Advani in Karachi

Re: # 4, and did you ask him how much a new birth certificate for the Parvez Musharaf stating a DOB of, say, 1957, would cost?

The shae of things in context with Pakistani politics would be so interesting then!!

Re: # 15

Dear arjunm,

Please read my post again... we hardly need your patronisation for our heroes. Its just that I think it has a good psychological affect for the general winds of peace.

Clearly these things seem to matter more in India than Pakistan... Dawn for example didn`t carry the story... Daily Times carried a small blurb... but most of the Indian Papers carried it as frontpage news....

If Sharon goes on a tour of Germany and cries out `Heil Hitler` , elaborating on the compassion and humanity displayed by ol`Adolf , it would make big news too....and not only in Israel....

Re: # 19

Precisely... but Sharon wouldn`t... because it would not make sense.

However Advani`s comment and the reaction to it by the Hindu right wing confirms that the view of history you chaps are taught is not accurate...

What Advani said makes no sense either .... now the old man will never win an election again...

There is a difference between a visit to another country, and how one should act there, and one`s local political policies and beliefs.

When a leader visits another country, he/she is not going as an individual (even if it is an individual visit). One goes as a formal representative of a political party and a country. This demands that certain protocols are followed. The visit also has certain political purposes, behind it.

Advani has made a decision to visit Pakistan. There must be some political advantage for him, or his party, or his country, etc. in doing so. Once he has done that, he is bound to follow the protocol. And Pakistan is bound to provide him a certain protocol, as a prominent leader of another country..........

And politicians are experts at saying things that the crowd, they are amongst, wants to hear. That is the key skill for being a politician. So I think people are getting overly worked up about what he said - - both in a negative an positive sense - about Jinnah .

As a politician, he said what the crowd wanted to hear. Which shows his political skills. What else did people expect him to say? That Jinnah was a jerk and Pakistan should not have been created..........And that Babri Masjid was not a mistake.........That wouldn`t have gone over too well in Pakistan.......

History is being rewritten in India. Today Advani tomorrow…who knows…

...And at Sulekha.com they are calling Gandhi Ji a British agent and loyalist!

About Gandhi…
“A man having such a servile devotion to the Empire, a man who based his loyalty to Britain on his own idea of Truth, who was professing his loyalty to the Crown past his fiftieth birthday, cannot be expected to have truly relinquished something he had cherished so much. What occurred instead is that he became disillusioned with the Empire, externally opposing it yet internally never disengaging his emotional attachment to the Empire that still professed the ideas he cherished. His attachment to the Empire was still evident during the twenties and afterwards, especially during the transfer of power.”

“He [Gandhi] hoped that they would believe him when he said that the want of the knowledge of English language did not prevent Indians from following the course of events with accuracy and interest. It was the Indians` proudest boast that they were British subjects. If they were not, they would not have had a footing in South Africa.”

A quote from Gandhi Ji
“When the ultimatum was presented by the Transvaal, some of them thought it was time when they should sink all differences, and, as they insisted upon rights and privileges as subjects of the Queen, do something to prove their loyalty. ...They - that is the English-speaking Indians - came to the conclusion that they would offer their services to the Colonial or Imperial government, unconditionally and absolutely without payment, in any capacity in which they could be useful, in order to show the colonists that they were worthy subjects of the Queen.”

..And here goes Gandhi again...

Hardly ever have I known anybody to cherish such loyalty as I did to the British Constitution. I can see now that my love of truth was at the root of this loyalty…The National Anthem used to be sung at every meeting that I attended in Natal. I then felt that I must also join in the singing. Not that I was unaware of the defects in British rule, but I thought it was on the whole acceptable. In those days I believed that British rule was on the whole beneficial to the ruled.
The color prejudice that I saw in South Africa was, I thought, quite contrary to British traditions, and I believed that it was only temporary and local. I therefore vied with Englishmen in loyalty to the throne. With careful perseverance I learnt the tune of the `national anthem` and joined in singing whenever it was sung. Whenever there was an occasion for the expression of loyalty without fuss or ostentation, I readily took part in it …Never in my life did I exploit this loyalty, never did I seek to gain a selfish end by its means. It was for me more in the nature of an obligation, and I rendered it without expecting an award...I likewise taught the National Anthem to the children of my family.

More to follow...

Certain misunderstandings on both sides of the border are coming to the fore.

Two in India:

1. that Jinnah sowed the seeds of Muslim separatism in India.

2. that Jinnah was an Islamic fundamentalist.


Two in Pakistan:

3. that there is something called Akhand Bharat that Hindus politicians in India want to recreate.

4. that political leaders in Hindu parties want to humiliate and kill Muslims.


No matter what Advani does, none of these four firm beliefs will be shaken easily.

Some more from Sulekha.com…the Official RSS site…

“One of the reasons for Gandhi`s decision to organize an Ambulance Corps was given in a letter he sent to a W. Palmer, who had complained of a few ``Arabs`` not donating money to the English effort. Gandhi wrote to her to “Please assure the self-sacrificing ladies that no Indian could have declined to assist from want of sympathy. We are all fired by one spirit, viz., the Imperial, and we all know what sacrifice volunteers and those they have left behind have committed.” But it was not just the contagious ``Imperial spirit`` that drove Gandhi – the Boer War was going to be a way for Gandhi`s Congress to display how loyal they were to the Crown. Gandhi made this clear in a speech he made to the Ambulance Corps the first day they proceeded to the front:”


Aryan invasion never happened… … Not to Ganghi Ji…

“I venture to point out that both the English and the Indians spring from a common stock, called the Indo-Aryan. I would not be able, in support of the above, to give extracts from many authors, as the books of reference at my disposal are unfortunately very few. I, however, quote as follows from Sir W. W. Hunter`s Indian Empire:
“This nobler race (meaning the early Aryans) belonged to the Aryan or Indo-Germanic stock, from which the Brahman, the Rajput, and the Englishman alike descend. Its earliest home visible to history was in Central Asia...”
… This belief, whether mistaken or well founded, serves as the basis of operations of those who are trying to unify the hearts of two races, which are, legally and outwardly, bound together under a common flag.”

How could Gandhi Ji write this…

“With the greatest respect to Your Honour, we beg to point out that both the Anglo-Saxon and the Indian races belong to the same stock. We read Your Honour`s eloquent speech at the time of the second reading of the bill with rapt attention and took great pains to ascertain if any writer of authority gave countenance to the view expressed by Your Honour about the difference of the stocks from which both the races have sprung up. Max Muller, Morris, Greene, and a host of other writers with one voice seem to show very clearly that both the races have sprung from the same Aryan stock, or rather the Indo-European as many call it.
We have no wish to thrust ourselves as members of a brother nation on a nation that would be unwilling to receive us as such, but we may be pardoned if we state the real facts, the alleged absence of which has been put forward as an argument to pronounce us as unfit for the exercise of the franchise...It has given us no small satisfaction to know that, however unjust Your Honour`s speech may have appeared to us from our point of view, it breathed truest sentiments of justice, morality and, what is more, Christianity. So long as such a spirit is noticeable among the chosen of the land, we would never despair of right being done in every case. “

HP


Gandhiji`s `fortunes` have changed dramatically in the two countries. Indians inreasingly aspire for material power on world stage. To many of them, Gandhi appears to be a roadblock. Pakistanis seek peace at home. To many of them, Gandhi appears to show the way.

There is nothing pious about Advani`s visit to Pakistan.
He just wants to promote himself from a local politician to Global statesman before all hell breaks loose about 2nd rung politicians of BJP trying to usurp his seat.
Like all other politicians, his bag contains more colours to adorn (as the ocassion suits) than a chamelion.
Even before he sets foot back in India, his tune will change like Prez Musharraf`s tune changes with milage added to his travel ininary.

why filtering?

why filtering?

why filtering?

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

HP aka Hacked Penis ...

Hatred/contempt for Gandhi and his idealogy is nothing new as far as many Indians are concerned. Patriotic Indians have always hated Gandhi. They even killed him. Way back in 1948. Many of us consider Gandhi to be anti-hindu and anti-India.