Open Letter To Dina Wadia

Ref Fake SC/ST College Graduate #147

[#145
Really? A woman (any woman) is nothing but a ``cumbucket?``]

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

People on Chowk now know what kind of harm can be caused byaffirmative action programs for the mentally disabled. I don`t mind it if people like you take courses in basket-weaving and pottery-making... you are probably a kosavan by caste anyway.... but professional education is a little bit beyond your infantile brain. Leave that to the brahmins if you want the country to advance.

Again, I who can document that his family has lived for nine generations in southern Tamil Nadu and countless generations before that in North Arcot district is an Aryan invader who ought to be driven out of Tamil Nadu but Sonia with her certificate of birth issued in Italy is welcome to be Prime Minister of India so long as Doctor Artist Leader the Fund of Compassion is able to pass Tamil Nadu to his son Stalin for continued rape and pillage.

Can you explain the logic behind that line of thought?

Is it because I refuse to name my children Tamil-this or Tamil-that but insist on calling them Subramanian, Venkataraman, etc.?

If so, I just want to explain one name to you in the hope that you and your ilk will not use it for your children.

Sujata -- from `Su`, good and `jata` of good jati or caste.

You guys are all low-caste to begin with. No frikkin way any one of you can be `sujata`.

You claim you don`t believe in caste (except when you marry a brahmin woman as Dayanidhi Maran, the nephew of Karunanidhi has done to upgrade his status in life. AND named his kids Divya and Karan...not some crapola like Nedunchezhiyan or Kalaignar Pitthan).

The name is from Sanskrit.

All very good reasons not to use that name.

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 .

//...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!!
+++

//...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?

+++

//...the obvious reasons how can you blame Jinnah, a politician hundreds of miles away for disturbances ...//

It`s like saying - don`t blame Advani for bombay riots - he wasn`t there in that city - so how can he be responsible!!!

++++

//..even Suhrawardy, who was himself a man of peace and later Gandhi`s companion in Calcutta, could have imagined such consequences ...//

There you go - yet another favorite excuse I have heard from pakis defending Jinnah and others of his ilk. XYZ could not have imagined such consequences.... I mean - was this guy brain-dead? The whole freaking country is communally charged because of his and his muslim party`s communal politics. Then this guy orders a strike. It`s like throwing a lighted match to the powder keg.

And yet - he was a ``man of peace``. He just couldn`t imagine the consequences. It is not his fault. How can you blame him?

Yep - that is very convincing.

#145
Really? A woman (any woman) is nothing but a ``cumbucket?`` And you are a product of asexual reproduction? Because your mom couldn`t have been a ``cumbucket``, could she?

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

Ref Inji-kari-kuzhambu #121

[Harimau writes:
Aren`t you the guy who was willing to let a cum-bucket like Sonia become prime minister of India

The amount of misogyny in this statement is staggering.]

Misogyny is hatred of women in general. Disliking one woman is not the same as misogyny.

Didn`t I tell you to stick to words of one syllable or less? Barring that, you should at least check the meaning of words at www.m-w.com before you use them.

[I really, truly hope you`re not around any little girls where you can do physical, psychological damage to them.]

Well, I hope they kept you away from the goats in your village.

[Aren`t you the same guy who was sucking up to certain interactors on the Vagina Monologues thread, pretending to be enlightened?]

And aren`t you the same guy who is willing to hand over the prime ministership of India to Sonia-cum-lately but demand that I should not get even the job of a lower division clerk because I am an Aryan invader?

[There`s a reason why you aren`t married. Let`s hope it stays that way lest an innocent female should come to harm... ]

And I do hope that your daughter doesn`t let you near her pet hamster.

Mohar,

I must give you credit for atleast being fair ... and ascribing political chicanery to the Hindu supporters of Gandhi. Rest of your response however proves my earlier point... instead of explaining why my arguments are wrong you have simply resorted to name calling. A mind set on bias can`t be changed.

The point I made earlier is that when Jinnah was in the majority and in power his conduct was not as a champion of his community but as the protector of minorities as was required at that time... not so with Advani, though I really hope he reinvents himself. He was never a champion of a minority and his stance has hardly moved since he has been in power...

As for Jinnah`s role after 1947... I refer to Prime Minister Atlee... he was a self avowed admirer of the Congress and an opponent of Jinnah... yet he admits on a few occasions that the Jinnah led Government was able to quell communal trouble by coming down hard on it much faster than the Indian dominion. Similarly I am open to discussion about the direct action day of 16 th August 1946... no historian of any repute or ill repute ... even those anti-Pakistan like Collins and Lapierre have laid the blame of that day at Jinnah`s feet... for the obvious reasons how can you blame Jinnah, a politician hundreds of miles away for disturbances in a Hindu majority city where according to most Police reports more muslims died than hindu.

Direct Action Day was celebrated through out India in all places like Dehli, Lahore, Karachi, Bombay (where young Zulfi Bhutto was put in charge of the students), yet none of the other cities where Jinnah himself was present erupted in violence. Jinnah had called for Civil Disobedience, taking a leaf out of his opponent`s book, and the Congress newspaper Blitz actually came out in praise of it because to them Jinnah had finally adopted the measures of popular struggle instead of constitutional advance that he had remained committed to all through out his life.


Calcutta killings are often blamed on Suhrawardy... no doubt he had planned an organized strike, but I doubt that even Suhrawardy, who was himself a man of peace and later Gandhi`s companion in Calcutta, could have imagined such consequences.

-YLH

PS:

You didn`t read the rest of the post... you didn`t share with us the `lot of stuff` you have read on Jinnah... nor did you respond to my question as to why a lot of writers, authors and historians from your own country don`t share the view that you are unfortunately posting... a view that is shared by the more extreme amongst the Paki-bashers.

Nor did you care to comment on the excerpts from B R Ambedkar`s book which trace a conversion route of Jinnah so to speak.

//...Nor can he be compared to Advani because of the simple reason that while Jinnah was championing minority`s cause Advani is the champion of the majority`s cause...//

Manto - come on man - you can do better than this .... this is the lamest excuse I have ever heard from any Jinnah-worshipper.

++++

//... he became the Protector General of the Hindus and all the Hindu MPs of the Pakistan Constituent assembly ...//

``Protector General of the Hindus`` ....... Couldn`t they come up with a more pompous title than this?? I mean - what was Jinnah running there - a mughal durbar? ....... What else do you think those Hindu ``MP``s could do? ..... Call Jinnah`s bluff and get executed by a mob ..... which could then be called ... Direct Action Platoon?

+++

//..if championing the cause of his community makes Jinnah opportunistic... then what do you call Gandhi`s support for the extremely regressive and backward Khilafat Movement which brought religion into politics ..Remember Jinnah, and even Iqbal stood completely aloof from the mass Khilafat movement.//

I call it worse than opportunistic. It was stupidity of highest order .... it was political chicanery of the worst kind. It was good to know that Jinnah didn`t take part of that madness - I will give him the credit for that.

But that doesn`t absolve Jinnah from his political opportunism. like they say - two or more wrongs donot make anything right.

rozaiba...

You are an optimist :)

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

Wonderful... Romair is calling Jinnah papers an `uncredibe` source... what ever that means. Talk about `skewed` sense of fairness.

Wolpert`s book is the perhaps one of the best books written on Jinnah... but that does`t mean he couldn`t make mistakes. Wolpert admits that his interview request was declined and the information he used on Jinnah`s family was that which was provided by secondary sources and not primary sources.... Remember in 1982... Jinnah papers hadn`t even been declassified... they were only declassified during the last decade, and there are still papers that haven`t been declassified for God knows what reason.


Wolpert`s brilliant book was my starting point... since I read it in mid 1999 I have explored Jinnah`s life in great detail, whether that is considered a crime by Canadian Airmarshals or not I don`t care... Jinnah of Pakistan by Wolpert remains my favorite book, but over time I found many small mistakes which are not in line with the Primary Sources. That doesn`t take away from the fact that Wolpert`s book is a gem... but one should always have more than one point of view... Why is this simple fact lost on Romair... One will never know... but since he considers Wolpert such an authority on stuff... here is a report by Agha Khan University`s newsletter on his lecture on Jinnah....

``GUEST LECTURE SERIES
Stanley Wolpert on Jinnah`s Vision of Pakistan
To commemorate the 125th birth anniversary of the founder of the nation, Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, AKU invited world-renowned historian Professor Stanley Wolpert from the University of California, Los Angeles, to speak on ``Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah`s Vision of Pakistan``. The lecture was organised as part of the University policy of broadening the education of its students, faculty and staff, by giving them an opportunity to benefit from interaction with national and international distinguished speakers.

During his talk, Professor Wolpert highlighted the Quaid`s leadership, quoting from his book the decisions Jinnah had taken at critical junctures in the history of the Muslims of South Asia. He illustrated to the audience the importance Jinnah placed on education, economic uplift and political training.

In a hall packed with people from all walks of life, Prof. Wolpert reaffirmed the Quaid`s vision of Pakistan as a secular Muslim welfare state, and urged the people of Pakistan to work towards the realisation of this vision. ``

http://www.aku.edu/university/publications/newsletter3.1/

---

My wife had the opportunity of meeting Wolpert at the `Kashmir Conference` in Washington DC... his views on Jinnah are identical to ours.

So Whose Agenda is a Wolpert pushing???

Like I said before... only someone who is completely a novice in political science will think that who Jinnah did or didn`t marry has something to do with his secularism or lack thereof.

-YLH

manto:

one day, romair will see the light. i am very confident of this.

You can come up with a billion hypothetical situations Romair, I remain steadfast of my statements about the supremecy of electoral process and institutional independence as the only things worth supporting. Yes, they are feudal infested, yes, they are corrupt and anything else you can imagine. But there, people have a choice and there is a possibility of progress. We all know elections are messy.

As an advice, quit wasting time in hypothesis. 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. 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. It`ll crush you. OR, Faujiz will crush you as they see an opening to usrup the rights of civilians once again.

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

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!!! That is by how much he won the REFERENDUM!!!! And not just some random poll, but an ACTUAL VOTING PROCESS!! Even I participated there. Of course I was among the 2 percent who opposed him. Yeah, I guess I am in the minority. I feel so small. Everybody loves Musharaf. The guard outside the high school loved him so much, he showed me three stamps on his hands- showing that he had voted `YES for Musharaf` THREE times at three different polling stations! We both had a good laugh. Too bad you weren`t there. I know you would have voted for Musharaf till your whole body was covered with stamps verifying you had voted.

Let`s talk about these `favorability` ratings. I think you would not like my econometrics teacher. He always emphasized the point `COMPARED TO WHAT!`

99.9 percent of Pakistanis would hold a favorable view of Imran Khan. I live in a low-class constituency. The PTI candidate was from the lower class as well. We all liked him. Not a single person was agianst him. Yet, he was a miserable failure. PTI needs charismatic candidates. Not `mamma`s favorite son` candidates. But that`s another story. If Musharaf is so sure of himself, and YOU are so sure of his popularity, why doesn`t he run for elections? If he wins in even ONE constituency in Pakistan (except ISB as most those people are living in another world), I`ll whole-heartedly say that yes, Musharaf is indeed great. I`d become his supporter. Life-long supporter.

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. Speaking of status quo- THIS IS the status quo. Where NO INSTITUTION is allowed to develop. YOU ARE THE STATUS QUO! (albeit with residencein Canada).

Romair...

``That is why I almost always rely on direct quotes/surveys etc. to make a point. ``

No you don`t... you actually put up your own interpretation of Wolpert`s interpretation. Despite my repeated appeals you haven`t found the courage to quote direct quotes from the `Jinnah Papers`... Let us not mislead other people. Refer to post 129.... as far as debate on agendas go... your accusations are pathetic and indicative of the fact that you don`t have a viable argument.

I must say that you have given us quite a glimpse of your intellectual calibre... Let me say this once again... Jinnah`s marriage whether to a parsi, christian, hindu or muslim is irrelevant to his secularism. ... Only some one who is complete novice in political science will make such arguments... and you have proved yourself one.


When we talk of Jinnah`s secularism/pluralism/non-theocraticism ... we speak of all the times he declared Religion to be a personal faith of an individual , promised Equality, Fraternity and Justice to all citizens of Pakistan Regardless of religion caste or creed and his promise Pakistan shall not be a theocracy to be run by priests with a divine mission ....


Ofcourse this line of argument is beyond you... and you will rather indulge in pathetic Name calling and Personal attacks of the worst kind.



Ahmadzai...

Thank god ... I live in my country Pakistan where I push Jinnah`s agenda of Equality Fraternity Justice and Fairplay...

-YLH

Yes! YLH or Manto

Opportunist is a strong word. I should not have used it. Your sighting Gandhi in Khilafat movement is accurate too.

Jinnah was just mindful of the situations at hand and acted on them like many other politicians do and that includes Gandhi too.

Jinnah became more than just ``any`` politician when he was able to get Pakistan from colonialists.

ahmadzai #131: ``I am amazed at the level of knowledge you have on Quaid-e-Azam.``

My knowledge of Jinnah, and of other issues, is limited. That is why I almost always rely on direct quotes/surveys etc. to make a point. In fact, I have certain issues with individuals who feel they have a lot of knowledge about important issues and people, like Islam, Jinnah etc. My whole argument is that such people need to be kept at bay.

You will notice an interesting similarity amongst individuals who claim great knowledge of religion, and those who claim great knowledge of important historical personalities like Jinnah. They do so, always, to push an agenda or an argument, which they themselves may not be able to push through, with logic.

The common characteristics of, ``mullahs``are:

- They feel they are the only ones who understand Islam. While everyone else is an idiot on the subject
- If you provide them with a direct quote from the Quran, that contradicts them, they will try to confuse the issue by relying on five pieces of indirect quotes from uncredible sources
- The genuinely consider themselves to be the, ``defenders`` of Islam. And are always on the forefront of any debate on Islam, trying to act as its sole protector.
- The ridicule the education that anyone else has, related to Islam, considering their own education to be superior
- The have a small list of individuals (maulvis, sufis, and off-springs) whom they, ``worship,`` with respect to Islam
- They will not allow any arguements against their own interpretation of Islam. Nor are the willing to entertain any facts that point to something that discredits their arguments
- If someone tries to point out any inconsistency in their argument, they will resort to anything to discredit the person who disagrees with them - including character assassinations, fabricated lies, etc.

Tragically, during this whole process, they genuinely feel, they are doing a good deed, and that even if a majority of the poeple don`t agree with them, they have a right to push ahead with their agenda anyways.

Now, apply these characteristics onto the individuals who obssess with Jinnah, much like the mullahs who obssess with religion:

- They feel they are the only ones who understand Jinnah. While everyone else is an idiot on the subject
- If you provide them with a direct quote from an authorative piece of research, they will try to confuse the issue by relying on five pieces of indirect quotes from uncredible sources
- The genuinely consider themselves to be the, ``defenders`` of Jinnah. And are always on the forefront of any debate on Jinnah, trying to act as his sole protector.
- The ridicule the education that anyone else has, on Jinnah, considering their own education to be superior
- The have a small list of individuals (daughter, grandson etc.) whom they, ``worship,`` with respect to Jinnah
- They will not allow any arguements against their own interpretation of Jinnah. Nor are the willing to entertain any facts that point to something that discredits their arguments
- If someone tries to point out any inconsistency in their argument, they will resort to anything to discredit the person who disagrees with them - including character assassinations, fabricated lies, etc.

Tragically, during this whole process, they also genuinely feel, they are doing a good deed, and that even if a majority of the poeple don`t agree with them, they have a right to push ahead with their agenda anyways.

Thus, I have always felt that Islam and Jinnah have, unfortunately, turned into punching bags for people proving their own arguments and pushing their own agenda. Tell a maulvi, with credible facts, that Islam does not propose a Shariah, and he will call you names, and will strangle you. Tell a Jinnah-owner, with facts, that that there are contradictions and uncertainities in Jinnah`s stances (and speeches and philosophies) on religion and secularism, and he pushed one, on one occassion (marrying a parsi himself) and the other on other occassions (breaking off relations with his daughter for marrying outside Islam) and he will call you names, and try to strangle you, as well.