Living Gandhi and King Today: Unbroken Historic Continuity
Tahir Qazi & Syeda Nuzhat Siddiqui October 1, 2008
#97 Posted by harish_hyd on October 6, 2008 12:01:09 am
#96 by majumdar
These are Bapuji's own words, not Yasser mian's.\
Majumdar bhai, please read that post carefully. They DO CONTAIN Yasser's mian's words.
These are Bapuji's own words, not Yasser mian's.\
Majumdar bhai, please read that post carefully. They DO CONTAIN Yasser's mian's words.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#98 Posted by majumdar on October 6, 2008 12:05:08 am
Harishbhai,
A few isolated words like Gandhi's disdain for black people continues were Yassers. The pious sentiments were all Bapuji's.
Besides, I said that YLH had provided a link to his old posts.
Regards
A few isolated words like Gandhi's disdain for black people continues were Yassers. The pious sentiments were all Bapuji's.
Besides, I said that YLH had provided a link to his old posts.
Regards
#99 Posted by harish_hyd on October 6, 2008 12:10:38 am
#98 by majumdar
A few isolated words like Gandhi's disdain for black people continues were Yassers. The pious sentiments were all Bapuji's.
How is it different from Jinnah's own barely concealed feelings of Muslim superiority? At least Gandhi's transgressions were in the early part of his life when he was a commoner and harbored the same prejudices as any ordinary Hindu of those times. Jinnah OTOH continued to believe that right till he died vomitting blood.
Besides, I said that YLH had provided a link to his old posts.
That is AFTER I said it was Yasser's.
A few isolated words like Gandhi's disdain for black people continues were Yassers. The pious sentiments were all Bapuji's.
How is it different from Jinnah's own barely concealed feelings of Muslim superiority? At least Gandhi's transgressions were in the early part of his life when he was a commoner and harbored the same prejudices as any ordinary Hindu of those times. Jinnah OTOH continued to believe that right till he died vomitting blood.
Besides, I said that YLH had provided a link to his old posts.
That is AFTER I said it was Yasser's.
#100 Posted by majumdar on October 6, 2008 12:18:54 am
Harishbhai,
His views on Africans came in 1908 when he was 39 years old. His views on the caste system in 1922 when he was 53 years old- no spring chicken. Besides, it wasn't like he had come from the middle of nowhere. He was a qualified lawyer and he had spent time in London and had been exposed to the works of the likes of Ruskin and Tolstoy.
Someone like Dayanand Saraswati had rejected caste at an younger age and much before Gandhi made these pious statements.
Regards
His views on Africans came in 1908 when he was 39 years old. His views on the caste system in 1922 when he was 53 years old- no spring chicken. Besides, it wasn't like he had come from the middle of nowhere. He was a qualified lawyer and he had spent time in London and had been exposed to the works of the likes of Ruskin and Tolstoy.
Someone like Dayanand Saraswati had rejected caste at an younger age and much before Gandhi made these pious statements.
Regards
#101 Posted by harish_hyd on October 6, 2008 12:22:03 am
#100 by majumdar
His views on Africans came in 1908 when he was 39 years old. His views on the caste system in 1922 when he was 53 years old- no spring chicken. Besides, it wasn't like he had come from the middle of nowhere. He was a qualified lawyer and he had spent time in London and had been exposed to the works of the likes of Ruskin and Tolstoy.
How old was Jinnah when he engineered the partition?
His views on Africans came in 1908 when he was 39 years old. His views on the caste system in 1922 when he was 53 years old- no spring chicken. Besides, it wasn't like he had come from the middle of nowhere. He was a qualified lawyer and he had spent time in London and had been exposed to the works of the likes of Ruskin and Tolstoy.
How old was Jinnah when he engineered the partition?
#102 Posted by majumdar on October 6, 2008 12:25:44 am
AK sb,
btw where exactly is majumdar?
Here I am.
Mullah Powindah like Mohd Ali Jinnah used the muslim identity as a rallying cry, the goal in both cases was to rid the land of British intruders.
I am glad that you mentioned that MAJ (pbuh) was trying to get rid of Brits.
But in anycase, neither syed ahmad nor baitullah mehsud have anything common with Mahatama Gandhi jee.
I am not saying that MKG was spraying around people with machine gun shots. All I am saying is that he injected an anti-modernist religion based approach to national politics. And like the GOP he used jihad as a tool for political means, for instance his washing over Moplah violence as a means of rallying Muslim support for NCM. He was an enabler.
Regards
btw where exactly is majumdar?
Here I am.
Mullah Powindah like Mohd Ali Jinnah used the muslim identity as a rallying cry, the goal in both cases was to rid the land of British intruders.
I am glad that you mentioned that MAJ (pbuh) was trying to get rid of Brits.
But in anycase, neither syed ahmad nor baitullah mehsud have anything common with Mahatama Gandhi jee.
I am not saying that MKG was spraying around people with machine gun shots. All I am saying is that he injected an anti-modernist religion based approach to national politics. And like the GOP he used jihad as a tool for political means, for instance his washing over Moplah violence as a means of rallying Muslim support for NCM. He was an enabler.
Regards
#103 Posted by majumdar on October 6, 2008 12:26:57 am
Harishbhai,
MAJ (pbuh) began off as an ambassador for Hindu-Muslim unity. Only when he realised the bitter truth at a much later age, that he opted for Pakistan.
Regards
MAJ (pbuh) began off as an ambassador for Hindu-Muslim unity. Only when he realised the bitter truth at a much later age, that he opted for Pakistan.
Regards
#104 Posted by harish_hyd on October 6, 2008 12:31:01 am
#103 by majumdar
Only when he realised the bitter truth at a much later age, that he opted for Pakistan.
OK, so only Jinnah is allowed to realize the truth while Gandhi must of course be subject to the harshest possible scrutiny?
Only when he realised the bitter truth at a much later age, that he opted for Pakistan.
OK, so only Jinnah is allowed to realize the truth while Gandhi must of course be subject to the harshest possible scrutiny?
#105 Posted by masanamuthu on October 6, 2008 12:52:53 am
In fact Gandhi and Congress didn't accept these, from 1928 onward, that is why there was partition. The reason why India is a parliamentary democracy is because Gandhi and rest of Congress refused to surrender one man one vote even to avert Partition.
In 1935, Congress were willing to accept some version of Communal Award plus(which had the weightages etc)but Jinnah pushed too hard by refusing even that compromise.
What you are saying in the first paragraph contradicts with what you are saying in the second. :-)
Anyways, all that has happened is good. We need to learn from history and make sure the bad parts does not happen again.
It is TRUE that Gandhi lived the life of a dhimmi and died as one. That does not make him a less nobler soul. He is a great man, but failed to realise that he lived in the real world.
In 1935, Congress were willing to accept some version of Communal Award plus(which had the weightages etc)but Jinnah pushed too hard by refusing even that compromise.
What you are saying in the first paragraph contradicts with what you are saying in the second. :-)
Anyways, all that has happened is good. We need to learn from history and make sure the bad parts does not happen again.
It is TRUE that Gandhi lived the life of a dhimmi and died as one. That does not make him a less nobler soul. He is a great man, but failed to realise that he lived in the real world.
#106 Posted by sadna on October 6, 2008 3:02:03 am
masanamuthu
It is not a contradiction - the Congress stance was that it would not declare any opinion on the Communal Award and one of Jinnah's conditions post 1937 was that Congress must stop calling the Communal Award a negation of nationalism(that was Gandhi's statement which he wanted repudiated by the Congress).
Gandhi was called a bania by his former Khilafat ally Mohammed Ali because of his implicit and explicit support for no extra quotas for Muslims. The Hindu-Muslim tussle in pre-independence era was over how much extra Muslims could get over and above their population, NOT over their basic rights as is projected by propagandists. Because Gandhi was not in favor of quotas he had absolutely no standing left among Muslims(except the nationalist Muslims).
This is what he said in 1931 at the Round Table Conference:
Gandhiji on the stalemate in communal settlement, Second Round Table Conference, 13 November 1931
I have not been able to read, with the care and attention that it deserves, the memorandum sent to the delegates on behalf of certain Minorities and received this morning. Before I offer a few remarks on that memorandum, with your permission and with all the deference and respect that are your due, I would express my dissent from the view that you put before this Committee-that the inability to solve the communal question was hampering the progress of Constitution-building, and that it was an indispensable condition prior to the building of any such Constitutions. I did not share that view.
The experience that I have since gained has confirmed me in that view and, if you will pardon me for saying so, it was because of the emphasis that was laid last year and repeated this year upon this difficulty, that the different communities were encouraged to press with all the vehemence at their command their own respective views. It would have been against human nature if they had done otherwise. All of them thought that this was the time to press forward their claims for all they were worth, and I venture to suggest again that this very emphasis has defeated the purpose which I have no doubt it had in view. This is the reason why we have failed to arrive at an agreement.
As representing the predominant political organization in India, I have no hesitation in saying to His Majesty's Government and to those friends who seek to represent the Minorities mentioned against their names, and indeed to the whole world, that this scheme is not one designed to achieve responsible government, though undoubtedly, it is designed to share power with the bureaucracy.
If that is the intention- and it is the intention running through the whole of that document-I wish them well, and Congress is entirely out of it. The Congress will wander, no matter how many years, in the wilderness rather than lend itself to a proposal under which the hardy tree of freedom and responsible government can never grow.
I am astonished that Sir Hubert Carr should tell us that they have evolved a scheme which, being designed only for a temporary period, would not damage the cause of nationalism, but at the end of ten years we would all find ourselves hugging one another and throwing ourselves into one another's laps. My political experience teaches me a wholly different lesson. If this responsible government whenever it comes, is to be inaugurated under happy auspices, the nation should not undergo the process of vivisection to which this scheme subjects it: it is a strain which no national Government can easily bear.
...
In my humble opinion the proposition enunciated by Sir Hubert Carr is the very negation of responsible government, the very negation of nationalism. If he says that if you want a live European on the Legislature then he must be elected by the Europeans themselves, well, heaven help India if India has to have representatives elected by these several, special, cut-up groups. That European will serve India as a whole, and that European only, who commands the approval of the common electorate and not the mere Europeans.
This very idea suggests that the responsible government will always have to contend against these interests which will always be in conflict against the national spirit-against this body of 85 per cent of agricultural population. To me it is an unthinkable thing. If we are going to bring into being responsible government and if we are going to get real freedom, then I venture to suggest that it should be the proud privilege and the duty of every one of these so-called special classes to seek entry into the Legislatures through this open door, through the election and approval of the common body of electorates. You know that Congress is wedded to adult suffrage, and under adult suffrage it will be open to all to be placed on the voters' list. More than that nobody can ask.
One word more as to the so-called Untouchables.
I can understand the claims advanced by other Minorities, but the claims advanced on behalf of the Untouchables, that to me is the 'unkindest cut of all'. It means the perpetual bar sinister. I would not sell the vital interests of the Untouchables even for the sake of winning the freedom of India. I claim myself in my own person to represent the vast mass of the Untouchables.
Let this Committee and let the whole world know that today there is a body of Hindu reformers who are pledged to remove this blot of Untouchability. We do not want on our register and our census Untouchables classified as a separate class. Sikhs may remains such in perpetuity, so may Muhammadans, so may Europeans. Will Untouchables remain in perpetuity? I would rather that Hinduism died than that Untouchability lived...I am speaking with a due sense of responsibility, and I say that it is not a proper claim which is registered by Dr. Ambedkar when he seeks to speak for the whole of the Untouchables of India. It will create a division in Hinduism which I cannot possible look forward to with any satisfaction whatsoever.
I do not mind Untouchables, if they so desire, being converted to Islam or Christianity. I should tolerate that, but I cannot possibly tolerate what is in store for Hinduism if there are two political divisions set forth in the villages. Those who speak of the political rights of Untouchables do not know their India, do not know how Indian society is today constructed, and therefore I want to say with all the emphasis that I can command that if I was the only person to resist this thing I would resist it with my life.
It is not a contradiction - the Congress stance was that it would not declare any opinion on the Communal Award and one of Jinnah's conditions post 1937 was that Congress must stop calling the Communal Award a negation of nationalism(that was Gandhi's statement which he wanted repudiated by the Congress).
Gandhi was called a bania by his former Khilafat ally Mohammed Ali because of his implicit and explicit support for no extra quotas for Muslims. The Hindu-Muslim tussle in pre-independence era was over how much extra Muslims could get over and above their population, NOT over their basic rights as is projected by propagandists. Because Gandhi was not in favor of quotas he had absolutely no standing left among Muslims(except the nationalist Muslims).
This is what he said in 1931 at the Round Table Conference:
Gandhiji on the stalemate in communal settlement, Second Round Table Conference, 13 November 1931
I have not been able to read, with the care and attention that it deserves, the memorandum sent to the delegates on behalf of certain Minorities and received this morning. Before I offer a few remarks on that memorandum, with your permission and with all the deference and respect that are your due, I would express my dissent from the view that you put before this Committee-that the inability to solve the communal question was hampering the progress of Constitution-building, and that it was an indispensable condition prior to the building of any such Constitutions. I did not share that view.
The experience that I have since gained has confirmed me in that view and, if you will pardon me for saying so, it was because of the emphasis that was laid last year and repeated this year upon this difficulty, that the different communities were encouraged to press with all the vehemence at their command their own respective views. It would have been against human nature if they had done otherwise. All of them thought that this was the time to press forward their claims for all they were worth, and I venture to suggest again that this very emphasis has defeated the purpose which I have no doubt it had in view. This is the reason why we have failed to arrive at an agreement.
As representing the predominant political organization in India, I have no hesitation in saying to His Majesty's Government and to those friends who seek to represent the Minorities mentioned against their names, and indeed to the whole world, that this scheme is not one designed to achieve responsible government, though undoubtedly, it is designed to share power with the bureaucracy.
If that is the intention- and it is the intention running through the whole of that document-I wish them well, and Congress is entirely out of it. The Congress will wander, no matter how many years, in the wilderness rather than lend itself to a proposal under which the hardy tree of freedom and responsible government can never grow.
I am astonished that Sir Hubert Carr should tell us that they have evolved a scheme which, being designed only for a temporary period, would not damage the cause of nationalism, but at the end of ten years we would all find ourselves hugging one another and throwing ourselves into one another's laps. My political experience teaches me a wholly different lesson. If this responsible government whenever it comes, is to be inaugurated under happy auspices, the nation should not undergo the process of vivisection to which this scheme subjects it: it is a strain which no national Government can easily bear.
...
In my humble opinion the proposition enunciated by Sir Hubert Carr is the very negation of responsible government, the very negation of nationalism. If he says that if you want a live European on the Legislature then he must be elected by the Europeans themselves, well, heaven help India if India has to have representatives elected by these several, special, cut-up groups. That European will serve India as a whole, and that European only, who commands the approval of the common electorate and not the mere Europeans.
This very idea suggests that the responsible government will always have to contend against these interests which will always be in conflict against the national spirit-against this body of 85 per cent of agricultural population. To me it is an unthinkable thing. If we are going to bring into being responsible government and if we are going to get real freedom, then I venture to suggest that it should be the proud privilege and the duty of every one of these so-called special classes to seek entry into the Legislatures through this open door, through the election and approval of the common body of electorates. You know that Congress is wedded to adult suffrage, and under adult suffrage it will be open to all to be placed on the voters' list. More than that nobody can ask.
One word more as to the so-called Untouchables.
I can understand the claims advanced by other Minorities, but the claims advanced on behalf of the Untouchables, that to me is the 'unkindest cut of all'. It means the perpetual bar sinister. I would not sell the vital interests of the Untouchables even for the sake of winning the freedom of India. I claim myself in my own person to represent the vast mass of the Untouchables.
Let this Committee and let the whole world know that today there is a body of Hindu reformers who are pledged to remove this blot of Untouchability. We do not want on our register and our census Untouchables classified as a separate class. Sikhs may remains such in perpetuity, so may Muhammadans, so may Europeans. Will Untouchables remain in perpetuity? I would rather that Hinduism died than that Untouchability lived...I am speaking with a due sense of responsibility, and I say that it is not a proper claim which is registered by Dr. Ambedkar when he seeks to speak for the whole of the Untouchables of India. It will create a division in Hinduism which I cannot possible look forward to with any satisfaction whatsoever.
I do not mind Untouchables, if they so desire, being converted to Islam or Christianity. I should tolerate that, but I cannot possibly tolerate what is in store for Hinduism if there are two political divisions set forth in the villages. Those who speak of the political rights of Untouchables do not know their India, do not know how Indian society is today constructed, and therefore I want to say with all the emphasis that I can command that if I was the only person to resist this thing I would resist it with my life.
#107 Posted by adamkhan on October 6, 2008 5:13:20 am
majumdar:
there is a difference between an "enabler" and a "grand daddy". What you and mantolives are trying to do here is to blame everything on Gandhi jee, which is completely ridiculous.
For the enabler part, let me ask you why is it that the followers of Gandhi i.e. the Khudai Khidmatgars forgave the massacre of Barbara and did not initiate a jihad in its reaction? why is it that this islamic fundamentalism drive is only strong in areas where Ghaffar Khan and his followers were banned and are still banned?
there is a difference between an "enabler" and a "grand daddy". What you and mantolives are trying to do here is to blame everything on Gandhi jee, which is completely ridiculous.
For the enabler part, let me ask you why is it that the followers of Gandhi i.e. the Khudai Khidmatgars forgave the massacre of Barbara and did not initiate a jihad in its reaction? why is it that this islamic fundamentalism drive is only strong in areas where Ghaffar Khan and his followers were banned and are still banned?
#108 Posted by harish_hyd on October 6, 2008 5:59:25 am
#107 by adamkhan
For the enabler part, let me ask you why is it that the followers of Gandhi i.e. the Khudai Khidmatgars forgave the massacre of Barbara and did not initiate a jihad in its reaction? why is it that this islamic fundamentalism drive is only strong in areas where Ghaffar Khan and his followers were banned and are still banned?
Adam yaar in Yasser mian's (and Majumdar bhai's too) world, Gandhi MUST be held accountable even for the violence taking place in an area where his party held no sway and is today part of a different country, yet the man whose followers who issued direct threats of violence and bloodshed on Hindus must be completely absolved of any role in the Direct Action Day massacres because he himself did not directly make the call (even while making absolutely no attempt to stop his cohorts from doing so).
But please don't expect any coherent answers to your questions. If anything, expect more of some very novel and creative explanations heaping more blame on Gandhi for the mess in FATA.
For the enabler part, let me ask you why is it that the followers of Gandhi i.e. the Khudai Khidmatgars forgave the massacre of Barbara and did not initiate a jihad in its reaction? why is it that this islamic fundamentalism drive is only strong in areas where Ghaffar Khan and his followers were banned and are still banned?
Adam yaar in Yasser mian's (and Majumdar bhai's too) world, Gandhi MUST be held accountable even for the violence taking place in an area where his party held no sway and is today part of a different country, yet the man whose followers who issued direct threats of violence and bloodshed on Hindus must be completely absolved of any role in the Direct Action Day massacres because he himself did not directly make the call (even while making absolutely no attempt to stop his cohorts from doing so).
But please don't expect any coherent answers to your questions. If anything, expect more of some very novel and creative explanations heaping more blame on Gandhi for the mess in FATA.
#109 Posted by mohar11 on October 6, 2008 7:17:40 am
majumdar and YLH
Give it up fellas - Adam Khan has pretty much destroyed your lame-a## theories and childish gandhi-bashing... not that anybody ever bought your cr@p anyway... :)
Even if gandhi were the "grand-daddy" of taliban movement way-back in the days, you still can't blame it on him... he played J-man like a flute and made sure muslas will never progress in anything and never be at peace with themsleves...
that's the power of the great bania and the "great soul" that ever walked the earth... Live with it... Ha ha...
Give it up fellas - Adam Khan has pretty much destroyed your lame-a## theories and childish gandhi-bashing... not that anybody ever bought your cr@p anyway... :)
Even if gandhi were the "grand-daddy" of taliban movement way-back in the days, you still can't blame it on him... he played J-man like a flute and made sure muslas will never progress in anything and never be at peace with themsleves...
that's the power of the great bania and the "great soul" that ever walked the earth... Live with it... Ha ha...
#110 Posted by MantoLives on October 6, 2008 10:24:33 am
Mohar mian,
Nice try but Adam khan has done no such thing. He has merely argued against something completely different than Majumdar and me.
My contention was that there is an unbroken connection between Gandhi "enabled" Islamists and the Islamists of NWFP than TNTists that some people here want to blame desperately.
Contrary to your claim here Adam Khan has admitted as much. His "gandhi is not wholly to blame" is not much of an argument as neither Majumdar nor I ever claimed that Gandhi was wholly to blame ...it is merely a strawman fallacy.
I think it is a great improvement from Adam Khan's outright denial of the facts earlier.
We called Gandhi "a granddaddy of the taliban" others being the Faqir of Ipi. Adam Khan has admitted that Gandhi was at the very least an enabler of the taliban. I think he is beginning to see the light.
Adam bhai,
If you recall I have written an entire series on NWFP's history ... in which I have exposed the true ugly face of the Khudai Khidmatgars and their militant terrorist wing the Zalmai Pakhtoon.
The cycle of assassination and violence NWFP's nationalist circles have been involved in for the last 60 years shows that non-violence of KK is in name only. You may revisit parts 2, 3 and 4 to see it for yourself. Or you may read old ANP comrade Juma Khan Sufi's writings and confessions (oh wait you had some story about his personal vendetta against ANP...but that only explains why Sufi chose to tell the truth about Bacha Khan and his family).
Anyway this repetitive. I see why you wish to argue on chowk. Enough crazies from across the border are ready to prop you up .. instead of calling a spade a spade. Good for you ... But I hope you know deep down that you are being utterly dishonest.
Nice try but Adam khan has done no such thing. He has merely argued against something completely different than Majumdar and me.
My contention was that there is an unbroken connection between Gandhi "enabled" Islamists and the Islamists of NWFP than TNTists that some people here want to blame desperately.
Contrary to your claim here Adam Khan has admitted as much. His "gandhi is not wholly to blame" is not much of an argument as neither Majumdar nor I ever claimed that Gandhi was wholly to blame ...it is merely a strawman fallacy.
I think it is a great improvement from Adam Khan's outright denial of the facts earlier.
We called Gandhi "a granddaddy of the taliban" others being the Faqir of Ipi. Adam Khan has admitted that Gandhi was at the very least an enabler of the taliban. I think he is beginning to see the light.
Adam bhai,
If you recall I have written an entire series on NWFP's history ... in which I have exposed the true ugly face of the Khudai Khidmatgars and their militant terrorist wing the Zalmai Pakhtoon.
The cycle of assassination and violence NWFP's nationalist circles have been involved in for the last 60 years shows that non-violence of KK is in name only. You may revisit parts 2, 3 and 4 to see it for yourself. Or you may read old ANP comrade Juma Khan Sufi's writings and confessions (oh wait you had some story about his personal vendetta against ANP...but that only explains why Sufi chose to tell the truth about Bacha Khan and his family).
Anyway this repetitive. I see why you wish to argue on chowk. Enough crazies from across the border are ready to prop you up .. instead of calling a spade a spade. Good for you ... But I hope you know deep down that you are being utterly dishonest.
#111 Posted by _arjun29 on October 6, 2008 10:35:04 am
Pakiland is the father of the taliban
According to manto, Gandhi is the grand daddy of the talipakis..
so gandhi is the father of pakiland?
According to manto, Gandhi is the grand daddy of the talipakis..
so gandhi is the father of pakiland?
#112 Posted by MantoLives on October 6, 2008 10:35:48 am
Majumdar bhai,
I am your biggest fan. The way you've lit a big one in many metaphorical chaddiz with nothing but facts and facts alone...is something I couldn't do in nine years. Our hero - the greatest Indian of the last century- Mr Jinnah (PBUH) would be proud.
I raise my glass albeit a lemon twist wali cranberry absolut vodka ie sex on the beach- to a great and prosperous subcontinent free of Gandhiism, witch-doctorism of the kind that celebrates Gandhiism, Islamic and other fundamentalisms and
communism type crap.
Pakistan Zindabad, Jai Hind.
I am your biggest fan. The way you've lit a big one in many metaphorical chaddiz with nothing but facts and facts alone...is something I couldn't do in nine years. Our hero - the greatest Indian of the last century- Mr Jinnah (PBUH) would be proud.
I raise my glass albeit a lemon twist wali cranberry absolut vodka ie sex on the beach- to a great and prosperous subcontinent free of Gandhiism, witch-doctorism of the kind that celebrates Gandhiism, Islamic and other fundamentalisms and
communism type crap.
Pakistan Zindabad, Jai Hind.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- Clark.Kent: Gorki, 1. In India... A Very Costly Bill
- Cobra: I agree. It's a... A Very Costly Bill
- ButtJee: ikram segal say correct... Understanding Islamic Revival In
- ajeya: #7 blumfeld [Nanga...why dont both... Who is Maqbool Bhat?
- parthaab: That most of our... A Very Costly Bill
- harish_hyd: #8 by giani_240 This b@****d... Who is Maqbool Bhat?
- giani_240: Re: # 12 I was... A Very Costly Bill
- gorki: I am not sure... A Very Costly Bill
