'Constitutionally' Different Neighbours
Savail Hussain April 27, 2006
#77 Posted by mohar11 on April 29, 2006 7:05:45 am
Re: # 60 wise
[.....Believe me, if we actually do what he is saying - we would be called a progressive country, in the mould of a malaysia.....]
good point... Malayasia is an interesting country - it`s one of them relatively developed place in muslim world where people are supposed to be ``moderate`` muslims.... but are they really?.....
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006 04 29 story_29-4-2006_pg3_5
``Malaysia is hosting a conference to discuss crucial questions like how does a Muslim pray in space, how will he take ablutions and which direction shall he face``
[.....Believe me, if we actually do what he is saying - we would be called a progressive country, in the mould of a malaysia.....]
good point... Malayasia is an interesting country - it`s one of them relatively developed place in muslim world where people are supposed to be ``moderate`` muslims.... but are they really?.....
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006 04 29 story_29-4-2006_pg3_5
``Malaysia is hosting a conference to discuss crucial questions like how does a Muslim pray in space, how will he take ablutions and which direction shall he face``
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#76 Posted by ahmedmadani on April 29, 2006 6:56:19 am
I have no understanding of courts so my comments may be wrong.
The details of constitution are not very important as most written documents in modern times provide all basic human rights. Countries like India, usa etc have constitution , england has no constitution ( if I am correct , but laws and traditions and more decency). Still these are democratic nations. We or China has also constitution but we are not democracy. Practice makes difference.
The problem in our county is how to follow constitution in true spirit and letters. The spirit was shown when Gen Zia said what is constitution, i can tear it , just papers or present ruler just ordered courts to approve `` CEO` thing.
It is clear that black or brown men and women of pakistan can not produce a dozen of good supreme court who can FOLLOW the law of Land. This is not regratable but understandable as it is corrouption at highest level a mental corrouption. Generally blacks and browns are still backward mentally ( you can become lawyer but mental retardation can not be taken out of him , Punjabi can wear coat or tie at 110 degree temp in lahore but he can not be good as old whirte british officer of bottom rank with great respect of law and understanding).
Our courts will always rule khaki rule as ``fact accomplee`` and declare doctorine of necessecity and army rule will be upheld. I read things have become worst for blacks in South Africa after Mohatma lover dark Mandella took over. Same thing in Pakistan it is worst than Raj. Even person like me born in 1948 are for return of Raj. Still we rever Col Nicolson, or name of person who was replaced by Faisalabad as they did so much for ungrateful dark people.
What we need ``Recolonization`` of Pakistan under United Nations. We can have our bhutto constitution but supreme court should be made up of only white Judges ( english only) who can interpreat our constitution. That is only way, may be 2 american judges ok but majority be british those are nice white people left with some decency and good english.
Just like we have foreign consultants we can have foreign ( note majority British) supreme court judges and rule of Jungle law will be gone.
I agree with JINNAHOLIC and MAHATMAPHOBIC Mr. Manto about his thoughts about constitution but to carry out letter of constitution in real world we NEED WHITE JUDGES from ENGLAND.
Good Night. It good time, my cat was missing for 13 days and has returned home , very happy to see cat the most beautiful animal, 11 years old and still good attitude.
The details of constitution are not very important as most written documents in modern times provide all basic human rights. Countries like India, usa etc have constitution , england has no constitution ( if I am correct , but laws and traditions and more decency). Still these are democratic nations. We or China has also constitution but we are not democracy. Practice makes difference.
The problem in our county is how to follow constitution in true spirit and letters. The spirit was shown when Gen Zia said what is constitution, i can tear it , just papers or present ruler just ordered courts to approve `` CEO` thing.
It is clear that black or brown men and women of pakistan can not produce a dozen of good supreme court who can FOLLOW the law of Land. This is not regratable but understandable as it is corrouption at highest level a mental corrouption. Generally blacks and browns are still backward mentally ( you can become lawyer but mental retardation can not be taken out of him , Punjabi can wear coat or tie at 110 degree temp in lahore but he can not be good as old whirte british officer of bottom rank with great respect of law and understanding).
Our courts will always rule khaki rule as ``fact accomplee`` and declare doctorine of necessecity and army rule will be upheld. I read things have become worst for blacks in South Africa after Mohatma lover dark Mandella took over. Same thing in Pakistan it is worst than Raj. Even person like me born in 1948 are for return of Raj. Still we rever Col Nicolson, or name of person who was replaced by Faisalabad as they did so much for ungrateful dark people.
What we need ``Recolonization`` of Pakistan under United Nations. We can have our bhutto constitution but supreme court should be made up of only white Judges ( english only) who can interpreat our constitution. That is only way, may be 2 american judges ok but majority be british those are nice white people left with some decency and good english.
Just like we have foreign consultants we can have foreign ( note majority British) supreme court judges and rule of Jungle law will be gone.
I agree with JINNAHOLIC and MAHATMAPHOBIC Mr. Manto about his thoughts about constitution but to carry out letter of constitution in real world we NEED WHITE JUDGES from ENGLAND.
Good Night. It good time, my cat was missing for 13 days and has returned home , very happy to see cat the most beautiful animal, 11 years old and still good attitude.
#75 Posted by mohar11 on April 29, 2006 6:47:11 am
Re: # 72 freoz
[...Pakistan was an attempt to re-create the priviliged enclave of a Mughul style absolutism for a Muslim minority....]
Ouch.... you hit YLH right in the nuts.... :) Any comments, YLH?
[...Pakistan was an attempt to re-create the priviliged enclave of a Mughul style absolutism for a Muslim minority....]
Ouch.... you hit YLH right in the nuts.... :) Any comments, YLH?
#74 Posted by uba on April 29, 2006 1:18:05 am
#73
quote:
``India has the best behaved Muslims in the world``
``Most are mild``
``Islamic fanaticism is not as prevalent in India as it is in other countries``
>90% of muslims in india,pak,bangladesh are converts from hinduism
>living as a minority has had a moderating effect
but this moderating effect is NOT ENOUGH as of now.
we need to do more.
the tools we need to use are TV,promotion of english language at the (expense) of urdu &
arabic(so called divine language of muslims) , globalisation of economies-trade, free flow of goods-services ,money-capital in all its tangible-intangible forms. In short , to promote
ECONOMIC SENSE-WISDOM among all of us.
quote:
``India has the best behaved Muslims in the world``
``Most are mild``
``Islamic fanaticism is not as prevalent in India as it is in other countries``
>90% of muslims in india,pak,bangladesh are converts from hinduism
>living as a minority has had a moderating effect
but this moderating effect is NOT ENOUGH as of now.
we need to do more.
the tools we need to use are TV,promotion of english language at the (expense) of urdu &
arabic(so called divine language of muslims) , globalisation of economies-trade, free flow of goods-services ,money-capital in all its tangible-intangible forms. In short , to promote
ECONOMIC SENSE-WISDOM among all of us.
#73 Posted by rakeshmani on April 29, 2006 12:31:21 am
Re: # 66
[Islamic whatever .... is NOT reactionary. It is the way it is. Violence is a clear, present and legitimate trait of this collective..... If you still think staying silent or accomodating them is going to turn them back into humans, I don`t know what to say]
I must say that your summary of the differing viewpoints is on the mark. However, we might have to jot down another ``problem`` to the list since I do feel that ``Islamic whatever`` is reactionary.. to the extent that, if there`s no perceived threat from Hindus, Americans, liberals..etc.. there`s nothing to stoke the fire.
As far as accomodation is concerned and rhetoric is concerned, it will certainly have an impact on fundamentalism because, we`re essentially denying the mullahs a supply of wood for their fires, to continue the same analogy. However, I do concede that you are right in the sense that no amount of ``silence`` is going to make certain pockets of Muslims less fanatically bent. But yet, despite your reservations against Muslims in general, Islamic fanaticism is not as prevalent in India as it is in other countries. Most are mild... it`s a fact that, on the whole, India has the best behaved Muslims in the world.
But thanks for your post and allowing this mutual share of opinions and stands on such issues.
[Islamic whatever .... is NOT reactionary. It is the way it is. Violence is a clear, present and legitimate trait of this collective..... If you still think staying silent or accomodating them is going to turn them back into humans, I don`t know what to say]
I must say that your summary of the differing viewpoints is on the mark. However, we might have to jot down another ``problem`` to the list since I do feel that ``Islamic whatever`` is reactionary.. to the extent that, if there`s no perceived threat from Hindus, Americans, liberals..etc.. there`s nothing to stoke the fire.
As far as accomodation is concerned and rhetoric is concerned, it will certainly have an impact on fundamentalism because, we`re essentially denying the mullahs a supply of wood for their fires, to continue the same analogy. However, I do concede that you are right in the sense that no amount of ``silence`` is going to make certain pockets of Muslims less fanatically bent. But yet, despite your reservations against Muslims in general, Islamic fanaticism is not as prevalent in India as it is in other countries. Most are mild... it`s a fact that, on the whole, India has the best behaved Muslims in the world.
But thanks for your post and allowing this mutual share of opinions and stands on such issues.
#72 Posted by ferozk on April 28, 2006 10:51:05 pm
re: Stuka and HP
Excellent comments!
HP, your comments about Jinnah are accurate.
Given the track record of his governance, from 1947-1948, it seems probable that Jinnah wanted to continue the status-quo and had no wish to change the system. The fact is that Pakistan was created for the Muslim salaried classes and Muslim intelligensia and these groups wanted the same traditions of the British Raj in Pakistan, but without the need to compete with and live under a Hindu majority rule. Where things went awry, was the power play of the feudals who completely disenfranchised the Indian Muslim emigres to Pakistan, specially in Sindh, and the result was this group, which had sought and created Pakistan to protect its own economic and political interests suddenly found itself at a loss.
In a way, Pakistan was an attempt to re-create the priviliged enclave of a Mughul style absolutism for a Muslim minority, which had ruled India and whose economic and political and cultural interests ended with the events of 1857. Pakistan is stunted example of a Bonzai Mughul rule and all Pakistani leaders have historically maintained and practiced a regal from of rule and have demanded an imperial obedience from their subjects.
Ciao
Excellent comments!
HP, your comments about Jinnah are accurate.
Given the track record of his governance, from 1947-1948, it seems probable that Jinnah wanted to continue the status-quo and had no wish to change the system. The fact is that Pakistan was created for the Muslim salaried classes and Muslim intelligensia and these groups wanted the same traditions of the British Raj in Pakistan, but without the need to compete with and live under a Hindu majority rule. Where things went awry, was the power play of the feudals who completely disenfranchised the Indian Muslim emigres to Pakistan, specially in Sindh, and the result was this group, which had sought and created Pakistan to protect its own economic and political interests suddenly found itself at a loss.
In a way, Pakistan was an attempt to re-create the priviliged enclave of a Mughul style absolutism for a Muslim minority, which had ruled India and whose economic and political and cultural interests ended with the events of 1857. Pakistan is stunted example of a Bonzai Mughul rule and all Pakistani leaders have historically maintained and practiced a regal from of rule and have demanded an imperial obedience from their subjects.
Ciao
#71 Posted by wiseguyin on April 28, 2006 10:06:19 pm
Re: # 68
Ok. That is news to me. Does the DMK put that spin ?
I know of Agastya and other sages pretty revered in the north. And I thought he was
based in the south !
Ok. That is news to me. Does the DMK put that spin ?
I know of Agastya and other sages pretty revered in the north. And I thought he was
based in the south !
#70 Posted by dost_mittar on April 28, 2006 8:39:15 pm
``The All India Congress was a populist political party with long forged ties with the peasantry and urban industrialists (e.g. Birlas and Tatas), while the ML was a largely urban phenomenon up until 1937 when a successful attempt was made to co-opt the large landlords in the Punjab and Sindh provinces.``
This statement is valid only if Bengal is excluded because the ML was founded in 1906 at the instance of the big feudal Nawab of Bengal.
The analysis in the article is correct as far as it goes but it leaves out an important element - the key challenge facing the Congress leadership and Jinnah before independence. The Congress was a big tent that included progressives and reactionaries, religious and secularists, industrialists, trade unionists, rural, urban, socialists and laissez fairists, even Deobandi Mullas and progressive socialist Muslims However, all of them were united for the cause of driving out the British. Jinnah had no such luxury. He had to convince Muslims of the need for a separate country. For that, he needed to unite all shades of Muslims from progressives to Mullahs and from Ahmadiyas to Deobandis. He could not spell out a vision of Pakistan if he had one without risking losing one or more of his constituents. The only thing common among his followers was Islam. He may not have approved of the slogan ``Pakistan ka matlab kya`` but for ordinary Abdul, the meaning of Pakistan was a state where Muslim laws would prevail. It was therefore inevitable that the force that propelled Jinnah`s followers, namely Islam, would come to dominate the new state.
This statement is valid only if Bengal is excluded because the ML was founded in 1906 at the instance of the big feudal Nawab of Bengal.
The analysis in the article is correct as far as it goes but it leaves out an important element - the key challenge facing the Congress leadership and Jinnah before independence. The Congress was a big tent that included progressives and reactionaries, religious and secularists, industrialists, trade unionists, rural, urban, socialists and laissez fairists, even Deobandi Mullas and progressive socialist Muslims However, all of them were united for the cause of driving out the British. Jinnah had no such luxury. He had to convince Muslims of the need for a separate country. For that, he needed to unite all shades of Muslims from progressives to Mullahs and from Ahmadiyas to Deobandis. He could not spell out a vision of Pakistan if he had one without risking losing one or more of his constituents. The only thing common among his followers was Islam. He may not have approved of the slogan ``Pakistan ka matlab kya`` but for ordinary Abdul, the meaning of Pakistan was a state where Muslim laws would prevail. It was therefore inevitable that the force that propelled Jinnah`s followers, namely Islam, would come to dominate the new state.
#69 Posted by avkrishna on April 28, 2006 8:34:52 pm
Re: # 59
```` So you`d like India to be a Hindu country.. and Hindus have ``first`` status. So doesn`t this indirectly mean that the minorities will be discriminated against? ````
I meant all Indic religions will have equal status, not just Hindus. Yes, by definition it means that other religious Minorities will not have the same rights. (similar to Pakistan, Malaysia etc.) To what extent and all can be decided if ever this even comes close to fruition (which is not anytime soon)
```` Besides.. what about the affirmative action program, are you against that as well? ````
No, I am not against affirmative action; I am very much in favour of caste based, need based, gender based reservations in both Public and Private sector. Of course, I have alternate views on to what extent these can be given and how the systems should be designed both to prevent abuse of the system as well as to maintain the competitiveness of economy. You can read about my full views on other threads.
````So India becomes not just Hindu.. but dominated by the Brahmin (like myself) and upper caste elites, just like in the past? ````
To my earlier point, this will not be an issue. (Btw, I dont care about the caste of interactors here. So no need for these disclosures)
````You speak of Hindus being suppressed ``all over the world``... I can understand that they are being not only suppressed, but also strangulated, in Pakistan. But where else? Where else are non-Indian Hindu citizens being suppressed and discriminated against?````
Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Caribbean, Fiji to name some.
Rgds,
Avkrishna
PS: wiseguyin had captured some of the other flaws in your logic very well. Very fine line between being a judicious liberal and being a politically correct, minority appeasing wuss. Being the latter gets you no respect. You should learn from the Democrats in this country,
```` So you`d like India to be a Hindu country.. and Hindus have ``first`` status. So doesn`t this indirectly mean that the minorities will be discriminated against? ````
I meant all Indic religions will have equal status, not just Hindus. Yes, by definition it means that other religious Minorities will not have the same rights. (similar to Pakistan, Malaysia etc.) To what extent and all can be decided if ever this even comes close to fruition (which is not anytime soon)
```` Besides.. what about the affirmative action program, are you against that as well? ````
No, I am not against affirmative action; I am very much in favour of caste based, need based, gender based reservations in both Public and Private sector. Of course, I have alternate views on to what extent these can be given and how the systems should be designed both to prevent abuse of the system as well as to maintain the competitiveness of economy. You can read about my full views on other threads.
````So India becomes not just Hindu.. but dominated by the Brahmin (like myself) and upper caste elites, just like in the past? ````
To my earlier point, this will not be an issue. (Btw, I dont care about the caste of interactors here. So no need for these disclosures)
````You speak of Hindus being suppressed ``all over the world``... I can understand that they are being not only suppressed, but also strangulated, in Pakistan. But where else? Where else are non-Indian Hindu citizens being suppressed and discriminated against?````
Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Caribbean, Fiji to name some.
Rgds,
Avkrishna
PS: wiseguyin had captured some of the other flaws in your logic very well. Very fine line between being a judicious liberal and being a politically correct, minority appeasing wuss. Being the latter gets you no respect. You should learn from the Democrats in this country,
#68 Posted by masanamuthu on April 28, 2006 7:34:44 pm
pmishra2:
What is this nonsense? Who is the ``lord``? Are you actually a christian? You seemed to think that Krishna = Jesus. If so, why not convert?
You are deeply confused about hindu traditions. We dont have any lords. We have a whole stack of avatars; we are also each divine provided we can pierce thru the confusion that permeates our daily existence.
Well said.. These guys try to mould Hinduism in the form of the other ``desert cults``.. Who is this ``Aryan lord Rama``?. Ramayana treats all southerners as monkeys and villains.. ( I am taking this from DK (Dravidar Kazhagam) teachings.. :-)) )
You can put a spin on all these stories..
What is this nonsense? Who is the ``lord``? Are you actually a christian? You seemed to think that Krishna = Jesus. If so, why not convert?
You are deeply confused about hindu traditions. We dont have any lords. We have a whole stack of avatars; we are also each divine provided we can pierce thru the confusion that permeates our daily existence.
Well said.. These guys try to mould Hinduism in the form of the other ``desert cults``.. Who is this ``Aryan lord Rama``?. Ramayana treats all southerners as monkeys and villains.. ( I am taking this from DK (Dravidar Kazhagam) teachings.. :-)) )
You can put a spin on all these stories..
#67 Posted by wiseguyin on April 28, 2006 6:22:38 pm
Re: # 64
> What is this nonsense? Who is the ``lord``? ....
See !
Even the so-called fundamentalist Hinuds have a hard time recognising who is being
referred to when the context is clearly Lord Ram.
Verily, Hindu fundamentalism has reached its nadir :)
> What is this nonsense? Who is the ``lord``? ....
See !
Even the so-called fundamentalist Hinuds have a hard time recognising who is being
referred to when the context is clearly Lord Ram.
Verily, Hindu fundamentalism has reached its nadir :)
#66 Posted by wiseguyin on April 28, 2006 6:19:28 pm
Re: # 61
This is gonna be interesting. Now I see since you are at least inclined to listen, let me
begin by thanking you for your - ummm - not staying silent/not swearing/abusing etc etc ...
Communication is a good thing and I have recently seen some good changes in outlooks here that I
was not expecting.
> We aren`t discussing whether such-and-such religion is inherently violent ...
Problem 1. We should not be discussing but that does not mean that we do not recognise these
traits for the sake of political correctness. If it looks like shit, if it smells like shit -
there are good chances it is shit. My problem is this political correctness on the part
of the free world. This has only emboldened Islam.
To put it in a more simpler way - should we treat Islam, Budhdhism, Christianity, Sikhs etc etc
in the same way ? My view is NO. Treat the rest the same way. But treat Islam differently.
Your view is Yes, treat all same.
Sir - this is the reason we are expending bytes on our keyboards right now.
> ...But that doesn`t make us superior in any way to someone of a different faith.
Heck, no !
> Hindutva and Islamic fundamentalism are both reactionary forces....
Problem 2. Islamic whatever .... is NOT reactionary. It is the way it is. It is a fact like
like ..The sky is blue. .... Some oceans are green.
If Islam becomes satisfied with its station in the scheme of things, there is only one
direction it will go in. South.
The problem with you guys and us is that, for whatever reason, you tend to look at these
people from an acaedemic perspective; explaining their behaviour in modern terms like
``social insecurity``, ``education deficiency``, falana falana ..... In contrast, we are not
prepared to give respectability to violence and stubborness in the name of their god/prophet.
Violence is a clear, present and legitimate trait of this collective.
And we believe Dialog is done between humans....only.
> ...if my statements result in more Hindus being goaded toward ``Krishnaism`` then
> yours, surely, spur the growth of Islamic fundamentalism...
Sir, we have nothing to loose. Its not like, our not speaking those words is going to turn this cult
benign. This is problem 3 between your viewpoint and ours.
Some time back there were riots in England between these people and the locals. There have been
violent flareups in Nigeria/Thailand/Australia/India(of course). Even nordic countrie !!!
And those guys are supposed to be the most liberal. If you still
think staying silent or accomodating them is going to turn them back into humans, I don`t
know what to say.
> [My statement about Ka`ba]
Sirji, using these kind of statements is going to piss them off. I am aware of that. But
I also firmly believe that, not using these kinda statements, is not going to alter their
behaviour or outlook.
ciao
This is gonna be interesting. Now I see since you are at least inclined to listen, let me
begin by thanking you for your - ummm - not staying silent/not swearing/abusing etc etc ...
Communication is a good thing and I have recently seen some good changes in outlooks here that I
was not expecting.
> We aren`t discussing whether such-and-such religion is inherently violent ...
Problem 1. We should not be discussing but that does not mean that we do not recognise these
traits for the sake of political correctness. If it looks like shit, if it smells like shit -
there are good chances it is shit. My problem is this political correctness on the part
of the free world. This has only emboldened Islam.
To put it in a more simpler way - should we treat Islam, Budhdhism, Christianity, Sikhs etc etc
in the same way ? My view is NO. Treat the rest the same way. But treat Islam differently.
Your view is Yes, treat all same.
Sir - this is the reason we are expending bytes on our keyboards right now.
> ...But that doesn`t make us superior in any way to someone of a different faith.
Heck, no !
> Hindutva and Islamic fundamentalism are both reactionary forces....
Problem 2. Islamic whatever .... is NOT reactionary. It is the way it is. It is a fact like
like ..The sky is blue. .... Some oceans are green.
If Islam becomes satisfied with its station in the scheme of things, there is only one
direction it will go in. South.
The problem with you guys and us is that, for whatever reason, you tend to look at these
people from an acaedemic perspective; explaining their behaviour in modern terms like
``social insecurity``, ``education deficiency``, falana falana ..... In contrast, we are not
prepared to give respectability to violence and stubborness in the name of their god/prophet.
Violence is a clear, present and legitimate trait of this collective.
And we believe Dialog is done between humans....only.
> ...if my statements result in more Hindus being goaded toward ``Krishnaism`` then
> yours, surely, spur the growth of Islamic fundamentalism...
Sir, we have nothing to loose. Its not like, our not speaking those words is going to turn this cult
benign. This is problem 3 between your viewpoint and ours.
Some time back there were riots in England between these people and the locals. There have been
violent flareups in Nigeria/Thailand/Australia/India(of course). Even nordic countrie !!!
And those guys are supposed to be the most liberal. If you still
think staying silent or accomodating them is going to turn them back into humans, I don`t
know what to say.
> [My statement about Ka`ba]
Sirji, using these kind of statements is going to piss them off. I am aware of that. But
I also firmly believe that, not using these kinda statements, is not going to alter their
behaviour or outlook.
ciao
#65 Posted by stuka on April 28, 2006 5:47:22 pm
``own political instincts were antithetical to the established status quo of West Pakistan.”
I am not sure what do you mean by that.``
HP
This is a comment on the provinces that constitute west Pakistan and a comparison with the Muslim League in general and the Pakistan movement in particular. As Yasser has rightly said, the intellectual core of the Pakistan movement - and by extension, Jinnah- came from the salariyat and the feudals of what remained in India. The power brokers of West Pak were late comers to Jinnah and Pak movement and came more so from self interest rather than any ideological conviction.
I am not sure what do you mean by that.``
HP
This is a comment on the provinces that constitute west Pakistan and a comparison with the Muslim League in general and the Pakistan movement in particular. As Yasser has rightly said, the intellectual core of the Pakistan movement - and by extension, Jinnah- came from the salariyat and the feudals of what remained in India. The power brokers of West Pak were late comers to Jinnah and Pak movement and came more so from self interest rather than any ideological conviction.
#64 Posted by pmishra2 on April 28, 2006 5:33:14 pm
#60 wiseguyin
[quote]
To give an example -
We are supposed to be a hinud majority country and in 6 decades we have not been able
to build 1 temple in ayodhya. 1 temple in the birthplace of the lord. Just 1.
[quote]
What is this nonsense? Who is the ``lord``? Are you actually a christian? You seemed to think that Krishna = Jesus. If so, why not convert?
You are deeply confused about hindu traditions. We dont have any lords. We have a whole stack of avatars; we are also each divine provided we can pierce thru the confusion that permeates our daily existence.
Why not read the Gita or Patanjali`s YogaSutra? After that we have a proper sattvik discussion, not this wahhabi VHP chatter.
[quote]
To give an example -
We are supposed to be a hinud majority country and in 6 decades we have not been able
to build 1 temple in ayodhya. 1 temple in the birthplace of the lord. Just 1.
[quote]
What is this nonsense? Who is the ``lord``? Are you actually a christian? You seemed to think that Krishna = Jesus. If so, why not convert?
You are deeply confused about hindu traditions. We dont have any lords. We have a whole stack of avatars; we are also each divine provided we can pierce thru the confusion that permeates our daily existence.
Why not read the Gita or Patanjali`s YogaSutra? After that we have a proper sattvik discussion, not this wahhabi VHP chatter.
#63 Posted by khamkhwa. on April 28, 2006 5:14:40 pm
Re: # 53
[No one else from Pak is anywhere REMOTELY this neutral, thus his Pak credentials are being questioned.]
bharath...
no pakistani can be anywhere close to your salim bhai for the simple reason, pakistanis can only be jihadis, fundamentalist, terrorist,hatemongers, but certainly not neutral...as i have learned on chowk from the learned hindoos and quasi-hindoos...therefore, he is all your`s...you may use him after a p k abulkalam dies or retires...
hai ahl-e-dil ke liye ab ye nazm-e-bast-o-kushaad
ke sung-o-khisht muqayyad hain aur sug azaad
[No one else from Pak is anywhere REMOTELY this neutral, thus his Pak credentials are being questioned.]
bharath...
no pakistani can be anywhere close to your salim bhai for the simple reason, pakistanis can only be jihadis, fundamentalist, terrorist,hatemongers, but certainly not neutral...as i have learned on chowk from the learned hindoos and quasi-hindoos...therefore, he is all your`s...you may use him after a p k abulkalam dies or retires...
hai ahl-e-dil ke liye ab ye nazm-e-bast-o-kushaad
ke sung-o-khisht muqayyad hain aur sug azaad
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- ijaz_gul: arjun, while you waste time... Who Sold the Centrifuges?
- dost_mittar: Shahji: I make the same... Muslim Ghettoisation
- Shah2: Re: # 369 D.M. sb... Muslim Ghettoisation
- bubba: Re: # 375 Posted... Muslim Ghettoisation
- pinku: bubba, Hindu came from... Muslim Ghettoisation
- bubba: Re: # 310 Posted... Muslim Ghettoisation
- pinku: add to #371, another example:... Muslim Ghettoisation
- bubba: Can anyone explain where... Muslim Ghettoisation
