‘Our Liberals’ and Minority Psyche
farrukh kamrani June 22, 2006
#756 Posted by MantoLives on September 13, 2006 10:10:38 pm
It goes without saying that Gandhi was the subcontinent`s FIRST terrorist... and the spiritual great grandfather of the taliban!
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#755 Posted by MantoLives on August 18, 2006 3:12:51 am
Harish Hyd,
Sorry ... I didn`t respond to your sneak attack earlier as I was unaware of your sneakiness... which as is is simply composed of personal attacks and abuses which shows your utter lack of argument. Sadly nothing, as opposed to your protestations, in my post was abusive. This and your other arguments show how incredibly shallow your arguments are...
All of the people I`ve mentioned are actually renowned academics and it is not about being charitable... meanwhile only someone without much original thought would describe a photojournalist a ``historian``. Similarly only someone completely uninterested in a sane and reasonable discourse would call the work of some one like Patrick French or Ainslee T Embree (both professors at Universities like Oxford and Columbia- hence beyond your league) ``hagiography``....
FYI - as I mentioned earlier- Zakat has a very direct relation to democracy. Zakat is NOT alms as the naive photojournalist assumed (alms are actually Sadaqah and not Zakat)... but has a legal connotation in Islamic jurisprudence. It was a state imposed tax which was collected from the people and spent on them... with each citizen having the right to question the state on this tax and its spending. The modern principle of democracy, as established in the Britain today, puts financial and monetary powers firmly under the control of the house of commons. Thus ordinary income and wealth tax is collected by the government and spent on the people... Islam`s Zakat (over which Abu Bakr went to war) is essentially the same thing.
But ... only you would consider yourself Einstein... no one else. Simplistic thinking is the hallmark of people like you.
Sorry ... I didn`t respond to your sneak attack earlier as I was unaware of your sneakiness... which as is is simply composed of personal attacks and abuses which shows your utter lack of argument. Sadly nothing, as opposed to your protestations, in my post was abusive. This and your other arguments show how incredibly shallow your arguments are...
All of the people I`ve mentioned are actually renowned academics and it is not about being charitable... meanwhile only someone without much original thought would describe a photojournalist a ``historian``. Similarly only someone completely uninterested in a sane and reasonable discourse would call the work of some one like Patrick French or Ainslee T Embree (both professors at Universities like Oxford and Columbia- hence beyond your league) ``hagiography``....
FYI - as I mentioned earlier- Zakat has a very direct relation to democracy. Zakat is NOT alms as the naive photojournalist assumed (alms are actually Sadaqah and not Zakat)... but has a legal connotation in Islamic jurisprudence. It was a state imposed tax which was collected from the people and spent on them... with each citizen having the right to question the state on this tax and its spending. The modern principle of democracy, as established in the Britain today, puts financial and monetary powers firmly under the control of the house of commons. Thus ordinary income and wealth tax is collected by the government and spent on the people... Islam`s Zakat (over which Abu Bakr went to war) is essentially the same thing.
But ... only you would consider yourself Einstein... no one else. Simplistic thinking is the hallmark of people like you.
#754 Posted by harish_hyd on July 17, 2006 12:09:00 am
#753 by Mantolives
If I had a penny for every time you ``thought`` you hit a raw nerve and then were bitterly disappointed. From the looks of it, you know more of this ``humiliation`` than me.
Yasser mian, And if I had a penny every time you resorted to abuse (obviously brought on about due to the inability to counter uncomfortable facts), I’d be richer than Bill Gates today.
Most trained historians.... Ainslee T Embree, Ayesha Jalal, Anil Seal, Irfan Habib, S K Majumdar, Sumit Sarkar, Patrick French etc seem to agree with my version of history ... all you have are journalese photographers (even who are forced to admit some facts grudgingly - i.e. Jinnah was analytical, brilliant and no bigot for example) ... so once again I have no idea what you are on about.
Of course, anyone painting hagiographies of Jinnah would be a trained historian in your book, but then history hasn’t been very charitable towards Jinnah. As for photo-journalists (for a journalist, you are surprisingly stupid, you don’t even know the right term to describe it), I only used Jinnah’s very OWN words to prove that he’d lost his marbles. Too bad you’re trying to obfuscate the issue instead of trying to counter it. But then, you don’t have a point to make in the first place.
Now clearly the English Language is not your finest attributes ... but in #744 I wrote this:
Dear Yasser, there you’re caught again lying blatantly. I was responding to the claims you made in #744, Jinnah was not given to answering queries by people like Bourkwhite and then again in #748, All I said was that Jinnah was not sort of person to discuss public policy with photographers. So were you saying Margaret Bourke was making the interview up? Was she faking it? Now don’t weasel out of this one. Say so.
Like I said long ago, your English language skills leave much to be desired, so please find yourself a tutor. I once again offer to pay your English language tuition fees. If it doesn’t make me feel that I’m arguing with an utterly clueless idiot, it will well be worth it.
Yaar ...I am sorry to have to expose your inadequacies in such an obvious fashion but its just that your obvious stupidity leaves others no choice.
Compared to Jinnah’s response to Bourke White’s question, I’m beginning to feel like Einstein. You still haven’t answered that. Did Jinnah lose his marbles by the time Pakistan had gained independence (or was it even before that?)? I have reasons to believe so and I repeat it here:
``I ventured to suggest that the term ``democracy`` was often loosely used these days. Could he define what he had in mind?
``Democracy is not just a new thing we are learning,`` said Jinnah. ``It is in our blood. We have always had our system of zakat -- our obligation to the poor.``
Please let us know the connection between democracy and Zakat. I await your answer with bated breath.
If I had a penny for every time you ``thought`` you hit a raw nerve and then were bitterly disappointed. From the looks of it, you know more of this ``humiliation`` than me.
Yasser mian, And if I had a penny every time you resorted to abuse (obviously brought on about due to the inability to counter uncomfortable facts), I’d be richer than Bill Gates today.
Most trained historians.... Ainslee T Embree, Ayesha Jalal, Anil Seal, Irfan Habib, S K Majumdar, Sumit Sarkar, Patrick French etc seem to agree with my version of history ... all you have are journalese photographers (even who are forced to admit some facts grudgingly - i.e. Jinnah was analytical, brilliant and no bigot for example) ... so once again I have no idea what you are on about.
Of course, anyone painting hagiographies of Jinnah would be a trained historian in your book, but then history hasn’t been very charitable towards Jinnah. As for photo-journalists (for a journalist, you are surprisingly stupid, you don’t even know the right term to describe it), I only used Jinnah’s very OWN words to prove that he’d lost his marbles. Too bad you’re trying to obfuscate the issue instead of trying to counter it. But then, you don’t have a point to make in the first place.
Now clearly the English Language is not your finest attributes ... but in #744 I wrote this:
Dear Yasser, there you’re caught again lying blatantly. I was responding to the claims you made in #744, Jinnah was not given to answering queries by people like Bourkwhite and then again in #748, All I said was that Jinnah was not sort of person to discuss public policy with photographers. So were you saying Margaret Bourke was making the interview up? Was she faking it? Now don’t weasel out of this one. Say so.
Like I said long ago, your English language skills leave much to be desired, so please find yourself a tutor. I once again offer to pay your English language tuition fees. If it doesn’t make me feel that I’m arguing with an utterly clueless idiot, it will well be worth it.
Yaar ...I am sorry to have to expose your inadequacies in such an obvious fashion but its just that your obvious stupidity leaves others no choice.
Compared to Jinnah’s response to Bourke White’s question, I’m beginning to feel like Einstein. You still haven’t answered that. Did Jinnah lose his marbles by the time Pakistan had gained independence (or was it even before that?)? I have reasons to believe so and I repeat it here:
``I ventured to suggest that the term ``democracy`` was often loosely used these days. Could he define what he had in mind?
``Democracy is not just a new thing we are learning,`` said Jinnah. ``It is in our blood. We have always had our system of zakat -- our obligation to the poor.``
Please let us know the connection between democracy and Zakat. I await your answer with bated breath.
#753 Posted by MantoLives on July 13, 2006 4:42:21 am
Harish mian,
If I had a penny for every time you ``thought`` you hit a raw nerve and then were bitterly disappointed. From the looks of it, you know more of this ``humiliation`` than me.
Most trained historians.... Ainslee T Embree, Ayesha Jalal, Anil Seal, Irfan Habib, S K Majumdar, Sumit Sarkar, Patrick French etc seem to agree with my version of history ... all you have are journalese photographers (even who are forced to admit some facts grudgingly - i.e. Jinnah was analytical, brilliant and no bigot for example) ... so once again I have no idea what you are on about.
Now clearly the English Language is not your finest attributes ... but in #744 I wrote this:
His comments to Bourkwhite were a repetition of what he had said earlier... that Social Justice and democracy were the cornerstones of the new republic and that inclusive democracy and social justice were the essence of Islam and not the opposite of it - as Mullahs, the erstwhile Congress allies, had been claiming ...
Does this mean I am saying that the interview was fake? On the contrary, the elaboration that the photographer wanted from Jinnah was something that is there in 7 Volumes of Jinnah papers covering that period. Yaar ...I am sorry to have to expose your inadequacies in such an obvious fashion but its just that your obvious stupidity leaves others no choice.
#752 Posted by MantoLives on July 13, 2006 4:33:12 am
Opposites attract
Vidya Nidhi Dalmia
November 4, 2005
The most unlikely people sometimes become the thickest of friends. Muhammad Ali Jinnah — British-educated lawyer and politician, leader of the Muslim League, a pukka non-vegetarian, a man who enjoyed his drinks and expensive cigars, the archetypal Brown Sahib. My father Ramkrishna Dalmia — home-grown industrialist and founder of Dalmia Jain Enterprises, a devout Hindu, a no-onion-no-garlic, no tea-no-coffee vegetarian, a teetotaller, a sprinkler of Ganga jal if a Muslim entered the home. Yet, these two men got along like a house on fire. Maybe, opposites do attract. They both were the closest of the closest friends, one can imagine whereas in religious beliefs they were at 180 degree apart. That Dalmia and Jinnah could be bum-chums was astounding to most people. Their friendship could have prevented Partition, or at the very least, minimised the consequences.
During the visit of the Cabinet Mission to India in 1946, when all else failed, my father pressed Jinnah to settle matters on the basis of full autonomy for the provinces and only three subjects — communications, defence and foreign affairs — remaining with the Centre. He urged Jinnah to meet and attempt a solution with Nehru for the last time. Jinnah was sceptical but agreed on the condition that any meeting would take place at my father’s house. Thereafter, in a lengthy meeting with Rajendra Prasad at our Akbar Road home and a telephone conversation with Sardar Patel, my father urged them to arrange a meeting at any cost. The BBC announced that ‘a wealthy Indian merchant’ was attempting an amicable settlement between the leaders of the Congress and the Muslim League. But Jinnah’s hunches were correct. The meeting was declined and a statement issued the next morning that no significance need be attached to Dalmia’s negotiations. Jinnah was the first to phone: “Look at your own people’s mentality,” he lamented.
Yet, my father remained confident of the influence he exercised over his friend. When Partition was inevitable, he convinced Jinnah that the two new governments should themselves organise an exchange of population to provide safe passage for people who wished to migrate to the other side. Unfortunately, this effort too came to nought as Sardar Patel and other leaders didn’t agree. Their argument — that no institutionalised movement of peoples was necessary, that there was no compulsion to move, and that the Hindus of Pakistan were their kith and kin, whom they would protect even if that meant sacrificing their own lives — was laudable, but specious.
When Jinnah sold his 10 Aurangzeb Road house in Delhi (now the residence of the Dutch ambassador), he ‘chose’ Dalmia as its next occupant. His good friend promptly brought down the green-and-white banner of the Muslim League and replaced it with his own — of his Society for the Prevention of Cow Slaughter: the Flag of the Sacred Cow. He then immediately had a shuddhi done and a griha-pravesh havan. But Jinnah didn’t mind. Much rather his friend, a man he trusted and relied on, living in the house, than Nehru or any of the others who coveted the place.
My father paid Jinnah Rs 3 lakh for the house. My parents, however, lived in it for no more than a few days. Nehru’s government, ever reluctant to let the magnificent property slip out of its grasp, lost no time in issuing a notice of requisition. The house was ‘required’ by the government for use by Health Minister Rajkumari Amrit Kaur. In danger of losing the house for a pittance, my father sold it with some difficulty to the Dutch government.
Jinnah travelled as far as Dalmianagar in Bihar to be with my father in his industrial township. In Delhi, he was a frequent visitor to our Akbar Road home. My father had high regard for Jinnah as a superb lawyer, orator and conversationalist. Jinnah was always present at parties thrown by my father.
Once Jinnah asked my father to accompany him to Karachi, where my father owned a cement factory, known as Dalmia Cement Factory for a public gathering. When my father asked if he would be allowed to speak freely and frankly, Jinnah didn’t repeat the offer. Another time, my father threw a huge ‘Party of Princes’ at the Taj Mahal Hotel, Mumbai, to bring together the quarrelling Jinnah and the Maharaja of Jamnagar (now in Gujarat).
My father minced no words when talking to Jinnah. He accused Jinnah of being selfish and ambitious in wanting Pakistan and of leaving the Congress because he couldn’t be its chief. “You care only for yourself and you want to become a monarch, like the Caliph of Turkey, in independent Pakistan,” he accused his friend. “Look, Dalmia” Jinnah retorted, “at least give me credit that I have brought together all the Jee-Hazoors, Characterless and Nawabs who earlier served no one but the British to serve their own country.”
Jinnah told my father about the time he had just returned from England in 1935 that he wanted to meet Gandhi. Gandhi declined the meeting saying “I pray for light but see no light.” Jinnah was insulted by this slight. That was when he decided to start an unyielding agitation against the Congress.
My father regarded Jinnah as intrinsically indifferent to religion and thus totally secular. He viewed Jinnah’s posturing as political. He knew Jinnah to be incorruptible, highly dignified, intelligent and had great respect for his personal integrity. Jinnah never asked my father for any sort of donation or help, something on which my father found him so different from the other leaders of the time.
My father believed that the leaders in Pakistan soon forgot Jinnah’s true ideals especially his teachings to establish Pakistan as a truly secular nation. At the time of Jinnah’s death, my father regretted that Pakistan’s founder did not get the due respect, he deserved and his ideals were soon forgotten for which he fought his whole life. My father says that he had not seen a upright, straight forward, honest and intelligent person as Jinnah in his whole life and Nehru and other Congress leaders were not even close to his level of intelligence.
Vidya Nidhi Dalmia
November 4, 2005
The most unlikely people sometimes become the thickest of friends. Muhammad Ali Jinnah — British-educated lawyer and politician, leader of the Muslim League, a pukka non-vegetarian, a man who enjoyed his drinks and expensive cigars, the archetypal Brown Sahib. My father Ramkrishna Dalmia — home-grown industrialist and founder of Dalmia Jain Enterprises, a devout Hindu, a no-onion-no-garlic, no tea-no-coffee vegetarian, a teetotaller, a sprinkler of Ganga jal if a Muslim entered the home. Yet, these two men got along like a house on fire. Maybe, opposites do attract. They both were the closest of the closest friends, one can imagine whereas in religious beliefs they were at 180 degree apart. That Dalmia and Jinnah could be bum-chums was astounding to most people. Their friendship could have prevented Partition, or at the very least, minimised the consequences.
During the visit of the Cabinet Mission to India in 1946, when all else failed, my father pressed Jinnah to settle matters on the basis of full autonomy for the provinces and only three subjects — communications, defence and foreign affairs — remaining with the Centre. He urged Jinnah to meet and attempt a solution with Nehru for the last time. Jinnah was sceptical but agreed on the condition that any meeting would take place at my father’s house. Thereafter, in a lengthy meeting with Rajendra Prasad at our Akbar Road home and a telephone conversation with Sardar Patel, my father urged them to arrange a meeting at any cost. The BBC announced that ‘a wealthy Indian merchant’ was attempting an amicable settlement between the leaders of the Congress and the Muslim League. But Jinnah’s hunches were correct. The meeting was declined and a statement issued the next morning that no significance need be attached to Dalmia’s negotiations. Jinnah was the first to phone: “Look at your own people’s mentality,” he lamented.
Yet, my father remained confident of the influence he exercised over his friend. When Partition was inevitable, he convinced Jinnah that the two new governments should themselves organise an exchange of population to provide safe passage for people who wished to migrate to the other side. Unfortunately, this effort too came to nought as Sardar Patel and other leaders didn’t agree. Their argument — that no institutionalised movement of peoples was necessary, that there was no compulsion to move, and that the Hindus of Pakistan were their kith and kin, whom they would protect even if that meant sacrificing their own lives — was laudable, but specious.
When Jinnah sold his 10 Aurangzeb Road house in Delhi (now the residence of the Dutch ambassador), he ‘chose’ Dalmia as its next occupant. His good friend promptly brought down the green-and-white banner of the Muslim League and replaced it with his own — of his Society for the Prevention of Cow Slaughter: the Flag of the Sacred Cow. He then immediately had a shuddhi done and a griha-pravesh havan. But Jinnah didn’t mind. Much rather his friend, a man he trusted and relied on, living in the house, than Nehru or any of the others who coveted the place.
My father paid Jinnah Rs 3 lakh for the house. My parents, however, lived in it for no more than a few days. Nehru’s government, ever reluctant to let the magnificent property slip out of its grasp, lost no time in issuing a notice of requisition. The house was ‘required’ by the government for use by Health Minister Rajkumari Amrit Kaur. In danger of losing the house for a pittance, my father sold it with some difficulty to the Dutch government.
Jinnah travelled as far as Dalmianagar in Bihar to be with my father in his industrial township. In Delhi, he was a frequent visitor to our Akbar Road home. My father had high regard for Jinnah as a superb lawyer, orator and conversationalist. Jinnah was always present at parties thrown by my father.
Once Jinnah asked my father to accompany him to Karachi, where my father owned a cement factory, known as Dalmia Cement Factory for a public gathering. When my father asked if he would be allowed to speak freely and frankly, Jinnah didn’t repeat the offer. Another time, my father threw a huge ‘Party of Princes’ at the Taj Mahal Hotel, Mumbai, to bring together the quarrelling Jinnah and the Maharaja of Jamnagar (now in Gujarat).
My father minced no words when talking to Jinnah. He accused Jinnah of being selfish and ambitious in wanting Pakistan and of leaving the Congress because he couldn’t be its chief. “You care only for yourself and you want to become a monarch, like the Caliph of Turkey, in independent Pakistan,” he accused his friend. “Look, Dalmia” Jinnah retorted, “at least give me credit that I have brought together all the Jee-Hazoors, Characterless and Nawabs who earlier served no one but the British to serve their own country.”
Jinnah told my father about the time he had just returned from England in 1935 that he wanted to meet Gandhi. Gandhi declined the meeting saying “I pray for light but see no light.” Jinnah was insulted by this slight. That was when he decided to start an unyielding agitation against the Congress.
My father regarded Jinnah as intrinsically indifferent to religion and thus totally secular. He viewed Jinnah’s posturing as political. He knew Jinnah to be incorruptible, highly dignified, intelligent and had great respect for his personal integrity. Jinnah never asked my father for any sort of donation or help, something on which my father found him so different from the other leaders of the time.
My father believed that the leaders in Pakistan soon forgot Jinnah’s true ideals especially his teachings to establish Pakistan as a truly secular nation. At the time of Jinnah’s death, my father regretted that Pakistan’s founder did not get the due respect, he deserved and his ideals were soon forgotten for which he fought his whole life. My father says that he had not seen a upright, straight forward, honest and intelligent person as Jinnah in his whole life and Nehru and other Congress leaders were not even close to his level of intelligence.
#751 Posted by harish_hyd on July 13, 2006 4:23:28 am
#748 by Mantolives
Please hold off on speaking for the ``Rest of the world``... you are not the votary of any divine knowledge.
Too bad it hurts Yasser, but reality always does. Especially to species of the Paki kind.
Thank God, I have had the opportunity of travelling coast to coast in the US after 9-11 and not once was I harassed because of my green passport, which was my ID to board planes. So you may continue live in your fool`s paradise and like any scounderel assume anything to feel better about your current predicament.
The fact that you`ve resorted to abuse confirms that I touched a raw nerve and brought back painful memories of the humiliation you must have suffered. Please give it the shrot shrift if that makes you feel any better. I`ll let you in on a secret that most Pakis traveling abroad know: say that you`re an Indian and you`ll be welcomed.
All I said was that Jinnah was not sort of person to discuss public policy with photographers.
Umm sure...if that was indeed the case, why did Jinnah respond when questioned by the interviewer thus:
``I ventured to suggest that the term ``democracy`` was often loosely used these days. Could he define what he had in mind?
``Democracy is not just a new thing we are learning,`` said Jinnah. ``It is in our blood. We have always had our system of zakat -- our obligation to the poor.``
If you`re saying Jinnah didn`t discuss policy with ``photographers`` (although it is clear she was much more knowledgeable than some of the phoren-educated lawyers that we have in our midst), despite the extract I pasted in bold (in case your weak eyesight (although it is much stroner than your integrity) didn`t allow you to see it clearly) in effect you`re claiming the entire interview was faked. Comprende?
Pakistan as I pointed out has saved the world`s metaphorical rearend many times ... for which you may call us a ``rentier`` state, but the history written by objective historians will record otherwise. Infact they will say that Pakistan at great peril to itself, its economy and its nascent democracy came to defend the free world against the forces of soviet expansionism and later terrorism.
It must be great living in your la-la land no? If only reality were so sweet. Pakistan saved its own rearend by aligning itself with the highest bidder. When the US pressurized Pakistan to return back to democracy the first time, it saved itself by arranging a Kissinger-Zhou meeting, the next time, by prostituting itself for the Afghan Jihad, the latest, for the War on Terror. Even poverty-stricken Somalia fares better when it comes to protecting its sovereignty. Maybe you must borrow some shame from them.
And what is this fetish for ``objective historians``? Has there been no historian who has been fair to Pakistan? Must be one ill-fated country no? Too bad you can`t change citizenship as easily as you changed your religion.
Please hold off on speaking for the ``Rest of the world``... you are not the votary of any divine knowledge.
Too bad it hurts Yasser, but reality always does. Especially to species of the Paki kind.
Thank God, I have had the opportunity of travelling coast to coast in the US after 9-11 and not once was I harassed because of my green passport, which was my ID to board planes. So you may continue live in your fool`s paradise and like any scounderel assume anything to feel better about your current predicament.
The fact that you`ve resorted to abuse confirms that I touched a raw nerve and brought back painful memories of the humiliation you must have suffered. Please give it the shrot shrift if that makes you feel any better. I`ll let you in on a secret that most Pakis traveling abroad know: say that you`re an Indian and you`ll be welcomed.
All I said was that Jinnah was not sort of person to discuss public policy with photographers.
Umm sure...if that was indeed the case, why did Jinnah respond when questioned by the interviewer thus:
``I ventured to suggest that the term ``democracy`` was often loosely used these days. Could he define what he had in mind?
``Democracy is not just a new thing we are learning,`` said Jinnah. ``It is in our blood. We have always had our system of zakat -- our obligation to the poor.``
If you`re saying Jinnah didn`t discuss policy with ``photographers`` (although it is clear she was much more knowledgeable than some of the phoren-educated lawyers that we have in our midst), despite the extract I pasted in bold (in case your weak eyesight (although it is much stroner than your integrity) didn`t allow you to see it clearly) in effect you`re claiming the entire interview was faked. Comprende?
Pakistan as I pointed out has saved the world`s metaphorical rearend many times ... for which you may call us a ``rentier`` state, but the history written by objective historians will record otherwise. Infact they will say that Pakistan at great peril to itself, its economy and its nascent democracy came to defend the free world against the forces of soviet expansionism and later terrorism.
It must be great living in your la-la land no? If only reality were so sweet. Pakistan saved its own rearend by aligning itself with the highest bidder. When the US pressurized Pakistan to return back to democracy the first time, it saved itself by arranging a Kissinger-Zhou meeting, the next time, by prostituting itself for the Afghan Jihad, the latest, for the War on Terror. Even poverty-stricken Somalia fares better when it comes to protecting its sovereignty. Maybe you must borrow some shame from them.
And what is this fetish for ``objective historians``? Has there been no historian who has been fair to Pakistan? Must be one ill-fated country no? Too bad you can`t change citizenship as easily as you changed your religion.
#750 Posted by majumdar on July 12, 2006 10:08:05 pm
Manto mian,
(Pakistan as I pointed out has saved the world`s metaphorical rearend many times ... )
Why do you say so? How did Pak save the world?
Regards
(Pakistan as I pointed out has saved the world`s metaphorical rearend many times ... )
Why do you say so? How did Pak save the world?
Regards
#749 Posted by MantoLives on July 12, 2006 5:07:55 am
PS:
``I`ve followed this discussion over the days and each and every point of yours has been busted. ``
If only wishes were rocketships (analogy amended for your special circumstances). If each and every argument of mine was busted, then there wouldn`t be such anxiety amongst your compatriots for continuing to return for a nice big can of whoopass.
``I`ve followed this discussion over the days and each and every point of yours has been busted. ``
If only wishes were rocketships (analogy amended for your special circumstances). If each and every argument of mine was busted, then there wouldn`t be such anxiety amongst your compatriots for continuing to return for a nice big can of whoopass.
#748 Posted by MantoLives on July 12, 2006 5:01:16 am
Harish mian,
Please hold off on speaking for the ``Rest of the world``... you are not the votary of any divine knowledge.
``lying to get even``
That is your trick not mine. Thank God, I have had the opportunity of travelling coast to coast in the US after 9-11 and not once was I harassed because of my green passport, which was my ID to board planes. So you may continue live in your fool`s paradise and like any scounderel assume anything to feel better about your current predicament.
``And now you`re claiming the interview to be a fake one``
I see that you`ve been reduced to same old lies as usual. Now where in the good lord`s name did I claim the interview was a fake one? All I said was that Jinnah was not sort of person to discuss public policy with photographers. His speeches and statements to the constituent assembly of Pakistan as well as an impressive 7 volume collection of his letters and public policy documents from June-July 1947- September 1948 called Jinnah Papers is available courtesy National Archives and UNESCO for those who wish to see what Jinnah`s vision was of statehood. Pakistan as I pointed out has saved the world`s metaphorical rearend many times ... for which you may call us a ``rentier`` state, but the history written by objective historians will record otherwise. Infact they will say that Pakistan at great peril to itself, its economy and its nascent democracy came to defend the free world against the forces of soviet expansionism and later terrorism.
On another note, I must say you have some real issues- complex wise. You need to get over them. It must be really sad to live in the bubble that you do.
-YLH
Please hold off on speaking for the ``Rest of the world``... you are not the votary of any divine knowledge.
``lying to get even``
That is your trick not mine. Thank God, I have had the opportunity of travelling coast to coast in the US after 9-11 and not once was I harassed because of my green passport, which was my ID to board planes. So you may continue live in your fool`s paradise and like any scounderel assume anything to feel better about your current predicament.
``And now you`re claiming the interview to be a fake one``
I see that you`ve been reduced to same old lies as usual. Now where in the good lord`s name did I claim the interview was a fake one? All I said was that Jinnah was not sort of person to discuss public policy with photographers. His speeches and statements to the constituent assembly of Pakistan as well as an impressive 7 volume collection of his letters and public policy documents from June-July 1947- September 1948 called Jinnah Papers is available courtesy National Archives and UNESCO for those who wish to see what Jinnah`s vision was of statehood. Pakistan as I pointed out has saved the world`s metaphorical rearend many times ... for which you may call us a ``rentier`` state, but the history written by objective historians will record otherwise. Infact they will say that Pakistan at great peril to itself, its economy and its nascent democracy came to defend the free world against the forces of soviet expansionism and later terrorism.
On another note, I must say you have some real issues- complex wise. You need to get over them. It must be really sad to live in the bubble that you do.
-YLH
#747 Posted by harish_hyd on July 12, 2006 3:13:15 am
#745 by Mantolives
Thankfully I have freely travelled in the US without any hinderance after 9/11 on a Pakistani passport...
Why do I get the feeling that once again, you`re lying just to get even? Its alright Yasser, you can skip this one if it is too painful for you to recollect the events.
but from the graphic description given by Harish hyd, I am beginning to understand that a certain fellow from Hyderabad either got his visa refused or was indeed strip-searched while there.
Bhai Yasser, that privilege fortunately has been reserved for Pakis like you. Perhpas the trauma you had to undergo forces you to wish the same plight on your presumed rivals as well, but thankfully I don`t carry a Green passport. I`ve made at least a dozen trips since then, but the mere mention of my nationality has been enough each single time, while I`ve had the misfortune of watching the visible discomfort of my fellow passengers of the Paki persuasion.
Thankfully I have freely travelled in the US without any hinderance after 9/11 on a Pakistani passport...
Why do I get the feeling that once again, you`re lying just to get even? Its alright Yasser, you can skip this one if it is too painful for you to recollect the events.
but from the graphic description given by Harish hyd, I am beginning to understand that a certain fellow from Hyderabad either got his visa refused or was indeed strip-searched while there.
Bhai Yasser, that privilege fortunately has been reserved for Pakis like you. Perhpas the trauma you had to undergo forces you to wish the same plight on your presumed rivals as well, but thankfully I don`t carry a Green passport. I`ve made at least a dozen trips since then, but the mere mention of my nationality has been enough each single time, while I`ve had the misfortune of watching the visible discomfort of my fellow passengers of the Paki persuasion.
#746 Posted by harish_hyd on July 12, 2006 3:11:52 am
#744 by Mantolives
You are so blinded by your hatred for Pakistan that you are claiming something that so far no Indian agency has claimed regarding the reprehensible Mumbai attacks.
Sure, for guys like you, even the hijack of IC-814 was fabricated by the Indian intelligence agencies, so why am I not surprised?
However to discern something as simple as this requires a serious attempt to apply one`s brain cells, which you`ve shown a profound lack of.
Yaar please don`t try to convince me, that effort would be better utilized convincing yourself. I`ve followed this discussion over the days and each and every point of yours has been busted.
Jinnah was not given to answering queries by people like Bourkwhite.
And now you`re claiming the interview to be a fake one? You are being forced to pile up one lie upon the other just because you want to put lipstick on Jinnah`s character, but hey, it is easy to see who`s lying here. See Jinnah`s response to the question by Bourke White:
I ventured to suggest that the term ``democracy`` was often loosely used these days. Could he define what he had in mind?
``Democracy is not just a new thing we are learning,`` said Jinnah. ``It is in our blood. We have always had our system of zakat -- our obligation to the poor.``
Now please tell us where is the link between democracy and zakat? Convinces me that the man had gone bonkers.
I am afraid I just don`t see anything damning in what Jinnah said... I do see Bourkewhite`s pro-India pro-Congress bias, despite which she was forced to grudgingly admit that Jinnah was no bigot and was very analytical.
You won`t Yasser you won`t. If you couldn`t see the absurdities in Jinnah`s demands, you wouldn`t see one here either, too bad the world recognizes what he stood for and the unresolved contradictions that are the result of his ridiculous stance are there for everyone to see. True to his words, Pakistan has been reduced to a rentier state whose only presumed advantage is its strategic location which Jinnah was hoping to capitalize on even then and is done even now.
You are so blinded by your hatred for Pakistan that you are claiming something that so far no Indian agency has claimed regarding the reprehensible Mumbai attacks.
Sure, for guys like you, even the hijack of IC-814 was fabricated by the Indian intelligence agencies, so why am I not surprised?
However to discern something as simple as this requires a serious attempt to apply one`s brain cells, which you`ve shown a profound lack of.
Yaar please don`t try to convince me, that effort would be better utilized convincing yourself. I`ve followed this discussion over the days and each and every point of yours has been busted.
Jinnah was not given to answering queries by people like Bourkwhite.
And now you`re claiming the interview to be a fake one? You are being forced to pile up one lie upon the other just because you want to put lipstick on Jinnah`s character, but hey, it is easy to see who`s lying here. See Jinnah`s response to the question by Bourke White:
I ventured to suggest that the term ``democracy`` was often loosely used these days. Could he define what he had in mind?
``Democracy is not just a new thing we are learning,`` said Jinnah. ``It is in our blood. We have always had our system of zakat -- our obligation to the poor.``
Now please tell us where is the link between democracy and zakat? Convinces me that the man had gone bonkers.
I am afraid I just don`t see anything damning in what Jinnah said... I do see Bourkewhite`s pro-India pro-Congress bias, despite which she was forced to grudgingly admit that Jinnah was no bigot and was very analytical.
You won`t Yasser you won`t. If you couldn`t see the absurdities in Jinnah`s demands, you wouldn`t see one here either, too bad the world recognizes what he stood for and the unresolved contradictions that are the result of his ridiculous stance are there for everyone to see. True to his words, Pakistan has been reduced to a rentier state whose only presumed advantage is its strategic location which Jinnah was hoping to capitalize on even then and is done even now.
#745 Posted by MantoLives on July 12, 2006 2:08:37 am
PS:
Thankfully I have freely travelled in the US without any hinderance after 9/11 on a Pakistani passport... but from the graphic description given by Harish hyd, I am beginning to understand that a certain fellow from Hyderabad either got his visa refused or was indeed strip-searched while there.
Thankfully I have freely travelled in the US without any hinderance after 9/11 on a Pakistani passport... but from the graphic description given by Harish hyd, I am beginning to understand that a certain fellow from Hyderabad either got his visa refused or was indeed strip-searched while there.
#744 Posted by MantoLives on July 12, 2006 2:06:18 am
You are so blinded by your hatred for Pakistan that you are claiming something that so far no Indian agency has claimed regarding the reprehensible Mumbai attacks.
Now coming to your sneaky attempt to ride on Sadna`s weak shoulders...
1- Sadna`s counterpoints have been answered. You only wish that her arguments ``tore`` to shred my arguments... (in your case your wishes would have to be rocketships, not horses) You wouldn`t have to post what you did, had you really thought so.
Quite the contrary to your assertions, based probably on your little knowledge of what we are discussing, Sadnaji started off by claiming that ML did not want a joint Indian Army and then admitted that indeed Jinnah wanted joint control over a united Indian Army and now she is hardpressed to explain why two armies and two completely independent states were better than a confederation between Pakistan and India with joint control over the Indian Army. If anything her gymnastics of illogic which rested primarily on the issue of whether foreign policy would be a communal issue (an assertion which she couldn`t back) - which even if we were to accept would require a majority in both constituent assemblies to pass under the CMP. Therefore her objection falls face down, even if we were to accept that Pakistani politicians would have indeed muddled with Afghanistan post 1970 (a situation that primarily happened because of Afghanistan`s claim on area beyond Durand Line) and that they would try to use communal veto... which under the terms of agreement posted earlier was impossible to be used to initiate something as big as that... a veto can only stop something not start something new...
However to discern something as simple as this requires a serious attempt to apply one`s brain cells, which you`ve shown a profound lack of.
2- Jinnah was not given to answering queries by people like Bourkwhite. His vision of Pakistan is very clear in the papers and documents that emerge in the Jinnah Papers, as well as his policy speeches in the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. His comments to Bourkwhite were a repetition of what he had said earlier... that Social Justice and democracy were the cornerstones of the new republic and that inclusive democracy and social justice were the essence of Islam and not the opposite of it - as Mullahs, the erstwhile Congress allies, had been claiming ... I am afraid I just don`t see anything damning in what Jinnah said... I do see Bourkewhite`s pro-India pro-Congress bias, despite which she was forced to grudgingly admit that Jinnah was no bigot and was very analytical.
#743 Posted by harish_hyd on July 12, 2006 12:00:18 am
#741 by Mantolives
Pakistan fought against Soviet expansionism while India aided it... and now when the final chapter of the war on terror will be written, it will be Pakistan which will strike the final blow against this global menace.
If wishes were horses again....
Pakistan fought against Soviet expansionism while India aided it... and now when the final chapter of the war on terror will be written, it will be Pakistan which will strike the final blow against this global menace.
If wishes were horses again....
#742 Posted by harish_hyd on July 11, 2006 11:54:02 pm
#741 by Mantolives
Your inability to argue point by point factually is showing in how you`ve quoted the said piece.
Your arguments have been torn to shreds by the counterpoints Sadna raised, so I saw no merit in flogging the already dead horse that your arguments represent. Point by point, she has dismantled your arguments to show how the League’s demands were unfair and unreasonable and any sane man without prejudice would know that the ML was bent upon having the cake and eating it too.
Quoting a journalese point of view of one author- who is not a historian by any means but a photographer with a long history of emotional association with Gandhi- is hardly enough to show cause ...
Did Margaret Bourke White or I claim that she was a historian? No? Then you don’t know what you’re blabbering on upon. And if you didn’t read the entire interview then let me clue you in. The first line under the title reads: “Margaret Bourke-White was a correspondent and photographer for LIFE magazine during the WW II years. In September 1947, White went to Pakistan.” If you don’t know what the word means, let me know.
This piece is an interview the lady conducted with Jinnah and the exact words he spoke. Was there any denial from Jinnah/his cohorts that the interview was faked? No? That means it is authentic. Jinnah didn’t know what he was talking about. The answers to her questions were shockingly irrelevant and lead me to conclude that he was going insane if he wasn’t already one.
Secondly when the history of our times is written by objective future historians Pakistan and Jinnah will be credited for many a triumph... after all Jinnah chose to back the allied war effort (unlike Congress with sided with Adolf Hitler - Gandhi`s ideological mentor??) ...
If wishes were horses……Yasser would escape the humiliating strip searches every time he landed at a Western airport (that is, if he got a visa in the first place).
Pakistan fought against Soviet expansionism while India aided it... and now when the final chapter of the war on terror will be written, it will be Pakistan which will strike the final blow against this global menace.
Sure, Pakistan has struck a blow, may not be the final one but a blow nevertheless, at Mumbai. Must commend you guys for getting the timing right. Just like your mentor terrorized Hindus and Muslims alike by his demand for Pakistan and subsequent violence that accompanied it, his successors have done it here yesterday.
Your inability to argue point by point factually is showing in how you`ve quoted the said piece.
Your arguments have been torn to shreds by the counterpoints Sadna raised, so I saw no merit in flogging the already dead horse that your arguments represent. Point by point, she has dismantled your arguments to show how the League’s demands were unfair and unreasonable and any sane man without prejudice would know that the ML was bent upon having the cake and eating it too.
Quoting a journalese point of view of one author- who is not a historian by any means but a photographer with a long history of emotional association with Gandhi- is hardly enough to show cause ...
Did Margaret Bourke White or I claim that she was a historian? No? Then you don’t know what you’re blabbering on upon. And if you didn’t read the entire interview then let me clue you in. The first line under the title reads: “Margaret Bourke-White was a correspondent and photographer for LIFE magazine during the WW II years. In September 1947, White went to Pakistan.” If you don’t know what the word means, let me know.
This piece is an interview the lady conducted with Jinnah and the exact words he spoke. Was there any denial from Jinnah/his cohorts that the interview was faked? No? That means it is authentic. Jinnah didn’t know what he was talking about. The answers to her questions were shockingly irrelevant and lead me to conclude that he was going insane if he wasn’t already one.
Secondly when the history of our times is written by objective future historians Pakistan and Jinnah will be credited for many a triumph... after all Jinnah chose to back the allied war effort (unlike Congress with sided with Adolf Hitler - Gandhi`s ideological mentor??) ...
If wishes were horses……Yasser would escape the humiliating strip searches every time he landed at a Western airport (that is, if he got a visa in the first place).
Pakistan fought against Soviet expansionism while India aided it... and now when the final chapter of the war on terror will be written, it will be Pakistan which will strike the final blow against this global menace.
Sure, Pakistan has struck a blow, may not be the final one but a blow nevertheless, at Mumbai. Must commend you guys for getting the timing right. Just like your mentor terrorized Hindus and Muslims alike by his demand for Pakistan and subsequent violence that accompanied it, his successors have done it here yesterday.
#741 Posted by MantoLives on July 11, 2006 11:25:45 pm
Dear Harish Hyd,
Your inability to argue point by point factually is showing in how you`ve quoted the said piece. Quoting a journalese point of view of one author- who is not a historian by any means but a photographer with a long history of emotional association with Gandhi- is hardly enough to show cause ...
Perhaps Bourkewhite would know that the number of dead at partition- brought about by Congress` insistence to repudiate Cabinet Mission Plan and insist on partition of Punjab and Bengal against Muslim League`s wishes- still caused less number of dead than the dead Americans in the Civil War, fought at a less populous time.
Secondly when the history of our times is written by objective future historians Pakistan and Jinnah will be credited for many a triumph... after all Jinnah chose to back the allied war effort (unlike Congress with sided with Adolf Hitler - Gandhi`s ideological mentor??) ... Pakistan fought against Soviet expansionism while India aided it... and now when the final chapter of the war on terror will be written, it will be Pakistan which will strike the final blow against this global menace.
-YLH
Your inability to argue point by point factually is showing in how you`ve quoted the said piece. Quoting a journalese point of view of one author- who is not a historian by any means but a photographer with a long history of emotional association with Gandhi- is hardly enough to show cause ...
Perhaps Bourkewhite would know that the number of dead at partition- brought about by Congress` insistence to repudiate Cabinet Mission Plan and insist on partition of Punjab and Bengal against Muslim League`s wishes- still caused less number of dead than the dead Americans in the Civil War, fought at a less populous time.
Secondly when the history of our times is written by objective future historians Pakistan and Jinnah will be credited for many a triumph... after all Jinnah chose to back the allied war effort (unlike Congress with sided with Adolf Hitler - Gandhi`s ideological mentor??) ... Pakistan fought against Soviet expansionism while India aided it... and now when the final chapter of the war on terror will be written, it will be Pakistan which will strike the final blow against this global menace.
-YLH
