‘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
#740 Posted by harish_hyd on July 11, 2006 10:29:51 pm
#737 by majumdar
MAJ (pbuh)`s disciple YLH recently posted to me this ``Pakistanis are democrats to the core``
Only goes to show that some delusions haven`t gone away even 60 years after Partition, almost 50 years of which were spent under martial law.
MAJ (pbuh)`s disciple YLH recently posted to me this ``Pakistanis are democrats to the core``
Only goes to show that some delusions haven`t gone away even 60 years after Partition, almost 50 years of which were spent under martial law.
#739 Posted by sadna on July 11, 2006 11:48:03 am
Fundamental and irreconcilable differences in philosophy between the two-nation and one-nation outlooks regarding foreign policy can be seen here:
Presidential Address delivered by Mr. M.A. Jinnah, at the plenary session of the Bengal Provincial Muslim League Conference, Serajganj, February 15, 1942.
..
Pakistan
Now let me proceed to the next point - Pakistan. We have heard many arguments but what do we find in the latest pronouncement of Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru who always thinks in terms of internationalism? What does he say? He does not repeat the wretched arguments that his colleagues and most of the other Hindu leaders have been repeating ad nauseum. He does not think in terms of India. For him, India does not exist. Let me read to you an extract of his speech as reported in the press on the 2nd of this month.
He wondered how the Muslim League talk of partitioning India and forming a separate Muslim bloc, when some Islamic countries, which were separate Muslim blocs, had lost their freedom. Those who talked of such partition had closed their eyes and ears to the happenings of the world and had refused to take lessons from the war. He also wondered how a Muslim bloc in India could stand by itself, when in the present day world big nations could not stand alone.
All that I can say to Mr. Nehru is to let us look after ourselves and to let us see whether we can stand by ourselves. May I know from him how the whole of India can stand alone when in the present-day world big nations have not been able to stand alone?``
Even today Pakistan goes out of its way to mock at any of India`s choices to stand on its own two feet.
Presidential Address delivered by Mr. M.A. Jinnah, at the plenary session of the Bengal Provincial Muslim League Conference, Serajganj, February 15, 1942.
..
Pakistan
Now let me proceed to the next point - Pakistan. We have heard many arguments but what do we find in the latest pronouncement of Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru who always thinks in terms of internationalism? What does he say? He does not repeat the wretched arguments that his colleagues and most of the other Hindu leaders have been repeating ad nauseum. He does not think in terms of India. For him, India does not exist. Let me read to you an extract of his speech as reported in the press on the 2nd of this month.
He wondered how the Muslim League talk of partitioning India and forming a separate Muslim bloc, when some Islamic countries, which were separate Muslim blocs, had lost their freedom. Those who talked of such partition had closed their eyes and ears to the happenings of the world and had refused to take lessons from the war. He also wondered how a Muslim bloc in India could stand by itself, when in the present day world big nations could not stand alone.
All that I can say to Mr. Nehru is to let us look after ourselves and to let us see whether we can stand by ourselves. May I know from him how the whole of India can stand alone when in the present-day world big nations have not been able to stand alone?``
Even today Pakistan goes out of its way to mock at any of India`s choices to stand on its own two feet.
#738 Posted by bjk on July 11, 2006 10:10:33 am
#737 Zoom dada
[Pakistanis are democrats to the core]
Yup, every one of them is a democrat to the core – every one of them was born with a silver US constitution sticking from their posteriors!
On second thoughts, make that green!
Oh, the majesty of that green, green path!
Boal meri taqdeer mein kya hai – mere hum-safar ab to bataa
Jeewan ke do pahloo hain - hariyaalee aur raasta!
And how green they come!
The Mullah who wants to put the women in their “proper place” – high above on that pedestal – just as long as they do not try to come down!
The Supreme Court judges who have sworn allegiance to the khakis without a pang of conscience – those ultimate of lawyers!
The scribes who write falsehood knowing fully well what they write!
The ISI agent who makes sure that literacy tests are accurately applied to ensure that only the worthy politicians get elected!
The expatriates who sit on their behinds and happily proclaim how much better than the rest of the world they are – especially compared to India!
The general who sits atop all – who could ever be more democratic!
Like father – like sons!
Make way, world – here come the “democratic to the core” progeny of the vamp himself!
#737 Posted by majumdar on July 11, 2006 5:18:21 am
Harish bhai
(``Democracy is not just a new thing we are learning,`` said Jinnah. ``It is in our blood. )
MAJ (pbuh)`s disciple YLH recently posted to me this ``Pakistanis are democrats to the core``
Regards
(``Democracy is not just a new thing we are learning,`` said Jinnah. ``It is in our blood. )
MAJ (pbuh)`s disciple YLH recently posted to me this ``Pakistanis are democrats to the core``
Regards
#736 Posted by harish_hyd on July 11, 2006 5:11:22 am
For the entire interview, go here:
http://iref.homestead.com/Messiah.html
http://iref.homestead.com/Messiah.html
#735 Posted by harish_hyd on July 11, 2006 5:09:43 am
The Messiah and The Promised Land
Excerpts:
``If Fatima`s reaction was a glow of family pride, her brother`s was a fever of ecstasy. Jinnah`s deep-sunk eyes were pinpoints of excitement. His whole manner indicated that an almost overwhelming exaltation was racing through his veins. I had murmured some words of congratulation on his achievement in creating the world`s largest Islamic nation.
``Oh, it`s not just the largest Islamic nation. Pakistan is the fifth-largest nation in the world!``
The note of personal triumph was so unmistakable that I wondered how much thought he gave to the human cost: more Muslim lives had been sacrificed to create the new Muslim homeland than America, for example, had lost during the entire second World War. I hoped he had a constructive plan for the seventy million citizens of Pakistan. What kind of constitution did he intend to draw up?``
``Of course it will be a democratic constitution; Islam is a democratic religion.``
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.``
This confusion of democracy with charity troubled me. I begged him to be more specific.
``Our Islamic ideas have been based on democracy and social justice since the thirteenth century.``
This mention of the thirteenth century troubled me still more. Pakistan has other relics of the Middle Ages besides ``social justice`` -- the remnants of a feudal land system, for one. What would the new constitution do about that? .. ``The land belongs to the God,`` says the Koran. This would need clarification in the constitution. Presumably Jinnah, the lawyer, would be just the person to correlate the ``true Islamic principles`` one heard so much about in Pakistan with the new nation`s laws. But all he would tell me was that the constitution would be democratic because ``the soil is perfectly fertile for democracy.``
``America needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs America,`` was Jinnah`s reply. ``Pakistan is the pivot of the world, as we are placed`` -- he revolved his long forefinger in bony circles -- ``the frontier on which the future position of the world revolves.`` He leaned toward me, dropping his voice to a confidential note. ``Russia,`` confided Mr. Jinnah, ``is not so very far away.``
``This hope of tapping the U. S. Treasury was voiced so persistently that one wondered whether the purpose was to bolster the world against Bolshevism or to bolster Pakistan`s own uncertain position as a new political entity. Actually, I think, it was more nearly related to the even more significant bankruptcy of ideas in the new Muslim state -- a nation drawing its spurious warmth from the embers of an antique religious fanaticism, fanned into a new blaze``.
``Less than three months after Pakistan became a nation, Jinnah`s Olympian assurance had strangely withered. His altered condition was not made public. ``The Quaid-i-Azam has a bad cold`` was the answer given to inquiries.``
``Later, reflecting on what I had seen, I decided that this desperation was due to causes far deeper than anxiety over Pakistan`s territorial and economic difficulties. I think that the tortured appearance of Mr. Jinnah was an indication that, in these final months of his life, he was adding up his own balance sheet. Analytical, brilliant, and no bigot, he knew what he had done. Like Doctor Faustus, he had made a bargain from which he could never be free. During the heat of the struggle he had been willing to call on all the devilish forces of superstition, and now that his new nation had been achieved the bigots were in the position of authority.``
Excerpts:
``If Fatima`s reaction was a glow of family pride, her brother`s was a fever of ecstasy. Jinnah`s deep-sunk eyes were pinpoints of excitement. His whole manner indicated that an almost overwhelming exaltation was racing through his veins. I had murmured some words of congratulation on his achievement in creating the world`s largest Islamic nation.
``Oh, it`s not just the largest Islamic nation. Pakistan is the fifth-largest nation in the world!``
The note of personal triumph was so unmistakable that I wondered how much thought he gave to the human cost: more Muslim lives had been sacrificed to create the new Muslim homeland than America, for example, had lost during the entire second World War. I hoped he had a constructive plan for the seventy million citizens of Pakistan. What kind of constitution did he intend to draw up?``
``Of course it will be a democratic constitution; Islam is a democratic religion.``
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.``
This confusion of democracy with charity troubled me. I begged him to be more specific.
``Our Islamic ideas have been based on democracy and social justice since the thirteenth century.``
This mention of the thirteenth century troubled me still more. Pakistan has other relics of the Middle Ages besides ``social justice`` -- the remnants of a feudal land system, for one. What would the new constitution do about that? .. ``The land belongs to the God,`` says the Koran. This would need clarification in the constitution. Presumably Jinnah, the lawyer, would be just the person to correlate the ``true Islamic principles`` one heard so much about in Pakistan with the new nation`s laws. But all he would tell me was that the constitution would be democratic because ``the soil is perfectly fertile for democracy.``
``America needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs America,`` was Jinnah`s reply. ``Pakistan is the pivot of the world, as we are placed`` -- he revolved his long forefinger in bony circles -- ``the frontier on which the future position of the world revolves.`` He leaned toward me, dropping his voice to a confidential note. ``Russia,`` confided Mr. Jinnah, ``is not so very far away.``
``This hope of tapping the U. S. Treasury was voiced so persistently that one wondered whether the purpose was to bolster the world against Bolshevism or to bolster Pakistan`s own uncertain position as a new political entity. Actually, I think, it was more nearly related to the even more significant bankruptcy of ideas in the new Muslim state -- a nation drawing its spurious warmth from the embers of an antique religious fanaticism, fanned into a new blaze``.
``Less than three months after Pakistan became a nation, Jinnah`s Olympian assurance had strangely withered. His altered condition was not made public. ``The Quaid-i-Azam has a bad cold`` was the answer given to inquiries.``
``Later, reflecting on what I had seen, I decided that this desperation was due to causes far deeper than anxiety over Pakistan`s territorial and economic difficulties. I think that the tortured appearance of Mr. Jinnah was an indication that, in these final months of his life, he was adding up his own balance sheet. Analytical, brilliant, and no bigot, he knew what he had done. Like Doctor Faustus, he had made a bargain from which he could never be free. During the heat of the struggle he had been willing to call on all the devilish forces of superstition, and now that his new nation had been achieved the bigots were in the position of authority.``
#734 Posted by MantoLives on July 10, 2006 10:17:18 pm
Dear Sadna,
And we are back to square one. Having a disproportionately large army to land ratio is the central issue that has poisoned Pakistan-India relations.... something that would have been avoided under the CMP.
In any event, the point was to show that a complete separation had other factors and that Pakistan and India still could have done well to make a Joint Defence Council at the very least...
-YLH
#733 Posted by sadna on July 10, 2006 12:21:36 pm
#731
BR Ambedkar as usual puts it best and unfortunately the million-odd East Bengalis who were killed in 1971 did not hear him:
``
..If India remains politically one whole and the two-nation mentality created by Pakistan continues to be fostered, the Hindus will find themselves between the devil and the deep sea, so far as the defence of India is concerned. Having an Army, they will not be free to use it because the League objects. Using it, it will not be possible to depend upon it because its loyalty is doubtful.
This is a position which is as pathetic as it is precarious. If the Army continues to be dominated by the Muslims of the Punjab and the N. W. F. P., the Hindus will have to pay it but will not be able to use it and even if they were free to use it against a Muslim invader, they will find it hazardous to depend upon it..
..The revenue of the Central Government amounts to Rs.121 crores. Of this, about Rs. 52 crores are annually spent on the Army. In what area is this amount spent ? Who pays the bulk of this amount of Rs. 52 crores ? The bulk of this amount of Rs. 52 crores which is spent on the Army is spent over the Muslim Army drawn from the Pakistan area. Now the bulk of this amount of Rs. 52 crores is contributed by the Hindu Provinces and is spent on an Army which for the most part consists of non-Hindus ! ! How many Hindus are aware of this tragedy ? How many know at whose cost this tragedy is being enacted ?
Today the Hindus are not responsible for it because they cannot prevent it. The question is whether they will allow this tragedy to continue. If they mean to stop it, the surest way of putting an end to it is to allow the scheme of Pakistan to take effect. To oppose it, is to buy a sure weapon of their own destruction. A safe Army is better than a safe border.``
BR Ambedkar as usual puts it best and unfortunately the million-odd East Bengalis who were killed in 1971 did not hear him:
``
..If India remains politically one whole and the two-nation mentality created by Pakistan continues to be fostered, the Hindus will find themselves between the devil and the deep sea, so far as the defence of India is concerned. Having an Army, they will not be free to use it because the League objects. Using it, it will not be possible to depend upon it because its loyalty is doubtful.
This is a position which is as pathetic as it is precarious. If the Army continues to be dominated by the Muslims of the Punjab and the N. W. F. P., the Hindus will have to pay it but will not be able to use it and even if they were free to use it against a Muslim invader, they will find it hazardous to depend upon it..
..The revenue of the Central Government amounts to Rs.121 crores. Of this, about Rs. 52 crores are annually spent on the Army. In what area is this amount spent ? Who pays the bulk of this amount of Rs. 52 crores ? The bulk of this amount of Rs. 52 crores which is spent on the Army is spent over the Muslim Army drawn from the Pakistan area. Now the bulk of this amount of Rs. 52 crores is contributed by the Hindu Provinces and is spent on an Army which for the most part consists of non-Hindus ! ! How many Hindus are aware of this tragedy ? How many know at whose cost this tragedy is being enacted ?
Today the Hindus are not responsible for it because they cannot prevent it. The question is whether they will allow this tragedy to continue. If they mean to stop it, the surest way of putting an end to it is to allow the scheme of Pakistan to take effect. To oppose it, is to buy a sure weapon of their own destruction. A safe Army is better than a safe border.``
#732 Posted by MantoLives on July 10, 2006 6:38:11 am
The incomplete sentence in my post should read:
A customs union was not the form CMP was to take but the idea was the same. Just because EU took the form of a Customs Union and proceeded from that angle does not mean only that route of political union is acceptable, nor does it negate the analogy I have drawn. The CMP was a brilliant solution as it delivered sovereign economic and political units.
To suggest that EU and CMP have nothing is common because one took the customs union route and the other foreign policy and defence route is like saying United States and United Kingdom have nothing in common because US is a constitutional republic while United Kingdom is by law a Kingdom.
A customs union was not the form CMP was to take but the idea was the same. Just because EU took the form of a Customs Union and proceeded from that angle does not mean only that route of political union is acceptable, nor does it negate the analogy I have drawn. The CMP was a brilliant solution as it delivered sovereign economic and political units.
To suggest that EU and CMP have nothing is common because one took the customs union route and the other foreign policy and defence route is like saying United States and United Kingdom have nothing in common because US is a constitutional republic while United Kingdom is by law a Kingdom.
#731 Posted by MantoLives on July 10, 2006 6:24:59 am
Sadna,
With all due respect, you would sound much more sincere and more academic, you actually tried to realise that your interpretation of a particular political theory or idea is not necessarily the only acceptable theory - that there may be other more acceptable political theorems...
1- The way you bypass arguments by going into incidental differences just goes to show that you don`t have any substantial point to argue on... what is common in the European Union and the proposed Indian Union is the idea of open borders and sovereign states within a confederation. I certainly did not suggest that the proposed Indian Union between Pakistan and Hindustan Units under the CMP was a complete copy of the EU... Infact I spoke of the Indian Union having more teeth than the EU... and that much is clear. But then the purpose your argument is mainly an attempt to obfuscate. Talk about honesty. A customs union was not the form that EU.
2- You write: ``Moreover EU member countries have not been required to surrender to the EU, control of their armies and defence and foreign policies. ``
Which is why I wrote: Whatever the toothlessness of the proposed confederation, it had more teeth than the present European Union.
Unlike the EU, the proposed Indian Union (which you`ve decried as ``toothless``) was to have
1- An executive
2- Union defence - hence United Indian Army under equal control of Hindustan and Pakistan with neither party being able to prevail given that even under the communal issue vote (which you`ve often said foreign policy might be) both assemblies had to pass a certain bill (refer to Muslim League`s terms of agreement)
3- United Foreign Policy
This is what I meant when I said that the proposed Indian Union has more teeth than the European Union.
With all due respect, you would sound much more sincere and more academic, you actually tried to realise that your interpretation of a particular political theory or idea is not necessarily the only acceptable theory - that there may be other more acceptable political theorems...
1- The way you bypass arguments by going into incidental differences just goes to show that you don`t have any substantial point to argue on... what is common in the European Union and the proposed Indian Union is the idea of open borders and sovereign states within a confederation. I certainly did not suggest that the proposed Indian Union between Pakistan and Hindustan Units under the CMP was a complete copy of the EU... Infact I spoke of the Indian Union having more teeth than the EU... and that much is clear. But then the purpose your argument is mainly an attempt to obfuscate. Talk about honesty. A customs union was not the form that EU.
2- You write: ``Moreover EU member countries have not been required to surrender to the EU, control of their armies and defence and foreign policies. ``
Which is why I wrote: Whatever the toothlessness of the proposed confederation, it had more teeth than the present European Union.
Unlike the EU, the proposed Indian Union (which you`ve decried as ``toothless``) was to have
1- An executive
2- Union defence - hence United Indian Army under equal control of Hindustan and Pakistan with neither party being able to prevail given that even under the communal issue vote (which you`ve often said foreign policy might be) both assemblies had to pass a certain bill (refer to Muslim League`s terms of agreement)
3- United Foreign Policy
This is what I meant when I said that the proposed Indian Union has more teeth than the European Union.
#730 Posted by sadna on July 10, 2006 4:22:09 am
#727
You would waste less of other peoples` time (and appear more honest) if you actually took the trouble to check what you post before you post it. There is nothing in common between the proposed Indian Union and the European Union.
``The Union nowadays has a common single market consisting of a customs union, a single currency managed by the European Central Bank (so far adopted by 12 of the 25 member states), a Common Agricultural Policy, a common trade policy, and a Common Fisheries Policy.[2] A Common Foreign and Security Policy was also established as the second of the three pillars of the European Union. The Schengen Agreement abolished passport control, and customs checks were also abolished at many of the EU`s internal borders, creating a single space of mobility for EU citizens to live, travel, work and invest. ``
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union
EU is a common market mainly with member countries having common customs, currency and trade policies, something expressly forbidden by the Muslim League for the Indian Union. Moreover EU member countries have not been required to surrender to the EU, control of their armies and defence and foreign policies.
#729 Posted by MantoLives on July 10, 2006 12:52:42 am
majumdar,
I agree with your comment...
The basic reason for Pakistan`s tragic provincial situation is that the powers that be have systematically violated the clauses of Lahore Resolution which was the basis of Pakistan.
I agree with your comment...
The basic reason for Pakistan`s tragic provincial situation is that the powers that be have systematically violated the clauses of Lahore Resolution which was the basis of Pakistan.
#728 Posted by majumdar on July 9, 2006 11:52:56 pm
Manto mian/Sadnaji,
The sad part about your debate is that although Pakistan was formed on the basis of issues such as provincial rights, Muslim sovereignty, minority rights etc. the same principles have been systemically violated in Pakistan (and to a lesser extent in India).
Regards
PS: I am quite glad that Italy has beaten France.Two reasons, First, the Italians are rather cute, secondly France has many Muslims and blacks. Had France won, echoboom would have flooded the chowk with links highlighting the greatness of Muslims and YLH would have flooded the chowk decrying how MKG had rubbished a race which produced such worthy conquerors of the world.
The sad part about your debate is that although Pakistan was formed on the basis of issues such as provincial rights, Muslim sovereignty, minority rights etc. the same principles have been systemically violated in Pakistan (and to a lesser extent in India).
Regards
PS: I am quite glad that Italy has beaten France.Two reasons, First, the Italians are rather cute, secondly France has many Muslims and blacks. Had France won, echoboom would have flooded the chowk with links highlighting the greatness of Muslims and YLH would have flooded the chowk decrying how MKG had rubbished a race which produced such worthy conquerors of the world.
#727 Posted by MantoLives on July 9, 2006 11:28:41 pm
Dear Sadna,
Very early on ...you and I reached a consensus on the fact that after 1937 Jinnah acted as the representative of Muslims and that from 1940 onwards, he wanted an arrangement on the basis of Pakistan, which was a demand that he had resisted for a good 3 years ... recall my quotation of the history of ``A Punjabi`s`` famous ``Confederacy of India`` which was originally named Pakistan but Mian Kifayet Ali (A Punjabi) changed it to the confederacy of India on Jinnah`s insistence. It was the AIML`s recognition of the popularity of the idea of Pakistan in Muslim majority regions (while ironically Muslim League was strognest in the UP
However... the issues at hand are the following:
I submit
1- That Jinnah had, to quote A G Noorani of The Hindu, a latent sense of India above Pakistan and Hindustan ... which is embodied in the ``toothless`` confederation that you`ve so vehemently decried.
2- That the principle of Pakistan was not based on a rigid and complete hostile partition but as you pointed out the issue of ``Muslim sovereignty``.. Khushwant Singh wrote in one of his essays that he continued to support the ML demand for autonomous Muslim regions in North west and North east not thinking that it would mean partition.
3- With all due respect to B R Ambedkar, who was by the finest intellectual produced by South Asian polity, the world has moved towards European Union type arrangements and Jinnah`s toothless Union is the precursor to a possibly viable SAARC of the future. Thus the toothless Indian Union would have meant peace and security for two otherwise independent states following their destiny according to their own lights whatever they might have been.
4- Please realise that by taking this line of argument - that the Union was completely toothless- you`ve forfeited your earlier argument that Pakistanis` shadow would have loomed large on the activities of Hindustani Constituent Assembly ...
5- Whatever the toothlessness of the proposed confederation, it had more teeth than the present European Union.
Very early on ...you and I reached a consensus on the fact that after 1937 Jinnah acted as the representative of Muslims and that from 1940 onwards, he wanted an arrangement on the basis of Pakistan, which was a demand that he had resisted for a good 3 years ... recall my quotation of the history of ``A Punjabi`s`` famous ``Confederacy of India`` which was originally named Pakistan but Mian Kifayet Ali (A Punjabi) changed it to the confederacy of India on Jinnah`s insistence. It was the AIML`s recognition of the popularity of the idea of Pakistan in Muslim majority regions (while ironically Muslim League was strognest in the UP
However... the issues at hand are the following:
I submit
1- That Jinnah had, to quote A G Noorani of The Hindu, a latent sense of India above Pakistan and Hindustan ... which is embodied in the ``toothless`` confederation that you`ve so vehemently decried.
2- That the principle of Pakistan was not based on a rigid and complete hostile partition but as you pointed out the issue of ``Muslim sovereignty``.. Khushwant Singh wrote in one of his essays that he continued to support the ML demand for autonomous Muslim regions in North west and North east not thinking that it would mean partition.
3- With all due respect to B R Ambedkar, who was by the finest intellectual produced by South Asian polity, the world has moved towards European Union type arrangements and Jinnah`s toothless Union is the precursor to a possibly viable SAARC of the future. Thus the toothless Indian Union would have meant peace and security for two otherwise independent states following their destiny according to their own lights whatever they might have been.
4- Please realise that by taking this line of argument - that the Union was completely toothless- you`ve forfeited your earlier argument that Pakistanis` shadow would have loomed large on the activities of Hindustani Constituent Assembly ...
5- Whatever the toothlessness of the proposed confederation, it had more teeth than the present European Union.
#725 Posted by sadna on July 9, 2006 8:55:44 pm
#720
I posted that set of terms of the Muslim League on my ilog more than a year ago. Why didn`t you post what the Congress response to that was? Jinnah basically wanted a settlement which did not prevent ``Pakistan`` from secceding from the Indian Union and ``Hindustan`` at any point of time that it wished - completely separate constitutions and virtual sovereignty, a toothless Union with no power of its own, because (1) no power to finance itself (2) parity at the centre in the legislature and executive. Parity at the toothless union level also meant that if the Muslim (`Pakistan`) part of the army, executive, legislature or Group decided to get up and go, it could.
This arrangement can not be not called unity, nor was it of any use for ``Hindustan`` to be tied into this meaningless federation with ``Pakistan`` which did not even allow ``Hindustan`` to use its army as it wished nor have the foreign or defence policy it wished despite being twice or thrice the size of ``Pakistan``. BR Ambedkar put it very clearly - he said Hindus must agree to Pakistan because it was much better for ``Hindustan`` to have a safe army than to have safe borders.
I have been through this discussion many times with you and have answered all your ``points`` several times, including on this thread repeatedly and will not be doing so again.
I posted that set of terms of the Muslim League on my ilog more than a year ago. Why didn`t you post what the Congress response to that was? Jinnah basically wanted a settlement which did not prevent ``Pakistan`` from secceding from the Indian Union and ``Hindustan`` at any point of time that it wished - completely separate constitutions and virtual sovereignty, a toothless Union with no power of its own, because (1) no power to finance itself (2) parity at the centre in the legislature and executive. Parity at the toothless union level also meant that if the Muslim (`Pakistan`) part of the army, executive, legislature or Group decided to get up and go, it could.
This arrangement can not be not called unity, nor was it of any use for ``Hindustan`` to be tied into this meaningless federation with ``Pakistan`` which did not even allow ``Hindustan`` to use its army as it wished nor have the foreign or defence policy it wished despite being twice or thrice the size of ``Pakistan``. BR Ambedkar put it very clearly - he said Hindus must agree to Pakistan because it was much better for ``Hindustan`` to have a safe army than to have safe borders.
I have been through this discussion many times with you and have answered all your ``points`` several times, including on this thread repeatedly and will not be doing so again.
#724 Posted by kalyan on July 9, 2006 9:32:24 am
ok. This is just to let you know that I saw your message (#723). I may only respond on Monday.
#723 Posted by MantoLives on July 9, 2006 9:19:51 am
Kalyan,
There are two things here...
1- First of all the dispute is as to what importance that particular document held in the larger scheme of things... Why is for example that resolution, which clearly for public consumption to make CMP more amenable to the people who wanted a fully sovereign Pakistan, more important than the Terms of Offer that Muslim League gave and which I have quoted in 707 and 720... OR why is more important than Muslim League`s actual acceptance of the Cabinet Mission Plan?
2- Even on the basis of the document you suggest there is a lot of room for various interpretations... please inform me if France, Germany, Italy, Great Britain etc are sovereign states or not? And if they are sovereign states... are they not in a defacto confederation/union called the European Union? So let us be a little more accepting that there may be an alternative interpretation...
I suggest you read the Lahore Resolution where the founding fathers used the word ``autonomous`` and ``independent`` interchangeably... this is called keeping the whole document broad.
There are two things here...
1- First of all the dispute is as to what importance that particular document held in the larger scheme of things... Why is for example that resolution, which clearly for public consumption to make CMP more amenable to the people who wanted a fully sovereign Pakistan, more important than the Terms of Offer that Muslim League gave and which I have quoted in 707 and 720... OR why is more important than Muslim League`s actual acceptance of the Cabinet Mission Plan?
2- Even on the basis of the document you suggest there is a lot of room for various interpretations... please inform me if France, Germany, Italy, Great Britain etc are sovereign states or not? And if they are sovereign states... are they not in a defacto confederation/union called the European Union? So let us be a little more accepting that there may be an alternative interpretation...
I suggest you read the Lahore Resolution where the founding fathers used the word ``autonomous`` and ``independent`` interchangeably... this is called keeping the whole document broad.
#722 Posted by kalyan on July 9, 2006 9:09:23 am
``I am alleging that your interpretation of what a particular primary source document is supposed to mean is in of itself the point of argument. ``
My interpretation??? I haven`t offered an interpretation beyond the plain and explicit text of the primary source.... that sovereignty is the ``unalterable objective`` about which there may be ``no manner of doubt``.
I have only pointed out that your ``interpretation`` directly contradicts the plain text. . You are actually casting doubt on the unalterable objective by saying it was only to appease ``the masses who wanted Pakistan``
--
Your comments about me in various posts are noted without response: ``I put words in your mouth, I choose to be dishonest.``
I will be maintaining this collection but only respond with my comments and questions on the subject matter. I hope it doesn`t grow too big.
My interpretation??? I haven`t offered an interpretation beyond the plain and explicit text of the primary source.... that sovereignty is the ``unalterable objective`` about which there may be ``no manner of doubt``.
I have only pointed out that your ``interpretation`` directly contradicts the plain text. . You are actually casting doubt on the unalterable objective by saying it was only to appease ``the masses who wanted Pakistan``
--
Your comments about me in various posts are noted without response: ``I put words in your mouth, I choose to be dishonest.``
I will be maintaining this collection but only respond with my comments and questions on the subject matter. I hope it doesn`t grow too big.
#721 Posted by MantoLives on July 9, 2006 8:48:24 am
PS:
I want to point out a few more things...
1- This is a completely academic debate. Pakistan, a sovereign Pakistan, is a reality and there is no undoing this reality. Whatever good points or bad points Pakistan has, it is entirely of its own doing. Furthermore... India hardly is something special that I for one would want anything to do with it... To constantly barrage me with this accusation that we want or we rue ``influence`` in India ... is just a ridiculous argument.
2- H M Seervai, SK Majumdar, Irfan Habib, Ajeet Javed and many many Indian historians and writers who agree with me on this issue would hardly have any ulterior motive like conquering India or something of the sort. This is an academic debate, and the arguments of these gentlemen are very logical.... and the record itself reaffirms their views.
3- Sadna can`t impugn intentions or start abusing others simply because we refuse to agree to her view of history ...
I want to point out a few more things...
1- This is a completely academic debate. Pakistan, a sovereign Pakistan, is a reality and there is no undoing this reality. Whatever good points or bad points Pakistan has, it is entirely of its own doing. Furthermore... India hardly is something special that I for one would want anything to do with it... To constantly barrage me with this accusation that we want or we rue ``influence`` in India ... is just a ridiculous argument.
2- H M Seervai, SK Majumdar, Irfan Habib, Ajeet Javed and many many Indian historians and writers who agree with me on this issue would hardly have any ulterior motive like conquering India or something of the sort. This is an academic debate, and the arguments of these gentlemen are very logical.... and the record itself reaffirms their views.
3- Sadna can`t impugn intentions or start abusing others simply because we refuse to agree to her view of history ...
#720 Posted by MantoLives on July 9, 2006 8:43:33 am
Yaar Kalyan,
If you choose to be dishonest here what can I say? I am alleging that your interpretation of what a particular primary source document is supposed to mean is in of itself the point of argument.
Sadna,
You see here is how you distort the facts. What I had said was that having a federal system or a confederal system or a consociationalist did not negate the one man one vote system ... and not as you have distorted it into meaning that a federal system would not have one man one vote system... I for one did not mention the United States of America.. but yes the principle of having a US Senate, with major financial powers and without whose consent everything is impossible in the US, which takes 2 representatives from California (Population 53 million) and 2 representatives from New Jersey (Population 8 million) is actually completely in line with the one man one vote system... just like the CMP which was also completely in tune with the principle of one man one vote...
Infact ... under the CMP the issues of redistribution, economics, taxation etc was completely under the GROUP legislatures... and from the looks of it there wouldn`t have been any Union Legislature... just the executive. So that essentially means that each voter of the Indian Union consisting of Pakistan and Hindustan units would have one vote in taxation and finance bill... So the Cabinet Mission Plan preserves the principle of One Person One Vote and ensures that each unit and each province had a real control of its destiny. This is what Lahore Resolution was about and this is what Pakistan`s Non-Punjabi provinces ask for... and this is what Bengalis were asking for through their 6 points.
Now let us consider what Muslim League offered one more time:
Terms of the offer made by the Muslim League as a basis of agreements 12 May 1946.
1.The six Muslim Provinces(Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Baluchistan, Sind, Bengal and Assam) shall be grouped together as one group and will deal with all other subjects and matters except Foreign Affairs, Defence and Communications necessary for Defence, which may be dealt with by the constitution-making bodies of the two groups of Provinces-Muslim Provinces(hereinafter named Pakistan Group) and Hindu Provinces-sitting together.
2. There shall be a separate constitution-making body for the six Muslim Provinces named above, which will frame Constitutions for the group and the Provinces in the group and will determine the list of subjects that shall be Provincial and Central(of the Pakistan Federation) with residuary sovereign powers vesting in the Provinces.
3. The method of election of the representatives to the constitution-making body will be such as would secure proper representation to the various communities in proportion to their population in each Province of the Pakistan Group.
4. After the constitutions of the Pakistan Federal Government and the Provinces are finally framed by the constitution-making body it will be open to any Province of the Group to decide to opt out of its group, provided the wishes of the people of that Province are ascertained by a referendum to opt out or not.
5. It must be open to discussion in the joint constitution-making body as to whether the Union will have a Legislature or not. The method of providing the Union with finance should also be left for decision of the joint meeting of the two constitution-making bodies, but in no event shall it be by means of taxation.
6. There should be parity of representation between the two groups of Provinces in the Union Executive and the Legislature, if any.
7. No major point in the Union Constitution which affects the communal issue shall be deemed to be passed in the joint constitution-making body, unless the majority of the members of the constitution-making body of the Hindu provinces and the majority of the members of the constitution-making group of the Pakistan Group, present and voting, are separately in its favour.
8. No decision, legislative, executive or administrative, shall be taken by the Union in regard to any matter of controversial nature, except by a majority of three-fourths.
9. In Group and Provincial Constitutions fundamental rights and safeguards concerning religion, culture and other matters affecting the different communities will be provided for.
10. The Constitution of the Union shall have a provision whereby any Province can, by a majority vote of its Legislative Assembly, call for reconsideration of the terms of the Constitution, and will have the liberty to secede from the Union at any time after an initial period of ten years.
These are the principles of our offer for a peaceful and amicable settlement and this offer stands in its entirety and all matters mentioned herein are interdependent.
`Speeches and Documents on the Indian Constitution 1921-1947` by A. Appadorai 1957 Vol. II.
And just to drive home the points that have been mentioned earlier as well:
1- The principle of parity is between Pakistan and Hindustan groups and NOT Muslim and Hindu communities per se.
2- The vote communal issue that you use - when projecting it on (illogically) an alleged Afghan war we Pakistanis would have forced you into- is subject to both a majority vote in Hindustan Constituent Assembly and Pakistan Constituent Assembly. To explain this ... if some Pakistani politician - as you are so fond of speculating (though no Pakistani politician would or even has) - were to present the Afghan War as a communal issue... he would not only have to win a majority in Pakistan Unit ... but also a majority in the Hindustan Unit.
3- All controversial decisions would have to be made with 3/4ths majority.
4- For all practical purposes Congress would be free to devise its Economic and social policy unfettered by Muslim League unlike your claim that AIML would have forced its hand.
5- After the constitution was drafted, each province had the right to opt out of the group federation.
If you choose to be dishonest here what can I say? I am alleging that your interpretation of what a particular primary source document is supposed to mean is in of itself the point of argument.
Sadna,
You see here is how you distort the facts. What I had said was that having a federal system or a confederal system or a consociationalist did not negate the one man one vote system ... and not as you have distorted it into meaning that a federal system would not have one man one vote system... I for one did not mention the United States of America.. but yes the principle of having a US Senate, with major financial powers and without whose consent everything is impossible in the US, which takes 2 representatives from California (Population 53 million) and 2 representatives from New Jersey (Population 8 million) is actually completely in line with the one man one vote system... just like the CMP which was also completely in tune with the principle of one man one vote...
Infact ... under the CMP the issues of redistribution, economics, taxation etc was completely under the GROUP legislatures... and from the looks of it there wouldn`t have been any Union Legislature... just the executive. So that essentially means that each voter of the Indian Union consisting of Pakistan and Hindustan units would have one vote in taxation and finance bill... So the Cabinet Mission Plan preserves the principle of One Person One Vote and ensures that each unit and each province had a real control of its destiny. This is what Lahore Resolution was about and this is what Pakistan`s Non-Punjabi provinces ask for... and this is what Bengalis were asking for through their 6 points.
Now let us consider what Muslim League offered one more time:
Terms of the offer made by the Muslim League as a basis of agreements 12 May 1946.
1.The six Muslim Provinces(Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Baluchistan, Sind, Bengal and Assam) shall be grouped together as one group and will deal with all other subjects and matters except Foreign Affairs, Defence and Communications necessary for Defence, which may be dealt with by the constitution-making bodies of the two groups of Provinces-Muslim Provinces(hereinafter named Pakistan Group) and Hindu Provinces-sitting together.
2. There shall be a separate constitution-making body for the six Muslim Provinces named above, which will frame Constitutions for the group and the Provinces in the group and will determine the list of subjects that shall be Provincial and Central(of the Pakistan Federation) with residuary sovereign powers vesting in the Provinces.
3. The method of election of the representatives to the constitution-making body will be such as would secure proper representation to the various communities in proportion to their population in each Province of the Pakistan Group.
4. After the constitutions of the Pakistan Federal Government and the Provinces are finally framed by the constitution-making body it will be open to any Province of the Group to decide to opt out of its group, provided the wishes of the people of that Province are ascertained by a referendum to opt out or not.
5. It must be open to discussion in the joint constitution-making body as to whether the Union will have a Legislature or not. The method of providing the Union with finance should also be left for decision of the joint meeting of the two constitution-making bodies, but in no event shall it be by means of taxation.
6. There should be parity of representation between the two groups of Provinces in the Union Executive and the Legislature, if any.
7. No major point in the Union Constitution which affects the communal issue shall be deemed to be passed in the joint constitution-making body, unless the majority of the members of the constitution-making body of the Hindu provinces and the majority of the members of the constitution-making group of the Pakistan Group, present and voting, are separately in its favour.
8. No decision, legislative, executive or administrative, shall be taken by the Union in regard to any matter of controversial nature, except by a majority of three-fourths.
9. In Group and Provincial Constitutions fundamental rights and safeguards concerning religion, culture and other matters affecting the different communities will be provided for.
10. The Constitution of the Union shall have a provision whereby any Province can, by a majority vote of its Legislative Assembly, call for reconsideration of the terms of the Constitution, and will have the liberty to secede from the Union at any time after an initial period of ten years.
These are the principles of our offer for a peaceful and amicable settlement and this offer stands in its entirety and all matters mentioned herein are interdependent.
`Speeches and Documents on the Indian Constitution 1921-1947` by A. Appadorai 1957 Vol. II.
And just to drive home the points that have been mentioned earlier as well:
1- The principle of parity is between Pakistan and Hindustan groups and NOT Muslim and Hindu communities per se.
2- The vote communal issue that you use - when projecting it on (illogically) an alleged Afghan war we Pakistanis would have forced you into- is subject to both a majority vote in Hindustan Constituent Assembly and Pakistan Constituent Assembly. To explain this ... if some Pakistani politician - as you are so fond of speculating (though no Pakistani politician would or even has) - were to present the Afghan War as a communal issue... he would not only have to win a majority in Pakistan Unit ... but also a majority in the Hindustan Unit.
3- All controversial decisions would have to be made with 3/4ths majority.
4- For all practical purposes Congress would be free to devise its Economic and social policy unfettered by Muslim League unlike your claim that AIML would have forced its hand.
5- After the constitution was drafted, each province had the right to opt out of the group federation.
#719 Posted by kalyan on July 9, 2006 7:45:08 am
Yasser,
I thought I was paraphrasing you. If you thought the paraphrase was misleading say so. Why impute motives (``putting words in your mouth``)?
Ok. Let`s do this again.
FACT (Parts directly from primary source in quotes):
The CMP acceptance resolution says there should be ``no manner of doubt`` that sovereignty is the ``unalterable objective``.
INTERPRETATION (Direct from your post #701):
``It is a question of interpretation. Was unalterable sovereignty infact appeasement of the masses who wanted Pakistan... ``
TRAINING/PEDIGREE MATTERS: (Again, Direct quotes from your post #701)
``...in my interpretation I am joined by H M Seervai amongst others. Infact when it comes down to interpretation... not only Seervai but most trained historians are in agreement with the view that I have forwarded. So it does matter what Seervai`s credentials are...``
Given the above, I seriously do not understand why my paraphrasing (in post #702, quoted below) is incorrect, but I`m willing to listen to an explanation.
``Ok. So you are saying that the INTERPRETATION of trained historians and others with pedigree (Seervai) trumps the clearly declared and consistent (for an extended duration) positions in the PRIMARY-SOURCE TEXTS/SPEECHES.
I firmly disagree. I can leave it at that.``
I thought I was paraphrasing you. If you thought the paraphrase was misleading say so. Why impute motives (``putting words in your mouth``)?
Ok. Let`s do this again.
FACT (Parts directly from primary source in quotes):
The CMP acceptance resolution says there should be ``no manner of doubt`` that sovereignty is the ``unalterable objective``.
INTERPRETATION (Direct from your post #701):
``It is a question of interpretation. Was unalterable sovereignty infact appeasement of the masses who wanted Pakistan... ``
TRAINING/PEDIGREE MATTERS: (Again, Direct quotes from your post #701)
``...in my interpretation I am joined by H M Seervai amongst others. Infact when it comes down to interpretation... not only Seervai but most trained historians are in agreement with the view that I have forwarded. So it does matter what Seervai`s credentials are...``
Given the above, I seriously do not understand why my paraphrasing (in post #702, quoted below) is incorrect, but I`m willing to listen to an explanation.
``Ok. So you are saying that the INTERPRETATION of trained historians and others with pedigree (Seervai) trumps the clearly declared and consistent (for an extended duration) positions in the PRIMARY-SOURCE TEXTS/SPEECHES.
I firmly disagree. I can leave it at that.``
#718 Posted by sadna on July 9, 2006 6:21:44 am
That`s another curious thing. The ``great constitutional authority`` H M Seervai cites the US Senate to ``prove`` that the world`s oldest democracy US doesn`t follow one-man one-vote. He totally omits mentioning the U.S House of Representatives.
#717 Posted by bjk on July 9, 2006 6:05:06 am
#716 Manto
So…. Does Jerry LOVE bitter, or what?!!
[Now suddenly it is about my academic credentials]
Actually my darling lying weasel Ummah yaar of a lawyer-cum-politician, there is nothing sudden about my simple enquiry – it was a question posed to you on another board a while ago. (Note: the word “cum” above should not be misconstrued as part of “scum”.)
You chose to first hemm and haw and then your usual predictable response.
A deafening silence!
Hence the reminder.
And here is a slogan back to you:
“Down with Muslim terrorists – starting with the first subcontinental terrorist – Mohammed Ali Jinnah!”
#716 Posted by MantoLives on July 9, 2006 5:30:04 am
Dear BJK,
yaar why do you think anyone reads the long and badly worded posts you put up? God save us from those who taught you the English language. Either that, or you have some serious issues mentally. I didn`t know the Congress Party and Gandhi and Co were white, though most of what I have quoted from Gandhi does show that he thought he was from the ``Indo-Aryan/Indo-Germanic`` race and therefore superior to the rest of the world.
Now suddenly it is about my academic credentials- whereas in post 702 Kalyan declares that trained historians don`t matter altogether... or failing that it is about my votes etc... you see this is your problem - logic is something quite alien to you.
As for the world knowing Gandhi... I told you there was a time when a great majority of learned people and idiots alike believed that the earth was flat and persecuted those who said otherwise.... you are like that majority... but Gandhi`s image as saint will not survive another generation... Gandhi will be exposed as the racist, casteist Hindu bigot that he was .. and put aside for being quite improper for a modern, inclusive and progressive humanity. This will happen. You know it... which is why you are so anxious to stop the progress of humanity on all counts...
Down with WITCHDOCTORS like Gandhi and SAY no to RACISM and CASTEISM.
yaar why do you think anyone reads the long and badly worded posts you put up? God save us from those who taught you the English language. Either that, or you have some serious issues mentally. I didn`t know the Congress Party and Gandhi and Co were white, though most of what I have quoted from Gandhi does show that he thought he was from the ``Indo-Aryan/Indo-Germanic`` race and therefore superior to the rest of the world.
Now suddenly it is about my academic credentials- whereas in post 702 Kalyan declares that trained historians don`t matter altogether... or failing that it is about my votes etc... you see this is your problem - logic is something quite alien to you.
As for the world knowing Gandhi... I told you there was a time when a great majority of learned people and idiots alike believed that the earth was flat and persecuted those who said otherwise.... you are like that majority... but Gandhi`s image as saint will not survive another generation... Gandhi will be exposed as the racist, casteist Hindu bigot that he was .. and put aside for being quite improper for a modern, inclusive and progressive humanity. This will happen. You know it... which is why you are so anxious to stop the progress of humanity on all counts...
Down with WITCHDOCTORS like Gandhi and SAY no to RACISM and CASTEISM.
#715 Posted by bjk on July 9, 2006 5:23:34 am
And not to rub it in too much.
Your vote tally still stands at a dismal zero.
Could that be a preview of things to come?!!!
#714 Posted by bjk on July 9, 2006 5:21:44 am
And by the way Yasser – here is a long-ago post still awaiting your response!
Let everybody know when you get your academic recognition - then perhaps people will actually start taking you seriously - perhaps even Mushy would (although that does carry some risks).
So far you have been rather evasive regarding describing your efforts at such scrutiny - and if any such scrutiny took place, what the results have been yet. In light of your promptness to jump and claim ``look ma, told ya...`` on virtually everything, I somehow feel that the results may have been less encouraging than what you expected.
#713 Posted by bjk on July 9, 2006 5:20:30 am
I hope ``Jerry`` likes bitter!
Face the facts, ummah yaar Yasser!
You keep trying to weasel out but there is no chance of its success. Therefore, let me bring it back to your attention.
Let me repeat.
All you have shown so far in case of Jinnah is that once upon a time, Jinnah portrayed himself as a “liberal” to a bunch of white guys (big deal!) – even discounting the inherent penchant for lying as part of their jobs that lawyers possess.
And all you are showing in case of Gandhi – leaving aside the extreme likelihood of your quoting selectively – a lawyer specialty! – is that back in the 1900-1910 timeframe, Gandhi still needed to grow.
The reality is that Gandhi grew – Jinnah shrunk!
Accordingly, Gandhi’s base grew automatically – people of all faiths followed him.
Jinnah’s base shrank and shrank – till there were only a section of Muslims left – who put their “Muslimness” before everything else (and perhaps do it till today)! The autocrat got his wish – a diminished but devoted dumpistan of dark-souled dour devils!
Gandhi opened up to the world – Jinnah (who perhaps was jealous (although reading minds is a dicey business!) thinking that he was the better lawyer and not getting his due jolts (I mean his due accolades)) – he went the other way! Gandhi became larger than life – Jinnah smaller than a skunk!
Therefore, the world at large recognizes the importance of what Gandhi was and what he stood for – whether certain biased chowk numbskulls do, or not!
On the other hand, Jinnah has been cast aside – kicked with army boots and thrown into the dustbins where he lies stinking – is spite of the persistent attempts of revisionists like you to pull him up and smear that thick snout with layers of lipstick.
And then you wonder why he still keeps smelling like a skunk!
A dirty, smelly skunk! Who continues to stink so many decades later – what can be worse than a dead skunk?!!
Jinnah, the man may have been a lot of things – but when the push came to shove – he was clearly only about making a distinction between Hindus and Muslims – and he never would have settled for one Hindu as equal to one Muslim. From my perspective – his irrational fear was similar to the type of fear the whites of apartheid era harbored against majority rule in that country.
It was the same theme. It was merely apartheid practiced by a section of “exclusive” Muslims – and being continued here even to this day – and YOU enjoy its fruits to this day! Highly reminiscent of the same mindset!
It is the same darn stinking wine – served then in a different container – and this one came only in green color!
There is no difference between defending Jinnah, and defending apartheid, and defending Nazi racism! And the effect of the partition on the sub-continental population was analogous to a local holocaust! Jinnah’s mindset of exclusivity is similarly analogous to Hitler’s mindset of Nazi superiority.
With one important difference! The whites of South Africa have realized their idiocy finally and moved on. The “Muslims are special” mindset of the “elite” Pakistanis has become more entrenched! That includes you and your other “buddies” in this franchise who keep talking to each other and merely reinforcing what they have already said to themselves countless times.
I have a very clear idea of what “Jerry’s Pakistan” will actually look like.
Very similar to the current one – because it is the same mindset! Continuing to sizzle in its own “exclusive” juice – and wondering why the taste is so bitter!
#712 Posted by MantoLives on July 9, 2006 5:16:29 am
Sadna, Kalyan,
In case you miss my post in this back and forth between myself and BJK... please refer to post 707, in which I have shown how the record clearly proves my interpretation of the facts.
In case you miss my post in this back and forth between myself and BJK... please refer to post 707, in which I have shown how the record clearly proves my interpretation of the facts.
#711 Posted by MantoLives on July 9, 2006 5:03:50 am
Hindu exclusivist bigot aka Mahatma Gandhi said that CASTE SYSTEM was a natural organisation of humanity... Hindus ought to be exclusive... and dine and separately from Muslims etc etc... this is from the hey day of his Indian nationalist movement...
Some Gandhian statements... whose wider implications we all need to consider...
`Sanghtan is a really sound movement. Every community is entitled, indeed bound to organize itself as a seperate entity` : Mahatma Gandhi
(Young India January 6th 1927)
A translation of a Gujrati essay he wrote in 1922 for Niya Jawan
(1) I believe that if Hindu Society has been able to stand it is because it is founded on the caste system.
(2) The seeds of swaraj are to be found in the caste system. Different castes are like different sections of miliary division. Each division is working for the good of the whole....
(3) A community which can create the caste system must be said to possess unique power of organization.
(4) Caste has a ready made means for spreading primary education. Each caste can take the responsibility for the education of the children of the caste. Caste has a political basis. It can work as an electorate for a representative body. Caste can perform judicial functions by electing persons to act as judges to decide disputes among members of the same caste. With castes it is easy to raise a defense force by requiring each caste to raise a brigade.
(5) I believe that interdining or intermarriage are not necessary for promoting national unity. That dining together creates friendship is contrary to experience. If this was true there would have been no war in Europe.... Taking food is as dirty an act as answering the call of nature. The only difference is that after answering call of nature we get peace while after eating food we get discomfort. Just as we perform the act of answering the call of nature in seclusion so also the act of taking food must also be done in seclusion.
(6) In India children of brothers do not intermarry. Do they cease to love because they do not intermarry? Among the Vaishnavas many women are so orthodox that they will not eat with members of the family nor will they drink water from a common water pot. Have they no love? The caste system cannot be said to be bad because it does not allow interdining or intermarriage between different castes.
(7) Caste is another name for control. Caste puts a limit on enjoyment. Caste does not allow a person to transgress caste limits in pursuit of his enjoyment. That is the meaning of such caste restrictions as interdining and intermarriage.
(8) To destroy caste system and adopt Western European social system means that Hindus must give up the principle of hereditary occupation which is the soul of the caste system. Hereditary principle is an eternal principle. To change it is to create disorder. I have no use for a Brahmin if I cannot call him a Brahmin for my life. It will be a chaos if every day a Brahmin is to be changed into a Shudra and a Shudra is to be changed into a Brahmin.
(9) The caste system is a natural order of society. In India it has been given a religious coating. Other countries not having understood the utility of the caste system, it existed only in a loose condition and consequently those countries have not derived from caste system the same degree of advantage which India has derived. These being my views I am opposed to all those who are out to destroy the caste system.
Some Gandhian statements... whose wider implications we all need to consider...
`Sanghtan is a really sound movement. Every community is entitled, indeed bound to organize itself as a seperate entity` : Mahatma Gandhi
(Young India January 6th 1927)
A translation of a Gujrati essay he wrote in 1922 for Niya Jawan
(1) I believe that if Hindu Society has been able to stand it is because it is founded on the caste system.
(2) The seeds of swaraj are to be found in the caste system. Different castes are like different sections of miliary division. Each division is working for the good of the whole....
(3) A community which can create the caste system must be said to possess unique power of organization.
(4) Caste has a ready made means for spreading primary education. Each caste can take the responsibility for the education of the children of the caste. Caste has a political basis. It can work as an electorate for a representative body. Caste can perform judicial functions by electing persons to act as judges to decide disputes among members of the same caste. With castes it is easy to raise a defense force by requiring each caste to raise a brigade.
(5) I believe that interdining or intermarriage are not necessary for promoting national unity. That dining together creates friendship is contrary to experience. If this was true there would have been no war in Europe.... Taking food is as dirty an act as answering the call of nature. The only difference is that after answering call of nature we get peace while after eating food we get discomfort. Just as we perform the act of answering the call of nature in seclusion so also the act of taking food must also be done in seclusion.
(6) In India children of brothers do not intermarry. Do they cease to love because they do not intermarry? Among the Vaishnavas many women are so orthodox that they will not eat with members of the family nor will they drink water from a common water pot. Have they no love? The caste system cannot be said to be bad because it does not allow interdining or intermarriage between different castes.
(7) Caste is another name for control. Caste puts a limit on enjoyment. Caste does not allow a person to transgress caste limits in pursuit of his enjoyment. That is the meaning of such caste restrictions as interdining and intermarriage.
(8) To destroy caste system and adopt Western European social system means that Hindus must give up the principle of hereditary occupation which is the soul of the caste system. Hereditary principle is an eternal principle. To change it is to create disorder. I have no use for a Brahmin if I cannot call him a Brahmin for my life. It will be a chaos if every day a Brahmin is to be changed into a Shudra and a Shudra is to be changed into a Brahmin.
(9) The caste system is a natural order of society. In India it has been given a religious coating. Other countries not having understood the utility of the caste system, it existed only in a loose condition and consequently those countries have not derived from caste system the same degree of advantage which India has derived. These being my views I am opposed to all those who are out to destroy the caste system.
#710 Posted by MantoLives on July 9, 2006 4:57:04 am
Dear BJK,
Are you now ``disowning`` Gandhi`s own words from his own works... It hasn`t been countered. You are the one lying here.
``It has been very clearly shown that Gandhi never deprecated blacks – what to say of hatred!``
One can only laugh at such a blatant lie... this is what Gandhi believed about Black people and Aryan Superiority... he echoed Adolf Hitler completely and consistently... and if Dr B R Ambedkar is to be believed remained a casteist Hindu bigot to the last...
On What Gandhi wanted
The last week has been very busy. We have not had a moment`s leisure. We saw Mr. Theodore Morison of Aligarh and the well-known Mr. Stead of the Review of Reviews. Mr. Stead has boldly come out to give us all the help he can. He was therefore requested to write to the same Boer leaders that they should not consider Indians as being on the same level as Kaffirs
Indian Opinion, 15-12-1906, CWOMG Vol. 6, pg 183
private delete
October 4, 2005
On What Gandhi wanted (3)
CLASSIFICATION OF ASIATICS WITH NATIVES
The cell was situated in the Native quarters and we were housed in one that was labeled `For Coloured Debtors`. It was this experience for which we were perhaps all unprepared. We had fondly imagined that we would have suitable quarters apart from the Natives. As it was, perhaps, just as well that we were classed with Natives. We would now be able to study the life of Native prisoners, their customs and manners. ...Degradation underlay the classing of Indians with natives. The Asiatic Act seemed to me to be the summit of our degradation. It did appear to me, as I think it would appear to any unprejudiced reader, that it would have been simple humanity if we were given special quarters. ...the Governor of the gaol tried to make us as comfortable as he could...But he was powerless to accommodate us beyond the horrible din and the yells of the Native prisoners throughout the day and partly at night also. Many of the native prisoners are only one degree removed from the animal and often created rows and fought amongst themselves in their cells.
Indian Opinion 7-3-1908, CWOMG Vol. 8, pg 120
Apart from whether or not this implies degradation, I must say it is rather dangerous. Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized -- the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty, and live almost like animals. Each ward contains nearly 50 to 60 of them. They often started rows and fought among themselves. The reader can easily imagine the plight of the poor Indian thrown into such company
Indian Opinion, 7-3-1908, CWOMG Vol. 8, pg 135
private delete
October 4, 2005
On What Gandhi wanted (2)
INDIANS ON PAR WITH KAFFIRS
There, our garments were stamped with the letter `N`, which meant that we were being classed with the Natives. We were all prepared for hardships, but not quite for this experience. We could understand not being classed with the whites, but to be placed on the same level with the Natives seemed too much to put up with. I then felt that Indians had launched on passive resistance too soon. Here was further proof that the obnoxious law was intended to emasculate the Indians.
It was, however, as well that we were classified with the Natives. It was a welcome opportunity to study the treatment meted out to the Natives, their conditions [of life in the gaol] and their habits. ...We were given a separate ward because we were sentenced to simple imprisonment; otherwise we would have been in the same ward [with the Kaffirs]. Indians sentenced to hard labour are in fact kept with the Kaffirs.
Apart from whether or not this implies degradation, I must say it is rather dangerous. Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized -- the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty, and live almost like animals. Each ward contains nearly 50 to 60 of them. They often started rows and fought among themselves. The reader can easily imagine the plight of the poor Indian thrown into such company
Indian Opinion, 7-3-1908, CWOMG Vol. 8, pg 135
private delete
October 4, 2005
On What Gandhi wanted (1)
I have, though, resolved in my mind on an agitation to ensure that Indian prisoners are not lodged with Kaffirs or others. When I arrived at the place, there were about 15 Indian prisoners. Except for three, all of them were satyagrahis. The three were charged with other offences. These prisoners were generally lodged with kaffirs. When I reached there, the chief warder issued an order that all of us should be lodged in a separate room. I observed with regret that some Indians were happy to sleep in the same room as the Kaffirs, the reason being that they hoped there for a secret supply of tobacco, etc. This is a matter of shame to us. We may entertain no aversion to the Kaffirs, but we cannot ignore the fact that there is no common ground between them and us in the daily affairs of life. Moreover, those who wish to sleep in the same room have ulterior motives for doing so.
Obviously, we ought to abandon such notions if we want to make progress.
Indian Opinion, 6-1-1909, CWOMG Vol. 9, pg 149
On What Gandhi wanted (9)
Gandhi`s disdain for black people continues:
It is one thing to register Natives who would not work, and whom it is very difficult to find out if they absent themselves, but it is another thing and most insulting to expect decent, hard-working, and respectable Indians, whose only fault is that they work too much, to have themselves registered
What is a Coolie, Indian Opinion 2151904, CWOMG Vol. 4, pg 193
CWOMG: Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi
private delete
October 4, 2005
On What Gandhi wanted (8)
The whole affair is as much a disgrace to the Indian community as it is to the British Empire. The British rulers take us to be so lowly and ignorant that they assume that, like the Kaffirs who can be pleased with toys and pins, we can also be fobbed off with trinkets
Indian Opinion, 29-2-1908, CWOMG Vol. 8, pg 105
CWOMG: Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi
private delete
October 4, 2005
On What Gandhi wanted (7)
More on SEPARATE AND UNEQUAL theory of Gandhiji...
His Excellency has, moreover, justified the definition of `coloured person` on the ground that it is a legacy from the old Government. But British Indians object to the definition for that very reason. Their position is this. The ordinances will not in practice apply to them. The Boer Government insulted the Indians by classing them with the Kaffirs. Now there is no occasion to perpetuate a needless insult
Indians in the O.R.C, Indian Opinion, 6-1-1906, CWOMG, Vol. 5, pg 177-178
Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi: CWOMG
private delete
October 4, 2005
On What Gandhi wanted (6)
More on SEPARATE AND UNEQUAL theory of Gandhiji...
His Excellency has, moreover, justified the definition of `coloured person` on the ground that it is a legacy from the old Government. But British Indians object to the definition for that very reason. Their position is this. The ordinances will not in practice apply to them. The Boer Government insulted the Indians by classing them with the Kaffirs. Now there is no occasion to perpetuate a needless insult
Indians in the O.R.C, Indian Opinion, 6-1-1906, CWOMG, Vol. 5, pg 177-178
Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi: CWOMG
private delete
October 4, 2005
On What Gandhi wanted (5)
It reduces British Indians to a status lower than that of the aboriginal races of South Africa and the Coloured people.
Indian Opinion 15-9-1906, CWOMG Vol. 5, pg 419-423
On What Gandhi wanted (14)
On Minority White rule in South Africa:
We, therefore, have no hesitation in agreeing with the view that in the long run assisted Asiatic immigration into the Transvaal would be disastrous to the white settlement. People will gradually accommodate themselves to relying upon Asiatic labour, and any White immigration of the special class required in the Transvaal on a large scale will be practically impossible. It would be equally unfair to the Natives of the soil. It is all very well to say that they would not work, and that, if the Asiatics were introduced, that would be a stimulus to work; but human nature is the same everywhere, and once Asiatic labour is resorted to, there would not be a sustained effort to induce the Natives to work under what would otherwise be, after all, gentle compulsion. There would be then less talk about taxing the Natives and so forth. Natives themselves, used as they are to a very simple mode of life, will always be able to command enough wages to meet their wants; and the result will be putting back their progress for an indefinite length of time. We have used the words `gentle compulsion` in the best sense of the term; we mean compulsion of the same kind that a parent exercises over children
Indian Opinion, 9-7-1903, CWOMG Vol. 3, pg 359-360
CWOMG: COLLECTED WORKS OF MAHATMA GANDHI.
private delete
October 4, 2005
On What Gandhi wanted (13)
On Minority White rule in South Africa:
We, therefore, have no hesitation in agreeing with the view that in the long run assisted Asiatic immigration into the Transvaal would be disastrous to the white settlement. People will gradually accommodate themselves to relying upon Asiatic labour, and any White immigration of the special class required in the Transvaal on a large scale will be practically impossible. It would be equally unfair to the Natives of the soil. It is all very well to say that they would not work, and that, if the Asiatics were introduced, that would be a stimulus to work; but human nature is the same everywhere, and once Asiatic labour is resorted to, there would not be a sustained effort to induce the Natives to work under what would otherwise be, after all, gentle compulsion. There would be then less talk about taxing the Natives and so forth. Natives themselves, used as they are to a very simple mode of life, will always be able to command enough wages to meet their wants; and the result will be putting back their progress for an indefinite length of time. We have used the words `gentle compulsion` in the best sense of the term; we mean compulsion of the same kind that a parent exercises over children
For Beej who is apparently BLIND: Indian Opinion, 9-7-1903, CWOMG Vol. 3, pg 359-360
CWOMG: COLLECTED WORKS OF MAHATMA GANDHI.
private delete
October 4, 2005
On What Gandhi wanted (12)
What the British Indians pray for is very little. They ask for no political power. They admit the British race should be the dominant race in South Africa. All they ask for is freedom for those that are now settled and those that may be allowed to come in future to trade, to move about, and to hold landed property without any hindrance save the ordinary legal requirements
Petition to Natal Legislature, CWOMG, vol3, pg 330
private delete
October 4, 2005
On What Gandhi wanted (11)
Ah... and they said Plessey Vs Ferguson was bad...
Well here is Gandhi with his theory of ``Separate and Unequal``
...The petition dwells upon ``the co-mingling of the Coloured and white races``. May we inform the members of the conference that, so far as the British Indians are concerned, such a thing is practically unknown? If there is one thing, which the Indian cherishes more than any other, it is the purity of type. Why bring such a question into the controversy at all?
The Transvaal Chambers and British Indians, Indian Opinion 24-12-03, CWOMG Vol. 4, pg 89
private delete
October 4, 2005
On What Gandhi wanted (10)
More on Gandhi`s theory of ``separate and unequal``
Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian Location should be chosen for dumping down all the Kaffirs of the town passes my comprehension. ...Of course, under my suggestion, The Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location. About this mixing of Kaffirs with the Indians, I must confess I feel most strongly
Indian Opinion, 10-4-04, CWOMG Vol. 4, pg 130-131
Are you now ``disowning`` Gandhi`s own words from his own works... It hasn`t been countered. You are the one lying here.
``It has been very clearly shown that Gandhi never deprecated blacks – what to say of hatred!``
One can only laugh at such a blatant lie... this is what Gandhi believed about Black people and Aryan Superiority... he echoed Adolf Hitler completely and consistently... and if Dr B R Ambedkar is to be believed remained a casteist Hindu bigot to the last...
On What Gandhi wanted
The last week has been very busy. We have not had a moment`s leisure. We saw Mr. Theodore Morison of Aligarh and the well-known Mr. Stead of the Review of Reviews. Mr. Stead has boldly come out to give us all the help he can. He was therefore requested to write to the same Boer leaders that they should not consider Indians as being on the same level as Kaffirs
Indian Opinion, 15-12-1906, CWOMG Vol. 6, pg 183
private delete
October 4, 2005
On What Gandhi wanted (3)
CLASSIFICATION OF ASIATICS WITH NATIVES
The cell was situated in the Native quarters and we were housed in one that was labeled `For Coloured Debtors`. It was this experience for which we were perhaps all unprepared. We had fondly imagined that we would have suitable quarters apart from the Natives. As it was, perhaps, just as well that we were classed with Natives. We would now be able to study the life of Native prisoners, their customs and manners. ...Degradation underlay the classing of Indians with natives. The Asiatic Act seemed to me to be the summit of our degradation. It did appear to me, as I think it would appear to any unprejudiced reader, that it would have been simple humanity if we were given special quarters. ...the Governor of the gaol tried to make us as comfortable as he could...But he was powerless to accommodate us beyond the horrible din and the yells of the Native prisoners throughout the day and partly at night also. Many of the native prisoners are only one degree removed from the animal and often created rows and fought amongst themselves in their cells.
Indian Opinion 7-3-1908, CWOMG Vol. 8, pg 120
Apart from whether or not this implies degradation, I must say it is rather dangerous. Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized -- the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty, and live almost like animals. Each ward contains nearly 50 to 60 of them. They often started rows and fought among themselves. The reader can easily imagine the plight of the poor Indian thrown into such company
Indian Opinion, 7-3-1908, CWOMG Vol. 8, pg 135
private delete
October 4, 2005
On What Gandhi wanted (2)
INDIANS ON PAR WITH KAFFIRS
There, our garments were stamped with the letter `N`, which meant that we were being classed with the Natives. We were all prepared for hardships, but not quite for this experience. We could understand not being classed with the whites, but to be placed on the same level with the Natives seemed too much to put up with. I then felt that Indians had launched on passive resistance too soon. Here was further proof that the obnoxious law was intended to emasculate the Indians.
It was, however, as well that we were classified with the Natives. It was a welcome opportunity to study the treatment meted out to the Natives, their conditions [of life in the gaol] and their habits. ...We were given a separate ward because we were sentenced to simple imprisonment; otherwise we would have been in the same ward [with the Kaffirs]. Indians sentenced to hard labour are in fact kept with the Kaffirs.
Apart from whether or not this implies degradation, I must say it is rather dangerous. Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized -- the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty, and live almost like animals. Each ward contains nearly 50 to 60 of them. They often started rows and fought among themselves. The reader can easily imagine the plight of the poor Indian thrown into such company
Indian Opinion, 7-3-1908, CWOMG Vol. 8, pg 135
private delete
October 4, 2005
On What Gandhi wanted (1)
I have, though, resolved in my mind on an agitation to ensure that Indian prisoners are not lodged with Kaffirs or others. When I arrived at the place, there were about 15 Indian prisoners. Except for three, all of them were satyagrahis. The three were charged with other offences. These prisoners were generally lodged with kaffirs. When I reached there, the chief warder issued an order that all of us should be lodged in a separate room. I observed with regret that some Indians were happy to sleep in the same room as the Kaffirs, the reason being that they hoped there for a secret supply of tobacco, etc. This is a matter of shame to us. We may entertain no aversion to the Kaffirs, but we cannot ignore the fact that there is no common ground between them and us in the daily affairs of life. Moreover, those who wish to sleep in the same room have ulterior motives for doing so.
Obviously, we ought to abandon such notions if we want to make progress.
Indian Opinion, 6-1-1909, CWOMG Vol. 9, pg 149
On What Gandhi wanted (9)
Gandhi`s disdain for black people continues:
It is one thing to register Natives who would not work, and whom it is very difficult to find out if they absent themselves, but it is another thing and most insulting to expect decent, hard-working, and respectable Indians, whose only fault is that they work too much, to have themselves registered
What is a Coolie, Indian Opinion 2151904, CWOMG Vol. 4, pg 193
CWOMG: Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi
private delete
October 4, 2005
On What Gandhi wanted (8)
The whole affair is as much a disgrace to the Indian community as it is to the British Empire. The British rulers take us to be so lowly and ignorant that they assume that, like the Kaffirs who can be pleased with toys and pins, we can also be fobbed off with trinkets
Indian Opinion, 29-2-1908, CWOMG Vol. 8, pg 105
CWOMG: Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi
private delete
October 4, 2005
On What Gandhi wanted (7)
More on SEPARATE AND UNEQUAL theory of Gandhiji...
His Excellency has, moreover, justified the definition of `coloured person` on the ground that it is a legacy from the old Government. But British Indians object to the definition for that very reason. Their position is this. The ordinances will not in practice apply to them. The Boer Government insulted the Indians by classing them with the Kaffirs. Now there is no occasion to perpetuate a needless insult
Indians in the O.R.C, Indian Opinion, 6-1-1906, CWOMG, Vol. 5, pg 177-178
Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi: CWOMG
private delete
October 4, 2005
On What Gandhi wanted (6)
More on SEPARATE AND UNEQUAL theory of Gandhiji...
His Excellency has, moreover, justified the definition of `coloured person` on the ground that it is a legacy from the old Government. But British Indians object to the definition for that very reason. Their position is this. The ordinances will not in practice apply to them. The Boer Government insulted the Indians by classing them with the Kaffirs. Now there is no occasion to perpetuate a needless insult
Indians in the O.R.C, Indian Opinion, 6-1-1906, CWOMG, Vol. 5, pg 177-178
Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi: CWOMG
private delete
October 4, 2005
On What Gandhi wanted (5)
It reduces British Indians to a status lower than that of the aboriginal races of South Africa and the Coloured people.
Indian Opinion 15-9-1906, CWOMG Vol. 5, pg 419-423
On What Gandhi wanted (14)
On Minority White rule in South Africa:
We, therefore, have no hesitation in agreeing with the view that in the long run assisted Asiatic immigration into the Transvaal would be disastrous to the white settlement. People will gradually accommodate themselves to relying upon Asiatic labour, and any White immigration of the special class required in the Transvaal on a large scale will be practically impossible. It would be equally unfair to the Natives of the soil. It is all very well to say that they would not work, and that, if the Asiatics were introduced, that would be a stimulus to work; but human nature is the same everywhere, and once Asiatic labour is resorted to, there would not be a sustained effort to induce the Natives to work under what would otherwise be, after all, gentle compulsion. There would be then less talk about taxing the Natives and so forth. Natives themselves, used as they are to a very simple mode of life, will always be able to command enough wages to meet their wants; and the result will be putting back their progress for an indefinite length of time. We have used the words `gentle compulsion` in the best sense of the term; we mean compulsion of the same kind that a parent exercises over children
Indian Opinion, 9-7-1903, CWOMG Vol. 3, pg 359-360
CWOMG: COLLECTED WORKS OF MAHATMA GANDHI.
private delete
October 4, 2005
On What Gandhi wanted (13)
On Minority White rule in South Africa:
We, therefore, have no hesitation in agreeing with the view that in the long run assisted Asiatic immigration into the Transvaal would be disastrous to the white settlement. People will gradually accommodate themselves to relying upon Asiatic labour, and any White immigration of the special class required in the Transvaal on a large scale will be practically impossible. It would be equally unfair to the Natives of the soil. It is all very well to say that they would not work, and that, if the Asiatics were introduced, that would be a stimulus to work; but human nature is the same everywhere, and once Asiatic labour is resorted to, there would not be a sustained effort to induce the Natives to work under what would otherwise be, after all, gentle compulsion. There would be then less talk about taxing the Natives and so forth. Natives themselves, used as they are to a very simple mode of life, will always be able to command enough wages to meet their wants; and the result will be putting back their progress for an indefinite length of time. We have used the words `gentle compulsion` in the best sense of the term; we mean compulsion of the same kind that a parent exercises over children
For Beej who is apparently BLIND: Indian Opinion, 9-7-1903, CWOMG Vol. 3, pg 359-360
CWOMG: COLLECTED WORKS OF MAHATMA GANDHI.
private delete
October 4, 2005
On What Gandhi wanted (12)
What the British Indians pray for is very little. They ask for no political power. They admit the British race should be the dominant race in South Africa. All they ask for is freedom for those that are now settled and those that may be allowed to come in future to trade, to move about, and to hold landed property without any hindrance save the ordinary legal requirements
Petition to Natal Legislature, CWOMG, vol3, pg 330
private delete
October 4, 2005
On What Gandhi wanted (11)
Ah... and they said Plessey Vs Ferguson was bad...
Well here is Gandhi with his theory of ``Separate and Unequal``
...The petition dwells upon ``the co-mingling of the Coloured and white races``. May we inform the members of the conference that, so far as the British Indians are concerned, such a thing is practically unknown? If there is one thing, which the Indian cherishes more than any other, it is the purity of type. Why bring such a question into the controversy at all?
The Transvaal Chambers and British Indians, Indian Opinion 24-12-03, CWOMG Vol. 4, pg 89
private delete
October 4, 2005
On What Gandhi wanted (10)
More on Gandhi`s theory of ``separate and unequal``
Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian Location should be chosen for dumping down all the Kaffirs of the town passes my comprehension. ...Of course, under my suggestion, The Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location. About this mixing of Kaffirs with the Indians, I must confess I feel most strongly
Indian Opinion, 10-4-04, CWOMG Vol. 4, pg 130-131
#709 Posted by bjk on July 9, 2006 4:54:04 am
#707 (continued)
Face the facts, ummah yaar Yasser!
All you have shown so far in case of Jinnah is that once upon a time, Jinnah portrayed himself as a “liberal” to a bunch of white guys (big deal!) – even discounting the inherent penchant for lying as part of their jobs that lawyers possess.
And all you are showing in case of Gandhi – leaving aside the extreme likelihood of your quoting selectively – a lawyer specialty! – is that back in the 1900-1910 timeframe, Gandhi still needed to grow.
The reality is that Gandhi grew – Jinnah shrunk!
Accordingly, Gandhi’s base grew automatically – people of all faiths followed him.
Jinnah’s base shrank and shrank – till there were only a section of Muslims left – who put their “Muslimness” before everything else (and perhaps do it till today)! The autocrat got his wish – a diminished but devoted dumpistan of dark-souled dour devils!
Gandhi opened up to the world – Jinnah (who perhaps was jealous (although reading minds is a dicey business!) thinking that he was the better lawyer and not getting his due jolts (I mean his due accolades)) – he went the other way! Gandhi became larger than life – Jinnah smaller than a skunk!
Therefore, the world at large recognizes the importance of what Gandhi was and what he stood for – whether certain biased chowk numbskulls do, or not!
On the other hand, Jinnah has been cast aside – kicked with army boots and thrown into the dustbins where he lies stinking – is spite of the persistent attempts of revisionists like you to pull him up and smear that thick snout with layers of lipstick.
And then you wonder why he still keeps smelling like a skunk!
A dirty, smelly skunk! Who continues to stink so many decades later – what can be worse than a dead skunk?!!
Jinnah, the man may have been a lot of things – but when the push came to shove – he was clearly only about making a distinction between Hindus and Muslims – and he never would have settled for one Hindu as equal to one Muslim. From my perspective – his irrational fear was similar to the type of fear the whites of apartheid era harbored against majority rule in that country.
It was the same theme. It was merely apartheid practiced by a section of “exclusive” Muslims – and being continued here even to this day – and YOU enjoy its fruits to this day! Highly reminiscent of the same mindset!
It is the same darn stinking wine – served then in a different container – and this one came only in green color!
There is no difference between defending Jinnah, and defending apartheid, and defending Nazi racism! And the effect of the partition on the sub-continental population was analogous to a local holocaust! Jinnah’s mindset of exclusivity is similarly analogous to Hitler’s mindset of Nazi superiority.
With one important difference! The whites of South Africa have realized their idiocy finally and moved on. The “Muslims are special” mindset of the “elite” Pakistanis has become more entrenched! That includes you and your other “buddies” in this franchise who keep talking to each other and merely reinforcing what they have already said to themselves countless times.
I have a very clear idea of what “Jerry’s Pakistan” will actually look like.
Very similar to the current one – because it is the same mindset! Continuing to sizzle in its own “exclusive” juice – and wondering why the taste is so bitter!
#708 Posted by bjk on July 9, 2006 4:49:49 am
#706 Yasser
Ummah yaar Yasser, all this crap you copy and paste for the umpteenth time has been dealt with before. It has been countered effectively and you KNOW it is falsehood (the only unknown at this time is what could be your motivation for consistently lying – and it is only a matter of time before I will find that out, too!)
“Divide and Rule” was a very effective strategy that the British used. They used it in Africa to distinguish between blacks and Indians and they used it even later in the subcontinent to create a chasm between Hindus and Muslims. They were far more successful in the latter case.
The stuff you claim to quote is all from early nineteen hundreds when Gandhi was a relatively newcomer to South Africa and when he was still forming as a politician/satyagrahi. You are perhaps incapable of growing yourself – so the concept is alien to you – but he continued to grow after all of that and that is how he became so successful later on – he was able to grow beyond the original domain.
It has been very clearly shown that Gandhi never deprecated blacks – what to say of hatred!
Read the following again from his “Satyagraha in South Africa”!
Chapter 2
History
The geographical divisions briefly noticed in the first chapter are not at all ancient. It has not been possibly definitely to ascertain who were the inhabitants of South Africa in remote times. When the Europeans settled in South Africa, they found the Negroes there. These Negroes are supposed to have been the descendants of some of the slaves in America who managed to escape from their cruel bondage and migrated to Africa. They are divided into various tribes such as the Zulus, the Swazis, the Basutos, the Bechuanas, etc. They have a number of different languages. These Negroes must be regarded as the original inhabitants of South Africa. But South Africa is such a vast country that it can easily support twenty or thirty times its present population of Negroes. The distance between Cape Town and Durban is about eighteen hundred miles by rail; the distance by sea also is not less than one thousand miles. The combined area of these four colonies is 473,000 square miles. In 1914 the Negro population in this vast region was about five millions, while the Europeans numbered about a million and a quarter.
Among the Negroes, the tallest and the most handsome are the Zulus. I have deliberately used the epithet “handsome” in connection with Negroes. A fair complexion, and a pointed nose represent our ideal of beauty. If we discard this superstition for a moment, we feel that the Creator did not spare Himself in fashioning the Zulu to perfection. Men and women are both tall and broad-chested in proportion to their height. Their muscles are strong and well set. The calves of the legs and the arms are muscular and always well rounded. You will rarely find a man or woman walking with a stoop or with a hump back. The lips are certainly large and thick, but as they are in perfect symmetry with the entire physique, I for one would not say that they are unshapely. The eyes are round and bright. The nose is flat and large, such as becomes a large face, and the curled hair on the head sets off to advantage the Zulu’s skin which is black and shining like ebony. If we ask a Zulu to which of the various races inhabiting South Africa he will award the palm for beauty, he will unhesitatingly decide in favour of his own people, and in this I would not see any want of judgement on his part. The physique of the Zulu is powerfully built and finely shaped by nature without any such effort as is made he Sandow and others in Europe in order to develop the muscles. It is a law of nature that the skin of races living near the equator should be black. And if we believe that there must be beauty. in everything fashioned by nature, we would not only steer clear of all narrow and one-sided conceptions of beauty, but we in India would be free from the improper sense of shame and dislike which we feel for our own complexion if it is anything but fair.
The Negroes live in round huts built of wattle and daub. The huts have a single round wall and are thatched with hay. A pillar inside supports the roof. A low entrance through which one can pass only by bending oneself is the only aperture for the passage of air. The entrance is rarely provided with a door. Like ourselves, the Negroes plaster the walls and the floor with earth and animal dung. It is said the Negroes cannot make anything square in shape. They have trained their eyes to see and make only round things. We never find nature drawing straight lines or rectilinear figures, and these innocent children of nature derive all their knowledge from their experience of her.
…..
Before the advent of European civilisation, the Negroes used to wear animal skins, which also served them as carpets, bed sheets and quilts. Now-a-days they use blankets. Before British rule men as well as women moved about almost in a state of nudity. Even now many do the same in the country. They cover the private parts with a piece of skin. Some dispense even with this. But let not anyone infer from this that these people cannot control their senses. Where a large society follows a particular custom, it is quite possible that the custom is harmless even if it seems highly improper to the members of another society. These Negroes have no time to be staring at one another. When Shukadeva passed by the side of women bathing in a state of nudity, so the author of the Bhagavata tells us, his own mind was quite unruffled; nor were the women at all agitated or affected by a s