A Muslim Pope?

Re: # 87

Behram ji:

I appreciate you commenting. Please keep the personal comments {Go get a cup of coffee.} to yourself. I am not interested in such indulgence, thank you.

{But I do care about Jinnah, and that is what matters. And it is obvious that you also do care about this, otherwise why the post.} I am uncertain if you have read what I have written. For your benefit I am repeating it here.

{Regarding the second factor, the independence, I do not think anyone will say that India became independent because of Jinnah. Jinnah worked for the Pakistani independence, while Gandhi and many others worked for Indian independence. Please note that I have used ``worked for`` to define their roles. Non-violent approach, and independence of such a big mass of humanity, certainly puts Gandhi in lime-light ahead of Jinnah.

Today, neither of these leaders are invoked by present leaders of these countries while on their foreign trips. If they do, certainly it does not show up in the U.S. press that I read. Gandhi`s samadhi, Rajghat, is in Delhi, therefore, foreign leaders visiting Indian capital do perform a ritual of visiting this samadhi. I, think Jinnah`s is in Karachi, and not in Islamabad, therefore, this ritual is probably not possible with Jinnah, in a correctable disadvantage.

Personally, in my opinion, both of you have evolved a thinking that putting Gandhi down, Jinnah will get a automatic boost in public opinion in the world. The difficulty with this thinking is that world recognize Gandhi as icon of non-violent struggle. It no longer cares whether Gandhi got the independence or Jinnah got the independence.

However, if you and Yasser are putting down Gandhi, so that people in Pakistan pay greater respect to Jinnah. Even in this case is not worth your while, as people already pay respect to Jinnah.

Advani`s statement in Karachi showed he wanted India to be prepared to restore the abandoned Indian hero, Jinnah.

The strategy that two of you are taking regarding Gandhi, only makes many Indians to go slow in restoring Jinnah. Therefore, I can only say that this is an incorrect strategy.}

Clearly, I am saying that Paksitanis already revere Jinnah, and some Pakistani, like TAhamad, at the very least acknowledge, Gandhi as the icon of non-violence, just as majority of people who know or have read about him, all over the world, accept him as the icon.

Regarding Arafat, you have to read the speech he had given in Delhi, when he visited, and what he mentioned about Gandhi. Even Mao Tse Tung had spoke warmly about him, even though Gandhian philosophy was just the opposite of Mao`s. Rather than worrying about my coffee, please spend time researching what these two have said and spoken about Gandhi.

If you can remain civil, then we can certainly carry further, otherwise you do not need to respond. I am quite happy with my belief system.

Anil Kapuria

Re: # 86

Behramji:

{Have you ever wondered why Nelson Mandela has always been anti-Gandhi?
What sort of inspiration are you talking about? }

Please read before you talk. Mandela published his memoirs about a couple of years ago. You don`t need to go further than to find what Mandela has said about in several of his speeches.

Anil Kapuria

Re: # 112

Salim:

This would be the first post from you that I will disagree totally :-)

I would request Manto to please join the discussion and educate us on whether Jinnah was only great as an individual or as a leader too.

Re: # 113

Dear anil:

Ever since I first responded to you on the other Gandhi board, I found your tone as pompous and demeaning. As a matter of fact, I was surprised that you took time to respond to my post. And when I asked you to get a cup of coffee, it meant for you to take a hike.

Almost all your posts clearly shows your arrogance. You expect respect, but do not know how to extend respect. I had read your post and clearly understood the underlying thought. There was no need for you to re-post.

{Regarding Arafat, you have to read the speech he had given in Delhi, when he visited, and what he mentioned about Gandhi.} Sure, waht can you expect from Arafat who gets honarary PhD from India. Frankly, I consider Arafat as a failed leader. So, if Gandhi gets his seal of approval becomes a moot point for me.

{Rather than worrying about my coffee,} If you are not a coffee drinker then that was my mistake. But, that is the least offensive way for me to indicate that you have consistently spoken ill of Jinnah, and that is not appreciated.

{please spend time researching what these two have said and spoken about Gandhi.} Likewise, please don`t worry about how I spend my time.

{If you can remain civil, then we can certainly carry further, otherwise you do not need to respond.} Same goes with you. If you continue being pompous then you will get a response that is befitting your style.

{I am quite happy with my belief system.} Good for you. And so am I.

Respectfully submitted,

Re: # 114

Dear anil:

{Mandela published his memoirs about a couple of years ago.} So?
Nelson Mandela has always been anti-Gandhi, and that is a fact. Do you dispute that?

Respectfully submitted,

#98 by masadi

“you are either not understanding what I am writing in your blind support for the US elite,”

Where did you find blind support for the US in any of my posts? I agreed that the US supported the Mujahideen. Contrary to your rhetoric and blanket sweeps that the US was/is responsible for creating the Terrorists (besides other ills in the world), I presented a historical background of the conflict, and my conclusion was that the US support to Mujahideen did not mean that the US created the terrorists too. Read my posts again where I have emphasized that the Mujahideen morphed into terrorists’ way after the US had left the area.

The conflict in Afghanistan has a well documented history and I would welcome you to dispute facts that I presented in my posts with some arguments and relevant facts instead of leveling across-the-board accusations against me or anyone else.

You cannot argue from the stand point that we don’t understand you because we do and we know where you are coming from. All we had to do was to take you to the point where you start arguing from your “faith” rather than with some logical construct. (that you did in your post #98.) Your faith in “US bad” does not mean much to me nor am I impressed with it. You can have a rational discussion when you present facts backed with logical arguments. You faith is not going to impress anyone here.

You are running away from the debate as you are unable to dispute facts that I presented.

“Over one million Afghans were killed because the US wanted to bleed the Soviets, after luring them in there according to Zbigniew Brzezinski the national security advisor to President Carter- and then Carter the criminal gets a Nobel Prize.”

I have seen this simplistic argument repeated in many loony leftist and now in loony Islamist web sites and articles.

Let me ask you this: there was a country Soviet Union which was going head to head with the US during the cold war in every corner of the world and still was so stupid that it could not figure out that the US was trying to dupe it in the Afghanistan conflict? Do you really believe that the Soviets were so unintelligent? Why stay with Brzezinski and why not say that the Taraki communist coup in Afghanistan was also CIA sponsored to lure the Soviets in Afghanistan and a go step further and claim that Taraki was actually a CIA man in Afghanistan.

A person like you who reads so much stuff and quotes from obscure sites should at least be able to figure out that Brzezinski was just boasting about his role. The Soviets were not really that dim to have followed him to the gallows in Afghanistan. Btw, Carter won his Nobel Prize for the Camp David accord.

“HP and tahmed support the Mujahideen extremists fighting the ``godless communists`` but they don’t support the same ideological extremists when they turn themselves against the Pakistani society as they did in Afghanistan.”

Could you please substantiate that with any of our posts (tahmed and mine)? In fact, in my opinion, it was the darkest period of Pakistan’s history when Pakistan decided to support the Mujahideen and interfered in internal afghan affairs.

I know you would not even follow me when I say that it were the Pakistani threats against Sardar Daud after his overthrow of King Zahir Shah that led to the communist coup in Kabul. I know that would send you in convulsions because you don’t even know the full background of the Afghan conflict.

Oh virgin mary and fatherless jesus! we are back to ``who was greater`` debacle...,I mean, debate.

Neither Gandhi nor Jinnah need the help of this nacheez. So I will enjoy the show, if it goes any further, from the sidelines :)

#97 by ahmakzai

[As it is, you have left your flanks and rear wide open to a vigorous counter-attack that can leave you speechless.]

I heard Pathans have a liking for boys, but you just confirmed it! Does your wife know about your penchant for lads?

Ahmadzai #115, {``Salim:
This would be the first post from you that I will disagree totally :-)
I would request Manto to please join the discussion and educate us on whether Jinnah was only great as an individual or as a leader too. ``}

Ahmadzai,
I am totally appreciative of your total disagreement. It is not easy for a Pakistani to view Mr. Jinnah`s leadership in a critical manner. But did you have to call in the federales? :)

Manto, I am ready to cry uncle, so please don`t take me to school. I just can`t understand a leader who calls his own accomplishment ``moth-eaten.`` It`s not like Mountbatten held a gun to Mr. Jinnah`s head. There was another answer that he could have given. Perhaps, he should have consulted his constituents. The result was that he accomplished something which pleased no one, except possibly the British, who managed to escape India by ``dividing and quitting.``

#112 by Salim_Chauhan

[Jinnah was a more accomplished and modern individual and Gandhi was a much greater and more deserving leader. Just my two objective cents on the topic.]

I too have spoken on the same lines several times but to no avail. There is no doubt Jinnah was an brilliant lawyer and a successful individual but he fared miserably as a leader. Can someone be so stupid as to put at stake of millions of lives as a bargaining counter without taking into account the repercussions that could follow if the move failed? If he didn`t imagine the consequences, he was plain stupid, but if he did, there was none more devious than he was. Either way, he comes nowhere close to Gandhi.

#121 by Salim_Chauhan

Salim,

I envy Pakistan for having produced a fine individual like you (you do get carried away with some of the female interactors here which tends to loom over your reputation like a cloud and for which you sometimes deserve the brickbats you get) but unfortunately, be prepared to be attacked by the well-known suspects for having committed the ultimate blasphemy.

Gandhi V/S Jinnah

Speaking from the point of strict neutrality, it is indeed difficult to say who was greater as a person, personality and the leader..because both were as tall.

But the comparison ends here. The followers of Gandhi have made his head high whereas the followers of Jinnah have let him down.

The followers of Gandhi have given him concrete results whereas followers of Jinnah have given him empty slogans.

A man is as good as the company he keeps, it is said.

#70 MOHAR11

You are currently under my prestigeous Ignore-List. You wont get any response from me for the time being. Better downgrade your current status.

Hello readers/interactors

This article was not written to start a Gandhi Vs Jinnah free for all on CHOWK.

I personally admire BOTH men deeply and let me for the record say that

from within these two I am not anyone to make choices.

This article was written to remember the Founder of Pakistan, one who was not

what he is currently made out to be. The same is true for the pluralistic and secular legacy

that he left behind in spite of the division of India along religious lines that Nehru and

company were willing to accept while ignoring the accomodation of legitimate fears

and issues that INDIAN Muslims were confronted with.

I greatly admire Gandhi for his lack of hostility towards newborn Pakistan, something

that probably cost him his life, assasination at the hands of fanatical Hindus.


This article is also about the present Indo-Pak Peace gestures that I strongly support.


But in the end, it is about a Pakistan that should have been (and one that can

still possibly be achieved?). The choice is in front of Pakistanis. A Secular Democratic

Pakistan is the way forward.


I am asking ferozk to write a continuation of this ``Jinnah Series`` here on CHOWK.

YLH has already written an excellent piece on him in the past.


Anil, you are quite correct in your observations. All the best to you.



Ras

Re: # 117

Behram ji:

I would truly suggest that you read the memoirs of Mandela. You would find he is a greater man than his comtemporaries. You probably would change your views about his views about Gandhi. Please read two speeches he gave one to the Indians in South Africa and the other to an organization in Delhi (I believe). Gandhi is not as ghastly as you are trying to portray.

Anil Kapuria

#126

``This article is also about the present Indo-Pak Peace gestures that I strongly support. ``

You are not alone in your pious endeavour.


``A Secular Democratic Pakistan is the way forward. ``

This was also the dream of Jinnah Sahib, I believe.