India’s Potential Lose-Lose-Lose Scenario
Umair Raja August 11, 2002
#158 Posted by amit on August 17, 2002 7:17:24 pm
Re:krashid 112
I know the arguments made by the diehard secularists and the diehard fanatics in India. The reality is somewhere between the two, but the dial is shifting towards the fanatics. We have always had communal riots in India, but what really shocked me was the intensity and extreme cruelty in Gujarat, a state that did not have that kind of barbarism in the past.
If you analyze the situation, there are two forces at work. The first is an inherent hindu right wing sentiment but that is still not a majority view. The second is the intense tensions with Pakistan that have developed in the 90s and is still going on. The second factor forces majority of the people to swing towards supporting the hindu right wing for e.g. the BJP win after Kargil. It is basically motivated by irrational fear but that is the phenomenon. As this continues, we will soon reach a point where the majority would have indeed converted to the hindu right wing sentiment in total. That is when the situation will go completely out of hand.
I think it is time that the Pakistani leadership understands the ground realities in India and thinks beyond just Kashmir. We need a subcontinent level reconciliation before it gets too late and that requires some creative thinking on both sides.
I know the arguments made by the diehard secularists and the diehard fanatics in India. The reality is somewhere between the two, but the dial is shifting towards the fanatics. We have always had communal riots in India, but what really shocked me was the intensity and extreme cruelty in Gujarat, a state that did not have that kind of barbarism in the past.
If you analyze the situation, there are two forces at work. The first is an inherent hindu right wing sentiment but that is still not a majority view. The second is the intense tensions with Pakistan that have developed in the 90s and is still going on. The second factor forces majority of the people to swing towards supporting the hindu right wing for e.g. the BJP win after Kargil. It is basically motivated by irrational fear but that is the phenomenon. As this continues, we will soon reach a point where the majority would have indeed converted to the hindu right wing sentiment in total. That is when the situation will go completely out of hand.
I think it is time that the Pakistani leadership understands the ground realities in India and thinks beyond just Kashmir. We need a subcontinent level reconciliation before it gets too late and that requires some creative thinking on both sides.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#157 Posted by rsridhar on August 17, 2002 7:17:24 pm
re:Reply #: 152
krashid,
Recently Outlook India conducted an opinion poll, in which it asked Indians to name 10 best people that India has seen since 1947. Mother Teresa was voted the best, ahead of Nehru, Vajpayee and Patel. I guess, by your logic, hindus in India are now waiting in front of churches and missionaries to get converted.
Grow up man.
Sridhar
krashid,
Recently Outlook India conducted an opinion poll, in which it asked Indians to name 10 best people that India has seen since 1947. Mother Teresa was voted the best, ahead of Nehru, Vajpayee and Patel. I guess, by your logic, hindus in India are now waiting in front of churches and missionaries to get converted.
Grow up man.
Sridhar
#155 Posted by fawad79 on August 17, 2002 7:17:24 pm
there are no good pakistani scientists out there lets admit guys we are way out of or like about that mathematician you guys were talking i read his bio when i was in the 7 th grade i think his life could be a movie he was poor and had to work i beliebve him and chandrashekar bose are very interesting indian scientists
#154 Posted by cutandpaste on August 17, 2002 7:17:24 pm
Holy Cow a Myth? An Indian Finds the Kick Is Real
By EMILY EAKIN
Holy Cow: Beef in Indian Dietary Traditions,`` is a dry work of historiography buttressed by a 24-page bibliography and hundreds of footnotes citing ancient Sanskrit texts. It`s the sort of book, in other words, that typically is read by a handful of specialists and winds up forgotten on a library shelf.
But when its author, Dwijendra Narayan Jha, a historian at the University of Delhi, tried to publish the book in India a year ago, he unleashed a furor of a kind not seen there since 1989, when the release of ``Satanic Verses,`` Salman Rushdie`s novel satirizing Islam, provoked rioting and earned him a fatwa from Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
As Mr. Jha`s book was going to press last August, excerpts were posted on the Internet and picked up by newspapers. Within days the book had been canceled by Mr. Jha`s academic publisher, burned outside his home by religious activists and — after a second publisher tried to print it — banned by a Hyderabad civil court. A spokesman for the World Hindu Council called it ``sheer blasphemy.`` A former member of Parliament petitioned the government for Mr. Jha`s arrest. Anonymous callers made death threats. And for 10 months Mr. Jha was obliged to travel to and from campus under police escort.
After months of legal wrangling, Mr. Jha`s lawyers succeeded in having the ban lifted this spring. And now his book has been published in Britain and the United States by Verso, with a new preface and a more provocative title: ``The Myth of the Holy Cow.`` But though copies have been shipped to India, few bookstores there are likely to stock it.
His offense? To say what scholars have long known to be true: early Hindus ate beef.
Mr. Jha says his book has become a casualty of the culture wars that have plagued India since the hard-line Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party took office five years ago. ``The battle lines are drawn very clearly,`` he said. ``On one side of the barricade are the ideas of cultural pluralism, rationality and democratic values. On the other side are Hindu fundamentalism and cultural nationalism.``
Under this government, scholars and journalists say, history books have been rewritten and occasionally censored. Two years ago, for example, a multivolume project on the history of Indian independence sponsored by the Indian Council of Historical Research was scuttled by government officials who apparently deemed its scope too liberal.
In a telephone interview from his home in New Delhi, Mr. Jha said, ``The prohibition on beef-eating has been made a mark of Hindu identity, but this is historically not true.``
Anyone who has tried to navigate India`s cow-choked streets knows the special status conferred on the beast by Hindus, who make up more than 80 percent of the population. Gandhi referred to the cow as ``our mother,`` calling cattle protection ``the central fact of Hinduism.`` And in several Indian states killing a cow is against the law.
But while cow veneration and vegetarianism may be the hallmarks of Hinduism today, Mr. Jha compiles copious evidence that this has hardly always been the case. Citing sources ranging from the ancient sacred scriptures, the Vedas (circa 1000 B.C.), to Sanskrit epics like the Ramayana and the Mahabharata (200 B.C to A.D. 200) as well as data from archaeological digs, Mr. Jha contends that ``the `holiness` of the cow is a myth and that its flesh was very much a part of the early Indian nonvegetarian food regimen and dietary traditions.``
Not only were oxen and other animals offered as sacrifices to the Vedic gods, he writes, they were routinely eaten by mere mortals as well.
One religious text declares meat to be quite simply ``the best kind of food,`` while another captures Yajnavalkya, a revered Vedic sage who lived around 500 B.C., confessing to a particular weakness for beef. ``Some people do not eat cow meat,`` he is quoted as saying. ``I do so, provided it`s tender.``
Meanwhile, the Mahabharata recounts the story of King Rantiveda, who earned his renown by slaughtering 2,000 cows a day in his royal kitchens and distributing beef along with grain to apparently grateful Brahmins, the Hindu priests.
Even the Buddha, on record as opposing animal killing for either food or sacrifice, was apparently not above the occasional carnivorous nibble. Mr. Jha cites passages from early Buddhist texts suggesting not only that the Buddha ate meat but that a meal of contaminated pork may ultimately have been what did him in. (Mr. Jha dismisses a dissenting interpretation that the offending food was not pork but mushroom.)
None of this, scholars say, is news. In a recent review in The Times Literary Supplement, Wendy Doniger, a professor of the history of religion at the University of Chicago, called Mr. Jha`s book ``a dry, straight academic survey . . . proving what every scholar of India has known for well over a century.``
``This is not `Satanic Verses,` `` Ms. Doniger added in a telephone interview. ``This is just a relatively intelligent, academic book. It doesn`t depict Hindus as horrible people.``
Indeed, until the Bharatiya Janata Party came to power, said Michael Witzel, a professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University, much of the history Mr. Jha records was taught in Indian schools.
``It`s very much a reality of the culture here in India that scholars have to face harassment and intimidation,`` said Sukumar Muralidharan, the Delhi bureau chief for Frontline, a biweekly news magazine. ``The Hindu nationalist lobby is trying to force a kind of polarization in terms of a singular cultural inheritance on one side and all the rest on the other side. And their idea of the inheritance is very much their own construct, not a full reading of history.``
In this context, even food has become politicized as Hindu nationalists use their vegetarianism to distinguish themselves from the nation`s beef-eating and implicitly immoral Muslim minority.
Mr. Jha`s book, Ms. Doniger wrote in her review, ``contradicts the party line, which is that we Hindus have always been here in India and have Never Eaten Cow; those Muslims have come in, and Kill and Eat Cows, and therefore must be destroyed.``
From a scholarly point of view, she said, what`s shocking about ancient Indian history is not that some people ate meat but that some did not: ``Since the human species is by nature carnivorous, what is surprising is that there ever were vegetarians.``
Beginning around A.D. 500, Mr. Jha writes, killing cows became increasingly taboo — according to the religious texts, a sinful practice associated with the lowest social order, the untouchables. In part, he speculates, the change in official attitude may have coincided with the explosion of agriculture. The cow, on whose strength (for plowing), dung (for fuel) and milk the community depended, was just too valuable to slaughter.
Other scholars, however, say the taboo probably owed more to factors increasingly integral to Hindu, Buddhist and Jainist thought: the belief in reincarnation, which blurred the lines between humans and animals, and the doctrine of ahimsa, or nonviolence.
``The feeling that people have about killing animals and taking lives, that`s the basis of it,`` Ms. Doniger said. ``Obviously, people were feeling guilty. Anytime you eat beef, that meant someone had slaughtered a cow.``
Mr. Witzel says that the word cow was frequently a metaphor in Vedic texts, most notably for the poetry composed by Brahmin priests. When one Vedic poet writes, ``don`t kill the innocent cow,`` he really means ``don`t make bad poetry,`` Mr. Witzel said. Ultimately, he speculated, both figurative and literal connotations may have contributed to the prohibition on cow slaughter. ``As soon as you identify cow with poetry, you cannot do anything to that cow. Step by step, this becomes concretized.``
Of course, these are just the kind of explanations likely to infuriate Hindus who are determined to have the cow`s sacred status enshrined in Indian law.
``Only two days ago, I saw the news that they are trying to get the cow declared a national animal,`` lamented Mr. Jha, a Hindu who says he is a vegetarian purely for health reasons. ``In Delhi, cows should best be treated as a safety hazard. You cannot drive safely for the cows that stray around.``
By EMILY EAKIN
Holy Cow: Beef in Indian Dietary Traditions,`` is a dry work of historiography buttressed by a 24-page bibliography and hundreds of footnotes citing ancient Sanskrit texts. It`s the sort of book, in other words, that typically is read by a handful of specialists and winds up forgotten on a library shelf.
But when its author, Dwijendra Narayan Jha, a historian at the University of Delhi, tried to publish the book in India a year ago, he unleashed a furor of a kind not seen there since 1989, when the release of ``Satanic Verses,`` Salman Rushdie`s novel satirizing Islam, provoked rioting and earned him a fatwa from Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
As Mr. Jha`s book was going to press last August, excerpts were posted on the Internet and picked up by newspapers. Within days the book had been canceled by Mr. Jha`s academic publisher, burned outside his home by religious activists and — after a second publisher tried to print it — banned by a Hyderabad civil court. A spokesman for the World Hindu Council called it ``sheer blasphemy.`` A former member of Parliament petitioned the government for Mr. Jha`s arrest. Anonymous callers made death threats. And for 10 months Mr. Jha was obliged to travel to and from campus under police escort.
After months of legal wrangling, Mr. Jha`s lawyers succeeded in having the ban lifted this spring. And now his book has been published in Britain and the United States by Verso, with a new preface and a more provocative title: ``The Myth of the Holy Cow.`` But though copies have been shipped to India, few bookstores there are likely to stock it.
His offense? To say what scholars have long known to be true: early Hindus ate beef.
Mr. Jha says his book has become a casualty of the culture wars that have plagued India since the hard-line Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party took office five years ago. ``The battle lines are drawn very clearly,`` he said. ``On one side of the barricade are the ideas of cultural pluralism, rationality and democratic values. On the other side are Hindu fundamentalism and cultural nationalism.``
Under this government, scholars and journalists say, history books have been rewritten and occasionally censored. Two years ago, for example, a multivolume project on the history of Indian independence sponsored by the Indian Council of Historical Research was scuttled by government officials who apparently deemed its scope too liberal.
In a telephone interview from his home in New Delhi, Mr. Jha said, ``The prohibition on beef-eating has been made a mark of Hindu identity, but this is historically not true.``
Anyone who has tried to navigate India`s cow-choked streets knows the special status conferred on the beast by Hindus, who make up more than 80 percent of the population. Gandhi referred to the cow as ``our mother,`` calling cattle protection ``the central fact of Hinduism.`` And in several Indian states killing a cow is against the law.
But while cow veneration and vegetarianism may be the hallmarks of Hinduism today, Mr. Jha compiles copious evidence that this has hardly always been the case. Citing sources ranging from the ancient sacred scriptures, the Vedas (circa 1000 B.C.), to Sanskrit epics like the Ramayana and the Mahabharata (200 B.C to A.D. 200) as well as data from archaeological digs, Mr. Jha contends that ``the `holiness` of the cow is a myth and that its flesh was very much a part of the early Indian nonvegetarian food regimen and dietary traditions.``
Not only were oxen and other animals offered as sacrifices to the Vedic gods, he writes, they were routinely eaten by mere mortals as well.
One religious text declares meat to be quite simply ``the best kind of food,`` while another captures Yajnavalkya, a revered Vedic sage who lived around 500 B.C., confessing to a particular weakness for beef. ``Some people do not eat cow meat,`` he is quoted as saying. ``I do so, provided it`s tender.``
Meanwhile, the Mahabharata recounts the story of King Rantiveda, who earned his renown by slaughtering 2,000 cows a day in his royal kitchens and distributing beef along with grain to apparently grateful Brahmins, the Hindu priests.
Even the Buddha, on record as opposing animal killing for either food or sacrifice, was apparently not above the occasional carnivorous nibble. Mr. Jha cites passages from early Buddhist texts suggesting not only that the Buddha ate meat but that a meal of contaminated pork may ultimately have been what did him in. (Mr. Jha dismisses a dissenting interpretation that the offending food was not pork but mushroom.)
None of this, scholars say, is news. In a recent review in The Times Literary Supplement, Wendy Doniger, a professor of the history of religion at the University of Chicago, called Mr. Jha`s book ``a dry, straight academic survey . . . proving what every scholar of India has known for well over a century.``
``This is not `Satanic Verses,` `` Ms. Doniger added in a telephone interview. ``This is just a relatively intelligent, academic book. It doesn`t depict Hindus as horrible people.``
Indeed, until the Bharatiya Janata Party came to power, said Michael Witzel, a professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University, much of the history Mr. Jha records was taught in Indian schools.
``It`s very much a reality of the culture here in India that scholars have to face harassment and intimidation,`` said Sukumar Muralidharan, the Delhi bureau chief for Frontline, a biweekly news magazine. ``The Hindu nationalist lobby is trying to force a kind of polarization in terms of a singular cultural inheritance on one side and all the rest on the other side. And their idea of the inheritance is very much their own construct, not a full reading of history.``
In this context, even food has become politicized as Hindu nationalists use their vegetarianism to distinguish themselves from the nation`s beef-eating and implicitly immoral Muslim minority.
Mr. Jha`s book, Ms. Doniger wrote in her review, ``contradicts the party line, which is that we Hindus have always been here in India and have Never Eaten Cow; those Muslims have come in, and Kill and Eat Cows, and therefore must be destroyed.``
From a scholarly point of view, she said, what`s shocking about ancient Indian history is not that some people ate meat but that some did not: ``Since the human species is by nature carnivorous, what is surprising is that there ever were vegetarians.``
Beginning around A.D. 500, Mr. Jha writes, killing cows became increasingly taboo — according to the religious texts, a sinful practice associated with the lowest social order, the untouchables. In part, he speculates, the change in official attitude may have coincided with the explosion of agriculture. The cow, on whose strength (for plowing), dung (for fuel) and milk the community depended, was just too valuable to slaughter.
Other scholars, however, say the taboo probably owed more to factors increasingly integral to Hindu, Buddhist and Jainist thought: the belief in reincarnation, which blurred the lines between humans and animals, and the doctrine of ahimsa, or nonviolence.
``The feeling that people have about killing animals and taking lives, that`s the basis of it,`` Ms. Doniger said. ``Obviously, people were feeling guilty. Anytime you eat beef, that meant someone had slaughtered a cow.``
Mr. Witzel says that the word cow was frequently a metaphor in Vedic texts, most notably for the poetry composed by Brahmin priests. When one Vedic poet writes, ``don`t kill the innocent cow,`` he really means ``don`t make bad poetry,`` Mr. Witzel said. Ultimately, he speculated, both figurative and literal connotations may have contributed to the prohibition on cow slaughter. ``As soon as you identify cow with poetry, you cannot do anything to that cow. Step by step, this becomes concretized.``
Of course, these are just the kind of explanations likely to infuriate Hindus who are determined to have the cow`s sacred status enshrined in Indian law.
``Only two days ago, I saw the news that they are trying to get the cow declared a national animal,`` lamented Mr. Jha, a Hindu who says he is a vegetarian purely for health reasons. ``In Delhi, cows should best be treated as a safety hazard. You cannot drive safely for the cows that stray around.``
#153 Posted by Glen on August 17, 2002 1:13:15 pm
For the benefit of Pakistanis on the occasion of 55th Birth day
MANSOOR IJAZ, columnist and Fox News Channel analyst
Mansoor Ijaz is a foreign affairs analyst for the Fox News Channel. The
son of a pioneer in Pakistan`s nuclear infrastructure, Ijaz founded
Crescent Investment Management LLC. He is also a member of the Council on
Foreign Relations. As a private citizen, he is deeply involved in
national security, terrorism and nuclear proliferation issues, as well as
being a leading American Muslim political activist. He also famously
negotiated Sudan`s counter-terrorism offer to the Clinton administration
in April 1997 and proposed the framework for a ceasefire of hostilities
between Indian security forces and Mujahedeen fighters in Kashmir in
August 2000. More on Ijaz: http://www.saja.org/ijaz.html
#152 Posted by sigalph235 on August 17, 2002 1:13:15 pm
On Nobel Prizes
Obviosuly, most Muslim thinkers and elites cannot come to terms with the Nobel Prize since it rarely goes to Muslims and, on top of it, is awarded by white Christians. So, unless a lot of Islamists start getting the prize, the shallow condemnation (Rabin a terrorist, Naipaul a bigot, St. Teresa of Calcutta a spy etc) will continue. The solution of this jealousy is available, though. The OIC (Organization of Impotent Clowns) can institute a, say, Ghazzali Prize in the following categories for the pious:
1. Peace Prize for the individual who has done the most killing in the path to establish a Darul Islam in the world.
2. Honor Prize for the tribe or clan that has the most honor killings to its credit.
3. Economics Prize for the country that has abolished all interest.
4. Literature Prize for the group of `Islamic scholars` who have translated the Bukhari volume of Hadeeth Sharif into Congolese with transliteration into Rwandese and Ndebele.
5. Production Prize for the mard-e-momin who has fathered the most children from the most women though he has no requirement to know all his wives or children.
6. Philosophy Prize for the grand philosopher who has finally determined the correct Islamically sanctioned length of a man`s robe with suitable adjustments for trousers, jeans, and lungis.
Obviosuly, most Muslim thinkers and elites cannot come to terms with the Nobel Prize since it rarely goes to Muslims and, on top of it, is awarded by white Christians. So, unless a lot of Islamists start getting the prize, the shallow condemnation (Rabin a terrorist, Naipaul a bigot, St. Teresa of Calcutta a spy etc) will continue. The solution of this jealousy is available, though. The OIC (Organization of Impotent Clowns) can institute a, say, Ghazzali Prize in the following categories for the pious:
1. Peace Prize for the individual who has done the most killing in the path to establish a Darul Islam in the world.
2. Honor Prize for the tribe or clan that has the most honor killings to its credit.
3. Economics Prize for the country that has abolished all interest.
4. Literature Prize for the group of `Islamic scholars` who have translated the Bukhari volume of Hadeeth Sharif into Congolese with transliteration into Rwandese and Ndebele.
5. Production Prize for the mard-e-momin who has fathered the most children from the most women though he has no requirement to know all his wives or children.
6. Philosophy Prize for the grand philosopher who has finally determined the correct Islamically sanctioned length of a man`s robe with suitable adjustments for trousers, jeans, and lungis.
#151 Posted by rsaxena on August 17, 2002 11:42:43 am
re: krackheadrashid
...you always remind me of mike tyson`s response when he was questioned after losing to lennox lewis: ``i don`t know man, i guess i`m gonna fade into Bolivion``...
...in his case, that is the result of getting punched in the head for a living...what`s your excuse?...
...you always remind me of mike tyson`s response when he was questioned after losing to lennox lewis: ``i don`t know man, i guess i`m gonna fade into Bolivion``...
...in his case, that is the result of getting punched in the head for a living...what`s your excuse?...
#150 Posted by cpothik on August 17, 2002 11:42:43 am
Umeir Raja seems to be one of those Pakistanis who always pray for and fantasize about some Great Disaster that India is going to meet imminently. We have Indians too who harbor similar death-wishes and morbid obsessions about Pakistan. It reminds me of the petty jealousies and rivalries of teenage brats.
Anyway, to soothe the nerves of worked-up pakistanis like UR who get so frustrated as to why India is still not losing, I, as an Indian, do hereby declare that, soon,
``India is a LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER.....(upto infinity)!!!!!!!!!!!!``
I hope this makes you happy?
*I`d expect a similar gesture from some non-UR like Pakistani to soothe the nerves of Indian fanatics!! ;-)
Anyway, to soothe the nerves of worked-up pakistanis like UR who get so frustrated as to why India is still not losing, I, as an Indian, do hereby declare that, soon,
``India is a LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER.....(upto infinity)!!!!!!!!!!!!``
I hope this makes you happy?
*I`d expect a similar gesture from some non-UR like Pakistani to soothe the nerves of Indian fanatics!! ;-)
#149 Posted by veeresh on August 17, 2002 3:11:21 am
Dear Sadna #145,
Yes, I saw a wee bit of QT-Pakistan on BBC last night . . . for a while I thought it was ``Comedy Time - Pakistan 4 serious men served by with thick Brit Accent from Lady with Attitude in Severe Business Suit`` but then I realised it was not.
So now we also have BBC programmes on and about Pakistan which keep meandering into and about India. Yes, I heard the bit where one of the panelists blamed India/BJP for the educational situation in Pakistan, that was classic I thought. Beats anything I`ve heard from Indian spokesmen hollow.
There were some earnest young Pakistani people who did ask questions about why after 55 years each of flag-off from same post there was so much difference, democracy good or bad, between the two countries, but nobody answered them. I guess these young people will reach the US.
Impressions? I think Pakistan should do its own ``QT-Pakistan`` on BBC and most of all Pakistan should have tv anchors who speak English as it is spoken on the sub-Continent, without wierd accents. And QT-Pakistan should take phone-in as well as email queries too . . .
#148 Posted by krashid on August 17, 2002 3:11:21 am
Urstruly #
When personal agenda becomes supreme, instead of merit, it happens.
It does not mean that alternative paths are closed.
A person who is bigoted is not fit to be called human. Moreso calling himself the writer.
Why did Mother Teresa got Nobel prize. Golden opportunity for spread of christianity in India. It was the pioneering work of BJP/RSS to burn christians and their temples which has stemmed the tide temporarily.
Anybody trusting UN and other bodies to be impartial and just needs to be sent to Guantanamo Bay or Afghanistan
When personal agenda becomes supreme, instead of merit, it happens.
It does not mean that alternative paths are closed.
A person who is bigoted is not fit to be called human. Moreso calling himself the writer.
Why did Mother Teresa got Nobel prize. Golden opportunity for spread of christianity in India. It was the pioneering work of BJP/RSS to burn christians and their temples which has stemmed the tide temporarily.
Anybody trusting UN and other bodies to be impartial and just needs to be sent to Guantanamo Bay or Afghanistan
#147 Posted by krashid on August 17, 2002 3:11:21 am
RSaxena 139
``Jawab-e-Jahilaan Raa Khamoshi Bashad``
Don`t ask me for translation.
Anyway using the curse word does not change the reality.
Tell me why Yasser Arafat was given ``Nobel Prize``
``Jawab-e-Jahilaan Raa Khamoshi Bashad``
Don`t ask me for translation.
Anyway using the curse word does not change the reality.
Tell me why Yasser Arafat was given ``Nobel Prize``
#146 Posted by shammi on August 16, 2002 10:12:01 pm
Pankaj:
``...I was an undergrad in the same univ at that time...``
When? BTW, will you and AlephNull please give it up for crying out loud? This board is about India lose-lose-lose scenario, not about esoterics in number theory.
``...I was an undergrad in the same univ at that time...``
When? BTW, will you and AlephNull please give it up for crying out loud? This board is about India lose-lose-lose scenario, not about esoterics in number theory.
#145 Posted by harimau on August 16, 2002 9:01:01 pm
Ref Urstruly #: 138
[What is more ridiculous is the Nobel for VS Naipaul. This guy is an anti-Muslim bigot and had a tunnel vision.]
Maybe he got tunnel vision when he watched through the prism of Islamic thinking in Pakistan.
Your problem is that he didn`t approve of all the crap that is going on Islamic countries. Such as the torture and murder of opponents in Khomeini`s Iran. That same Iran gets high marks in your evaluation. Obviously, he comes from the viewpoint of Western liberal democratic traditions, which of course is The Great Satan for you guys. I am not surprised that you and your fellow travellers don`t like Naipaul.
[It was a disappointment reading his work.]
Anything other than ``Allahu Akbar`` is a major disappointment for you. For you, there is only one book worth reading.
[What is more ridiculous is the Nobel for VS Naipaul. This guy is an anti-Muslim bigot and had a tunnel vision.]
Maybe he got tunnel vision when he watched through the prism of Islamic thinking in Pakistan.
Your problem is that he didn`t approve of all the crap that is going on Islamic countries. Such as the torture and murder of opponents in Khomeini`s Iran. That same Iran gets high marks in your evaluation. Obviously, he comes from the viewpoint of Western liberal democratic traditions, which of course is The Great Satan for you guys. I am not surprised that you and your fellow travellers don`t like Naipaul.
[It was a disappointment reading his work.]
Anything other than ``Allahu Akbar`` is a major disappointment for you. For you, there is only one book worth reading.
#144 Posted by scout on August 16, 2002 5:43:59 pm
fawad79 #149,
the only females rsuxena meets are his relatives and u`re talking about scandinavians?
sheesh!
the only females rsuxena meets are his relatives and u`re talking about scandinavians?
sheesh!
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- masadi: And for the 1000th... Why is Karachi Turning
- masadi: In the right wing... Why is Karachi Turning
- masadi: Btw, no present day... Why is Karachi Turning
- masadi: tahmed writes "now i... Dhokha and Being a
- masadi: #348 laddu writes "Re:... Dhokha and Being a
- pakistan3: Re: # 90 Tahir, Your post... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
- masadi: Anil don't hide behind... Why is Karachi Turning
- peonofthewest: masadi saab, howcome they... Dhokha and Being a
