Husain, Hinduism, Hindustan: Testing Tolerance

This lady is typical moslem ( and thus liar).
Hussein is basically a urdooo movie poster painter. Congress to get favour from moslems and arab nations had tried to promote him through various institutions. Illegal money from middle east are used for his art selling ( kind of hawala). Recently one guy was caught in such scam (G P Srivastava). They generally choose some non-moslem businessman to avoid suspicion from police. Regarding his paintings, the intentions are clear and most problematically Indian establishment/media provides un-necessary importance to this scoundrel. He, like Dawood Ibrahim (now included in international terrorist list), is fugitive (to evade arrest from large number of court cases, is living in Dubai. Periodically you will read from M J Akbar etc. about his love for country!!!!). I am for free press and freedom of expression. But, if a person leaves country to avoid court proceedings, he is not an ordinary criminal.

I wonder how Farzana Veresy can trivialize percptions of those calling themselves `Hindus` about the depicting their gods or faith objects, in `nude`. If creating fuss over that was bukwas (which may be), then the huge violence and raving and rantings by Muslims on that Danish cartoon of depicting the Allah was thousands time more bukwas! Same about Christian or Jew sensibilities. But the conventional secularist-modernist seem to be selective in this matter. Like the `community identity` of the Muslims, other communities also can have the same `privilege`. We must not have double standards. At this juncture again you bring out Kama Sutra and Khajuraho temples etc. to justify what Hussain does and to ridicule his opponents. That is a chicanery. Someone may also bring the Arabian Nights, escapades of Mughal or similst feudal era and all that to justify `sacrilege` of Allah and the faith objects of Muslims. We have to have some discipline in arguments. Heere what we can have the general common agrement is to disaprove the physical violence as a means of protest aggainst any work of art. If the artist is given the freedom of expression, can we deny similar freedom of expression ( and only expression and not physical realization of that!) to others who have different opinions than the artist. The artist is not crating something for the `people` or rather aptly for the `market` - so let him follow the rules of that business. Artist cannot claim the best of both the worlds. Nor his supporters.

Nachiketas

I wonder how Farzana Veresy can trivialize percptions of those calling themselves `Hindus` about the depicting their gods or faith objects, in `nude`. If creating fuss over that was bukwas (which may also be), then how we can justify the huge violence and raving and rantings on that Danish cartoon of depicting the Allah? We must not have double sandards. At this juncture again you bring out Kama Sutra and Khajuraho temples etc. That is a chicanery? Someone may also bring the Arabian Nights and all that to justify `sacrilege` of Allah and the faith objects of Muslims. We have to have some discipline in arguments.

Nachiketas

Our George of the Jungle has blood on his hand and pieces of human flesh on his shoes...

he has come to Pakistan and India in the hope that the two will clean his stinking shoes and hand him desi towels to wipe his bloody hands...

and of course the passive aggressive sub continentals will clean his shit, bathe him and sanitize him to make him a little presentable to his own people in the US (34% and falling) -- and to the world at large -- where he is one of the most despised leaders that ever came out of the land of Jefferson and Washington.....

whether the Dr Strangeloves of Indian nuke and Missile establishments get their hands in the US nukear cookie jar or not -- or whether Petulant Pervez permanently perpetual dreaming of Kashmir gets a Virtual Valley on a US platter -- or not.....

the hand & feet washing ceremonies will be performed for Dubya the Disgraced Devo in India and Dubya the Demented Deliverer in Pakistan...

…....after all Bush`s British Butlers ruled India for 150 years -- not for nothin....

Dear Sadna...

Yes the parting of the ways was that and I accept it. My point was in response to your point. I am glad you`ve come to see that as such.

So you admit that Jinnah agreed to Congress nominating a Muslim? Asif Ali ... there you have it... Look closely I am not misleading the people. What you are saying proves my point.

The agreement said that Muslim League would represent the Muslims of India as the majority party and in turn Muslim League would have no objection to Congress nominating a Muslim amongst its ranks... as a representative of the Congress...

So in essence Jinnah`s representatives (including Jogindranath Mandal) were representing the Muslims (since League`s claim that it alone represented the Muslims was accepted by all parties) while Asif Ali was representing the Congress Party.

-YLH

#531
The parting of ways was the British Parliament`s India Independence Act which Jinnah and Congress both accepted so I still don`t understand what you mean.

Re the quote in #530, you`ve got to stop misinterpreting stuff and thereby misleading people.

Firstly, Jinnah insisted to Nehru in a letter dated 7th October that the agreement you quote in #530 be accepted along with a condition `That the Congress should not include in the remaining five members of their quota a Muslim of their choice.`

Secondly Jinnah himself ditched that agreement a few days later when he agreed to bring the Muslim League into an Interim government which contained Congress Muslim Asaf Ali.

PS: I don`t know where you are getting this ``forever`` business. The claim that the League made was based on 1946 elections ... I haven`t seen any claim from any leader that this was a ``forever situation``. Instead it was a situation there and then... for the purposes of determination of the future...

Dear Shishapa...

When a party wins 78% of the popular vote and 87% of the seats allocated for that community- that party effectively represents that people - especially when the claim is that the people represent a nation unto themselves- for example when Labor Party wins elections in the UK it represents the British people. This is what happened in 1946... Furthermore... it must be remembered that the 90% of the remaining 22% was taken by smaller Muslim and regional parties and not Congress...

FYI When Nehru backed out he did not reject this position but said that he accepted the position that Muslim League represented the Muslims... Frankly I never understood his convoluted reasoning. In a democracy it is the right of any party to claim that it alone commands the confidence of a minority ... it has to prove it through electoral politics.

If any community party ... like the Christians for example... claim that they alone represent the Christians and then prove it by showing that effectively all Christians in Pakistan support them- I would much rather deal with them then propping up some Bishop here and a priest there who is making politically correct (for the Majority) noises..

Re: # 530

I am so glad Nehru rejected this formula and Gandhi backed out of it.

It is preposterous. We are in a democracy. Just because people voted for a certain
party in certain election, does not mean that certain party owns them for life.
They have to have option to vote for different party in future if they think that party
or candidate of that party represents him/her best.
This is against the basic grain of democracy.
I do not think in Pakistan anybody insists shias should vote for this party or only
this party will represent shias and only this party will represent Sunnis.
So why was it expected so from Hindus and Muslims in India?
What if that party splits into two or three factions, each claiming to be genuine
representative of the original?

Man, what a suffocating thought! Rightfuly discarded.

Sadna...

Lets not confuse issues...

The issue here is of the competing Bourgeoisies in both communities.. the parting of the ways were ofcourse in areas where the Muslims formed majorities... and ofcourse Congress used the Mullahs against the Muslim middle class, lawyers, businessmen etc and therefore there has never been a parting of ways between Deoband and the Congress (hence the regressive Muslim Family Law as a vote-bank guarantor)

You are right Muslim League was a Muslim only party which still went out of its way to appoint a Hindu first on the interim government and later as the law minister of the new state.

-YLH

Dear BJKumar,

Another long winded response to justify your lack of tolerance for an opposing point of view and to justify your abuse against Farzana. The ``Fun`` you are having is apparent in your desperation or maybe you are just the sado-masochistic type.


Shishapa...

Not exclusively Muslim... but a Muslim majority homeland... a multicultural state with Muslim bourgeoisie in charge - that Muslims made a mess of things because of their stupidity forcing people J N Mandal to abandon Pakistan is another issue. In any event 50-60 years are too short a period to judge nation states by...

As far as United India is concerned... where there are competing visions and competing bourgeoisies... one uses ``consociationalism`` as a legitimate tool.

Jinnah and Gandhi signed a formula which I produce here now:

``The Congress does not challenge but accepts that the Muslim League now is the authoritative representative of an overwhelming majority of the Muslims of India. As such and in accordance with democratic principles they alone have today an unquestionable right to represent the Muslims of India. But the Congress does not agree that any restriction or limitation should be put upon the Congress to choose such representatives as they think proper from amongst the members of the Congress. ``

Later Nehru renounced this formula and Gandhi backed out of it.

#525
`` coming to an arrangement on even a parting of ways``

Dunno what you mean. Muslims and Hindus might have parted ways in Pakistan(which was not surprising since Muslim League was a Muslim-only party) but I am unaware of any indication that Hindus and Muslims have parted ways in India.

#526 Manto
[BJ search my name on Google]

You must be kidding!

I think people here get more than a sufficient dose of your rantings right over here - on this website. More than most humans can handle!

It is much more fun than any one individual should be allowed to have. It ought to be criminal to have so much fun.

#525 Manto
[...Apologise to Farzana...]

I already did. Didn`t you read #515?

But then, you - like all lawyers - like your OLD man - always pick and choose what you want to present - reality be damned.

Farzana got my apology - as far as I know, she never got yours - YOU who continued with this buckwaas of Gandhi name-calling inspite of her request to stop it!

And your wife shall never receive my apology or that of any decent person around here for what the two of you have been doing on this site - including on this board!

No Yasser, in this case, it was not me - I was only the medium, the bullet - my sweetheart, you were pulling that trigger - shooting left and right - mostly into your own feet - with your mouth!

And by the way, where is the answer to the last four questions in #523?

I KNEW that people like you prefer to spend your life in the past.

Perhaps because the present gives you nightmares!

And as stated before - every nightmare has a reason!

And this could only be achieved in a separate and exclusive homeland for Muslims?
That is like running away and retreating in one`s little corner. How the mighty had fallen!
Millions had to pay with their lives and sacrifice their families so that somebody
else`s indequacys were catered to, so that bourgeoisies can make peace with themselves,
someday, eventually.

And all hindus in Congress and in general everybody become ``fanatic Hindus`` because
they, who otherwise you refer to as educated and liberal (compared to Muslims), refused to
grant Mr. Jinnah and Muslim Leage the right to be sole spokesman for Indian Muslims
which was ridiculous in the first place.

Anyway, last note from me. Would read your response if you do.
As usual, thanks for you time and patience.

PPS:

BJ search my name on Google.

If you think Gandhi got you India... then you are more delusional than I imagined.

PS: BJkumar to quote ``Uzr-e gunah bud tur uz gunah``..... stop making excuses for your abuse.
Apologise to Farzana... even Sadna has told you that you are wrong.

Sadna,

The issue is very simple...

It was logical and justifiable that the Indian nationalist movement would serve the purposes of the Majority community`s (Hindu) Bourgeoisie interests. Thats how it is in any country.

What was not logical was that instead of coming to an agreement with the minority community`s bourgeoisie in a consociationalist agreement or barring that coming to an arrangement on even a parting of ways... the Congress chose to coopt the religious clerical class against the Muslim bourgeoisie... this is my problem with the Congress... other things equal Congress` movement was a great idea.

-YLH