On the Importance of Reclaiming Chowk
Aniruddha Shankar April 20, 2005
#171 Posted by MantoLives on April 29, 2005 5:56:38 am
Re: # 169
Dear Sir,
Maybe you should be arguing with Pak Madrassah student after all, since he has undergone similar brainwashing as you have albeit from different angles.
a) I am still unable to understand how an Indian author whose book has been released by the Indian government represents ``classic Paki logic`` .... Surely you should see the weakness of your own in this far fetched statement?
b) Jinnah`s statement condemning violence as a fratricidal war has been provided to you. It was for all communities, Hindus Muslims and Sikhs. You insistence on having a statement just for Muslims is indicative of the fact that you are ignoring the reality. I suggest you use these ``brains`` you keep referring to that you mistakenly assume to possess, and apply them to the questions I asked. Had direct action day been a premeditated violent movement, then more Hindus would die, and in any event the venue would be different.
c) In order to demand a statement of Jinnah`s exclusively for Muslims (which there might be but I am at present unaware of) you will have to prove that Muslims were still involved in violence, if at all we accept your notion that actions of Muslims instigated the violence (which in any event, remains to be seen given contradictory evidence). Do you deny the horrible violence perpetrated upon Muslims ? Did any Congress leader call an end to Hindu brutality (from evidence we know that they were gloating over it)? Jinnah`s statement called for restraint for all communities.... including Muslims and there is every evidence that Muslim League did not partake in any such violence... Please do tell me why an independent investigation ruled out Muslim League culpability in Calcutta riots ....
d) About the Muslim League statements You said ... and I quote: ``You would have to prove that those statements were made before Jinnah`s statement``.... now you`ve made another (are you counting how many you`ve made so far) turn and distanced yourself from your earlier statement. This is just another example of your dishonesty or the way you have carried yourself in this debate..
e) Now you are decrying books and asking for logic... well then why don`t you apply yourself to questions I asked of you? These are the same questions you evaded on several occasions hiding behind the false claim that I wasn`t answering your 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?
Now On Gandhi`s racism:
I am afraid once again you are not using your brains... tell me how exactly did Gandhi work to uplift the Harijans .... by calling them the ``people of God`` ? .... For a ``harijan`` ... the word Harijan itself was an insult.
Gandhi stood for a separation and strict purity of castes.... his collected works are replete with his own bigotry towards lower caste Hindus. Now I acknowledge your point about using brains instead of books... but neither you nor I are aware of the facts ... should we not consult primary sources for facts i.e. Gandhi`s own writings... or Dr B R Ambedkar`s critique of Gandhi ... since B R Ambedkar was the sole spokesman of the ``Harijans`` wasn`t he?
Gandhi was 35 years old when he believed that Indo-Germanic stock was greater than the Africans.... he also pointed out to the white man .... that he (the whiteman) stood above all else in the great organisation of humanity. He pointed out in his numerous letters that the ``savages`` (africans) were like the low caste untouchables, whereas the Indians settled in South Africa were of Indo-germanic stock.
Gandhi was more than 70 years of age... when he still spoke of racial and caste purity .... racial as already described.... caste as in no intermarriage between caste Hindus and the ``Harijans``....
Gandhi, Nehru`s collusions with the Nazis
2nd World War is going on.... a Brutal regime in Germany is planning to take over the world.... one Congress Leader i.e. Bose is already colluding with them to take over India...
The Congress Party announces its ``Quit India`` movement in 1942.... and tries to obstruct the war effort....
Now borrowing from your refrain ... won`t you use your brain?
Dear Sir,
Maybe you should be arguing with Pak Madrassah student after all, since he has undergone similar brainwashing as you have albeit from different angles.
a) I am still unable to understand how an Indian author whose book has been released by the Indian government represents ``classic Paki logic`` .... Surely you should see the weakness of your own in this far fetched statement?
b) Jinnah`s statement condemning violence as a fratricidal war has been provided to you. It was for all communities, Hindus Muslims and Sikhs. You insistence on having a statement just for Muslims is indicative of the fact that you are ignoring the reality. I suggest you use these ``brains`` you keep referring to that you mistakenly assume to possess, and apply them to the questions I asked. Had direct action day been a premeditated violent movement, then more Hindus would die, and in any event the venue would be different.
c) In order to demand a statement of Jinnah`s exclusively for Muslims (which there might be but I am at present unaware of) you will have to prove that Muslims were still involved in violence, if at all we accept your notion that actions of Muslims instigated the violence (which in any event, remains to be seen given contradictory evidence). Do you deny the horrible violence perpetrated upon Muslims ? Did any Congress leader call an end to Hindu brutality (from evidence we know that they were gloating over it)? Jinnah`s statement called for restraint for all communities.... including Muslims and there is every evidence that Muslim League did not partake in any such violence... Please do tell me why an independent investigation ruled out Muslim League culpability in Calcutta riots ....
d) About the Muslim League statements You said ... and I quote: ``You would have to prove that those statements were made before Jinnah`s statement``.... now you`ve made another (are you counting how many you`ve made so far) turn and distanced yourself from your earlier statement. This is just another example of your dishonesty or the way you have carried yourself in this debate..
e) Now you are decrying books and asking for logic... well then why don`t you apply yourself to questions I asked of you? These are the same questions you evaded on several occasions hiding behind the false claim that I wasn`t answering your 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?
Now On Gandhi`s racism:
I am afraid once again you are not using your brains... tell me how exactly did Gandhi work to uplift the Harijans .... by calling them the ``people of God`` ? .... For a ``harijan`` ... the word Harijan itself was an insult.
Gandhi stood for a separation and strict purity of castes.... his collected works are replete with his own bigotry towards lower caste Hindus. Now I acknowledge your point about using brains instead of books... but neither you nor I are aware of the facts ... should we not consult primary sources for facts i.e. Gandhi`s own writings... or Dr B R Ambedkar`s critique of Gandhi ... since B R Ambedkar was the sole spokesman of the ``Harijans`` wasn`t he?
Gandhi was 35 years old when he believed that Indo-Germanic stock was greater than the Africans.... he also pointed out to the white man .... that he (the whiteman) stood above all else in the great organisation of humanity. He pointed out in his numerous letters that the ``savages`` (africans) were like the low caste untouchables, whereas the Indians settled in South Africa were of Indo-germanic stock.
Gandhi was more than 70 years of age... when he still spoke of racial and caste purity .... racial as already described.... caste as in no intermarriage between caste Hindus and the ``Harijans``....
Gandhi, Nehru`s collusions with the Nazis
2nd World War is going on.... a Brutal regime in Germany is planning to take over the world.... one Congress Leader i.e. Bose is already colluding with them to take over India...
The Congress Party announces its ``Quit India`` movement in 1942.... and tries to obstruct the war effort....
Now borrowing from your refrain ... won`t you use your brain?
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#170 Posted by harish_hyd on April 29, 2005 5:01:14 am
#168 by Yasser
[So your hagiography aside... I am afraid I`ll take the word of a ``Harijan`` over yours.]
See that’s what I’ve been saying throughout. You’ve been stuck with books. First it was Wolpert, Seervai and Embree. Now it is Ambedkar. I’ve argued from a common sense point of view. I suggest you start using your brains (if at all there is one) rather than relying on books.
[So your hagiography aside... I am afraid I`ll take the word of a ``Harijan`` over yours.]
See that’s what I’ve been saying throughout. You’ve been stuck with books. First it was Wolpert, Seervai and Embree. Now it is Ambedkar. I’ve argued from a common sense point of view. I suggest you start using your brains (if at all there is one) rather than relying on books.
#169 Posted by harish_hyd on April 29, 2005 4:58:36 am
#167 by Yasser
[Do you see what the problem is with your logic through out?]
As usual, you won’t understand. I said use your brains and not quote books praising Jinnah to the skies.
[You say that Jinnah is to blame because he was silent but I have shown you that he wasn`t.. he condemned it and called for restraint from every community.]
I haven’t seen a lamer excuse. Jinnah called for Direct Action. Muslim goons start violence. Who do you think his statement had to be directed to?
[You want a statement for Muslims in particular... but I`ve shown you that Muslims were not the only only ones to be violent... infact in the week that followed.... Hindus were killing Muslims... do you deny that many times more Muslims died in the Calcutta killings?]
Muslims did start the violence. Do you deny that? Yes, more Muslims were killed, but that is more due to their own stupidity and arrogance that “they could put Genghis Khan and Hulaku Khan to shame”. The retaliation was something they hadn’t bargained for.
[Because that I proved from Lord Wavell`s letter and Patel`s letter... as well as Congress Lackey Wali Khan`s book...]
You proved nothing. You didn’t prove yet that Jinnah issued a statement calling for cessation of violence. A mere condemnation, and that, 6 days after the violence started, is as good as none.
[I`ve not retracted my Gandhi goons statement.... There is enough evidence from within transfer of power papers to suggest that Hindus had ignited violence.... and you`ve been quoting Time Magazine to prove otherwise... so there is confusion on who started it.]
The Time magazine is an internationally reputed magazine. I quoted from it. If the transfer of power papers claim Congressmen started the violence, provide the exact quote. But it’s still a remarkable turnaround from shouting from the rooftops about the Congress starting the whole thing to accepting that there is confusion.
[The Muslim League statements you produced were before the statement of 14th August 1947... they were from July`s working committee session.]
Do you mean to say those statements were made when Jinnah wasn’t around? What was Jinnah doing then? Negotiating again?
[Bose was in active collusion with the Nazis. Gandhi and Nehru passively did it... by obstructing the war effort with their Quit India Movement. It is understandable given their objectives, but it is collusion nonetheless.... especially using your logic.]
No wonder you are going nowhere. For God’s sake, Gandhi and Nehru didn’t start World War 2 and then obstruct the British in their war effort! Do you see the ridiculousness of your “argument”?
[I acknowledge that my presence is quite bothersome especially for you.]
Please do not delude yourself. You could not provide a single statement by Jinnah while violence was raging while going around in circles and trying to divert from the topic. A Madarssah student would have been a tougher nut to crack.
[Do you see what the problem is with your logic through out?]
As usual, you won’t understand. I said use your brains and not quote books praising Jinnah to the skies.
[You say that Jinnah is to blame because he was silent but I have shown you that he wasn`t.. he condemned it and called for restraint from every community.]
I haven’t seen a lamer excuse. Jinnah called for Direct Action. Muslim goons start violence. Who do you think his statement had to be directed to?
[You want a statement for Muslims in particular... but I`ve shown you that Muslims were not the only only ones to be violent... infact in the week that followed.... Hindus were killing Muslims... do you deny that many times more Muslims died in the Calcutta killings?]
Muslims did start the violence. Do you deny that? Yes, more Muslims were killed, but that is more due to their own stupidity and arrogance that “they could put Genghis Khan and Hulaku Khan to shame”. The retaliation was something they hadn’t bargained for.
[Because that I proved from Lord Wavell`s letter and Patel`s letter... as well as Congress Lackey Wali Khan`s book...]
You proved nothing. You didn’t prove yet that Jinnah issued a statement calling for cessation of violence. A mere condemnation, and that, 6 days after the violence started, is as good as none.
[I`ve not retracted my Gandhi goons statement.... There is enough evidence from within transfer of power papers to suggest that Hindus had ignited violence.... and you`ve been quoting Time Magazine to prove otherwise... so there is confusion on who started it.]
The Time magazine is an internationally reputed magazine. I quoted from it. If the transfer of power papers claim Congressmen started the violence, provide the exact quote. But it’s still a remarkable turnaround from shouting from the rooftops about the Congress starting the whole thing to accepting that there is confusion.
[The Muslim League statements you produced were before the statement of 14th August 1947... they were from July`s working committee session.]
Do you mean to say those statements were made when Jinnah wasn’t around? What was Jinnah doing then? Negotiating again?
[Bose was in active collusion with the Nazis. Gandhi and Nehru passively did it... by obstructing the war effort with their Quit India Movement. It is understandable given their objectives, but it is collusion nonetheless.... especially using your logic.]
No wonder you are going nowhere. For God’s sake, Gandhi and Nehru didn’t start World War 2 and then obstruct the British in their war effort! Do you see the ridiculousness of your “argument”?
[I acknowledge that my presence is quite bothersome especially for you.]
Please do not delude yourself. You could not provide a single statement by Jinnah while violence was raging while going around in circles and trying to divert from the topic. A Madarssah student would have been a tougher nut to crack.
#168 Posted by MantoLives on April 29, 2005 4:11:29 am
Re: # 164
Not to detract from the other discussion on Direct Action Day....
You wrote:
``For later in his life, Gandhi devoted his life to the upliftment of Harijans. Harijans, mind you, were treated worse than the whites treated blacks in South Africa. Now what does that tell you? It tells you that a man can reform, and reform rather well.``
Dr B R Ambedkar, leader of the ``Harijans`` author of Indian constitution and man of above average integrity, disagrees.... he wrote his famous pamphlet ``What have Congress and Mr Gandhi done to the untouchables``... it is clear that the racism that Gandhiji exhibited in South Africa was what he stuck with the rest of his life...
So your hagiography aside... I am afraid I`ll take the word of a ``Harijan`` over yours.
Not to detract from the other discussion on Direct Action Day....
You wrote:
``For later in his life, Gandhi devoted his life to the upliftment of Harijans. Harijans, mind you, were treated worse than the whites treated blacks in South Africa. Now what does that tell you? It tells you that a man can reform, and reform rather well.``
Dr B R Ambedkar, leader of the ``Harijans`` author of Indian constitution and man of above average integrity, disagrees.... he wrote his famous pamphlet ``What have Congress and Mr Gandhi done to the untouchables``... it is clear that the racism that Gandhiji exhibited in South Africa was what he stuck with the rest of his life...
So your hagiography aside... I am afraid I`ll take the word of a ``Harijan`` over yours.
#167 Posted by MantoLives on April 29, 2005 3:02:11 am
Re: # 166
Dear sir,
I am afraid you`ve totally lost your marbles this time.
1) An Indian Hindu (not the first one by the way.... read H M Seervai`s ``Partition of India: Legend and reality as well... though he is an Indian parsi) writes a book.... an Indian government launches it amid fanfare.... and it is ``Paki logic``? Do you see what the problem is with your logic through out?
2) You say that Jinnah is to blame because he was silent but I have shown you that he wasn`t.. he condemned it and called for restraint from every community. You want a statement for Muslims in particular... but I`ve shown you that Muslims were not the only only ones to be violent... infact in the week that followed.... Hindus were killing Muslims... do you deny that many times more Muslims died in the Calcutta killings? Because that I proved from Lord Wavell`s letter and Patel`s letter... as well as Congress Lackey Wali Khan`s book...
3) I`ve not retracted my Gandhi goons statement.... There is enough evidence from within transfer of power papers to suggest that Hindus had ignited violence.... and you`ve been quoting Time Magazine to prove otherwise... so there is confusion on who started it.
4) The Muslim League statements you produced were before the statement of 14th August 1947... they were from July`s working committee session. I am afraid you are only obfuscating by saying what you are saying. It is abundantly clear from the source your provided on Stuka board that the statements are from the Day Direct Action Resolution
was proclaimed.
5) Bose was in active collusion with the Nazis. Gandhi and Nehru passively did it... by obstructing the war effort with their Quit India Movement. It is understandable given their objectives, but it is collusion nonetheless.... especially using your logic.
6) Ofcourse you would prefer to argue with Pak Madrassah student ... there you would be able to fool someone without much effort... I acknowledge that my presence is quite bothersome especially for you.
-YLH
Dear sir,
I am afraid you`ve totally lost your marbles this time.
1) An Indian Hindu (not the first one by the way.... read H M Seervai`s ``Partition of India: Legend and reality as well... though he is an Indian parsi) writes a book.... an Indian government launches it amid fanfare.... and it is ``Paki logic``? Do you see what the problem is with your logic through out?
2) You say that Jinnah is to blame because he was silent but I have shown you that he wasn`t.. he condemned it and called for restraint from every community. You want a statement for Muslims in particular... but I`ve shown you that Muslims were not the only only ones to be violent... infact in the week that followed.... Hindus were killing Muslims... do you deny that many times more Muslims died in the Calcutta killings? Because that I proved from Lord Wavell`s letter and Patel`s letter... as well as Congress Lackey Wali Khan`s book...
3) I`ve not retracted my Gandhi goons statement.... There is enough evidence from within transfer of power papers to suggest that Hindus had ignited violence.... and you`ve been quoting Time Magazine to prove otherwise... so there is confusion on who started it.
4) The Muslim League statements you produced were before the statement of 14th August 1947... they were from July`s working committee session. I am afraid you are only obfuscating by saying what you are saying. It is abundantly clear from the source your provided on Stuka board that the statements are from the Day Direct Action Resolution
was proclaimed.
5) Bose was in active collusion with the Nazis. Gandhi and Nehru passively did it... by obstructing the war effort with their Quit India Movement. It is understandable given their objectives, but it is collusion nonetheless.... especially using your logic.
6) Ofcourse you would prefer to argue with Pak Madrassah student ... there you would be able to fool someone without much effort... I acknowledge that my presence is quite bothersome especially for you.
-YLH
#166 Posted by harish_hyd on April 29, 2005 2:12:25 am
#163 by Mantolives
[It shows conclusively (and this is not the first book) that Jinnah is merely a scapegoat for the humongous errors made by Gandhi and Nehru, which led to partition.]
Classic Paki logic. There’s always someone else to blame.
There is something called opinion, and then there is something called fact. Every personality can be painted to be a hero or a villain based upon the writer’s own prejudices and biases. I try not to get too swayed by others’ opinions. I try to form my own opinion based on common sense. I suggest you start using that brain (if it is there one at all) of yours too. Just because Wolpert said this or Ayesha Jalal said that doesn’t mean it has to be true. Read history and draw inferences based on logic.
[Your vision of history is colored by your hatred for Jinnah, indicative no doubt of the brainwashing that goes on in India.]
I can excuse a Paki Madarssa student for being brainwashed because he hasn’t had exposure to the world and his views are often fashioned by his Mullah’s own agenda. He can be reformed. But for someone claiming to have been educated abroad, this lack of common sense is shocking. I can safely say that all the investment made in your education has gone down the drain.
[Please by all means hurl back the same accusation at me, except that I never attended a Pakistani school to begin with.]
Funny how you formed an opinion of me despite not being educated in Pakistan. I haven’t seen a worse case of brainwashing. I’d pick a Paki Madarssa student anyday over you. I bet he’d be less brainwashed than you are.
[It shows conclusively (and this is not the first book) that Jinnah is merely a scapegoat for the humongous errors made by Gandhi and Nehru, which led to partition.]
Classic Paki logic. There’s always someone else to blame.
There is something called opinion, and then there is something called fact. Every personality can be painted to be a hero or a villain based upon the writer’s own prejudices and biases. I try not to get too swayed by others’ opinions. I try to form my own opinion based on common sense. I suggest you start using that brain (if it is there one at all) of yours too. Just because Wolpert said this or Ayesha Jalal said that doesn’t mean it has to be true. Read history and draw inferences based on logic.
[Your vision of history is colored by your hatred for Jinnah, indicative no doubt of the brainwashing that goes on in India.]
I can excuse a Paki Madarssa student for being brainwashed because he hasn’t had exposure to the world and his views are often fashioned by his Mullah’s own agenda. He can be reformed. But for someone claiming to have been educated abroad, this lack of common sense is shocking. I can safely say that all the investment made in your education has gone down the drain.
[Please by all means hurl back the same accusation at me, except that I never attended a Pakistani school to begin with.]
Funny how you formed an opinion of me despite not being educated in Pakistan. I haven’t seen a worse case of brainwashing. I’d pick a Paki Madarssa student anyday over you. I bet he’d be less brainwashed than you are.
#165 Posted by harish_hyd on April 29, 2005 1:24:23 am
#162 by Mantolives on April 28, 2005 4:47am PT
Re: # 161
[Yes I did call Gandhi a racist bigot.. anyone who believes that Indians are better than Africans because Indians are ``Indo germanic stock`` is a racist bigot.]
Well thanks for admitting. Only a couple of posts or so earlier, you said you never abused Gandhi. If that one instance of racism was enough for you to label Gandhi a racist bigot, then it is futile to argue with you. For later in his life, Gandhi devoted his life to the upliftment of Harijans. Harijans, mind you, were treated worse than the whites treated blacks in South Africa. Now what does that tell you? It tells you that a man can reform, and reform rather well.
[I am afraid Jinnah didn`t collude with the murder of anyone and you know it, and if you don`t then frankly you are not very balanced.]
He did. By not talking in the one week, he definitely colluded with the perpetrators of the violence. Whatever may have been the outcome, the fact is that the violence erupted as a result of his call to Direct Action. So he had the moral responsibility to at least try and calm the flaring tempers. And do you know what “moral responsibility” means? I think we’ve been here before. Gandhi, after the Chauri Chaura incident, called off the non-cooperation movement and asked the judge to pronounce the harshest sentence on him since he called for the strike. That Jinnah chose to remain silent because he was busy in ‘negotiations’ as you put it is a rather lame excuse.
[I gave you the press statement of 14th August 1946 that defined the direct action day as a day of peaceful hartal.]
Really? Compared to all the blood-curdling calls to violence and to shed the blood of others (non-Muslims) by leaders lesser than him in hierarchy, this one by the “Quaid-e-Azam” was a rather tame attempt. One can almost feel that he never intended to even make that pathetic statement, but to maintain his image of a constitutionalist; he was forced to make it. Nevertheless, it is no wonder that the Muslim goons who started the violence never paid heed to his “statement” and ironically ended up sacrificing more of their own.
[Find me one statement of any Muslim Leaguer after Jinnah`s announcement that went against that grain.]
For that, you will have to first prove that the Leaguers made the statements before Jinnah’s.
[Then you changed the question again to suit your position and said ... what statement did Jinnah release condemning violence in Calcutta. I produced the statement where Jinnah condemned the fratricidal war.]
Like Gandhi did at Chauri Chaura, Jinnah should have called on the Muslims to stop the violence immediately. Better still he should have called off the Direct Action Day as soon as violence flared up. That he chose to do none is a telling comment on his complicity.
[Now... I told you that Jinnah`s statement was for all communities... not just Hindus or Muslims or Sikhs. But you insist on a statement for Muslims alone... which doesn`t make any sense... besides what would this statement entail?]
When the call to Direct Action was made to Muslims, and when violence was started by them, why is it so difficult for you to imagine that the call to stop violence had to be to them alone?
[There is a lot of confusion about how the violence was ignited.]
Funny how you retracted from your earlier cocksure position about “Gandhi’s goons” (your words) starting the violence and the whole thing being a Congress conspiracy. Thank god for small mercies!
[So in the week that followed only an idiot would ask only Muslims to restrain themselves.]
Nope, but only an idiot would belittle the fact that violence erupted as a response to Jinnah’s call to Direct Action and it was incumbent upon him to call it off or at least restrain his Leaguers from perpetrating violence.
[The blind accusation that you throw at Jinnah is not true, because from the Muslim League point of view a Hindu-Muslim altercation in Delhi or Bombay or Lahore or even Peshawar would have been much more advantageous than in Calcutta... because Calcutta would naturally be blamed on the Muslim League government... The Muslim League`s protests on that day were hugely successful in Delhi and Bombay (Several Congress Newspapers were all praise for the Muslim League for example)... if they had to resort to violence, they could have then.]
See we are not talking about what did not happen. I’ve said this before. We’re only talking about what happened. We can never know the reasons for what never happened. Only a fool would spend time dissecting something that never happened.
[Clearly your Gandhi and Nehru didn`t believe this to be the case either... or maybe they knew better than their own supporters.]
Again, you are going off on a tangent. You know as much as I do that there was violence in Calcutta. You also know this was as a result of the call to Direct Action issued by Jinnah. I’m sure you will agree that he could have issued a statement calling for cessation of violence or at least called it off when he knew violence had erupted, just like Gandhi called off the non-cooperation movement when he came to know of Chauri Chaura.
[while Bose, Gandhi and Nehru were either actively or passively in collusion with the Nazis only a few years earlier...]
Bose yes, but Gandhi and Nehru colluding with Nazis? You’ll have to do better than just pass judgments.
[…. even your best cheer leader MaheshG told you to stop abusing me and my family. Please go and check. I suggest we stop with the personal dimension altogether if you wish to continue this discussion.]
Boss, you asked for it. You started by calling me liar and blind. I gave it back. You have no right to complain. You apologize for starting the slanging match, I will gladly stop.
[As for you being a liar and a bigot... not abuses... they are what your conduct so far represents .... had you read the post above, you would know that I called you both a liar and a bigot again.]
You started it all. So stop being a crybaby. If I had paid heed to your abuses, I wouldn`t have been here. Your conduct has brought this upon you. Don`t be a sissy.
Re: # 161
[Yes I did call Gandhi a racist bigot.. anyone who believes that Indians are better than Africans because Indians are ``Indo germanic stock`` is a racist bigot.]
Well thanks for admitting. Only a couple of posts or so earlier, you said you never abused Gandhi. If that one instance of racism was enough for you to label Gandhi a racist bigot, then it is futile to argue with you. For later in his life, Gandhi devoted his life to the upliftment of Harijans. Harijans, mind you, were treated worse than the whites treated blacks in South Africa. Now what does that tell you? It tells you that a man can reform, and reform rather well.
[I am afraid Jinnah didn`t collude with the murder of anyone and you know it, and if you don`t then frankly you are not very balanced.]
He did. By not talking in the one week, he definitely colluded with the perpetrators of the violence. Whatever may have been the outcome, the fact is that the violence erupted as a result of his call to Direct Action. So he had the moral responsibility to at least try and calm the flaring tempers. And do you know what “moral responsibility” means? I think we’ve been here before. Gandhi, after the Chauri Chaura incident, called off the non-cooperation movement and asked the judge to pronounce the harshest sentence on him since he called for the strike. That Jinnah chose to remain silent because he was busy in ‘negotiations’ as you put it is a rather lame excuse.
[I gave you the press statement of 14th August 1946 that defined the direct action day as a day of peaceful hartal.]
Really? Compared to all the blood-curdling calls to violence and to shed the blood of others (non-Muslims) by leaders lesser than him in hierarchy, this one by the “Quaid-e-Azam” was a rather tame attempt. One can almost feel that he never intended to even make that pathetic statement, but to maintain his image of a constitutionalist; he was forced to make it. Nevertheless, it is no wonder that the Muslim goons who started the violence never paid heed to his “statement” and ironically ended up sacrificing more of their own.
[Find me one statement of any Muslim Leaguer after Jinnah`s announcement that went against that grain.]
For that, you will have to first prove that the Leaguers made the statements before Jinnah’s.
[Then you changed the question again to suit your position and said ... what statement did Jinnah release condemning violence in Calcutta. I produced the statement where Jinnah condemned the fratricidal war.]
Like Gandhi did at Chauri Chaura, Jinnah should have called on the Muslims to stop the violence immediately. Better still he should have called off the Direct Action Day as soon as violence flared up. That he chose to do none is a telling comment on his complicity.
[Now... I told you that Jinnah`s statement was for all communities... not just Hindus or Muslims or Sikhs. But you insist on a statement for Muslims alone... which doesn`t make any sense... besides what would this statement entail?]
When the call to Direct Action was made to Muslims, and when violence was started by them, why is it so difficult for you to imagine that the call to stop violence had to be to them alone?
[There is a lot of confusion about how the violence was ignited.]
Funny how you retracted from your earlier cocksure position about “Gandhi’s goons” (your words) starting the violence and the whole thing being a Congress conspiracy. Thank god for small mercies!
[So in the week that followed only an idiot would ask only Muslims to restrain themselves.]
Nope, but only an idiot would belittle the fact that violence erupted as a response to Jinnah’s call to Direct Action and it was incumbent upon him to call it off or at least restrain his Leaguers from perpetrating violence.
[The blind accusation that you throw at Jinnah is not true, because from the Muslim League point of view a Hindu-Muslim altercation in Delhi or Bombay or Lahore or even Peshawar would have been much more advantageous than in Calcutta... because Calcutta would naturally be blamed on the Muslim League government... The Muslim League`s protests on that day were hugely successful in Delhi and Bombay (Several Congress Newspapers were all praise for the Muslim League for example)... if they had to resort to violence, they could have then.]
See we are not talking about what did not happen. I’ve said this before. We’re only talking about what happened. We can never know the reasons for what never happened. Only a fool would spend time dissecting something that never happened.
[Clearly your Gandhi and Nehru didn`t believe this to be the case either... or maybe they knew better than their own supporters.]
Again, you are going off on a tangent. You know as much as I do that there was violence in Calcutta. You also know this was as a result of the call to Direct Action issued by Jinnah. I’m sure you will agree that he could have issued a statement calling for cessation of violence or at least called it off when he knew violence had erupted, just like Gandhi called off the non-cooperation movement when he came to know of Chauri Chaura.
[while Bose, Gandhi and Nehru were either actively or passively in collusion with the Nazis only a few years earlier...]
Bose yes, but Gandhi and Nehru colluding with Nazis? You’ll have to do better than just pass judgments.
[…. even your best cheer leader MaheshG told you to stop abusing me and my family. Please go and check. I suggest we stop with the personal dimension altogether if you wish to continue this discussion.]
Boss, you asked for it. You started by calling me liar and blind. I gave it back. You have no right to complain. You apologize for starting the slanging match, I will gladly stop.
[As for you being a liar and a bigot... not abuses... they are what your conduct so far represents .... had you read the post above, you would know that I called you both a liar and a bigot again.]
You started it all. So stop being a crybaby. If I had paid heed to your abuses, I wouldn`t have been here. Your conduct has brought this upon you. Don`t be a sissy.
#164 Posted by harish_hyd on April 29, 2005 1:24:16 am
#162 by Mantolives on April 28, 2005 4:47am PT
Re: # 161
[Yes I did call Gandhi a racist bigot.. anyone who believes that Indians are better than Africans because Indians are ``Indo germanic stock`` is a racist bigot.]
Well thanks for admitting. Only a couple of posts or so earlier, you said you never abused Gandhi. If that one instance of racism was enough for you to label Gandhi a racist bigot, then it is futile to argue with you. For later in his life, Gandhi devoted his life to the upliftment of Harijans. Harijans, mind you, were treated worse than the whites treated blacks in South Africa. Now what does that tell you? It tells you that a man can reform, and reform rather well.
[I am afraid Jinnah didn`t collude with the murder of anyone and you know it, and if you don`t then frankly you are not very balanced.]
He did. By not talking in the one week, he definitely colluded with the perpetrators of the violence. Whatever may have been the outcome, the fact is that the violence erupted as a result of his call to Direct Action. So he had the moral responsibility to at least try and calm the flaring tempers. And do you know what “moral responsibility” means? I think we’ve been here before. Gandhi, after the Chauri Chaura incident, called off the non-cooperation movement and asked the judge to pronounce the harshest sentence on him since he called for the strike. That Jinnah chose to remain silent because he was busy in ‘negotiations’ as you put it is a rather lame excuse.
[I gave you the press statement of 14th August 1946 that defined the direct action day as a day of peaceful hartal.]
Really? Compared to all the blood-curdling calls to violence and to shed the blood of others (non-Muslims) by leaders lesser than him in hierarchy, this one by the “Quaid-e-Azam” was a rather tame attempt. One can almost feel that he never intended to even make that pathetic statement, but to maintain his image of a constitutionalist; he was forced to make it. Nevertheless, it is no wonder that the Muslim goons who started the violence never paid heed to his “statement” and ironically ended up sacrificing more of their own.
[Find me one statement of any Muslim Leaguer after Jinnah`s announcement that went against that grain.]
For that, you will have to first prove that the Leaguers made the statements before Jinnah’s.
[Then you changed the question again to suit your position and said ... what statement did Jinnah release condemning violence in Calcutta. I produced the statement where Jinnah condemned the fratricidal war.]
Like Gandhi did at Chauri Chaura, Jinnah should have called on the Muslims to stop the violence immediately. Better still he should have called off the Direct Action Day as soon as violence flared up. That he chose to do none is a telling comment on his complicity.
[Now... I told you that Jinnah`s statement was for all communities... not just Hindus or Muslims or Sikhs. But you insist on a statement for Muslims alone... which doesn`t make any sense... besides what would this statement entail?]
When the call to Direct Action was made to Muslims, and when violence was started by them, why is it so difficult for you to imagine that the call to stop violence had to be to them alone?
[There is a lot of confusion about how the violence was ignited.]
Funny how you retracted from your earlier cocksure position about “Gandhi’s goons” (your words) starting the violence and the whole thing being a Congress conspiracy. Thank god for small mercies!
[So in the week that followed only an idiot would ask only Muslims to restrain themselves.]
Nope, but only an idiot would belittle the fact that violence erupted as a response to Jinnah’s call to Direct Action and it was incumbent upon him to call it off or at least restrain his Leaguers from perpetrating violence.
[The blind accusation that you throw at Jinnah is not true, because from the Muslim League point of view a Hindu-Muslim altercation in Delhi or Bombay or Lahore or even Peshawar would have been much more advantageous than in Calcutta... because Calcutta would naturally be blamed on the Muslim League government... The Muslim League`s protests on that day were hugely successful in Delhi and Bombay (Several Congress Newspapers were all praise for the Muslim League for example)... if they had to resort to violence, they could have then.]
See we are not talking about what did not happen. I’ve said this before. We’re only talking about what happened. We can never know the reasons for what never happened. Only a fool would spend time dissecting something that never happened.
[Clearly your Gandhi and Nehru didn`t believe this to be the case either... or maybe they knew better than their own supporters.]
Again, you are going off on a tangent. You know as much as I do that there was violence in Calcutta. You also know this was as a result of the call to Direct Action issued by Jinnah. I’m sure you will agree that he could have issued a statement calling for cessation of violence or at least called it off when he knew violence had erupted, just like Gandhi called off the non-cooperation movement when he came to know of Chauri Chaura.
[while Bose, Gandhi and Nehru were either actively or passively in collusion with the Nazis only a few years earlier...]
Bose yes, but Gandhi and Nehru colluding with Nazis? You’ll have to do better than just pass judgments.
[…. even your best cheer leader MaheshG told you to stop abusing me and my family. Please go and check. I suggest we stop with the personal dimension altogether if you wish to continue this discussion.]
Boss, you asked for it. You started by calling me liar and blind. I gave it back. You have no right to complain. You apologize for starting the slanging match, I will gladly stop.
[As for you being a liar and a bigot... not abuses... they are what your conduct so far represents .... had you read the post above, you would know that I called you both a liar and a bigot again.]
You started it all. So stop being a crybaby. If I had paid heed to your abuses, I wouldn`t have been here. Your conduct has brought this upon you. Don`t be a sissy.
Re: # 161
[Yes I did call Gandhi a racist bigot.. anyone who believes that Indians are better than Africans because Indians are ``Indo germanic stock`` is a racist bigot.]
Well thanks for admitting. Only a couple of posts or so earlier, you said you never abused Gandhi. If that one instance of racism was enough for you to label Gandhi a racist bigot, then it is futile to argue with you. For later in his life, Gandhi devoted his life to the upliftment of Harijans. Harijans, mind you, were treated worse than the whites treated blacks in South Africa. Now what does that tell you? It tells you that a man can reform, and reform rather well.
[I am afraid Jinnah didn`t collude with the murder of anyone and you know it, and if you don`t then frankly you are not very balanced.]
He did. By not talking in the one week, he definitely colluded with the perpetrators of the violence. Whatever may have been the outcome, the fact is that the violence erupted as a result of his call to Direct Action. So he had the moral responsibility to at least try and calm the flaring tempers. And do you know what “moral responsibility” means? I think we’ve been here before. Gandhi, after the Chauri Chaura incident, called off the non-cooperation movement and asked the judge to pronounce the harshest sentence on him since he called for the strike. That Jinnah chose to remain silent because he was busy in ‘negotiations’ as you put it is a rather lame excuse.
[I gave you the press statement of 14th August 1946 that defined the direct action day as a day of peaceful hartal.]
Really? Compared to all the blood-curdling calls to violence and to shed the blood of others (non-Muslims) by leaders lesser than him in hierarchy, this one by the “Quaid-e-Azam” was a rather tame attempt. One can almost feel that he never intended to even make that pathetic statement, but to maintain his image of a constitutionalist; he was forced to make it. Nevertheless, it is no wonder that the Muslim goons who started the violence never paid heed to his “statement” and ironically ended up sacrificing more of their own.
[Find me one statement of any Muslim Leaguer after Jinnah`s announcement that went against that grain.]
For that, you will have to first prove that the Leaguers made the statements before Jinnah’s.
[Then you changed the question again to suit your position and said ... what statement did Jinnah release condemning violence in Calcutta. I produced the statement where Jinnah condemned the fratricidal war.]
Like Gandhi did at Chauri Chaura, Jinnah should have called on the Muslims to stop the violence immediately. Better still he should have called off the Direct Action Day as soon as violence flared up. That he chose to do none is a telling comment on his complicity.
[Now... I told you that Jinnah`s statement was for all communities... not just Hindus or Muslims or Sikhs. But you insist on a statement for Muslims alone... which doesn`t make any sense... besides what would this statement entail?]
When the call to Direct Action was made to Muslims, and when violence was started by them, why is it so difficult for you to imagine that the call to stop violence had to be to them alone?
[There is a lot of confusion about how the violence was ignited.]
Funny how you retracted from your earlier cocksure position about “Gandhi’s goons” (your words) starting the violence and the whole thing being a Congress conspiracy. Thank god for small mercies!
[So in the week that followed only an idiot would ask only Muslims to restrain themselves.]
Nope, but only an idiot would belittle the fact that violence erupted as a response to Jinnah’s call to Direct Action and it was incumbent upon him to call it off or at least restrain his Leaguers from perpetrating violence.
[The blind accusation that you throw at Jinnah is not true, because from the Muslim League point of view a Hindu-Muslim altercation in Delhi or Bombay or Lahore or even Peshawar would have been much more advantageous than in Calcutta... because Calcutta would naturally be blamed on the Muslim League government... The Muslim League`s protests on that day were hugely successful in Delhi and Bombay (Several Congress Newspapers were all praise for the Muslim League for example)... if they had to resort to violence, they could have then.]
See we are not talking about what did not happen. I’ve said this before. We’re only talking about what happened. We can never know the reasons for what never happened. Only a fool would spend time dissecting something that never happened.
[Clearly your Gandhi and Nehru didn`t believe this to be the case either... or maybe they knew better than their own supporters.]
Again, you are going off on a tangent. You know as much as I do that there was violence in Calcutta. You also know this was as a result of the call to Direct Action issued by Jinnah. I’m sure you will agree that he could have issued a statement calling for cessation of violence or at least called it off when he knew violence had erupted, just like Gandhi called off the non-cooperation movement when he came to know of Chauri Chaura.
[while Bose, Gandhi and Nehru were either actively or passively in collusion with the Nazis only a few years earlier...]
Bose yes, but Gandhi and Nehru colluding with Nazis? You’ll have to do better than just pass judgments.
[…. even your best cheer leader MaheshG told you to stop abusing me and my family. Please go and check. I suggest we stop with the personal dimension altogether if you wish to continue this discussion.]
Boss, you asked for it. You started by calling me liar and blind. I gave it back. You have no right to complain. You apologize for starting the slanging match, I will gladly stop.
[As for you being a liar and a bigot... not abuses... they are what your conduct so far represents .... had you read the post above, you would know that I called you both a liar and a bigot again.]
You started it all. So stop being a crybaby. If I had paid heed to your abuses, I wouldn`t have been here. Your conduct has brought this upon you. Don`t be a sissy.
#163 Posted by MantoLives on April 28, 2005 5:02:44 am
Re: # 161
``Yes, I hate Jinnah for demanding a separate nation over the dead bodies of millions of Indians``
Recently the Congress Government in Delhi launched with a lot fanfare a book called Jinnah A corrective reading of Indian history
It shows conclusively (and this is not the first book) that Jinnah is merely a scapegoat for the humongous errors made by Gandhi and Nehru, which led to partition.
Your vision of history is colored by your hatred for Jinnah, indicative no doubt of the brainwashing that goes on in India. (Please by all means hurl back the same accusation at me, except that I never attended a Pakistani school to begin with).
-YLH
``Yes, I hate Jinnah for demanding a separate nation over the dead bodies of millions of Indians``
Recently the Congress Government in Delhi launched with a lot fanfare a book called Jinnah A corrective reading of Indian history
It shows conclusively (and this is not the first book) that Jinnah is merely a scapegoat for the humongous errors made by Gandhi and Nehru, which led to partition.
Your vision of history is colored by your hatred for Jinnah, indicative no doubt of the brainwashing that goes on in India. (Please by all means hurl back the same accusation at me, except that I never attended a Pakistani school to begin with).
-YLH
#162 Posted by MantoLives on April 28, 2005 4:47:30 am
Re: # 161
Yes I did call Gandhi a racist bigot.. anyone who believes that Indians are better than Africans because Indians are ``Indo germanic stock`` is a racist bigot.
I am afraid Jinnah didn`t collude with the murder of anyone and you know it, and if you don`t then frankly you are not very balanced. Anyway let us recap shall we:
1) Your first contention was that Jinnah never issued a statement defining direct action day:
I gave you the press statement of 14th August 1946 that defined the direct action day as a day of peaceful hartal.
2) Then your contention was that Jinnah didn`t do anything to stop Muslim League leaders... but the statements you quoted were before Jinnah`s categorical announcement that direct action day would be peaceful. Find me one statement of any Muslim Leaguer after Jinnah`s announcement that went against that grain.
3) Then you changed the question again to suit your position and said ... what statement did Jinnah release condemning violence in Calcutta. I produced the statement where Jinnah condemned the fratricidal war.
4) Then you changed your question yet again and asked for a specific statement in the week of violence asking Muslims to stop the violence.
Now... I told you that Jinnah`s statement was for all communities... not just Hindus or Muslims or Sikhs. But you insist on a statement for Muslims alone... which doesn`t make any sense... besides what would this statement entail?
There is a lot of confusion about how the violence was ignited... here you can go on quoting the Time Magazine and Wolpert (who apparently changed his own stance from book to book) and I can go on quoting Transfer of Power papers... but one thing is certain:
1) All communities were involved in the Calcutta killings
2) According to Lord Wavell and Sardar Patel many more Muslims died in the Calcutta violence than the Hindus ... this is also reaffirmed by Wali Khan`s book.
So in the week that followed only an idiot would ask only Muslims to restrain themselves.
Now...
The blind accusation that you throw at Jinnah is not true, because from the Muslim League point of view a Hindu-Muslim altercation in Delhi or Bombay or Lahore or even Peshawar would have been much more advantageous than in Calcutta... because Calcutta would naturally be blamed on the Muslim League government... The Muslim League`s protests on that day were hugely successful in Delhi and Bombay (Several Congress Newspapers were all praise for the Muslim League for example)... if they had to resort to violence, they could have then.
Suhrawardy, not Jinnah, has often been accused by historians like Wolpert (Who you quoted I didn`t) for example of being over zealous.... whatever the truth of that matter... Lord Wavell is very clear on the issue when he writes to Pethick Lawrence that there is NO evidence of Muslim League ministry`s involvement in the events of Calcutta. Clearly your Gandhi and Nehru didn`t believe this to be the case either... or maybe they knew better than their own supporters.
Similarly one can`t attribute a motive... because of Calcutta killings Muslim League lost out on several counts... 1) It was unable to claim a United Bengal in Pakistan, something to which Muslim League was staunchly committed 2) Lord Wavell called on the Congress to make the government in the centre.
There is no question that younger Jinnah`s assertion that mass movements and agitational politics is much more logical than older Jinnah`s call for exactly that. So you are going to hold this one call against the man ... while Bose, Gandhi and Nehru were either actively or passively in collusion with the Nazis only a few years earlier...
Now for the personal dimension of our debate... suffice to say.. on the ``Wapsi`` board, even your best cheer leader MaheshG told you to stop abusing me and my family. Please go and check. I suggest we stop with the personal dimension altogether if you wish to continue this discussion. As for you being a liar and a bigot... not abuses... they are what your conduct so far represents .... had you read the post above, you would know that I called you both a liar and a bigot again.
-YLH
Yes I did call Gandhi a racist bigot.. anyone who believes that Indians are better than Africans because Indians are ``Indo germanic stock`` is a racist bigot.
I am afraid Jinnah didn`t collude with the murder of anyone and you know it, and if you don`t then frankly you are not very balanced. Anyway let us recap shall we:
1) Your first contention was that Jinnah never issued a statement defining direct action day:
I gave you the press statement of 14th August 1946 that defined the direct action day as a day of peaceful hartal.
2) Then your contention was that Jinnah didn`t do anything to stop Muslim League leaders... but the statements you quoted were before Jinnah`s categorical announcement that direct action day would be peaceful. Find me one statement of any Muslim Leaguer after Jinnah`s announcement that went against that grain.
3) Then you changed the question again to suit your position and said ... what statement did Jinnah release condemning violence in Calcutta. I produced the statement where Jinnah condemned the fratricidal war.
4) Then you changed your question yet again and asked for a specific statement in the week of violence asking Muslims to stop the violence.
Now... I told you that Jinnah`s statement was for all communities... not just Hindus or Muslims or Sikhs. But you insist on a statement for Muslims alone... which doesn`t make any sense... besides what would this statement entail?
There is a lot of confusion about how the violence was ignited... here you can go on quoting the Time Magazine and Wolpert (who apparently changed his own stance from book to book) and I can go on quoting Transfer of Power papers... but one thing is certain:
1) All communities were involved in the Calcutta killings
2) According to Lord Wavell and Sardar Patel many more Muslims died in the Calcutta violence than the Hindus ... this is also reaffirmed by Wali Khan`s book.
So in the week that followed only an idiot would ask only Muslims to restrain themselves.
Now...
The blind accusation that you throw at Jinnah is not true, because from the Muslim League point of view a Hindu-Muslim altercation in Delhi or Bombay or Lahore or even Peshawar would have been much more advantageous than in Calcutta... because Calcutta would naturally be blamed on the Muslim League government... The Muslim League`s protests on that day were hugely successful in Delhi and Bombay (Several Congress Newspapers were all praise for the Muslim League for example)... if they had to resort to violence, they could have then.
Suhrawardy, not Jinnah, has often been accused by historians like Wolpert (Who you quoted I didn`t) for example of being over zealous.... whatever the truth of that matter... Lord Wavell is very clear on the issue when he writes to Pethick Lawrence that there is NO evidence of Muslim League ministry`s involvement in the events of Calcutta. Clearly your Gandhi and Nehru didn`t believe this to be the case either... or maybe they knew better than their own supporters.
Similarly one can`t attribute a motive... because of Calcutta killings Muslim League lost out on several counts... 1) It was unable to claim a United Bengal in Pakistan, something to which Muslim League was staunchly committed 2) Lord Wavell called on the Congress to make the government in the centre.
There is no question that younger Jinnah`s assertion that mass movements and agitational politics is much more logical than older Jinnah`s call for exactly that. So you are going to hold this one call against the man ... while Bose, Gandhi and Nehru were either actively or passively in collusion with the Nazis only a few years earlier...
Now for the personal dimension of our debate... suffice to say.. on the ``Wapsi`` board, even your best cheer leader MaheshG told you to stop abusing me and my family. Please go and check. I suggest we stop with the personal dimension altogether if you wish to continue this discussion. As for you being a liar and a bigot... not abuses... they are what your conduct so far represents .... had you read the post above, you would know that I called you both a liar and a bigot again.
-YLH
#161 Posted by harish_hyd on April 28, 2005 2:33:10 am
#160 by Yasser
[You should consult a psychiatrist for your delusions. It is a rather severe case.]
At the end of the debate, I`m afraid it will be you. You`re showing all the signs.
[I said more than you... which is apparent since you were attributing statements by Maulana Mohamed Ali to Jinnah.]
Is that why you conjured up all kinds of alibis when asked for Jinnah`s statement? You vehemently denied that Jinnah was silent and promised to find his statement, but finally came up with a naught.
[Your motivation through out was your irrational hatred of Jinnah and Pakistan.]
With a school kid`s comprehension levels, no wonder it has been a cake walk for me. Yes, I hate Jinnah for demanding a separate nation over the dead bodies of millions of Indians, but my motive here is not to go by my emotions, but by facts, which is why I put a simple question that would clearly expose his intentions.
[You then tried to claim that I was abusing Gandhi (though I had only quoted from his own works) to justify your bigotry.]
You did abuse Gandhi. You called him the ``racist bigot``. Selective amnesia?
[In any event, let me reiterate my stance so as to cancel out your lies once more... the questions you asked don`t make any sense. You`ve been provided with Jinnah`s statement that direct action day would be a peaceful civil disobedience movement... as it was all over India except Calcutta, a Hindu majority city. You`ve been provided with evidence that Congress was gloating over its successful disruption of Muslim League`s plans in Calcutta... the British Viceroy Wavell, who liked Nehru better than Jinnah, is on the record saying that there was no evidence that Muslim League ministry deliberately planned the violence in Calcutta. Calcutta Killings, an unfortunate event in South Asian History, can not be blamed on a politician who had for all of his life abhorred displays of street power and mob mentality, nor did Nehru, Gandhi or Patel, Jinnah`s toughest opponents, blame him for it.]
I don’t see a statement here. Is this an admission of sorts that you haven`t been able to produce a single statement by Jinnah during the week or so when violence was raging in Calcutta? But that`s what I`ve been saying since the beginning of this `debate`. Now please don`t give me BS about how Jinnah was busy with `negotiations`. Thousands were being butchered. The negotiations could have waited, don`t you think?
[The questions I asked you ... if you had bothered to look at them... answered the questions you asked me]
I don`t need to. I asked for a statement. I didn`t see a statement in all that junk. No amount of justification is going to prove otherwise when the man couldn`t issue a statement that would have taken less than 2 minutes and less than a day to reach his goons.
BTW, I’m really touched by the change in your demeanor. From calling people liars and what not, you have made a rather surprising U-turn. But that doesn’t change the fact that Jinnah colluded in the murder of thousands of citizens of Calcutta, does it?
[You should consult a psychiatrist for your delusions. It is a rather severe case.]
At the end of the debate, I`m afraid it will be you. You`re showing all the signs.
[I said more than you... which is apparent since you were attributing statements by Maulana Mohamed Ali to Jinnah.]
Is that why you conjured up all kinds of alibis when asked for Jinnah`s statement? You vehemently denied that Jinnah was silent and promised to find his statement, but finally came up with a naught.
[Your motivation through out was your irrational hatred of Jinnah and Pakistan.]
With a school kid`s comprehension levels, no wonder it has been a cake walk for me. Yes, I hate Jinnah for demanding a separate nation over the dead bodies of millions of Indians, but my motive here is not to go by my emotions, but by facts, which is why I put a simple question that would clearly expose his intentions.
[You then tried to claim that I was abusing Gandhi (though I had only quoted from his own works) to justify your bigotry.]
You did abuse Gandhi. You called him the ``racist bigot``. Selective amnesia?
[In any event, let me reiterate my stance so as to cancel out your lies once more... the questions you asked don`t make any sense. You`ve been provided with Jinnah`s statement that direct action day would be a peaceful civil disobedience movement... as it was all over India except Calcutta, a Hindu majority city. You`ve been provided with evidence that Congress was gloating over its successful disruption of Muslim League`s plans in Calcutta... the British Viceroy Wavell, who liked Nehru better than Jinnah, is on the record saying that there was no evidence that Muslim League ministry deliberately planned the violence in Calcutta. Calcutta Killings, an unfortunate event in South Asian History, can not be blamed on a politician who had for all of his life abhorred displays of street power and mob mentality, nor did Nehru, Gandhi or Patel, Jinnah`s toughest opponents, blame him for it.]
I don’t see a statement here. Is this an admission of sorts that you haven`t been able to produce a single statement by Jinnah during the week or so when violence was raging in Calcutta? But that`s what I`ve been saying since the beginning of this `debate`. Now please don`t give me BS about how Jinnah was busy with `negotiations`. Thousands were being butchered. The negotiations could have waited, don`t you think?
[The questions I asked you ... if you had bothered to look at them... answered the questions you asked me]
I don`t need to. I asked for a statement. I didn`t see a statement in all that junk. No amount of justification is going to prove otherwise when the man couldn`t issue a statement that would have taken less than 2 minutes and less than a day to reach his goons.
BTW, I’m really touched by the change in your demeanor. From calling people liars and what not, you have made a rather surprising U-turn. But that doesn’t change the fact that Jinnah colluded in the murder of thousands of citizens of Calcutta, does it?
#160 Posted by MantoLives on April 28, 2005 1:18:23 am
Re: # 159
Dear Sir,
``Own up to the fact that you`ve been caught with your pants down....I have really gotten a kick out of bringing you crashing down to the Earth. It is you who needs a face saver``
You should consult a psychiatrist for your delusions. It is a rather severe case.
``You started off as the great Jinnah expert, claiming that no one could know more than you did.``
I am afraid I didn`t say more anyone... I said more than you... which is apparent since you were attributing statements by Maulana Mohamed Ali to Jinnah. I am no Jinnah expert, nor does Jinnah need defending from accusations of a person with limited comprehension skills.
``In the end you are whimpering with lame excuses saying that each one can have his own reading of history.``
Actually... it wasn`t a lame excuse. Your motivation through out was your irrational hatred of Jinnah and Pakistan. You then tried to claim that I was abusing Gandhi (though I had only quoted from his own works) to justify your bigotry.
In any event, let me reiterate my stance so as to cancel out your lies once more... the questions you asked don`t make any sense. You`ve been provided with Jinnah`s statement that direct action day would be a peaceful civil disobedience movement... as it was all over India except Calcutta, a Hindu majority city. You`ve been provided with evidence that Congress was gloating over its successful disruption of Muslim League`s plans in Calcutta... the British Viceroy Wavell, who liked Nehru better than Jinnah, is on the record saying that there was no evidence that Muslim League ministry deliberately planned the violence in Calcutta. Calcutta Killings, an unfortunate event in South Asian History, can not be blamed on a politician who had for all of his life abhorred displays of street power and mob mentality, nor did Nehru, Gandhi or Patel, Jinnah`s toughest opponents, blame him for it.
The questions I asked you ... if you had bothered to look at them... answered the questions you asked me .... You keep talking about the court of law and defence etc... I forgive you for that.... you are not trained to be a lawyer... or think logically for that matter, but let me tell you court of Law does not decide simply on the basis of the question of a party ... both parties raise questions to suit their own agendas. The court is above the two parties. Since you love the ``law analogy`` so much, let me relieve you of any notion that you would have won. You sir would have been locked up ... for contempt of court in the sheer manner you have carried out this debate.
Sincerely
YLH
Dear Sir,
``Own up to the fact that you`ve been caught with your pants down....I have really gotten a kick out of bringing you crashing down to the Earth. It is you who needs a face saver``
You should consult a psychiatrist for your delusions. It is a rather severe case.
``You started off as the great Jinnah expert, claiming that no one could know more than you did.``
I am afraid I didn`t say more anyone... I said more than you... which is apparent since you were attributing statements by Maulana Mohamed Ali to Jinnah. I am no Jinnah expert, nor does Jinnah need defending from accusations of a person with limited comprehension skills.
``In the end you are whimpering with lame excuses saying that each one can have his own reading of history.``
Actually... it wasn`t a lame excuse. Your motivation through out was your irrational hatred of Jinnah and Pakistan. You then tried to claim that I was abusing Gandhi (though I had only quoted from his own works) to justify your bigotry.
In any event, let me reiterate my stance so as to cancel out your lies once more... the questions you asked don`t make any sense. You`ve been provided with Jinnah`s statement that direct action day would be a peaceful civil disobedience movement... as it was all over India except Calcutta, a Hindu majority city. You`ve been provided with evidence that Congress was gloating over its successful disruption of Muslim League`s plans in Calcutta... the British Viceroy Wavell, who liked Nehru better than Jinnah, is on the record saying that there was no evidence that Muslim League ministry deliberately planned the violence in Calcutta. Calcutta Killings, an unfortunate event in South Asian History, can not be blamed on a politician who had for all of his life abhorred displays of street power and mob mentality, nor did Nehru, Gandhi or Patel, Jinnah`s toughest opponents, blame him for it.
The questions I asked you ... if you had bothered to look at them... answered the questions you asked me .... You keep talking about the court of law and defence etc... I forgive you for that.... you are not trained to be a lawyer... or think logically for that matter, but let me tell you court of Law does not decide simply on the basis of the question of a party ... both parties raise questions to suit their own agendas. The court is above the two parties. Since you love the ``law analogy`` so much, let me relieve you of any notion that you would have won. You sir would have been locked up ... for contempt of court in the sheer manner you have carried out this debate.
Sincerely
YLH
#159 Posted by harish_hyd on April 27, 2005 10:11:03 pm
#158 by Yasser
[Lying, much like abuse, is not going to help you.]
Been telling you that, but you won`t listen. Own up to the fact that you`ve been caught with your pants down. Go home while you still can.
[Please do feel free to take up the issue on the link provided above.]
Like I said before, if you had an answer, you wouldn`t hesitate to let me know here, on this very board.
[There is no other face saving for you.]
You started off as the great Jinnah expert, claiming that no one could know more than you did. In the end you are whimpering with lame excuses saying that each one can have his own reading of history. I have really gotten a kick out of bringing you crashing down to the Earth. It is you who needs a face saver.
[Lying, much like abuse, is not going to help you.]
Been telling you that, but you won`t listen. Own up to the fact that you`ve been caught with your pants down. Go home while you still can.
[Please do feel free to take up the issue on the link provided above.]
Like I said before, if you had an answer, you wouldn`t hesitate to let me know here, on this very board.
[There is no other face saving for you.]
You started off as the great Jinnah expert, claiming that no one could know more than you did. In the end you are whimpering with lame excuses saying that each one can have his own reading of history. I have really gotten a kick out of bringing you crashing down to the Earth. It is you who needs a face saver.
#158 Posted by MantoLives on April 27, 2005 7:20:15 am
Re: # 157
Dear Sir,
Lying, much like abuse, is not going to help you. You are MIA from stuka board. Please do feel free to take up the issue on the link provided above.
There is no other face saving for you.
Dear Sir,
Lying, much like abuse, is not going to help you. You are MIA from stuka board. Please do feel free to take up the issue on the link provided above.
There is no other face saving for you.
#157 Posted by harish_hyd on April 27, 2005 7:12:33 am
#156 by Yasser
[Your abuse and your inability to answer my questions that I asked you is what is forcing you to jump from board to board, squirming to find a face saving which I am determined to not let you have.]
First things first. I asked you a question. Did you answer that? NO. So you`ll get your answers when you`ve given me mine.
[I take it to ample evidence of your concession of defeat.]
This is an oxymoron isn`t it? You`ve already conceded defeat by not answering my question.
[The Stuka board awaits... maybe you can still redeem yourself.]
I`m convinced the letters in bold define you rather well. So when can I have the answers? Or are you still hopeful of convincing some naive Indians?
[Your abuse and your inability to answer my questions that I asked you is what is forcing you to jump from board to board, squirming to find a face saving which I am determined to not let you have.]
First things first. I asked you a question. Did you answer that? NO. So you`ll get your answers when you`ve given me mine.
[I take it to ample evidence of your concession of defeat.]
This is an oxymoron isn`t it? You`ve already conceded defeat by not answering my question.
[The Stuka board awaits... maybe you can still redeem yourself.]
I`m convinced the letters in bold define you rather well. So when can I have the answers? Or are you still hopeful of convincing some naive Indians?
#156 Posted by MantoLives on April 27, 2005 4:51:49 am
Re: # 155
Dear deluded Sir,
Now if what you say were true you wouldn`t have exited from the stuka board with your tail between your legs would you? You wouldn`t be jumping from board to board in desperation trying to bring to restart a discussion in which you were convincing trounced.
I am honestly surprised at your arrogance in considering yourself above ``other naive Indians``, but yes! more educated and less biased Indians have been convinced ... just read a few books that have recently come out of India.
Your abuse and your inability to answer my questions that I asked you is what is forcing you to jump from board to board, squirming to find a face saving which I am determined to not let you have. I take it to ample evidence of your concession of defeat.
The Stuka board awaits... maybe you can still redeem yourself.
Here is the link:
http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00004938&channel=gulberg#interact
Dear deluded Sir,
Now if what you say were true you wouldn`t have exited from the stuka board with your tail between your legs would you? You wouldn`t be jumping from board to board in desperation trying to bring to restart a discussion in which you were convincing trounced.
I am honestly surprised at your arrogance in considering yourself above ``other naive Indians``, but yes! more educated and less biased Indians have been convinced ... just read a few books that have recently come out of India.
Your abuse and your inability to answer my questions that I asked you is what is forcing you to jump from board to board, squirming to find a face saving which I am determined to not let you have. I take it to ample evidence of your concession of defeat.
The Stuka board awaits... maybe you can still redeem yourself.
Here is the link:
http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00004938&channel=gulberg#interact
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- jayp: Many pakistanis are insulted... US Commando Strike in
- jayp: Leaders of pakistan, It was... US Commando Strike in
- quin: thanks for your comment... Bihar & Louisiana: A
- Aarpan: Hi A.Jaleel.What a pathatic... Between Sanity and Insanity
- muqaddam: The recent blockade by... US Commando Strike in
- rf786: Re: # 91 ahmedmadani sahib {Can... US Commando Strike in
- HP: Asadi, My use of the... There is no ‘honour’
- iron_mask: There is no honor... There is no ‘honour’
