On the Importance of Reclaiming Chowk

#234 by Mantolives

Yasser,

Thanks for the invite. I will definitely consider visiting Pakistan, specially Lahore.

Thanks again!

Sincerely,
Harish

Re: # 233

Dear Harish bhai,

Thank you ... coming from you it means a lot to me. Please do consider visiting Pakistan and being our guest in Lahore some time in the future (hopefuly Basant time).

Sincerely

Yasser

#232 by Mantolives

Dear Yasser Bhai,

Sincere apologies for calling you unemployed :-) I hope with this, we can put the bitterness behind and be friends.

In the end, the whole debate turned out to be fruitful in the sense that it brought two bitter rivals together. As they say, whatever happens, happens for a reason.

BTW, you`ve been doing a great job trying to preserve Lahore`s heritage. I read about your efforts to protect Lakshmi Mansions (?) from commercialization and it is very commendable of you. Please keep up the great work. Let`s close this board now and move on to the Front Page ;-)

Sincerely,
Harish

Re: # 231

Dear Harish sahab,

Please accept my apologies for earlier harsh words. I accept that his use of TNT turned out to be a massive blunder in the way it played out.

Hope we can put the nastiness behind us. Like I pointed out my admiration for Jinnah arises not as much from his role as the creator of Pakistan but his vision for an ideal state and I think that is a vision that is worth fighting for ... and will bode well for both India and Pakistan.


Sincerely

YLH

PS: I am not an unemployed lawyer .... thought would throw that it now that we are actually friends.

#230 by Mantolives

I must acknowledge that after a long time, this one has been one of your better posts. See I have no issues with Jinnah’s personal life. I have acknowledged earlier that he was a brilliant lawyer, and scrupulously honest too. But his use of the TNT as a bargaining counter was a massive blunder. He hadn’t factored in the events that would follow if the Congress accepted it, which is what eventually happened. I am not against Partition per se, but the unnecessary loss of lives on both sides led to a hostility that we are still unable to overcome almost 6 decades later. This is at the root of the India-Pakistan animosity and try as we may, it is not going to be easy to come out of it.

Anyways, from my side, this would be the last post. If you have anything more to add to my post, I will revisit this board and try to respond to you. Thanks for the very long discussion though :-)

Re: A G Noorani...

Good now we are talking... and I hope after 3 months of back and forth on nonsense ... there still might be an academic exchange... Hope you will read what I have written below with a cool mind... and maybe we can bury the hatchet. No one wants unnecessary hostility ... especially when our countries are trying to bury the hatchet.

I have read this article several times (it is based on Ayesha Jalal`s view of history) and I accept Noorani`s point of view almost in entirety... I think even Jinnah would have. Like I pointed out in my article Jinnah`s strategy at the close was terribly flawed... his aim and objective was to secure an ``equipoise ... for Indian Muslims who had hired him on to fight their case and get them safeguards within United India.

The Pakistan that Jinnah got was clearly not what he wanted... but Congress` acceptance of partition came as an utter and total surprise to him. He had expected Gandhi and Nehru to resist partition and instead come to an agreement around the Cabinet Mission lines... even in May 1947... we know from Jinnah papers that he was caught off guard... Remember Mountbatten boasted to those writers that he forced Jinnah to accept the June 3rd plan.

There is no question that Jinnah`s strategy went haywire in the end... and he is no doubt as much responsible for partition as Gandhi or Nehru... I disagree with Noorani only as much as that he holds the two nation theory as responsible for partition, because if one reads the two nation theory it didn`t envisage separation nor was Pakistan as we eventually got it based on two nation theory (simply because even today pakistani cricket team has danish kineria our star cricketer and you have Irfan Pathan and several others). The two nation theory when put in a two state context became entirely irrelevant.

If you see this... then Jinnah`s whole 11th August speech makes complete sense... Pakistan was an accident of history... which had meant that Jinnah was ``hoist on his own petard``. Now he had to make Pakistan work... and look this is why I admire the man... I think he is my Quaid-e-Azam not because ``He won Pakistan``... because he was the last ruler in Pakistan who made a sincere attempt at equal rights for all people... and as a Lawyer I respect him for being an excellent lawyer and tactician... and I also respect much more his role for the first 30 years of his political career as the best ambassador of Hindu Muslim unity... his role as a legislator (did you know he was pivotal in getting child marriages banned in India and obvious what is now Pakistan, that he was the person behind legislation for universal adult literacy in the subcontinent, that he was the lone voice against blasphemy law passed in 1928... ironic that Pakistan today has the harshest blasphemy law)...

Look you have A G Noorani who criticises Jinnah on several counts and rightly so... but he still takes Jinnah as a role model (according to Khushwant Singh`s book ``Women and men in my life`` Noorani tries to follow even to the last bit everything about Jinnah)... because of the reasons enumerated above. For Pakistan to become a progressive democracy ... Jinnah`s ideals .. his personal and financial integrity, his incorruptibility, his dedication and hardwork... Jinnah was the last politician in Pakistan who travelled without an escort, who refused to accept honorary degrees.. the last politician who denounced and tried to curb nepotism... and far more than that (I don`t know if you are aware my family is Ahmadi) he was the last leader in Pakistan to shun any idea of declaring Ahmadis kafir ... he said faith is a personal matter and that according to him Ahmadis are as good a muslims as any.
Jinnah was the last Pakistani politician who made sure that his sister and other women stood side by side and walked side by side the men... he was the last Pakistani leader to appoint a Hindu as the law minister...

Jinnah is not my Quaid-e-Azam because he fought for Pakistan and won it... I think that we
ve established was a complicated process... he is my Quaid-e-Azam because he alone atleast in Pakistan spoke of and tried to enforce practically the values that could help Pakistan stand proudly in comity of nations... why else do you think a person Asma Jahangir or I A Rehman admire him ? Why else do you think a committed anti-partitionist like Manto would write a tribute to him ? Why else do you think Noorani who is a staunch Indian nationalist and patriot be obsessed with him? Why else do you think a Gandhi-lover like Khushwant Singh always jump to Jinnah`s defence...


Now coming to the issue at hand... as far as Direct Action Day is concerned... I think it was an absolute mistake on Muslim League`s part... infact it opened the door for the Congress ministry... but having studied Jinnah`s life or tried to study Jinnah`s life.. it is clear to me that he was not aware of the consequence in Calcutta (the blood curdling statements you refer to were by Punjabi politicians who had been beaten into obedience later when Jinnah said that direct action day would simply be peaceful civil disobedience)... Look he was never a populist politician... he clearly didn`t calculate the mob and its deviousness on both sides... This is precisely why answering those questions is very important... at the very least it would show you that Muslim League stood to gain nothing from violence unlike what we read in simplistic occam`s razor terms.

Re: # 228

My dear Harish Hyd...

Please feel free to answer the questions (your failure to answer them proves that you lack in an adequate counter agument: You say Jinnah made ``blood curdling statements for violence`` ... feel free to quote any of these blood curdling statements...

And then answer the following questions:

1) Why if communal violence was the objective did ML not choose Delhi or Lahore where it had much more muscle and where it could blame it on another government?

2) Why if communal violence was the objective did ML didn`t start it else where in Bengal where Muslims were in a majority?

3) Why if ML had preplanned the whole thing, did Hindus still manage to kill many times more Muslims than Hindus? Are Hindus superhuman? Or do God`s deities help them?

4) Why was Patel gloating if Congress had nothing to do with it? Was it Hindu Pride? or was it an indication of Congress plan working ... as in destabilizing the cross communal alliance on which ML ministry stood?

5) Why was the direct action day an overwhelming success, as evidenced by the Congress paper, all over India, and yet no violence broke out where Muslim League was the strongest or where Jinnah himself was physically present?

6) Why didn`t communal violence break out in Bombay where Muslim League had won 40 seats and which was by far the most volatile Indian city?

7) Why did Lord Wavell who was in the Congress Pocket absolve Muslim League Ministry of all blame for Calcutta?


-YLH

#226 by Yasser

[Now the questions asked above become all the more relevant for any one to ask for a specific statement from Jinnah, who had condemned the violence which was after all alien to his very nature.]

Oh yeah, the man was an apostle of peace, which is why he left his Leaguers to make blood-curdling statements inciting violence and bloodshed. With gems like this, I’m now convinced that you are the perfect nutcase, if there ever was one.

Meanwhile here is what one of your favorite writers, A G Noorani has to say about Jinnah’s role in the Partition.

Cripps and India`s Partition-II

Excerpt:

``Jinnah was not blameless. Two myths have grown up. One to exculpate him by citing Gandhi`s stance. But it was Jinnah who demanded Pakistan and advocated the poisonous two-nation theory. To him the demand was a bargaining counter (vide the writer`s ``The Partition of India``; Frontline, January 4, 2002). It was too late for him to retreat when the Congress accepted Partition. He was hoist with his own petard.``

#225 by Yasser

[I know the past few months have been hard on you.]

Yep, not a day has passed by without me having to clutch my stomach and laugh at the twists and turns you’ve had to make. I’ve thoroughly enjoyed watching you squirm and making lame excuses at first, then lying, blaming Congress and Gandhi, and finally coming up with some incredibly stupid counter-questions. In between, you claimed the old crook made several statements, but you could not provide even one as evidence. But as I said, you are the one-eyed man, and you are king, so no one can question you in the mythical world that you live in, Pakiworld. But then, this is the real world, so wake up and answer the question, or your already low credibility will go even lower.

[Clearly it might have had an adverse affect on your mental state. Otherwise why would you deny that the statement was provided to you.]

Oh really? A feeble excuse of a statement, “condemning the fratricidal war” after making blood-curdling statements calling for violence and bloodshed might seem justifiable to you, but who accused you of being sane?

[It is clear from the primary sources that More Muslims were getting killed... were the Hindus super human or had the Congress planned the whole thing?]

So what were you expecting? That Hindus would meekly offer themselves as sacrificial lambs to the Muslim League butchers? In a riot, no one can control the outcome, but the fact that it was the ML that called for DAD places the responsibility squarely on the old ba$tard’s shoulders.

[Jinnah might not have been perfect but in honesty integrity and moral goodness he stood head and shoulders above Gandhi, Patel and other bigots of the Congress Party.]

So says the great liar..er..lawyer and the world must go along with it? Buddy, this is not the mythical Pakiworld, this is the real world. Back your words with evidence, or they might be just that, empty words.

[You refuse to answer these questions because answering them would prove conclusively that Gandhi and Patel were the real culprits the bigots who planned the whole thing...]

You said Jinnah made “several” statements, so what are you afraid of? Come on, provide them, or accept that you were as usual lying.

[I can sympathise with you since by accepting that you will let down your ``Wrinkly bharat mata``.... but thats how it is.]

Ha! Ha! Ha! What a joker you are! Wasn’t it Jinnah who moaned that he had to be content with a moth-eaten Pakistan, which was further dissected into two by the Indian Army in 1971 while your President Yahya Khan was boozing and screwing around, while his soldiers were raping Bangladeshi women and killing their menfolk and children? So the wrinkly failed state that you are an inhabitant of, Pakistan is already faltering, and the CIA has predicted its collapse by 2015. This is what befalls a state that came into existence on the basis of hatred and bloodshed. The old ba$stard must be turning in his grave over a dream gone sour. So chew on it buddy before pointing fingers.

[No amount of personal attacks would prove your lies to be true... so I suggest you stop being an Indian for once and try acting human instead ... i.e. self respect, dignity, self worth.]

Looks like I’m getting on to your nerves, which is why you are beseeching me to bail you out. But let me tell you, you started it, and there isn’t going to be a reprieve for you unless you apologize.

Some new information that proves that anti-Muslim League elements were behind the violence in Bengal....

In a letter that Calcutta`s police chief wrote to pethick Lawrence, he has named a ``Self styled leader`` named ``Golam Sarwar`` as being responsible for lighting the fire in many districts of Bengal ... This Golam Sarwar was not a Muslim Leaguer but instead was a major opponent of the Muslim League and sided with the other parties including the Congress Party.


Burrows to Pethick Lawrence 1st October 1946 Transfer of Power Papers Volume 8


Now the questions asked above become all the more relevant for any one to ask for a specific statement from Jinnah, who had condemned the violence which was after all alien to his very nature...

Meanwhile we know of Congress leaders` gloating over great calcutta killings (Sumit Sarkar`s book quoted earlier).

Re: # 224

Dear Harish Hyd,

I know the past few months have been hard on you. Clearly it might have had an adverse affect on your mental state. Otherwise why would you deny that the statement was provided to you.

You want a specific statement for Muslims... but for that you should prove that Muslims were indeed killing Hindus and not the other way around. It is clear from the primary sources that More Muslims were getting killed... were the Hindus super human or had the Congress planned the whole thing?

We have Patel`s letter gloating about Congress` success in killing of More Muslims ... that proves that the Congress had deliberately PLANNED the whole thing. I think if you are an honest person you would know by now that your Mahatmas and Pandits were not the people you make them out to be ... Jinnah might not have been perfect but in honesty integrity and moral goodness he stood head and shoulders above Gandhi, Patel and other bigots of the Congress Party.

In order for YOU to demand a specific statement for Muslims ... You need to answer the following questions... if you are unable to answer the following questions ... it would prove that it was not Jinnah`s responsibility .. but Gandhi and Patel`s responsibility as they had planned the Calcutta riots to bring down the CROSS COMMUNAL league ministry in Calcutta...

So here are the questions once again:

1) Why if communal violence was the objective did ML not choose Delhi or Lahore where it had much more muscle and where it could blame it on another government?

2) Why if communal violence was the objective did ML didn`t start it else where in Bengal where Muslims were in a majority?

3) Why if ML had preplanned the whole thing, did Hindus still manage to kill many times more Muslims than Hindus? Are Hindus superhuman? Or do God`s deities help them?

4) Why was Patel gloating if Congress had nothing to do with it? Was it Hindu Pride? or was it an indication of Congress plan working ... as in destabilizing the cross communal alliance on which ML ministry stood?

5) Why was the direct action day an overwhelming success, as evidenced by the Congress paper, all over India, and yet no violence broke out where Muslim League was the strongest or where Jinnah himself was physically present?

6) Why didn`t communal violence break out in Bombay where Muslim League had won 40 seats and which was by far the most volatile Indian city?

7) Why did Lord Wavell who was in the Congress Pocket absolve Muslim League Ministry of all blame for Calcutta?

You refuse to answer these questions because answering them would prove conclusively that Gandhi and Patel were the real culprits the bigots who planned the whole thing...

I can sympathise with you since by accepting that you will let down your ``Wrinkly bharat mata``.... but thats how it is.

Sincerely

Yasser Latif Hamdani

PS: No amount of personal attacks would prove your lies to be true... so I suggest you stop being an Indian for once and try acting human instead ... i.e. self respect, dignity, self worth

#222 by Yasser

[PS: May I tell you that your excuses are worse than the excuses one made in grade 2.]

Perhaps a trifle better than the excuses you peddled for not being able to produce Jinnah’s statements? Here is what you said, “Only a person totally ignorant of the English language would say that condemning is not the same as calling an end to (btw the statement was not limited to one sentence).”

So where are the “other” statements? I know you will come back with the same old nonsensical questions, but not the “other statements” that the old crook supposedly made in, as Arjun would put it “Pakiworld”.

[Now your claim about ``professional commitments`` is just as laughable... So you were out of town? But then you claimed that you had a laptop .... and what is even more ironic is that in that period when you were ``away on business`` you were posting on other boards shamelessly.]

I don’t have to tell you the reasons for my not posting, but I’ve been generous. If you choose not to believe it, be my guest. But then, being the liar that you are, you are bound to fear that everyone else does the same, i.e., lie like you.

[You see little things like these add to my over all picture of you... not only are you a biased Hindu fanatic who is out to avenge the ``vivisection`` of your ``wrinkly bharat mata``]

In making this statement, you’ve only exposed the paranoia that most Pakis seem afflicted with. But no thanks, I’m not interested in avenging India’s vivisection. In fact, I consider it a blessing. India wouldn’t have been where it is if it were not for the amputation of the gangrenous limb that Pakistan has turned out to be.

[.... but you will lie, lie and lie your way out of any situation instead of admitting that as usual you`ve been caught with your pants down.]

But that’s what you’ve been doing when I asked you for Jinnah’s statement. Instead of coming up with the statement, you came up with all sorts of lame excuses in the form of those nonsensical questions. But then, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. With your little knowledge of the Partition and the events surrounding it, you are the one-eyed man. So carry on regardless.

I see you have taken to copying my statements as they are. As they say, imitation is the best form of flattery. You are flattering me.

#221 by Yasser

[Myth shattering seems to have taken its toll on you .... Tell me why did Gandhi and Patel gloat over killing Muslims]

Show me the statement, mister liar…er..lawyer (unemployed at that)?

PS: May I tell you that your excuses are worse than the excuses one made in grade 2.

First you claimed that you left the Stuka board because you didn`t have time but ironically within a few minutes of your last post on Stuka Board you were posting on Veeresh`s board... Now your claim about ``professional commitments`` is just as laughable... So you were out of town? But then you claimed that you had a laptop .... and what is even more ironic is that in that period when you were ``away on business`` you were posting on other boards shamelessly.

You see little things like these add to my over all picture of you... not only are you a biased Hindu fanatic who is out to avenge the ``vivisection`` of your ``wrinkly bharat mata``.... but you will lie, lie and lie your way out of any situation instead of admitting that as usual you`ve been caught with your pants down.

Re: # 220

More personal insults and NO REAL ANSWERS.

The point is that your pathetic little argument about Jinnah not specifically asking the Muslims doesn`t hold because MORE HINDUS KILLED THE MUSLIMS THAN THE OTHER WAY AROUND ... as proved above.


1) Why if communal violence was the objective did ML not choose Delhi or Lahore where it had much more muscle and where it could blame it on another government?

2) Why if communal violence was the objective did ML didn`t start it else where in Bengal where Muslims were in a majority?

3) Why if ML had preplanned the whole thing, did Hindus still manage to kill many times more Muslims than Hindus? Are Hindus superhuman? Or do God`s deities help them?

4) Why was Patel gloating if Congress had nothing to do with it? Was it Hindu Pride? or was it an indication of Congress plan working ... as in destabilizing the cross communal alliance on which ML ministry stood?

5) Why was the direct action day an overwhelming success, as evidenced by the Congress paper, all over India, and yet no violence broke out where Muslim League was the strongest or where Jinnah himself was physically present?

6) Why didn`t communal violence break out in Bombay where Muslim League had won 40 seats and which was by far the most volatile Indian city?

7) Why did Lord Wavell who was in the Congress Pocket absolve Muslim League Ministry of all blame for Calcutta?


The questions you`ve REPEATEDLY failed to answer hiding behind your silly little excuses, grammatical errors or that pathetic defence of that Hindu Fanatic Gandhi.

-YLH

PS: Myth shattering seems to have taken its toll on you .... Tell me why did Gandhi and Patel gloat over killing Muslims ...

#218 by Yasser

[Oh Great Myth-breaking follower of the mythical ``Mahatma`` Gandhi .... (who was in any event a Hindu fanatic and racist bigot)]

You may call Gandhi all the names in the world you want, but that won’t change the fact that Jinnah was responsible for the DAD violence. If you think shouting lies at the top of the voice will make you the winner, I already concede that.

[3) Congress was BEHIND the CALCUTTA killings UNLIKE what is taught in your history books]

Do me a favor. When you make a statement such as the one above, please back it up with evidence like I did about Muslims starting the violence. If not, you are only discrditing yourself more and more. I already have a poor opinion of you. Even quite a few Pakis think you are a fool. If you keep making unsubstantiated allegations, even the remaining Chowkies who don’t think so will convert.

And no, you haven’t been able to provoke me into answering your questions, as foolish as they are, yet. I will do that when I have my question answered. And lest you begin to think I’ve vanished just because I don’t visit Chowk for a few days (you don’t understand professional commitments, do you? I don’t blame you, you’ve been unemployed all your life so you won’t know), let me assure you I’ll keep coming back.