigy of Ravan on fire with a shot from his pistol. Later in the film, when his mother comes to meet him one final time, Bhagat Singh asks her not to be morose, for he will be born again. When asked the perfectly reasonable question of how she is to recognise him in his future birth, she is told to look for the mark of the hanging on his neck. And later still, when the prison official comes to him pleading that at least now, in his final hour, he should recall God, Bobby Bhagat refuses because, first, he does not want people to think he is afraid of death, and second, recalling God is only an external act: God resides in each one of us!

COURTESY: TIPS FILMS
From The Legend of Bhagat Singh, in which Ajay Devgan plays the lead role.

This comes from the mouth of the man who, awaiting death in the condemned cell, wrote thus in that famously spirited celebration of atheism, `Why I am an atheist`: ``I know in the present circumstances my faith in God would have made my life easier, my burden lighter, and my disbelief in Him has turned all the circumstances too dry, and the situation may assume too harsh a shape. A little bit of mysticism can make it poetical. But I do not want the help of any intoxication to meet my fate. I am a realist.`` And a socialist, he may have added. For Bhagat Singh`s atheism was not a matter of personal vanity, as he was at pains to point out. He embraced atheism because he was fighting for a just social order. ``British rule is here not because God wills it, but because they possess power and we do not dare oppose them. Not that it is with the help of God that they are keeping us under their subjection, but it is with the help of guns and rifles, bomb and bullets, police and militia, and our apathy, that they are successfully committing the most deplorable sin against society - the outrageous exploitation of one nation by another. Where is God? What is he doing? Is he enjoying all these woes of human race? A Nero, a Changez: Down with him.``

His atheism was not a mechanical subscription to a conspiracy theory, but actually quite nuanced. He wrote: ``Unlike certain of the radicals I would not attribute [the] origin [of the idea of God] to the ingenuity of the exploiters who wanted to keep the people under their subjection by preaching the existence of a supreme being and then claiming an authority and sanction from him for their privileged positions, though I do not differ with them on the essential point that all faiths, religions, creeds and such other institutions became in turn the mere supporters of the tyrannical and exploiting institutions, men and classes. Rebellion against the king is always a sin, according to every religion.``

To turn this militant atheist into a believer and a Hindu nationalist: a greater insult to the memory of a revolutionary can scarcely be imagined.

For that is what he was, a true revolutionary, not a romantic terrorist. He, along with his comrades, was clearly moving towards socialism and Marxism when his life was brutally snubbed out by the colonial regime. Two of his comrades were Shiv Verma, who helped found the Communist Consolidation at the Andaman Cellular Jail, and went on to become the Uttar Pradesh State secretary of the undivided Communist Party of India, and Ajoy Ghosh, who became the general secretary of the undivided party. This aspect, that Bhagat Singh was not a lone hero, but a part of a remarkable group of revolutionaries, is something that the Santoshi film, The Legend of Bhagat Singh, brings out quite admirably. Not only does Ajay Devgan bring passion and maturity to his portrayal in the lead role, his supporting cast - Sushant Singh as Sukhdev, D. Santosh as Rajguru, Akhilendra Mishra as Chandrashekhar Azad, Raj Babbar as Bhagat Singh`s father Sardar Kishan Singh and Farida Jalal as his mother - are all superb. The other revolutionaries, Jatin Das (who died on the 63rd day of the epic group hunger strike undertaken by the revolutionaries in jail for better living conditions), Bhagwati Charan Vohra, Shiv Verma, Ajoy Ghosh and Phanindranath Ghosh are not only mentioned but their faces and personalities linger in the mind long after the film is over. Particularly powerful is the hunger strike sequence. The camera moves slowly from face to emaciated face, revealing for the viewers both the tremendous hardship undertaken and their iron resolve.

Much of the politics of the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (HSRA) is also brought out in the film. In fact, in a powerful speech at the historic Phirozeshah Kotla conference of the organisation (where the word `socialist` was added to the original name of Hindustan Republican Association), Bhagat Singh outlines his vision of freedom. According to him, freedom cannot mean merely the replacement of the white man by the brown man while exploitation of the masses, the workers and the peasants continues. Freedom must stand for freedom from want, hunger, poverty, and oppression; in a word, socialism. This is a theme that runs through the film. Early on, as students, when Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Bhagwati Charan Vohra are first introduced to the idea of socialism by their teacher Vidyalankar, in the background pictures of Marx and Lenin; through the film, Bhagat Singh stresses the need to reach out to the workers and peasants; visuals of striking workers in Bombay being lathi-charged are shown as a prelude to the revolutionaries deciding to protest the Trade Disputes Bill and the Public Safety Bill; when they are asked in court if they even understand what their slogan means, we see each of the revolutionaries spell out the meaning of revolution in a stirring sequence of pithy one-liners; and finally, as the jail staff come to march Bhagat Singh to his death, we find him reading Lenin. Shockingly, if press reports are to be believed, the Board of Film Certification intervened to have some more references to Lenin and the Communist Party edited out.

COURTESY: TIPS FILMS
To his right D. Santosh, in the role of Rajguru, and to his left is Sushant Singh, as Sukhdev.

What also comes out is the revolutionaries` commitment to secularism. This is brought out in songs and in many scenes, but what is perhaps most significant is when, early in the film, we hear the revolutionaries disapproving of Lala Lajpat Rai`s flirting with the Hindu Mahasabha. That the film actually criticises Lala Lajpat Rai is significant, not simply because he is a nationalist icon, but because it is his death that the revolutionaries avenged by killing the police officer Saunders. Nor is Bhagat Singh`s atheism concealed. His mother makes a reference to it fairly early in the film, and finally, as he mounts the steps of the gallows, he says to the prison official who implores him to remember God: ``I have neither fear of death, nor belief in God.``

THE other nationalist figure who comes in for severe criticism in the film is Gandhi. This is cause for some uneasiness, given the RSS antipathy to the Mahatma. Yet, the fact remains that Gandhi`s role in the whole episode was questionable. It may be recalled that talks between Gandhi and the Viceroy, Lord Irwin, began on February 17, 1931, and culminated on March 5 with the Gandhi-Irwin Pact. Bhagat Singh and his comrades were hung on March 23. What did Gandhi do in these 18 days? Certainly, he did not make the commutation of death sentences to life terms a condition for signing the pact. Although he later claimed he tried his best to save the young revolutionaries` lives, is it entirely true? For a balanced answer to this question, one can turn to A.G. Noorani`s excellent study, The Trial of Bhagat Singh (Konark Publishers, New Delhi, 1996). Noorani says: ``Gandhi alone could have intervened effectively to save Bhagat Singh`s life. He did not, till the very last. Later claims... are belied by the record which came to light four decades later. In this tragic episode, Gandhi was not candid either to the nation or even to his closest colleagues about his talks with the Viceroy, Lord Irwin, on saving Bhagat Singh`s life.`` What the film also brings out is that it is the growing influence of the revolutionaries that forced the Congress, which had until then been asking for dominion status, to adopt purna swaraj as its slogan.

THIS is, of course, not to say that the Santoshi version is flawless, cinematically or politically. For instance, one would have liked to see more of the substance of Bhagat Singh`s brilliant defence in court, not just its rhetoric, or to find some reference to his fierce opposition to the caste system. Moreover, Bhagat Singh`s intellectual calibre is not fully apparent, nor is his voracious reading. His love of poetry is, likewise, absent. Even more jarring is the absence of Ashfaqullah, one of the main architects of the Kakori action, from the film. The British, particularly Lord Irwin, come across as somewhat dull in the head, as does Nehru. And the romantic angle could have been avoided. Lastly, while Ajay Devgan performs with dignity and fire, there is some merit in the argument against casting an established star in such a role: you keep seeing the star, not the revolutionary.

What is interesting, however, is that a film like this has actually been made in the times we live in, when the commercial film industry has been virtually taken over by the saffron brigade. Not being an insider, one can only hazard a guess - more than Rajkumar Santoshi, perhaps the credit for this should go to Anjum Rajabali and Piyush Mishra, who have written the script and dialogues for the film. While Rajabali is known to have a progressive background, and has in the past taken public positions on a range of social issues, Mishra, a National School of Drama graduate, has been associated with a progressive theatre group in Delhi. (In fact, a play by this group on Bhagat Singh scripted by Mishra has been acknowledged for having provided some of the background for the film.) Even if infrequently, then, the fortress of commercial Hindi cinema can be breached. Regardless of the fate of the film at the box office, that surely is cause for a small celebration

Re: # 82
//....I seriously doubt that he at anytime was emotionally taken over by the extreme fanaticism ...//

Well - jinnah ordered ``direct action day`` - which was basically an open call to create mayhem and spill blood.... That`s as extreme as it gets....

Somehow Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King Jr. missed that one out and now a community college educated Pakistani has taken it upon himself to educate the world about how racist Gandhi ji was.

Hindvi......if Gandhi was a `social conservative` , how does that explain his getting up at 4 am in the morning , picking up the broom and helping out the so-called untouchable janitors in cleaning up the community toilets ? Infact , one of the strictest rules in Gandhi`s ashram was that everybody cleaned their own toilets - regardless of their caste or birth. Inter-caste marriages were also encouraged.

I am no admirer of Gandhi and hate him for fasting to blackmail the newly formed Indian nation to give away 1/3rd of its treasury to Pakistan , at a time when India and Pakistan were fighting a war over Kashmir. I think Gandhi put his beliefs , and his ideals ,noble as they were , before national interest .

But Gandhi was no racist. Gandhi was in many ways a naive fool , but a good kindly saintly man. A true follower of Jesus , Gandhi`s views are relevant in a perfect world , a world without vices , without evil. Show the other cheek when slapped ain`t really an attractive concept anymore. Just doesn`t work.

---

That idiot Yasser Hamdani is repeating as usual his `Gandhi=Racist` rants. The idea is to build up on his pet Jinnah by crapping on Gandhi. Silly really. Nobody apart from the subcontinent types have heard of a guy called `Jinnah` ....while every 10 year old child from Barcelona to San Francisco has heard of a modern day saint called Gandhi.

As another equally famous man Albert Einstein said , Gandhi was , ``Greatest man ever who walked on the earth...``

What a puny little insecure fool like Hamdani thinks is immatereal really. As per reliable sources , the fool was bullied by his own students in the high school where he worked as a teacher for a while .

All interactors;

It is recommended that when quoting excerpts, please provide the following:

(1) the complete section content – not just individual sentences lifted from here or there – so that the overall intent is not (inadvertently or otherwise) misrepresented.

(2) the accurate date – since most individuals evolve over time (except those who are already dead (intellectually speaking)) so that archaic statements which were eventually disowned as people grew intellectually (except those who were already dead (intellectually speaking)) do not get (inadvertently or otherwise) misused.

Thank you!

Sincerely,
Beej.

---

Re: #74 Man-to-li(v)es

Are you talking to ME?
Are you TALKING to me?
Are YOU talking to me?

what is most interesting is how pakistanis are missing out on legacies and their markting values. some prophets and saints have good marketing value, and some have bad. e.g. buddha and gandhi have very +ve value. however, pakistan has been associated with talibanic bombing of buddha statues. manto is doing something similar. he is completely missing out on an apportunity for his nation.

over next 12 months i expect an article from Thomas Friedman about his stay in Lahore and him lamenting how pakistanis hate their freedom fighter, mahatma gandhi and bhagat singh, but love the movie Gadar. manto will get a special mention in a box, exemplifying this hatred. then there will be a 60-minutes special where haroon will be quoted describing gandhis racism to an amused ed bradley.

so, get some bania style and do the right thing.. latch on the +ve. gandhi, buddha good. gandhar civilization good. dictators bad. taliban bad. ...you get the idea.

Jang....I dont know how it was when you were a kid in India , but through out my school years, all kids used to hate Gandhi. Not because of the reasons given by that idiot Manto (`Gandhi=Racist`) , but because of the intense dislike for Gandhi`s non-violence and `turn the other cheek to the enemy when slapped` philosophy. On the other hand , Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose was everybody`s favorite historic figure.

So funnily enough , Gandhi is held with contempt today in the country he brought freedom to -India , and idolised and admired by the people in the ex-Imperialist West. So Gandhi is today much more of a global western icon than an Indian political leader.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Before I continue (and continue I shall) I must put to rest this Sadna woman and her claims. One thing that must be noted about her style... she operates on omissions... more often than not the source she points to proves to misquoted or wrong. Her dishonesty was on full display in the CMP discussion a few months back. She started off by claiming that CMP provided Muslims `` 50-50 parity`` ... a claim that she had to eat soon thereafter... after which she came up with a hairbrained idea that federations with 3 subjects can`t be federations... when shown that there was no such legal definition... she
smoved away and claimed that Foreign Affairs were a communal issue...

So it is not a surprise that she thinks everyone acts like her.




Beej,

What a cop out...

I have given you the page numbers ... go read for yourselves. A casteist bigot and a racist bigot arguing for white supremacy and Indo-Germanic stalk can have no other context....

My posts addressed to you are there... each of them has a citation. Please feel free to check them... I have been told that Gandhi`s works are online now... on some website... surely it can`t be that hard given that you are quite an expert at providing absolute nonsense... why don`t you go and check.


Now... I shall start from where I left off..

Sincerely

YLH

To be read in conjunction with posts 72-78

On Minority White rule in South Africa:

We, therefore, have no hesitation in agreeing with the view that in the long run assisted Asiatic immigration into the Transvaal would be disastrous to the white settlement. People will gradually accommodate themselves to relying upon Asiatic labour, and any White immigration of the special class required in the Transvaal on a large scale will be practically impossible. It would be equally unfair to the Natives of the soil. It is all very well to say that they would not work, and that, if the Asiatics were introduced, that would be a stimulus to work; but human nature is the same everywhere, and once Asiatic labour is resorted to, there would not be a sustained effort to induce the Natives to work under what would otherwise be, after all, gentle compulsion. There would be then less talk about taxing the Natives and so forth. Natives themselves, used as they are to a very simple mode of life, will always be able to command enough wages to meet their wants; and the result will be putting back their progress for an indefinite length of time. We have used the words `gentle compulsion` in the best sense of the term; we mean compulsion of the same kind that a parent exercises over children


For Beej who is apparently BLIND: Indian Opinion, 9-7-1903, CWOMG Vol. 3, pg 359-360

CWOMG: COLLECTED WORKS OF MAHATMA GANDHI.

Gandhi`s `racist` stances are despicable in any context and I condemn them, without reservation or qualification.

Did Gandhi ask for a separate nation because Indians couldn`t live with blacks and were totally separate civilizations? I am not aware that he did. Jinnah did, however.

So I condemn Jinnah for his sustained campaign from 1938-1947 about how either Hindus must be denied a majority over Muslims or a separate state should be granted to Muslims because Hindus were a people who would destroy Muslims and Islam in India.

It was not a territorial nationalism that he was advocating - he insisted to Gandhi in Jinnah-Gandhi talks in 1944 that the (30%) nonMuslims in regions likely to go to Pakistan must have no say in whether Pakistan must come into being or not.

Till independence, he also refused to concede ever that any other party except his Muslim League could represent Muslims of India - even the 30%? odd Muslims who were to be inevitably be left behind in divided India were to have no common representation with fellow Indians in the Indian constitution-making group A according to his nonnegotiable stance on this issue.

After independence he refused to allow Pakistani nonMuslims to join the Muslim League because he apprehended conspiracies and threats via nonMuslims to the very existence of Pakistan.

I condemn those who are highly selective in calling Gandhi racist for his stances and Jinnah not racist, for his stances.

First of all , Manto , you must tell us what the school children did to you. That might explain a lot.

THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT GANDHI not JINNAH.

Sadna has now started another lie ... as usual if one goes to the source of her lie about Jinnah ... one will find that Jinnah had himself initiated the idea of a ``Pakistan League`` which he had abandoned choosing to resign instead as the President of Muslim League.
She claims the opposite ofcourse... when had she read the Jinnah papers she would see that Jinnah was pretty much arguing that Muslim League had lost its purpose. Ironic... but the same Jinnah is saying that the idea of having a national organisation is not irrevocable.

Ironic that this liar is claiming that he stopped non-muslims from joining the ``Muslim`` League because he suspected them when

a) Jogindranath Mandal was appointed by Jinnah on a Muslim League seat in the interim Government

b) Jogindranath Mandal was the FIRST LAW MINISTER of Pakistan in the Muslim League government by Jinnah...

Ofcourse... it was expected that Sadna would lose all balance ... because like Gandhi, she too is without dignity. Sadna as usual has farted ladies and gentlemen... and she shall pay for stinking up the place.

To be read in conjunction with posts 72-79 and 91

Returning to Gandhi ...

What the British Indians pray for is very little. They ask for no political power. They admit the British race should be the dominant race in South Africa. All they ask for is freedom for those that are now settled and those that may be allowed to come in future to trade, to move about, and to hold landed property without any hindrance save the ordinary legal requirements

Petition to Natal Legislature, CWOMG, vol3, pg 330