Saving Pakistan with the Constitution

#186 by Mantolives

So the US Congressional Record is a dubious source? What are you smoking dude? As for Edolphus Towns... is he dubious because he is black and Gandhi hated black people?

Aww Yasser, it is dubious because you chose to hide the source from where you picked that record off. It is common practice to provide the link to the source, that you didn`t confirms that while you valiantly and rather cleverly attempted to expose Gandhi, the only one whose loin cloth came off is you.

That Gandhi remains popular with Blacks despite his earlier opinion of them is testament to the fact that they recognized that he had evolved from a narrow-minded young lawyer to a truly global leader. Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King are a couple of such men who drew insipration from him. Compared to the two, Edolphus Towns is a nobody, so only a fool with attach too mch importance to what he says.

PS: Imagining ``hidings`` and declaring victory ala Saddam Hussain style after getting a can of whoop ass opened on your rearend... won`t change the fact that you`ve run away from my board with your tail between your legs.

Harish mian,

So the US Congressional Record is a dubious source? What are you smoking dude? As for Edolphus Towns... is he dubious because he is black and Gandhi hated black people?

Last I checked ... he was a US law maker- returned to the US Congress no less than 13 times... as elected as those unnamed US lawmakers quoted by Indian Express who you thought- in your fantasy world- amounted to a ``resounding slap``. Then take your slap in good humour my friend.

#184 by Mantolives

Aww Yasser, after the hiding you received at the other board, you now have taken to unveiling Gandhi`s loin cloth here? You can keep that as a souvenir, if you so like it. But the sad part is that your own loin cloth has come off, given the dubious source you`re quoting from. Edolphus Towns` record as a known India baiter is well known, and that you picked it off from www.khalistan.com is a double whammy. You`ll have to do better than that Yasser, this attempt has failed rather miserably.

Harish mian and his imagination...

Nasah mian has the right to admire who wishes to and I have the right to expose Gandhi for what he was- a racist casteist hindu fanatic ... who is now being recognised for who he was...

And just so that you thougt your comment: ``Now he won`t be able to take a leak without chanting Gandhi`s name like a mantra for the next 10 days or so`` ... could pre-empt the summary denudation and unveiling of Gandhiji`s loin cloth...

Here is knot number1



(Extensions of Remarks - December 13, 2005)

HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
OF NEW YORK
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2005


Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, the unveiling of a statue of Mohandas K. Gandhi in Johannesburg, South Africa, set off a discussion about the anti-black racism of the founder of India.

When the eight-foot high Gandhi statue was unveiled, portraying him as a young human-rights lawyer, many leaders attacked Gandhi`s anti-black statements. “Gandhi had no love for Africans,`` said one letter in The Citizen, a South African newspaper. “To him, Africans were no better than the `Untouchables` of India.``

As you may know, Mr. Speaker, the dark-skinned aborigines of the subcontinent, known as Dalits or “Untouchables,`` occupy the lowest rung on the ladder of India`s rigid and racist caste system. The caste system exists to protect the privileged position of the Brahmins, the top caste. Although it was officially banned by India`s constitution in 1950, it is still strictly practiced in Hindu India.

Others have pointed out that Gandhi ignored the suffering of black people during the colonial occupation of South Africa. When he was arrested and forced to share a cell with black prisoners, he wrote that they were “only one degree removed from the animal.`` In other words, Mr. Speaker, he described blacks as less than human. We condemn anyone who says this in our country, such as the Ku Klux Klan and others, as we should. Why is Gandhi venerated for such statements?

In addition, G.B. Singh, a Gandhi biographer, has looked through many pictures of him and never seen one single black person. Gandhi also attacked white Europeans.

Gandhi is honored as the founder of India. These statements and attitudes reveal the racist underpinning behind the secular, democratic facade of India. It explains a worldview that permits a Dalit constable to be stoned to death for entering the temple on a rainy day, that allows the murders of over 300,000 Christians in Nagaland, over 250,000 Sikhs in Punjab, Khalistan, over 90,000 Muslims in Kashmir, tens of thousands of Christians and Muslims elsewhere in the country, including Graham Staines and his two young sons, and tens of thousands of Assamese, Bodos, Dalits, Manipuris, Tamils, and other minorities. It explains why the pro-Fascist, Hindu militant RSS is a powerful organization in India, in control of one of its two major political parties.

India must abandon its racist attitudes and its exploitation of minorities. It must allow the enjoyment of full human rights by everyone. Until it does so, we should stop our aid and trade with India. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the essence of democracy is the right to self-determination. India must allow self-determination for Kashmir, as it promised the United Nations in 1948, in Punjab, Khalistan, in Nagaland, and wherever the people seek to free themselves from the boot of Indian oppression. We should put this Congress on record in support of self-determination for the people of the subcontinent in the form of a free and fair plebiscite on the question of independence. Khalistan declared its independence on October 7, 1987. The people have never been allowed to have a simple, democratic vote on the matter. Instead, India continues to oppress the people there with over half a million troops.

#180 by nasah

Nasah Sahib, why did you have to kick Yasser in the groin like that? Now he won`t be able to take a leak without chanting Gandhi`s name like a mantra for the next 10 days or so.

Nasah,

You are right Gandhi was not a politician. That would be supremely an insult to all politicians...

While I don`t share Naqshbandi`s views... but I would hope that all educated and enlightened people will stop repeating myths about Gandhi... and recognise him for what his writings show him to be... a witchdoctor of the worst kind, a racist, casteist bigot and a hypocrite. Nothing else.

This is my considered opinion based on Gandhi`s writings. Producing ``testimonials`` will not change any view. The world once thought earth was flat and the world can go on considering Gandhi an apostle of non-violence in the meanwhile.

Buleya:

You must be pretty screwed up in the head.

Perhaps your pre-school mind needs a lesson:

Here`s the first list you provide:
- Aitezaz Ahsan (PPP)
- Yusuf Raza Gilani (PPP)
- Imran Khan (PTI)
- A retired Musharraf who joins a political party
- A Shaukut Aziz who is genuinely elected through a political party
- Chaudhry Nisar (somewhat OK) (PML)
- Shahbaz Sharif (assuming he can disassociate himself from his family) (PML)


Among these, EVERYONE - and EVERYONE - let me repeat EVERYONE wants the constitution to be applicable to all and the institutions to be supreme - EXCEPT your lovable fuuk head Musharaf and his disposable diaper Shaukat Aziz (I dunno about gilani though).

So where are you coming upwith the perverted logic that the above do not want the constitution to be supreme?

``Constitutions are only as good as the individuals who are in power. ``

You sound like a good student of General Zia. `What is the constitution? It`s a piece of paper!` - such sht head comments I suppose still have followers.

Ahmed Faraz in reply to such krap like you`re spilling out said that if you reject the constitution on that principle, why not say ``What is the Koran? It`s a piece of paper!`

You Bulleya Sir, are clearly a Fauji-Lover! First to place the likes of great lawyers like Aitezaz Ahsan and claim they would prefer doing without a constitution whereas they are the MOST ardent followers of the constitution - no one worships it more than him! and then imply that Musharaf and Aziz could get `elected` or even try to get elected - it`s great to dream and all...but let`s try to be real.

Re: # 175

``When Ala Hadrat Imam Ahmad Rida was told that Gandhi wanted to meet him he replied. ``He is a politician. I am a faqeer. What have we got in common?`` and refused to meet him.`(Nqshbandi)

Naqsh my lad -- Gandhi was not a ``laanati`` lunatic self seeking politician -- and he was in reality a faqir -- even Churchill called him a Faqir derisively but factually -- a politician who did not covet the chair -- did not ammass wealth -- was not a divider --but the uniter of communnities especially the bridger of the gulf between the Hindus and Muslims -- for bri-- he even paid with his life -- and you call him `laanati` -- shame on you!

When your Ala Hadrat refused to meet Gandhi -- your Ala Hadrat became the politician -- he ceased to be a Faqir -- because a true Faqir will meet every one even a politician -- except may a competing fellow Faqir......:)

Young man get rid of all this heresies from your hearsay head -- take it from this Muslim man who knew Gandhi personally -- not from the Monday quarterbacking charlatan writers and biased pseudo researchers.

Gandhi was a great soul who with his sureme sacrifice that his very life -- saved million Muslim lives and protected their dignity and civil rights at the lowest ebb of the Muslim existence in divided India.

An educated enlightened person like you should not use a `laanati` word against a towering yet gentle soul like Gandhi.

In the political junkyard called the jewelry shop now a days -- of that godforsaken subcontinent -- on both sides of the border -- they pick dirty street stones -- wash the crap around them with holy waters -- wrap them in velvet boxes -- and exhibit them as `real` gems -- while throwing the real gems as head-bursting rocks on the impressionable young minds of kids like you.....what a shame!

The following individuals would make pretty good Prime Ministers/Presidents of Pakistan. Assuming they can reach the position. Not in any particular order.......

- Aitezaz Ahsan (PPP)
- Yusuf Raza Gilani (PPP)
- Imran Khan (PTI)
- A retired Musharraf who joins a political party
- A Shaukut Aziz who is genuinely elected through a political party
- Chaudhry Nisar (somewhat OK) (PML)
- Shahbaz Sharif (assuming he can disassociate himself from his family) (PML)

The following indiviudals would not make good Prime Ministers/President. Unfortunately they are the ones who have the most chances......

- Benazir Bhutto (PPP)
- Asif Zardari (PPP)
- Amin Fahim (PPP)
- Nawaz Sharif (PML)
- Chaudhry Shujaat (PML)
- An unelected Musharraf (now a liability)
- Qazi Hussain (MMA)
- Fazl-ur-Rahman (MMA)

What exactly does all of this have to do with the Constitution? Nothing much. Other than the fact that in Pakistan, these individuals, specifically those in the second list, and what they want is the Constitution. Constitutions are only as good as the individuals who are in power.

re: Mantolives # 177

Yasser, my disagreements with Rozaiba have always been on the procedural nature of the constitutional argument. As you correctly stated, there is a lot of uncertainity in the Pakistani politics. The intent of my argument, with Rozaiba, was never to deny the importance and the primacy of the constitutional paradigm in Pakistani politics, but to suggest that there is a lot of spade work that needs to be done in order to frame a proper political and legal environment for viable constitutionalism in Pakistan.

Ciao

Ofcourse BJ the fact that those ``ludicrous`` things are based in history is a very inconvenient fact for you...

Ferozk,

Your point about the Military seeking political legitimacy is valid and was a theme of mine... that Military is ceding more and more space to civil society and politicians... however, coming into close contact with the establishment... and how it loves to choke judiciary for example.. I was forced to change my opinion. If you recall... in our little Freddy`s meets... you and I would disagree with Rozaiba... but I think Rozaiba is right. This seeking political legitimacy business only leaves politics more vulnerable and doesn`t help the nation.

On another note... that you, a most seasoned commentator, praised post 158 by one interactor known for his outright lunacy, I was forced to go and read it and I found this gem of a statement- surprising me that it came from an utter lunatic:

``In other words, people have to start thinking of democracy as something which will require flexibility from EVERY side, even if one of the sides has a clear majority. The political players have to stop treating politics like a ball game with ``win`` or ``lose`` results.``

Unfortunately- to harp on the theme closest to bjkumar`s heart- partition of 1947 was the direct result of Congress` inability to be flexible because it had a clear majority... even though the party of the minority was bending backwards to come to an arrangement to reconcile the Pakistan idea with a United India... But Congress said- We have a majority and its either ``my way or the high way``.

-YLH

Re: bjkumar # 158

I agree, with your comments. However, one distinction which I would like to make is that in the present day Pakistan, even the military feels the need to ``win`` elections. As much as the military may seek upsurp the electoral process, it cannot stay in power without the fig leaf of a political legitimacy and only elections make that possible. Therefore, the more the miltiary stays in power, the more pressure there will be on it to exist within the parameters of politics and this also, to an extent, explains why the military leaves power and hands the political reins back to the civilians. In Pakistan, one of the unstated tragedies is that the politicans are not even united against the military and its ventures into politics and the military exploiting this sense of national political disunity, has been able to wreak the the process of politics in Pakistan and in the process, periodically manage to use a ``divide and conquer`` strategy to dominate Pakistani politics.

Other than this point, I totally agree with with your observations and once the rest of the people in this start to understand what you have said; then maybe there is hope for this country.

Ciao

Gandhi was a la`anati and his mirage of `Hindu Muslim` unity was just a cunning stunt to try and prevent Muslims from getting real political power.

Sadly, his stunts fooled many people, inlcuding some maulvis, but the vast majority saw behind his facade.

When Ala Hadrat Imam Ahmad Rida was told that Gandhi wanted to meet him he replied. ``He is a politician. I am a faqeer. What have we got in common?`` and refused to meet him.

#173

Yaar Faruk,

Suffice it to say that even a casual reading of some of the Pakistani interacts makes it amply clear why Manto has his own compulsions for saying some of the most ludicrous things - even though obviously knowing how ludicrous those things are.

I got to go. Have fun, everybody.

re: montolives # 171
The flaw I was referring to was not just what Gandhi did but the very concept of a distinct identity for Muslims.

Regards,

Faruk