Small Spies Must be Hanged , While Bigger Ones Prosper

Re: # 95

Majumdar,

"And yet he won a landslide in 1946!"

And after that?

Re: # 96

"All colonial forces had to leave Asia..."

Why?

Says who?

Mpolahs and all other Muslims who chose to stay back...

The rest were swayed by the propounder of "Two Nation Theory". Not a single Muslim could have gone because of Jinnah...

Ananth07,

Hong Kong?


Bye for the day...

Vengat,

(And after that?)

Pak was born. He continues to be revered as the Father of his Nation. And recently a survey indicated that over 40% Indians too give him high approval rating.

(Mpolahs and all other Muslims who chose to stay back... )

They stayed back it was impossible or if not difficult to leave. Btw why did they vote for him in the first place?

Regards

Majumdar,

Lol....You are a 'last word freak'......

Anyway keep digging reasons to slur Gandhiji...Happy digging and don't try to bring the small stone too close to your eyes...It will make you feel as though the world has dissappeared...

Gotta go to the gym...

Regards,


Again, Jinnah was not as good a leader as Maulana Sahib...He was intimidated to see somebody from his own community to be more intelligent and a bigger leader amongst the mass...

I don't see much difference between Bhutto's daughter oops son and Jinnah...

Still you can have the last word...

Re: # 102:
"
Btw why did they vote for him in the first place?
"
Islam is in danger! British sold ganja in China and political Islam in India. Subcontinental Muslims are still addicted to it. Our gandu is better than your Gandhi even though he represents crooks and criminals to make money.

Powerful west used crook coconuts who themselves were as foreign to the people whom they were supposed to represent as these coconut's master. The guy retired of all the places to UK. Proofs based on writing in Bennet Colman newspaper would be hard to find.

Are u guys paid to bs on this site.

Majumdar bhai,

speaking as a Pakistani, hatred for Ghandhiji is part of our upbringing. By the same token, reverence for Jinah. Manto or anyone else, they can't think above that divide which is created very early on in life; same as people's ideas about religious belief etc.

You should spend some independent time by yourself in the country, talk to school kids as to what they get taught etc, it would be an eye opener. That is hardly a reason to give him the credit for being 'father' of anything!

What masadi says about Jinah is far closer to the truth than any of your other sources.

Cheers.

#105 Posted by akcheema
"speaking as a Pakistani, hatred for Ghandhiji is part of our upbringing."

Speak for yourself! your parents might have taught you to hate some people. I don't know which school system you went to in Pakistan, The ones I attended didn't have a word of hate about Gandhi or anyone.

Perhaps in your world reading history from a certain pov tantamount to hate, not where I went to school.
Btw, if you read what they teach in Indian school system, then you will know where all that hate on display here comes from.

Maybe they were teaching you hate in IJT study groups!

You don't speak for every Pakistani so please refrain from this "we" Sh!t.

Re: # 63
Dear Br. Madani
Aside from your overwhelming recommendation I was personally impressed having examined his publications for prospective reading at my own, however, I must say that if this masadi happens to be the one & same who authored those several books I cannot even think about a literate author of that level to act without any provocation in the manner this masadi has been acting.
Secondly, its very hard for me to perceive that reading the writing of an author who otherwise behaves in the manner this individual has been behaving while I had no direct communication with him up until he chose to use three & four letter words addressing my comments that were written in connection with another individual, I cannot accept that an author who chooses to write on such deep topics with the influence of Islam can be inflicting insults and calling names, as this action on part of anyone convinces me that they cannot convey the message.
I am sorry that I have lost all the regard for this person as I conventionally carry and extend to anyone addressing me.
I hope you will forgive me for having to post under the influence of feelings consequent to uncalled for attacks over and again by masadi.
May Allah bless all of us with peace, harmony and mutual regard for each other, and, forgive our shortcomings. ameen.
Thank you so much for taking the time to intercept for resolution.
Regards

Re: # 106; HP

"another point of view!" that is rich.

If you have children, why don't you look at their curriculum now and in the last few years; oh right you can't, as you don't actually live in the Pakiland do you?

Gandhi and Congress hatred was and has been synonymous in Pakistan and still is; I speak with personal experience looking through the history (from YOUR POV) so misrepresented anywhere else!

Are you trying to tell me that children now are taught their history for the last 5-6000 years of civilisation (apart from the mention of Harappa and Moen jo Dero) or does history start with Mohammed Bin Qasim; get a grip on reality "from another point of view"!

To Majumder and Vengat...
Nobody claims Gandhi flawless. He was mediocre brain and thus failed in many fronts....
Pakistan had no reason to hate Gandhi...He had not supported partition...but post partition, he had not shown any enemity against Pakistan...

i am surprised at obsession of some on this site with gandhi.as far as i know gandhi , jinnah and nehru were almost similar people , all ambitious in their own way,gandhi's style being highly unorthodox.all were great actors and all used religion or religious symbols for their political elevation.gandhi aimed at something more vague or what some may call sublime , nehru and jinnah were more worldly.

i remember one conversation of jinnah reported in FRUS in which he invited US Ambassador to his governor general's yatch and then asked him if united states government would buy his house for the planned new states embassy in karachi.the ambassador politely declined saying he had selected another place.

as i understand from studying in about 15 schools in pakistan in 10 years no pakistani curriculum books propagated hatred against gandhi.yes nehru was projected as the political villain.

as i see for me there is no difference between chaudhry shujaat or any pakistani politician as compared to any indian politician.its all a farce . india was divided because of british policy and class interests and clash of ego.

Re: # 102
Vengat....
(Mpolahs and all other Muslims who chose to stay back... )

Why Mpolahs will leave, when the greater society is not creating an atmosphere of fear and intimidation?
South Indian ruling class is deeply influenced by jainism and no military strength/will left within these peoples. Furthermore, they have failed to create an alternate military class from lower caste people (rather, they have exploited them to keep them poor and vulnerable. Shivaji created military class from peasants. When required use plaugh, otherwise use sword and bow & arrow. He was thus very successful against Mughals).So, Moplahs had sensed no danger from staying in India. It is the deviation of Kshatriyas in Southern India, that allowed the Moplah Jihad to be successful.

The fathers of communalism as an idea in Indian politics were Syed Ahmad Khan, Lala Lajpat Rai, Gandhi and the Jauhar brothers! The British on the other hand right from 1858 followed a subtle but brilliant policy, introducing parliamentary democracy as bait to divert the energies of the more prominent Indians! A bait, which aroused ambition, whether based on ego, lust for glory, social recognition or material rewards! Peaceful yet heroic! Safe yet glorious! The double advantage of pursuing a prosperous law practice or business career or wielding feudal power while at the same time also being leaders of the subject Indians and the possible successors of the British Viceroys! Parliamentary democracy or its prospects once the British finally left India produced two distinct kinds of reactions, both of which helped the British and went against the people of the Indo-Pak Sub-continent! The leaders of the Hindu majority saw themselves as successors of the British Viceroys while the principal leaders of the Indian Muslims hypothesised that parliamentary democracy in independent India would mean Hindu ascendancy and Muslim subservience or more correctly all power in the hands of the Hindu politicians! The Hindu-Muslim question in reality was a 'Hindu-Muslim leaders clash of ego' question! It all started once the British introduced local self-government based on elections from the 1860s and aggravated more and more as leaders who were Hindu by accident of birth tried to sideline other leaders who were Muslim by accident of birth! Initially leaders from both the communities talked in terms of high sounding slogans like 'Nationalism' 'Liberty' 'Democracy' etc but became more narrow in approach once their religion became a psychological disqualification in being leaders of all Indians! The fact that the vast majority of Indians whether Muslim or Hindu would remain poor as they were before 1947 and are in the year 2000 was not important for these men. The Congress and League were essentially bourgeois parties with a larger feudal presence in the league and a larger urban business presence in the Congress. Both these parties employed religion as a tool to further their party agendas, middle class business class or feudal on the whole and egoistic at the higher level!

Nehru was an atheist and a socialist, Mr Jinnah was a highly Westernised man, and yet both were great Hindu and Muslim leaders. Both the parties were instruments of business professional and feudal classes to achieve maximum power and both increasingly divided Indian society on communal lines simply because their leaders were essentially highly egotistical men! The irony of Indo-Pak history is the fact that modern Indo-Pak history is a story of clash of great men like Nehru and Jinnah who employed religion as a tool simply because they correctly albeit ironically realised that the people of the Indo-Pak were too naive to understand vague slogans like liberty or democracy and could only be galvanised or mobilised by raising religious slogans! In a more advanced Indian society Nehru and Jinnah may have been leaders of all Indians rather than only Hindu Indians or Muslim Indians! India, however, was like Europe around the time of the 30 years war and thus both these great men were forced by historical circumstances to be only communal leaders! Both wanted to be leaders of all Indians regardless of race or religion, but both were forced, thanks to the fire of religious communalism lit by glorified agitators or complex and outwardly impressive hypocrites like Gandhi to be communal leaders! Nehru was too sophisticated a man to be a Hindu and Jinnah was too enlightened a man to be only a leader of Indian Muslims. It was a twist of fate that both are today remembered albeit rightly as leaders of Hindu or Muslim India.

Thus while the other parts of the world intellectually as well as materially made great progress during the period 1850-1950 all the energies of the Indians at all levels were increasingly diverted into communalism; thereby ensuring that intellectually as well as materially the Indo-Pak Sub-Continent remained backward! History was written as Muslim or Hindu history, politics was practised as Hindu or Muslim politics and while Europe was experimenting with radical social legislation, all the energies of Indian constitutionalist were absorbed in debating representation on basis of religion! College or University education was important because it was a pre-requisite for government jobs or to practise in the law courts! Research teaching and writing were unproductive jobs since they did not enable a man to be a deputy collector or barrister or doctor! It was a mad race made further mad by frequent outbursts of communal frenzy, which increased as population increased during the period 1890-1940. All this helped the Britishers who had been traumatically shaken by the Sepoy Rebellion of 1857 when a largely Hindu majority army had rebelled under Muslim leaders! The British were thus happier playing the role of judges resolving Hindu Muslim disputes rather than performing the more unpleasant task of facing a combined political movement of all Indians regardless of race or religion as in 1857, 1919 or 1922 ! This is the basis of anti-intellectualism in the Indo-Pak Sub-continent. It is more true for Pakistan since the Muslims were educationally more backward and relatively less true, yet still true and applicable to India too!