Open Letter To Dina Wadia

#164
[Let`s see. Were you to say `that nigger Condi Rice..,` would you not be a b!got because it was directed at one person only and not all black people?]

Not at all. I have referred to Colin Powell as the (White) House Nigger.


Good. Now we`re getting somewhere. You`re a self-admitted bigot (surprise!) and a misogynist. I only hope you will learn not to see your female relatives as ``cumbuckets`` but you probably are too old a dog to learn new things.

Ref Maasanamuthu #152

[Let`s see. Were you to say `that nigger Condi Rice..,` would you not be a b!got because it was directed at one person only and not all black people?]

Not at all. I have referred to Colin Powell as the (White) House Nigger.

[Of course you might feel ``cumbucket`` is not an offensive reference to a female.]

I intend to be offensive about Sonia, just as I intend to be offensive against you and other hypocrites.

Now that you seem to want to jump in and share your thoughts about issues I raise, how about this?

Are only Hindu gods fake or is Allah also fake? The Chowk readership wants to hear from a Rational Atheist (``secularist``).

Romair:

In reply to your posts:

AGAIN you refuse to acknowledge the fact that countries like Chile, Singapore, Malaysia, Mexico- ALL had America supporting them by: opening its markets to its products, POURING in investment, AND providing UNLIMITED credit. EACH ONE OF the countries you mentioned were blessed with the above support in the face of a COMMUNIST threat. I pointed out before, the threat of terrorism is no where near the threat of communism. That is why Pakistan is offered next to nothing. It DOES NOT have free access to America market. And European markets are slapping tarrifs on Pakistani products and reducing quotas. American or any foreign investment IS NOT pouring in- FOREIGN INVESTMENT HAS BEEN DECREASING UNDER MUSHARAF (it`s less than half of what it was this time last year). It DOES NOT have easy access to credit like the others did.

Thus, there is absolutely no reason to believe that Musharaf will do for Pakistan what far more capable elected or dictatorial leaders did for Malaysia, Mexico etc. So please stop embarassing yourself with Fareed Zakaria.

The point you need to realize is that AUTOCRATIC rulers DID NOT help countries like Malaysia and Mexico develop. Rather these countries, because the communist threat was so great, were given unlimited economic benefits in every way possible, and THUS were able to do miracles for their people.

You are turning economics, history and rationale on its head becuase you are a fauji lover.


AGAIN whereas there is a POSSIBILITY for a people to rise against those like NS who may try to crush or abuse an electoral process, THERE IS NEXT TO NO RECOURSE TO PEOPLE TO RISE UP WHEN FACED WITH FAUJIS WITH GUNS pointed at them. I would have found the shariah law passed through parliament detestable- but would have found it to have legitimacy- whereas those you support don`t. Those you support are usrupers. Yes it is shameful BB doesn`t hold elections in her own party. Many of NS`s policies were shameful. Yet, BB and NS ARE STILL THE ONLY CONTENDERS FOR STATUS OF NATIONAL LEADERS. Allowed to return and contest free and fair elections, BB would win hands down. But of course we know that nationwide popular support doesn`t mean anything to you. Because you are a fauji and faujis have guns and that is their only ticket to power.

Institutions develop through conflicts. They are not handed down by God. In immature democracies, there are bound to be conflicts over control between institutions. The conflict is a better sign then seeing Faujiz take over the country with guns.

Cheers!

//.... Minorities are always more assertive... the Majorities always have to be magnanimous. ....//

Manto - I have to say this - I know you won`t like it. This statement is bogus and idiotic. I think you are just making up such statements to support your argument.

Minorites should never be assertive - rather be cooperative. An ``assertive`` minority always brings backlash - which is no good for any society. I don`t think you would ask Shia/Ahmedi/Hindu minroties in Pakistan to be ``assertive``. They wouldn`t survive a day - if they do so. Majority will be magnanimous only when the Minorites are cooperative.( In case of pakistan - even that is far-fetched. The minorities just take it lying down - even then there is no repsite for them. )

Any case - Muslim League and Jinnah were beyond ``assertive`` - they were aggressive to the point that they considered themselves holding all the cards. They never considered how the common hindu feels about them and their policies. Just like you - they thought the hindus just HAVE to give in - rhetorically called ``magnanimous``.

Direct Action Day completed the polarization. It was designed to do so using violence. It was the last thread that broke the proverbial camel`s back.

+++
excerpts:

An otherwise confirmed constitutionalist, Jinnah declared on the occasion of Direct Action Day on August 16, 1946, that ``today we have bid goodbye to constitutional means`` when he decided to unleash Muslim street power to achieve his goal.

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2003%20Opinion%20Editorials/July/23%20o/Leadership%20must%20have%20moral%20authority%20too,%20Mushahid%20Hussain.htm

+++

In protest, the Muslim League had observed a Direct Action Day in August. They called it Jihad. Riots broke out on that day in Calcutta. More than 5000 persons were killed and more than 15000 were injured.

http://www.mkgandhi.org/students/story4.htm

++++

. Only those suffering from memory loss would have forgotten Jinnah`s Direct Action Day call on August 16, 1946, which led to the organised massacre of 12,000 Hindus in Calcutta and presided over by his Muslim League lieutenant, the Bengal chief minister H. S. Suhrawardy.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/bline/2002/03/12/stories/2002031200111300.htm

++++

Jinnah who was approached by Nehru but refused to co-operate, was bitterly critical of what he described as ‘the Caste Hindu Fascist Congress and their henchmen who sought to dominate and rule over the Mussalmans ....... This bitterness boded ill at a time when exemplary restraints were necessary to pull the country through a critical period. The ‘Direct Action Day’ that was celebrated by the Muslim League on August 16 touched off a chain reaction of violent explosions, which in the succeeding 12 months shook the country.

http://library.thinkquest.org/26523/mainfiles/lifehistory19.htm

++++


Calcutta became the scene of the most brutal violence in what became known as the great `Calcutta killings`. Within 72 hours, more than 5,000 people died, at least 20,000 were seriously injured, and a hundred thousand residents of Calcutta City alone were left homeless. As Jinnah remarked ``If not a divided India, then a destroyed India``. More violence followed as the rioting spread to the rural areas of Punjab and the Ganges valley.

http://www.indianest.com/opinion/0022.htm

+++

In August, Jinnah unleashed- perhaps inadvertently, perhaps not-an
ugly sample of the horrors to come. Opposed ....he
designated the 18th day of Ramadan as ``Direct Action Day.`` ``Though
direct,`` TIME reported, ``the action was supposed to be peaceful.
But before the disastrous day was over, blood soaked the melting
asphalt of sweltering Calcutta`s streets.

http://www.hvk.org/hvk/articles/0297/0208.html

++++

http://www.geocities.com/hindoo_humanist/directact.html

Mr. Jinnah in a statement issued from Bombay on September 11, 1946 offered to the Hindus the choice between creating Pakistan and forcing a Civil War in the country.

+++

Jinnah proved himself a strategist of a rare caliber and outmaneuvered the Congress, causing an insoluble deadlock that led directly to the plan of 3 June 1947,

http://www.asiasource.org/society/mohammadalijinnah.cfm

Rozaiba #136: The Future of Freedom:

---

The gist of my argument has been that screwed up democratic systems can, and have produced dictators, i.e. Constitutional dictators, who have been bad for their countries, as in Pakistan. And that, economic growth and liberalization of societies, lack of feudalism etc. are pre-requisites of democracy. Elections after elections, in such systems just create more problems, and only strengthen the feudal dictators....which is why the feudals are the biggest supporters of such elections.....

The crux of your argument is , that anyone who passes through any kind of electoral process cannot be a dictator, and should be allowed to, ``do anything he wants.`` At the very least, this point is debatable. Which, for some reason, you are unwilling to get into.

We have already debated how BB is the, ``elected`` lifetime Chairperson for life, of one of the largest political parties in Pakistan. This should be enough to prove my point, or at least, to prove that it is not idiotic. However, I will provide you with some more references.

Farid Zakaria is an editor of Newsweek. He is considered one of the most knowledgeable individuals on international policy, in the USA - the country which is one of the mother of the democratic system. He is a bit of an, ``Uncle Tom`` on some issues, on my opinion, but his depth of knowledge is extremely impressive. Far more than yours and mine (perhaps less than yours, since you seemed to have, ``seen the light.`` But definitely more than mine, since I haven`t seen the light yet). He has authored a very popular best-seller, titled, ``The Future of Freedom.`` This book has been called, ``A work of tremendous originality and insight.`` by the Washington Post. This book was, ``a national bestseller, including extended stays on the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post.``

If you have authored something more impressive, or have better credentials, do let me know.

Following is Publisher`s Weekly`s review of the book:

``Democracy is not inherently good, Zakaria (From Wealth to Power) tells us in his thought-provoking and timely second book. It works in some situations and not others, and needs strong limits to function properly. The editor of Newsweek International and former managing editor of Foreign Affairs takes us on a tour of democracy`s deficiencies, beginning with the reminder that in 1933 Germans elected the Nazis. While most Western governments are both democratic and liberal-i.e., characterized by the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic rights-the two don`t necessarily go hand in hand. Zakaria praises countries like Singapore, Chile and Mexico for liberalizing their economies first and then their political systems, and compares them to other Third World countries ``that proclaimed themselves democracies immediately after their independence, while they were poor and unstable, [but] became dictatorships within a decade.`` But Zakaria contends that something has also gone wrong with democracy in America, which has descended into ``a simple-minded populism that values popularity and openness.`` The solution, Zakaria says, is more appointed bodies, like the World Trade Organization and the U.S. Supreme Court, which are effective precisely because they are insulated from political pressures. Zakaria provides a much-needed intellectual framework for many current foreign policy dilemmas, arguing that the United States should support a liberalizing dictator like Pakistan`s Pervez Musharraf, be wary of an elected ``thug`` like Venezuela`s Hugo Chavez and take care to remake Afghanistan and Iraq into societies that are not merely democratic but free.`` (www.amazon.com)

Do read the book. At the very least, read parts of it, so we can debate the issue.

The other option is, of course, for you to state: ````Fareed Zakaria, Washington Post, Best Seller, ``HA-HA-HA! Now to your fascination with BEST SELLERS.`` ``What the hell do these guys know, I will tell you what Javed Miandad said on the issue, and how Wasim Akram replied.....BEST SELLER, in comparison to what.....My english literature professor told me that BEST SELLERS by Newsweek Editors are bogus.....Fareed Zakaria loves faujiz.....you will see the light.``

I think I have provided you with enough credible references/poll results. With the hope that you will provide me with the same (you have yet to provide me with one), rather than repeating the above paragraph.....

In the next reply, I will provide you with the text of the 15th Amendment (Shariah Bill) to show you how NS was about to become a Constitutional dictator (something you stated was impossible to do, since he was elected. And since he was elected, according to you, he had the right to do anything he wanted........

Looking forward to arguments, with credible references, from your side, rather than emotional outbursts......

Romair...

``When I provide you facts about Jinnah``

You don`t provide facts about Jinnah... you provide your own point of view based on a very sketchy job of reading Stanley Wolpert`s book... Now... throw back some more insults... You still haven`t responded to any content...

Rozaiba #136: You have stated the following:

``PEW POLLS: HA-HA-HA!
Now to your fascination with PEW POLLS. You know, if the favorable rating for Musharaf is today at 86 percent, that is a significant drop from April 2002. Back then it stood at 98 PERCENT!!! ``

Your argument is again ridiculous. I provided you results from a Pew Research Poll. To the best of my knowledge there was no Pew Poll on the referendum. Yet for some strange reason, you have attached the two. Once again, because you have no information to counter the facts.

Did the Pew Research group provide the figure of 98%? I don`t think so. I never linked the two. So why are you once again, letting your imagination run wild. When I provide you facts about Jinnah, you talk about Musharraf. When I provide you information from a poll on one subject, you talk about an unrelated subject with which Pew Research had nothing to do, i.e. referendum....Please debate the point.

If you would like to discuss the referendum, separately, as usual I would be more than happy to. I think it was a ridiculous idea. And I think the results were fabricated. The govt. itself even admitted to it.

``NS had the majority, he could do anything he wanted. He had every right. However, only idiots would assume that he could make himself a life-long ruler.``

I fail to understand your arguments insisting that, anyone who has the majority, can, ``do anything he wanted.`` The whole democratic process is designed to control this, not support it. You seem to support Constitutional dictatorship. Yet are unwilling to admit it.

I would be greatly interested in your views on BB being lifetime, ``elected`` head of PPP and NS`s Shariah Bill. Funny, you didn`t point to BB being lifetime chairperson of her party. Evne though that was one of my example. You conveniently avoided that. Is she an idiot?

NS was about to pass the Shariah Bill. Please read the text. It would have turned Parliamentary democracy on its head. Have you even read it? It was through the NA, and would have gone through the Senate, had the coup not occured. What are your views on the Shariah Bill? It was bill specifically designed to undo pariliamentary democracy, yet was passed by the parliament.

``Bhutto also won by a landslide in 1977, but even he was set to compromise with the opposition. The lesson learnt (or not learnt) was that when you come to power by the ballot process, you cannot use those power to crush the process.``

Hmm. Interesting. Were you alive in 1971? If you read some history, you will realize that a guy named Mujeeb should have come to power by the ballot. He had a much larger vote base than Bhutto. He had some parties in West Pakistan, that were ready to support him, also. The military is an unconstitutional dictatorship, and we all accept that. But even Yahya was ready to make him the PM of Pakistan. After all, it held the elections (which are still considered the fairest ever held, hence Mujeeb`s victory was legitimate).

What was Bhutto`s reaction to Mujeeb being PM? Bhutto wasn`t even in power by the ballot, and he was able to easily crush the process. And conveniently end up as the PM. Do you recall any comments about, ``breaking legs`` by Bhutto. Even if we assume the military to be a partner in crime, what justifications do you have for Bhutto`s ignoring the Constitution, which should have allowed Mujeeb to the head. Wasn`t the Constituitional process crushed by him?

NS came to power by the ballot, and crushed the process. Who was opposing him? No one. He gagged the legislatures. Bought off and split the Judiciary, and fired the executive (President). The guy was able to storm the Supreme Court, and get away with it, and then appoint his partner in crime, a judge, as the President.

What were you doing at that time? I assume you were trying to explain to everyone how NS was not a Constitutional dictator. And how, ``NS had the majority, he could do anything he wanted. He had every right.``

``About my queries to you, please refer to post 66. I don`t care to write them down again.``

I will request you once again to list your questions clearly. And I will directly answer them in one reply. Why do you get so flustered, when someone challenges you directly? You stated I would not answer your questions, and I am saying I will. Now you are scared to ask them. I didn`t understand the questions in #66. Kindly list them in a complete and clear form.

``one day, romair will see the light.``

I hope I never see the light. Life is a learning process. Anyone who is convinced, especially at a young age, that he has seen the light, turns into a single-minded fanatic, who can never argue facts. Such individuals become self-righteous ideologues.....like yourself....regardless of how many facts are provided to you, you will never change your mind....you only get into debates to change the other person`s mind.....never your own....and when you cannot argue facts, you start linking them to topics, which have nothing to do with the original debate.....

Rozaiba #136/137: ``Unfortunately the reality is that even a mute, mentally handicapped begger on a wheel-chair high on opium will draw more votes than Musharaf. And you know it too. That`s why you are so happy with the status quo.``

If there is such an individual, who is financially honest, I will definitely vote for him, myself, over Musharraf, and over anyone else. In fact, I am all for average people coming to power in Pakistan. That is why I oppose the status quo screwed up political system (which you seem to adore). Unlike yourself, who is bent upon being ruled by the feudal elite, I am not an apologist for BB and NS. So hopefully, this will lay to rest, another imaginary allegation of yours.

Having said that, I will still vote for, and support Musharraf over BB and NS (and over the maulvis). That is my right. If you don`t like it. Too bad. But please, once again, I request you to not make assumptions about anything related to me. They all seem to come out to be false.

Now to your reply. As usual, no facts, no answers to my questions, no statistics. Infact, now that I have requested you to list your questions, you are even unwilling to do that.
I am not sure what else I can offer you. I have given you polls from credible organizations, I have asked for direct answers to my questions. I am willing to answer any question you ask. Yet you keep coming up with emotionalisms.

Mohar 11

You still haven`t answered very direct questions that I asked you.... sad. Neither have you shared with us the `lot of stuff` you`ve read about Jinnah. Your desperation is now showing. You are quoting half sentences and lines out of context to prove your points.

I strongly suggest you read H M Seervai`s book on the transfer of power. Maybe that will put your biases to rest. In case you don`t know who H M Seervai is .... He was a Justice in the Indian Supreme Court and a great man of integrity who wrote a great book on Jinnah in 1990 which managed to put some what of a stop on the Jinnah-bashing that people like you are sadly accustomed to. And H M Seervai is not the only Indian to hold this view.... other great Indian authors and historians who don`t agree with a lot of what you are saying are Khushwant Singh, Kuldip Nayyar, Raj Mohan Gandhi, Ajeet Javed, Anil Seal, Farrukh Dhondi, Jaffer Qureshi, A G Noorani, M J Akbar etc


``Manto man - you are loosing your edge - the quality of your arguments are deteriorating by day. First you put up the most absurd argument that Jinnah was justified in communal politics because he was a minority. Now I see more gems in your post #143 . ``

The arguments are there for everyone to see... and so are yours. Minorities are always more assertive... the Majorities always have to be magnanimous. I have already quoted from Atlee and other observers who credits Jinnah for overcoming communal trouble and anti-Hindu and Anti-Sikh violence with great resolve and determination. As the leader of the majority he became the greatest hope of the minorities, unlike the man you are comparing with him.


//...Jinnah had called for Civil Disobedience, taking a leaf out ...//

Civil Disobedience?? So what happnened to the ``principle of constitutionalism`` ?? Very conveniently sacrificed at the altar of opportunism ..... or is that called pragmatism ??? One more u-turn by Jinnah, the ``constitutionalist`` - don`t you think? Any case - Civil Disobedience against who? Not against the British - that`s for sure. They were his buddies, his benefactors. So obviously the so called ``Civil Disobedience`` was directed against hindus. What was Jinnah thinking when he ordered his version of ``Civil Disobedience``? Didn`t he know that it will inevitably end up in clashes amongst hindus and muslims? I mean - anybody could guess THAT!! ``


Ans:


Still it is amazing that despite what you say

1) No historian not even biased ones like Collins and Lapierre blame him for it...


2) The Riots happened in a Hindu majority city, where Jinnah himself wasn`t even present but didn`t happen in Muslim majority cities or cities like Dehli and Bombay, where Jinnah himself was present. I find it surprising that if what you say is true ... despite Jinnah`s presence in Dehli, the Dehli Muslim Leaguers peacefuly observed the Direct Action Day strike as did the rest of India ... something is not making sense here.


3) The Facts of the Calcutta riots speak for themselves... the Report to Wavell for example is very clear that the retaliation that two times as many Muslims died in that conflict on 16th August than Hindus ... some 4000 to 2000 approximately... and that armed groups of Hindus were ready to counter any eventuality, and fearing the worse they unleashed hell on Muslims. Either the Muslims were really stupid and sissy or the Hindus were heroic supermen ...

4) Jinnah`s calls through out were clearly of non-violent civil disobedience, and he spelt it out clearly. This call was followed to the bone in all cities especially those that were Muslim League strongholds and muslim majority cities. No Jinnah nor anyone could have expected what happened in Calcutta... Did the great prophet of nonviolence gandhi expect the violence that resulted from his `non-violent civil disobedience` of 1919... ?


5) Your claim that the civil disobedience wasn`t against the British but the Hindus is just hogwash... and shows how little you know of history. The Direct Action Day and Muslim League`s civil disobedience was against th Government ... in Punjab that meant the unionist led government. The reason why Jinnah had opted for the Civil disobedience movement at this stage was because despite the fact that Cabinet mission`s promise that the interim government would be formed by the party that accepts the Plan ... the British Government had refused to punish its Congress friends who even the Viceroy admitted were now being extremely unreasonable.


6) Jinnah`s decision to `bid good bye to constitutional ways` was voluntary and inspired the prevailing situation. He was well aware that he was stepping over the line he never crossed before.


Blitz the Congress mouth piece from Bombay actually praised the direct action day protest as a great anti-imperialist move by Jinnah. In fact to quote from memory what the newspaper said, the gist of it was that Jinnah had taken a bold step against the British and from the constitutionalist politician had now become the most ardent anti-british revolutionary. If what you, Mohar 11, say is true, why would Blitz say something like that?

Ofcourse the whole obsession with Calcutta riots.. forgetting that the Direct Action Day was observed all over India... and peacefuly so except for Calcutta... was not shared by the people of the time and is post-event analysis which has really no basis in truth.




+++

//...Direct Action Day was celebrated through out India...//

Celebrated? Manto - come on man .... what is this - a dracula movie? Thousands died in violence .. blood flowed in the streets ...of both hindus and muslims. Whose idea of a ``celebration`` was it?


Again... Please refer to the Blitz Newspaper ... which was the Congress Mouth Piece.




You still haven`t responded to many of my earlier posts. Nor have you quoted any credible sources or any sources for that matter... you have simply regurgitated the same old rhetoric that has been fed to you no doubt by the efficient propaganda machine... that we call state in our day. It is true that propaganda in India is more subtle but that makes it more sinister also.... Pakistan`s propaganda is so blatant that nobody accepts it... Personally I am glad I always studied in the British stream and then went to College in America... anything is better than the distortion of history that goes on in all countries of South Asia.


And a word of advice... I have maintained all the civility I could muster up... perhaps you will reciprocate and avoid personal attacks... that just weakens your argument further.

-YLH

Error in my last post...

By mistake I said that the late justice and indian writer H M Seervai wrote a book on Jinnah... He wrote a book on the transfer of Power, in which he showed the facts and shattered all the myths concocted against Jinnah by the Indian nationalist press...

Thank God for people like Late H M Seervai who always to speak the truth... it is no wonder that with men like Seervai, India has managed to maintain a Supreme Court the integrity of which is unquestionable.

re:#128 by Romair
Has it ever occurred to Romair, the Chowk Marshall, that it is perhaps a reflection of political decay if a country`s only hope is a military dictator. But that is how it is now. Most western powers have thrown their lot behind Mushy. During times when Islam has become synonymous with terrorism, a moderate ruler of an Islamic country is welcome even if he is a dictator. India too seems to have come to the same conclusion though independently (i imagine there is always this element of persuasive diplomacy by US to contend with).
So, Mushy is being supported on all sides: by US (as a non-NATO ally), by monetory agencies, heck even by arch-rival India.
This however does not augur well for Pakistan`s future. A dictator`s life is always short. what happens once Mushy is gone? Are there institutions in place that will carry on without much hiccoughs? Who will take over Mushy`s place? Will it be another dictator and if so, will he be as moderate as Mushy is?
All these questions must plague the minds of policy makers of other countries. Meanwhile, Pakis need to silently hope and pray that Mushy stays long enough to make some lasting changes in Pak`s economy and relationship with India. This may also be one last time for solving the Kashmir problem.
Sridhar

re: Romair`s various posts in defense of Mushy
Romair is making a virtue out of necessity. Political process in Pak has not matured to a point where elections are regularly held under the supervision of an autonomous body and where the results are respected by all parties (including the military) resulting in a smooth transfer of power. Army in Pak has nothing but contempt for the politicians and has stifled the political process many times in the past. Having once stifled the birth of democrazy in Pak, Pak Army is behaving as if the country cannot exist without it.
It will be a great tragedy if Pakis come to believe that army is its saviour. Right now, it seems to be the only institution that can fix the problems that plague Pak but that situation, paradoxically, has been brought about by the army itself.
Sridhar

re:#149 by harimau
Harimau,
It may interest you to know that once for all Indian historians seem to have agreed to throw the ``Aryan Invasion Theory`` to the dustbins. I saw the news in sulekha.com but lost the link. DMK ideologues will have one less stick to beat the brahmins with but i doubt if one of them is even aware of this new development.
A similar thing is being attempted in the North East, where missionaries are telling the tribals that they have no connection with the Hindus. This is where i support RSS, VHP. Somebody need to go in there and correct this nonsense. An interesting insight by a Frenchman:
http://www.indiaabroad.com/news/2002/nov/22spec.htm
Sridhar

#149
I called ONE woman, Sonia G@ndu, a cum-bucket. You are the one generalizing it to all women.

Let`s see. Were you to say `that nigger Condi Rice..,` would you not be a bigot because it was directed at one person only and not all black people?
Of course you might feel ``cumbucket`` is not an offensive reference to a female. Perhaps you consider yourself one too..

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

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