Revenge of the Secularists
Fahd Raza March 29, 2006
#140 Posted by Inquirer on April 10, 2006 1:22:08 pm
Re: # 139, Mantolives:
The purpose of Chowk is to seek points of convergence with understanding even among the most divergent of thinkers. Meanwhile, I guess, you got a chance to enjoy.
The purpose of Chowk is to seek points of convergence with understanding even among the most divergent of thinkers. Meanwhile, I guess, you got a chance to enjoy.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#139 Posted by MantoLives on April 6, 2006 8:53:39 pm
Ah... how lovely... lovers` tiff between strange bed fellows....
Carry on gentlemen...
#138 Posted by Inquirer on April 6, 2006 1:35:28 pm
Re: # 137: Is your comment a reply to my comment #136? If so, it defies understanding.
#137 Posted by Urstruly on April 6, 2006 11:46:28 am
Re: # 136
I don`t beleive that verbal abuse can help in anyway to counter the threat that jeopardizes one`s existence. It shows desperation more than defiance.
#136 Posted by Inquirer on April 6, 2006 10:08:49 am
Re: # 135, urstruly:
First of all, your seeing of the deficiency in the self is the first indication of a thoughtful person.
You are, what I would call an honest fundamentalist. With that goes an implicit faith in one`s religion. This by itself is no deficiency in my way of thinking, though I do feel that does imply some shortfall in the grasp of the true and essential religion. The true and essential religion implies greater emphasis on the psychological foundation of introspection on the honest conscience.
What do we know of God? Parrotting some book does not count. One day our DNAs will disintegrate. Meanwhile is it appropriate to lookdown upon those who may have passed through a path of life different than ours? Should not we be tolerant and not preemptively attack those who choose to follow a path of their own as long as they do not pose a threat to our existence?
First of all, your seeing of the deficiency in the self is the first indication of a thoughtful person.
You are, what I would call an honest fundamentalist. With that goes an implicit faith in one`s religion. This by itself is no deficiency in my way of thinking, though I do feel that does imply some shortfall in the grasp of the true and essential religion. The true and essential religion implies greater emphasis on the psychological foundation of introspection on the honest conscience.
What do we know of God? Parrotting some book does not count. One day our DNAs will disintegrate. Meanwhile is it appropriate to lookdown upon those who may have passed through a path of life different than ours? Should not we be tolerant and not preemptively attack those who choose to follow a path of their own as long as they do not pose a threat to our existence?
#135 Posted by Urstruly on April 6, 2006 9:44:14 am
Re: # 134
Yes, I accept your criticism; for every one thousand insults that hindus throw around here there may be one insult for hindu ideals as well. Everything is documented here just pick up past 15 articles. I am not being a smartass but this single insult is one too many. I am ashamed and I apologize for that.
Yes, I accept your criticism; for every one thousand insults that hindus throw around here there may be one insult for hindu ideals as well. Everything is documented here just pick up past 15 articles. I am not being a smartass but this single insult is one too many. I am ashamed and I apologize for that.
#134 Posted by Inquirer on April 5, 2006 6:09:06 am
Re: # 132, urstruly:
It is amazing that you had to say that with heavy heart!
It clearly shows which class of interactors you belong to - when you make the generalized derogatory comment.
There are thoughtful interactors in both population groups. By the way read my profile to see what is important for me.
An Hindu who exists at your level could make the same comment for Muslims, namely, the Muslims ``that I have come across lack the basic norms of decency and are devoid of minimal levels of ettiquettes and manners to have a decent exchange of ideas with. In essence `Muslims` come on this website to abuse `Hindus` and curse their religion, and cultural norms. You can do that very well without understanding what others have to say.``
MIND YOU, I WOULD NOT QUOTE YOU! I KNOW NAZAR HAYAT KHAN, SALIM CHAUHAN AND FEROZEK, TO JUST NAME A FEW!! I AM A HINDU.
It is amazing that you had to say that with heavy heart!
It clearly shows which class of interactors you belong to - when you make the generalized derogatory comment.
There are thoughtful interactors in both population groups. By the way read my profile to see what is important for me.
An Hindu who exists at your level could make the same comment for Muslims, namely, the Muslims ``that I have come across lack the basic norms of decency and are devoid of minimal levels of ettiquettes and manners to have a decent exchange of ideas with. In essence `Muslims` come on this website to abuse `Hindus` and curse their religion, and cultural norms. You can do that very well without understanding what others have to say.``
MIND YOU, I WOULD NOT QUOTE YOU! I KNOW NAZAR HAYAT KHAN, SALIM CHAUHAN AND FEROZEK, TO JUST NAME A FEW!! I AM A HINDU.
#133 Posted by Inquirer on April 4, 2006 9:09:03 am
Re: # 37: Author of the Article
I appreciate your acknowledgement.
I appreciate your acknowledgement.
#132 Posted by Urstruly on April 4, 2006 6:07:48 am
Re: # 124 bhai mujumdar
I say this with heavy heart but I have to, that unfortunately all hindus that I have come across lack the basic norms of decency and are devoid of minimal levels of ettiquettes and manners to have a decent exchange of ideas with. In essence Hindus come on this website to abuse Pakistanis and curse their religion, and cultural norms. You can do that very well without understanding what others have to say.
I say this with heavy heart but I have to, that unfortunately all hindus that I have come across lack the basic norms of decency and are devoid of minimal levels of ettiquettes and manners to have a decent exchange of ideas with. In essence Hindus come on this website to abuse Pakistanis and curse their religion, and cultural norms. You can do that very well without understanding what others have to say.
#131 Posted by MantoLives on April 4, 2006 1:23:55 am
Majumdar...
How ironic... ZAB`s death anniversary completely skipped my mind.
Earlier this morning ironically- at breakfast instead of the paper I picked up ZAB`s biography to read... from the shelf...
What a conincidence.
How ironic... ZAB`s death anniversary completely skipped my mind.
Earlier this morning ironically- at breakfast instead of the paper I picked up ZAB`s biography to read... from the shelf...
What a conincidence.
#130 Posted by majumdar on April 3, 2006 11:24:38 pm
Manto sahib,
The website of your newspapers such as Dawn and Daily Times carry an interesting tag- RSS. does that mean that you have realised the futility of your ways and return to the Olde Faith.
BTW today is ZAB`s death anniversary- how about a flaming article on Chowk.
Regards
The website of your newspapers such as Dawn and Daily Times carry an interesting tag- RSS. does that mean that you have realised the futility of your ways and return to the Olde Faith.
BTW today is ZAB`s death anniversary- how about a flaming article on Chowk.
Regards
#129 Posted by MantoLives on April 3, 2006 11:15:52 pm
Dear Harish hyd...
To blame the bloodbath (by no means unique in history neither of the subcontinent nor of the world- i.e. American Civil war saw 700 000 that is 130 000 more than partition but tragic nonetheless- furthermore... it was our foreign minister who got this grand massacre recognised internationally- VP Menon is on the other hand on record declaring it to be ``minor disturbance``) on one party or the other is merely nationalistic pissing.. you can say partition ... we can say partition of Bengal and Punjab ... and so on and so forth. Meanwhile the real culprits- who forgot to deploy the boundary commission force despite appeals from Indian and Pakistani leaders especially Jinnah- the British are totally removed from the picture... and no wonder Mountbatten kept looking for scapegoats... and found Jinnah to be the most convenient one.
I feel- having read the little I have- that Jinnah`s post 1937 stance was what was required... I take the H M Seervai view- which is being echoed by many great historians. You may take the Indian nationalist point of view and will find facts to support it. However I do not accept that Jinnah went through a change of ideals... but rather a change of tactics... he adopted the Gandhian model of mass mobilisation - before 1937 Jinnah was in favor of mass mobilisation but without religion... after 1937 he found a way to express his own ideas couched in vague Islamic terminology... John Morley for example became Jan Muhammad... but the ideas remained the same. However... to run a nation state... you require certain principles which are secular in of themselves and this was Jinnah spoke of as the founding father of Pakistan.
Also... Gandhi was a master politician ... and not a saint. You read enough about him and you will learn to admire his genius as a politician... but his saintliness will be totally demolished... my ``Gandhibashing`` is limited to creating this realisation only that Gandhi was a politician and therefore inconsistent... and it is possible that those who opposed him may have had a valid point of view as well. If at times I go a bit extreme in gandhi bashing it is to balance out the hagiographic nonsense that has been created. Beyond it- I have no interest in bashing a dead man who is revered as a father of the nation by your country which I ultimately want to be friends with.
-YLH
To blame the bloodbath (by no means unique in history neither of the subcontinent nor of the world- i.e. American Civil war saw 700 000 that is 130 000 more than partition but tragic nonetheless- furthermore... it was our foreign minister who got this grand massacre recognised internationally- VP Menon is on the other hand on record declaring it to be ``minor disturbance``) on one party or the other is merely nationalistic pissing.. you can say partition ... we can say partition of Bengal and Punjab ... and so on and so forth. Meanwhile the real culprits- who forgot to deploy the boundary commission force despite appeals from Indian and Pakistani leaders especially Jinnah- the British are totally removed from the picture... and no wonder Mountbatten kept looking for scapegoats... and found Jinnah to be the most convenient one.
I feel- having read the little I have- that Jinnah`s post 1937 stance was what was required... I take the H M Seervai view- which is being echoed by many great historians. You may take the Indian nationalist point of view and will find facts to support it. However I do not accept that Jinnah went through a change of ideals... but rather a change of tactics... he adopted the Gandhian model of mass mobilisation - before 1937 Jinnah was in favor of mass mobilisation but without religion... after 1937 he found a way to express his own ideas couched in vague Islamic terminology... John Morley for example became Jan Muhammad... but the ideas remained the same. However... to run a nation state... you require certain principles which are secular in of themselves and this was Jinnah spoke of as the founding father of Pakistan.
Also... Gandhi was a master politician ... and not a saint. You read enough about him and you will learn to admire his genius as a politician... but his saintliness will be totally demolished... my ``Gandhibashing`` is limited to creating this realisation only that Gandhi was a politician and therefore inconsistent... and it is possible that those who opposed him may have had a valid point of view as well. If at times I go a bit extreme in gandhi bashing it is to balance out the hagiographic nonsense that has been created. Beyond it- I have no interest in bashing a dead man who is revered as a father of the nation by your country which I ultimately want to be friends with.
-YLH
#128 Posted by harish_hyd on April 3, 2006 10:54:10 pm
#127 by Mantolives
[Thus the comparison should be Gandhi claiming to speak for all Indians and yet resorting to rhetoric like ``Ram Rajya`` and ``I am a Hindu first and therefore a true Indian`` ... and Jinnah pre-1937 phase when he was still speaking for all Indians- where Jinnah distanced himself completely from any pseudo-religious approach to justify his liberal views in religious terms.]
It is all about consistency Yasser mian. Jinnah can at best be a politician (or a lawyer as he himself put it) because for politicians, changing their ideals is not a crime. But to be a visionary, and indeed a statesman, you need a vision and consistency. Only Gandhi had both of them. Of what use is Jinnah`s pre-1937 politics, if his post-1937 politics led to a destructive bloodbath that is unmatched in the subcontinent`s history?
[Thus the comparison should be Gandhi claiming to speak for all Indians and yet resorting to rhetoric like ``Ram Rajya`` and ``I am a Hindu first and therefore a true Indian`` ... and Jinnah pre-1937 phase when he was still speaking for all Indians- where Jinnah distanced himself completely from any pseudo-religious approach to justify his liberal views in religious terms.]
It is all about consistency Yasser mian. Jinnah can at best be a politician (or a lawyer as he himself put it) because for politicians, changing their ideals is not a crime. But to be a visionary, and indeed a statesman, you need a vision and consistency. Only Gandhi had both of them. Of what use is Jinnah`s pre-1937 politics, if his post-1937 politics led to a destructive bloodbath that is unmatched in the subcontinent`s history?
#127 Posted by MantoLives on April 3, 2006 10:35:43 pm
Harish mian...
I read your statement and note your intent... but when one discounts for your own perspective... this is a statement one can work with. Jinnah after 1937 made a conscious and open decision to speak for the Muslims... he did not claim to speak for anyone but Muslims definitely after 1939... He put it out there- he claimed to be a lawyer for his clients - in a class action law suit for Pakistan.
Thus the comparison should be Gandhi claiming to speak for all Indians and yet resorting to rhetoric like ``Ram Rajya`` and ``I am a Hindu first and therefore a true Indian`` ... and Jinnah pre-1937 phase when he was still speaking for all Indians- where Jinnah distanced himself completely from any pseudo-religious approach to justify his liberal views in religious terms.
Indeed it would be best for Pakistan to hark back to that pre-1937 politics of Quaid-e-Azam ...
I read your statement and note your intent... but when one discounts for your own perspective... this is a statement one can work with. Jinnah after 1937 made a conscious and open decision to speak for the Muslims... he did not claim to speak for anyone but Muslims definitely after 1939... He put it out there- he claimed to be a lawyer for his clients - in a class action law suit for Pakistan.
Thus the comparison should be Gandhi claiming to speak for all Indians and yet resorting to rhetoric like ``Ram Rajya`` and ``I am a Hindu first and therefore a true Indian`` ... and Jinnah pre-1937 phase when he was still speaking for all Indians- where Jinnah distanced himself completely from any pseudo-religious approach to justify his liberal views in religious terms.
Indeed it would be best for Pakistan to hark back to that pre-1937 politics of Quaid-e-Azam ...
#126 Posted by MantoLives on April 3, 2006 10:14:58 pm
Rsridhar...
You are a disgusting fellow. You`ve been saying horrible stuff about my family and given that you are someone well advanced in years ... it just goes to show your mentality.
Mohar11...
Talking about Gandhi and exposing him for the casteist bigot that he was is NOT the same as abusing someone`s family which is the wont of every Indian almost on this board.
He is not giving me a taste of my own medicine. Most of his arguments are illogical and just prove my point even further i.e. a true Gandhian is a person without any shame or dignity.
#125 Posted by harish_hyd on April 3, 2006 10:04:20 pm
#118 by rsridhar
[That is a very stupid statement, coming from u.]
Yaar Sridhar, I was only alluding to one famous (at least on Chowk) Gandhi-basher`s comments about Jinnah and Gandhi.
[That is a very stupid statement, coming from u.]
Yaar Sridhar, I was only alluding to one famous (at least on Chowk) Gandhi-basher`s comments about Jinnah and Gandhi.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- akcheema: Re: # 44; Parthaab... Rape Survivor Families Struggle
- parthaab: Re: # 40 I am... Rape Survivor Families Struggle
- parthaab: Re: # 42 You must... Rape Survivor Families Struggle
- majumdar: Harishbhai, (My argument is that... Muhammad Aslam Khan Khattak:
- harish_hyd: #27 by majumdar Of course,... Muhammad Aslam Khan Khattak:
- majumdar: Harishbhai, I will try to... Muhammad Aslam Khan Khattak:
- harish_hyd: #24 by majumdar Majumdar bhai,... Muhammad Aslam Khan Khattak:
- harish_hyd: #24 by majumdar MAJ (pbuh)... Muhammad Aslam Khan Khattak:
