Talking to Jamil Dehlavi about Infinite Justice and More

Mantolives,

What's the source of your claim that Ahmadis living in Qadian are living in poverty?

Aamir of Dinia is my name for Jinnah who wanted to be the Emperor of India though be became Emperor of Pakistan as a consolation.

His megalomania was well established in how he took all the powers to himself in the newly established GGship. So his mentality is to lord over the ppl. That's why I called Aamir of Dinia.

Are you challenging my belief? I personally consider Muhammad a great figure of history and a leader of men who invokes unquestionable loyalty amongst people even today.
He was - as he said himself- an ordinary mortal who lived like an ordinary mortal.

But do you think by taking this line of argument, you are strengthening or weakening my argument, when I for one reject the "other-worldiness" and "spiritual" altogether.

Ref MantoLives #8

[As for Gandhi being a saint. Yes and 3 billion people also believe that some dude Jesus Christ was the son of God.]

Yasser, dear boy, go on and add "And 1.5 billion people believe that an illiterate Arab goatherd was a Prophet."

Come, on. You can do it. Just try it once.

[Perception and "belief" doesn't mean anything. Facts are everything. Gandhi was a racist casteist Hindu fascist bigot.]

And Mohammad was a pervert.

PS: I am not complaining about anything. We are talking about violence in Punjab.

Many of those Muslims killed in 1947 by Hindu and Sikh hordes were Ahmadis. So Radcliffe not only left the few Ahmadis in India left in absolute poverty but had many of them killed.

harish mian,

Gandhi did not refuse any power. He was not offered any.

As for Jinnah... he announced his decision to be the GG in mid July ... whole month after June 3rd plan after it became clear that GGship would fall to Mountbatten who was partisan.

I know many Ahmadis and Qadianis from Qadian. They live in abject poverty and absolute squalor. Many of them still marry off their daughters to Pakistani Ahmadis despite your claim that my father's community can't call themselves Muslims (this is a claim which is only true as far as some statute book goes.... the court has applied Hanafi Islamic inheritance law to divide my father's assets... so much for him not being a Muslim).

So why don't we discuss these issues on a logical plain and abstain from making comments about a community you know nothing about.

#22 by MantoLives

In 1947 he was the best man for the job and that is why he took it ... to stop India's daddy the erstwhile gora-master Mountbatten from claiming Pakistan as well.

Regardless of the circumstances, if Jinnah had to be remembered as a statesman, he would have refused power like Gandhi did. Instead, he jumped at the offer to become GG. That says it all.

As for murder of innocents... all that has to do with the way Congress and Mountbatten planned Gurdaspur tragedy.

This is like starting a wildfire in a forest and then complaining about some trees getting burnt. Gandhi wanted to avoid Partition, even at the cost of letting Jinnah be the PM of a united India. Yet the man refused and then here we have Yasser complaining about the Gurdaspur "tragedy" (thank God for the Radcliffe line, or the folks leading a peaceful life in Qadian today would have had to look forward to the day they wouldn't be able to even call themselves Muslims in public).

Re: # 30

So in other words you have no source for your claim.

Now do you have source for "Amir of Dinia" crap? The talks you refer to took place in 1944 and not 1946. So you are basically not talking truthfully.

Guys, did you know that Jinnah's Great grand Son is living in sin with an Indian Super Star?

Man, I never knew that jinnah's line had gone up in the world, while Gandhi's grand sons and grat grand children are nowhere to be seen?

Re: # 27

Be that as it may ... it proves what I am saying. India had Hyderabad, Delhi, UP, parts of Kerala... pockets of large Muslim populations.

Can you think of similar areas in Pakistan or Bangladesh. According to your statistic below there are 17 million Hindus in the erstwhile Pakistan of 1947.

Besides... and please feel free to answer this question any time now.... how is this comparison relevant to massacres at partition when we are simply concerned about violence as it took place in 1947. The accurate comparison then surely can only be of East and West Punjab. It goes without saying that there were more Muslims in East Punjab (thanks to Gurdaspur) than Hindus and Sikhs in West Punjab. Today there are hardly any Muslims in East Punjab. That should answer the question raised here.

Mantolives,

Once Gandhi told that he's dealing with AIML in his personal capacity, talks collapsed. So the dream of becoming the Aamir of Dinia was in Jinnah's mind & that disappeared with Gandhi's clarification.

The very reason why they backtracked is a proof that there's nothing achievable there (becmoing the Aamir of Dinia).

Re: # 25

VRV,

Could you quote a source for this Liaqat-Gandhi meeting or are you making it up as you usually do?

The fact is that Gandhi offered Jinnah pm-ship and he told him to take a hike because Jinnah said he would agree to safeguards embodied in the Cabinet Mission Plan and that PM-ship was an irrelevant issue.

#23 Posted by MantoLives on February 11, 2008 3:10:40 am

I need to double check but I am sure they are not 20% but abt 10% or thereabout non-Muslims in NWFP.

Manto mian,

Regarding the population of Hindus in B'desh.

In 1951, 10 million out of 41 million (24%) (Census of Pak), today around 9.3% (wikipedia) which means around 14 million.

Pop of Hindus in Pak

http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/pco/statistics/other_tables/pop_by_religi on.pdf

Hindus 1.6%
SCs 0.25%

Which means 3 million.

Regards

Dear Majumdar,

The principle of law is how the law existed in that point of time. So post 1974 Paki momin means jackshit really when talking about the Gurdaspur land grab by India.

What was the rationale for Gurdaspur if not land grab? It is now clear from History that Mountbatten- India's first Governor General- was complicit in this conspiracy. He clearly acted on Congress' behalf.

As with your earlier suggestion, you are missing the point. VRV is trying to appropriate the blame for 1947's massacres. In a court of law that would require exact facts on such bizarre claims that India has so many Muslims etc.

Please refer to my earlier post.

Oh bhai,

Gandhi neevr sought any power & that clear to everybody who knew him. So the question of Gandhi being considered doesnt arise.

As for Jinnah beint he Head of United India, Liaqat went to Bombay to talk with Gandhi abt Jinnah getting the top post but once Gandhi clarified that he's talking to Liaqat on his personal capacity but not on behalf of Congress, it became clear to Liaqat and Jinnah that becoming the Head of United India was a pipedream. So they backtracked & withdrew.

As for GGship of Jinnah, he sought it overriding the opinion of his AIML topbrass. The topbrass were even aghast at Jinnah's megalomania i.e seeking shadow over substance.

Manto mian,

(Gurdaspur tragedy.)

If I were a Paki Momin post 1973, I wud never bring up Gurdaspur in a public debate.

(So I am afraid it was the Congress which wanted power at all costs... even the blood of innocents...)

How did Gurdaspur or the riots keep INC in power. INC wud have remained in power even if G'pur had gone to Pak ( inspite of a non-Muslim majority) or had riots not taken place.

Regards