Midnight's Knights?

A great writer is never:

An ass licker
A molly-coddler
A stoop to conquerer
An `critique` seeker
A name-dropper
A book-worm
One who knows nothing about immediate surroundings but thinks that writing about exotica, foreign, unusual is called good writing, whereas it is writing with intensity about a very narrow but focussed subject that truly brings out the incandescence of first-hand observation. These guys drawl & sprawl.

The gecko and the iguana both are the most wretched practitioners of making themselves exhibit `A` of the worst specimens of Hindu-Muslim culture.

This cultural catharisis was fomenting for 50 years after 1947. Now the boils has been lacerated , the pus & blood drained . The nations can get back to be what they truly are.... practicing & cultured Hindu and muslims.... just like pre-Britto babboon days.

King Canute aka Ghalib Zaman

Brevity is a virtue you pompous old fart.

Learn this lesson and stop making an idiot of yourself over your inferiority complexes.

take care

-h-

Ref Field Marshal turned Literary Critic #1

[I will take people like Arundhati Roy over people like Rushdie anyday (I haven`t read much of Naipul).
..........
Highlighting and respecting and even protecting (a la Roy) one`s heritage is a great quality. Using one`s heritage to sell books (rather than using one`s own writing ability and facts) is terrible. It is a sell-out.

But it works.

After all how many people, outside the those who follow English literature, know who Yann Mantel is? How many know much about Rohinton Mistry? Yet everyone knows Salman Rushdie - a writer who has done nothing more than the above two gentlemen, i.e. been nominated for or won a Booker. Why do so many more everyday people know him?]

It sounds so easy, doesn`t it: being nominated for and/or winning the Booker Prize? Nothing to it.

Funny, I didn`t see FarceAnna`s name on the list of nominees or winners!

[Because he marketed himself better...... ]

How about Prophet Muhammad? Do you think he marketed himself and Al-Kitab, the Book to End All Books, better? Better than Jesus, Moses, Buddha, Confucius, Valmiki, etc.? Do you think there would a be another book, let alone a Booker Prize, if the entire world converts to The True Faith?

Farzana Varsey #73: Shame was the first book by a famous South Asian author I ever read. I thought it was really good also. I prefer compact simpler good books over long complex good books.

Rushdie, no doubt, is talented. He is the one who opened the door, big time, for other South Asian writers, in my opinion. A lot of his comments on human rights should be appreciated also. He has created almost a new style of writing. Unfortunately, he seems to have underestimated his own abilities, and for some reason, seems to be trying to become some sort of a symbol, rather than sticking to just being a good writer of English.

I am reading a lot of Rohinton Mistry, at the moment. He recently cancelled his US book tour due to discrimination at US airports (if Rushdie wants to be a symbol and make a statement, he needs to do things like this, rather than making fun of religious figures).

I think I need to read more of Naipaul now. How did he end up hooking up with a Pakistani lady? Did you know a Pakistani lady came very close to becoming the next queen of Jordan? She is the aunt of the current king. Pakistani women, do get around, I guess.

I just finished reading Tariq Ali`s series of books on historic Islamic culture. He has a lot in common with Rushdie. He, like Rushdie, is also a self-proclaimed athiest (though Rushdie seems to have converted back to Islam, last I heard). He considers Islam to be his, ``culture - not religion.`` He is not nearly as good a writer as Rushdie. He is a better debator however. His novels are a good attempt at highlighting what successful Islamic societies may have been like. His, ``liberalness`` does go a bit overboard, in the sense that each book seems to have one prominent homosexual character in power - I am not quite sure how easy it was (is) for homosexuals to be in power in Islamic govts/socieities.

I must say one of the best books on South Asia is somewhat unknown. It is, ``The Indus Saga and the making of Pakistan`` by Aitezaz Ahsan. He is a prominent PPP politician/MNA, a family friend, and a true intellectual, currently in Pakistan. It is a must read for any South Asian (specially Pakistanis). He describes how each area of South Asia (concentrating primarily on Punjab) developed independently of each other, from the point of view of the locals, without concentrating on religion. So to him, any non-Punjabi invader of Punjab, regardless of his religion, was an invader, not a hero etc. Similarly, any non-indigenous invader of India was an invader, etc. - views very similar to mine.

By using the above, he defines the fact that India (the Gangaetic valley) and Pakistan (Indus valley) have historically been two different areas/peoples since the time of Harrapa and Moenjendaro- not because of religion but because of culture and infact regardless of religion.

He is very critical of all, ``invaders`` (Aryans, Ghaznavi, Mughals, British etc.). Gives high marks to Ashok, Bhudda, Sufis and considers his heroes to be the indigenous people of the area like Raja Rasalu (perhaps a fictional character), Dulla Bhatti, Guru Nanak etc. (Ashok and Bhudda being indigenous also).

He brings up some interesting points: for example, Muslims absorbed the first names of nearly every major area into their religion, that they conquered, except the Sub-Continent. For example, Muhammad, Khalid, Khadija, Umair etc. are all Arabic names, not Muslim names, since they pre-date Islam i.e. there are Christian Arabs with the same names (Christian foreign minster of Iraq is Tariq Aziz). During the time of Muhammad, there were Omars on Islam`s side, and Omars who were Islam`s enemies who hadn`t converted to Islam. Yet Islam abosorbed all Arab names.

Similarly, Islam absorbed all Persian names, when it conquered Iran. Pervez, Rustam, Behram, Jamshed etc. are not Islamic names. They are Persian names. There are Muslims with these names and there are Parsis with these same names.

However, there are no Ashoks, Krishnas, Mohans, Padmas, Gitas as names of Muslims. Why did this happen? Following the trend in Arabia and Persia, my name should have been a perfectly accetable Muslim name like Mohan Raja, and yours could have been something like Gita Varsey. However, Hindu names never became a part of the Islamic vocabulary. People in the Sub-Continent, voluntarily or forcefully changed their first names to Arabic and Persian names, while Muslims kept their names in Arabia and Persia, and probably in most other areas where Islam spread, adding local names to the Islamic vocabulary. But not in the Sub-Continent. I wonder why?

The Indus Saga is very good analysis of South Asia in a non-religious manner. I don`t think it was very popular in India, because it justifies the TNT culturally, rather than religiously and probably because it is very critical of the Hindu caste system. But definitely a must read.

the fine art of whining

.......... sometimes i am ashamed of being a muslim, not because of our insane hatred for pigs, women and wine, but because we whine too much .......... someone dunks a crucifix in urine and forty fat christian whiners with bad teeth show up at the art gallery in jesus saves t-shirts to walk around with placards .......... someone makes a silly comment about a long dead prophet`s choice of wives and the crazed ummah, instead of simply whining, burn down half of nigeria .......... there will always be whiners whining about one thing or the other but, for god`s sake, we don`t have to go on a murderous rampage just because we don`t like a book ............ but then, who needs books when we have the book ............

#101:Harpreet

I guess it was this fart (reproduced below) which you enjoyed a bit, so here is another serving. I know you prefer an old englishman`s farts more but if you are eager to seek some desi legitimacy then you must develop some good taste in your ancestoral farts as well.

If brevity is what you seek and admire then please learn to read long posts in several installments. That would also be a bit easier on your faculties.

[Harpareet:
It is always youngfarts who become oldfarts. You are welcome to the club. Are you thinking of becoming a Lit-lecher yourself? If you intend to do it in english, please attain some mastery in the art of alternate-orificing.

I detest Lit-lechers.]

Gulab Jamun Sahib,

It seems you should be the last person to write about authenticity. But here you are...

hamidm bhai:

Tsk....tsk..you are turning into a nihilist beyond repair. At least wait till your daughters are married off :) I am sure by your criteria eminem or Tupac are more worthy of our attention than Ghalib or Iqbal because millions actually do *understand* them. I am willing to wager you a pretty penny that I`ll never find you giving up your beloved Merlots and Reislings for likes of Coors or Zimas.........deal?

farzana:

My dear, I hate to tell you this but in the name of authenticity, real men(and women) do not suffer uncompromising bullshit. Nevertheless, do carry on.

later
-sac

King Canute the Flatulent

Maybe your colostomy bag needs changing?

take care old man

-h-

The fartwas from the atheist-commie (now leftie/progressive) illiterates at # 105 and # 107 really means that something effective and palliative is being administered. The disease is far advanced and the addiction of goraa asslicking and fartsniffing will remain till death do them and goraa apart.

This prescription & dosage to be continued without rancour & malice.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

gz

..... see what you have done? ..... you have managed to upset harpreet and saminashah who are some of the nicest people on chowk .......... shame on you .......

#41 by rsridhar on December 30, 2002 9:24pm PT

++++
The debate is not whether to build a temple in Ayodhya. Majority agree that a temple needs to be built. It is inconceivable that a holy site like Ayodhya (regarded as a Mecca of hindu pilgrimage by many) does not have a single big temple dedicated to SriRam. There must have been one and it fell to the same fate that befell other temples under muslim rule.
+++++
Intresting.... You only forget that there is no Ram in Vedas which are suppossed to be older texts.

And the historical fact that SriRam`s preemminence in the Hindu Pantheon is fairly recent. Earlier dieties used to be Shiva and Vishnu(you must have read about the tussle for prominence between Shivasim and Vaishnavnism) Perhaps that could possibly explain why there are no major temples of SriRam.

Perhaps a reading into the trends of popularity of various gods over the last couple of thousand years will give you better Idea why there are no major temples.

Also a reading into the capabilities of the ancient people and the materials availabel to them will give an answer as to why there are no temples for SriRam dating back to ancient times.

It is considered by historians that the initial spread of civilisation centered around the rivers of Punjab and later on in the marshy (what was then) flood plains of ganga and yumuna. Here the major (some say only) building material was brick(which doesnot last long). Stone not being available in these areas as well as (then) large timber (since marshy areas dont give rise to large trees) Brick was the primary material for construction(which explains why large building cant be found dating more than 1000 years since brick disintegrates faster than stone.)
True muslim Invaders did destory temples and also rember that they were given to exaggaration (since idol worship is considered very abhorrent in Islam royal historians tended to lace up the stories of destructions of Idols to show their patrons in better light to a primarily musilm audience)

In response to Romair, who wrote in #104:

``Did you know a Pakistani lady came very close to becoming the next queen of Jordan? She is the aunt of the current king. Pakistani women, do get around, I guess``

Her maiden name is ``Ikramullah``, or something like that. Can`t remember her first name. Her sister lives in Ottawa, from what I hear.

``However, there are no Ashoks, Krishnas, Mohans, Padmas, Gitas as names of Muslims.``

There are Patels, Daudjee`s, whatever-wallahs etc. You wouldn`t expect Krishnas, Gitas and Rams, as there are no Lat`s and Uzza`s even amongst the Arabs.

In any case, Arab and Persian societies became almost entirely Islamic ones, and so the names of the regions became `muslim` names. Ditto for the Turkic regions, and the far east (Malaysia and Indonesia). This is not the case in India, and so we have distinct set of `Hindu` names and `Muslim` names. By far and wide Muslims have rejected the vedic aspects of the Indian sub-continent`s culture, including names. I wonder if Muslims were in the majority, would they better come to terms with their Hindu past? Seems to be the trend.