Bunty aur Babli: The latest RSS-BJP tango

``Pakistan is here to stay as the worst nightmare of the Indian chauvinists. ha! ha! ``

Haha yourself idiot. Pakistan is just small fry. Our real enemy has always been China. And its a really smart enemy. Never fires a bullet itself that one. Just exports nukes and missiles to monkey states like Pakistan full of money brained pukis to do its bidding.

#157 by tahmed32

Bose was a second tier and leftist leader of the Congress. He did make it to being a Congress President in late 30s but his cuckoo-ness became apparent for everybody in Congress and the British ruling circles. Gandhi and Nehru conspired to kick him out and he ended up working with Nazis for Indian liberation. You are right that he did not care about Nazi or even Japanese intentions on India. His stupid guiding principal was “enemy of my enemy…”.

There is an element of romanticism with his life story when he was helping Nazis and Japanese. Simple people and jingoist were impressed with his exploits and he became a hero to small section of Indians mostly cuckoos themselves.

What is happening is that BJP/RSS and the whole Hindutva crowd is creating images to undermine Gandhi and Nehru’s leadership and struggle for Indian freedom. They are also trying to place Savarker as major force in Indian struggle for independence.( Savarker signed a Maafi naama and never entered the independence struggle once he was released mostly by Gandhi’s efforts).

The people that are writing romantic stories and some that are making Bose a major figure in independence struggle are all RSS/BJP Hindutva folks.
Bose did play a part but so did many other Indians.

Dost Mittar is right about the issues in the Indian Army just before the independence but they were over blown. The “expected” Indian army insurgency was one issue but it was never THE issue.

kaura: Jinnah is a footnote in history only if Pakistan was a footnote in history. But..but (I dont have the heart to break it to you)....Pakistan is here to stay as the worst nightmare of the Indian chauvinists. ha! ha!

As for Bose, look at the facts I presented in #132 and tell me if I am wrong. What planet do you Indians live on, anyway!!

157,

Jinnah is also a footnote on then history page. now made a little famous by Advani tamasha.
Bose is a footnote because the spin doctors of Nehru/Gandhi....who were good at sidelining anyone who threatened to take their limelight.

dost mittar #153 Those two quotes are in perfect harmony, my friend. :-) While, Jinnah and Gandhi are substantive historical figures (on the basis of their accomplishments), Bose is a mere footnote in history - a Quisling-wannabe at best. So, why waste time reading an entire book on a footnote whose failed even in becoming a Japanese puppet which is the best he could have achieved had the Nazis/Japanese won WWII??

Correction to #155

The corresponding paragraph should read as follows:

One thing is certain – especially to be noted by some on the Pakistani side – anyone who hopes that someday India (the country, as against its people (who have always been a divided lot)) will subdivide (again) based on religious, language, or any other faultlines, is living in a fool’s paradise.

I am on the road, with internet access limited, so I haven’t read all the interacts. Here’s my one rupee (two cents) on this article.

Advani is what Jinnah was. (Different times and different sides, of course.)

Both –

(1) while essentially secular as individuals, played the religious card to carve out and boost a political identity for individual themselves.

(2) lost control (in a way) as the momentum of what they had unleashed took over (the rest being history, and all that).

Will Advani be successful? Only time will tell. Can a people be divided again and again using the same tools and techniques? Perhaps not (as per logic), but when I realize how narrow-minded most of the chowk crowd (the supposed upper layer of “intellect”) is, again who knows?!

One thing is certain – especially to be noted by some on the Pakistani side – anyone who hopes that someday India will subdivide (again) based on religious, language, or any other faultlines, is living in a fool’s paradise.

It may be legitimately argued that it is the height of hypocrisy to be criticizing one (Advani) while admiring the other (Jinnah)! Virtually every author/interactor on this site (including Farzana, of course) is guilty of that. (And statements such as “this article is not about Jinnah” is merely a cop-out!)

That’s how I see it!

Re: # 145 rahul
//...Indian nationalism would not ``fall apart`` in case of a friendly Pakistan, it may have to relocate and redefine itself. ...//

Like I said - Indian nationalism doesn`t depend on any ``other`` - it derives from thousands of years of continuing civilization. So there would be no fall apart, or relocation, or redefinition.

+++
//...Taking pride in the cultural heritage is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for being a nationalist. ...//

Taking pride in the cultural heritage is exactly what is nationalism. What passes for nationalism in China these days is nothing but commie-directed brinkmanship. Now that communism is dead - the commies had to find something to keep the flock engaged and Japan was right there next door. Lo and behold - commies have invented ``nationalism``.

Nationalism is primarily a positive reinforcement of self-awareness. When it involves an ``other`` as a major component, then it becomes something else - a political ideology.

tahmed#148:

``And you say I am the one who is biased!! Sorry sir, I think you are the one who needs to stay objective and look at the facts.``

...and, then:
``And no - i would not waste my time reading a book on a loser like Bose when the basic facts (as presented in #137) are obvious and irrefutable.``

No comment!

Hey YLH - Look at what this guy says. is this true? Keep your answer short, if you can.

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=73100

``Described by one of his leading biographers, Stanley Wolpert, as “disjointed ramblings”, Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s speech at the inaugural session of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan continues to kindle debate even though the storm that almost claimed L.K. Advani has blown over. “What was he talking about? Had he simply forgotten where he was? Had the cyclone of events so disoriented him that he was arguing the opposition’s brief?” asks Wolpert (Jinnah of Pakistan, 1984).``

#146 by FarzanaVersey on June 23, 2005 1:07am PT


If someone says that I have been fed the ``Paki line``, I just let that pass because it has been taken from that ink on the wall. And it has just got tangled...


Don`t misrepresent what I said and make it sound benign...What I said was clear...There was a buffet of information available to you....you instinctively picked up the item that was under the paki flag...

It fits in with your whole worldview...the pandits are devious SOBs who had it coming....anyone raising the issue of the poor innocent persecuted jihadis who had nothing to do with the pandits departure was responsible for sinking agra....

correction to #148: I should have referred to my post #132 (rather than #137).

This is for all those I-Love-Jehad-in-Kashmir on this board!!

I love jehad: Nawaz to Osama

ANI[ THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 2005 11:05:13 AM ]

Surf `N` Earn -Sign innow

LAHORE: Former Pakistan premier Nawaz Sharif met al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden at least three times prior to the 1988 general polls in Pakistan and told the latter that he loved jihad.


Nawaz, the then chief minister of Punjab, said this in response to Osama’s appeal to him to devote himself to ``jihad in Kashmir``.

Osama had promised to give Nawaz a grant of Rs 500 million to stop Benazir Bhutto’s Pakistan Peoples’ Party (PPP) from storming to power in the ensuing polls. ``Nawaz Sharif was looking for the Rs 500 million grant from Osama,`` the Daily Times quoted ex-ISI official Khalid Khawaja as saying in an interview with the Asia Times Online.

Khalid, who had reportedly arranged the meeting of the duo reportedly said that after the elections were announced, the mujahideens in Pakistan felt that they should play a role in blocking the PPP from winning the elections.

``I joined my former DG Hamid Gul and played a role in forming the then Islamic Democratic Alliance consisting of the Pakistan Muslim League and the Jamaat-e-Islami,`` he said adding that Osama provided him with funds which he handed over to Sharif to dislodge Benazir.

``Nawaz insisted that I arrange a direct meeting with the Osama, which I did in Saudi Arabia. Nawaz met thrice with Osama. At one of these meetings Nawaz told Osama that he loved jihad, but the latter insisted that he should be more committed for the cause of jihad,`` the paper quoted Khalid as saying.

He further said that the landmark thing he secured for Nawaz Sharif was the meetings with the Saudi royal family, which later gave him a lot of political support and it remained till he was dislodged as premier by General Pervez Musharraf in 1999.

``Saudi Arabia arranged for his release and his safe exit to Saudi Arabia,`` the ex-ISI official said.

dm #144 I am talking facts of history in #137, you are talking about Bose`s wonderful personality. And you say I am the one who is biased!! Sorry sir, I think you are the one who needs to stay objective and look at the facts.

``Quit India`` was a dumb move by the Congress - the brits would naturally have seen this as being a treacherous move at a time when they were fighting for their very existence in 1942!! when britain faced its ``darkest hour`` and the nazis/japs seemed unbeatable. would thus be natural to expect that this would have hardened british attitudes towards Congress and made them more receptive to the idea of Pakistan (Jinnah wisely did not join this movement).

And no - i would not waste my time reading a book on a loser like Bose when the basic facts (as presented in #137) are obvious and irrefutable.

kaura: but...the enemy of my enemy may prove far more dangerous than my enemy.
and what would you rather see - a friendly dog that wags its tail or a mad dog that bites everyone?

Re: # 145:

[Indian nationalism would not ``fall apart`` in case of a friendly Pakistan, it may have to relocate and redefine itself.]

Rahul, well said. However, your other comment is a bit iffy. You say, ``Cultures dont compete with or attack each other, nations do. The relation between cultures and nations is strictly coincidental, IMO.``

If you are talking about culture in the larger civilisational sense, then yes. But in terms of culture as dynamic social mores, there are bound to be drifts and rifts. Contemporary society (and even ancient ones) all over the world has shown us that cultures do compete and attack one another. I would say that the fact that some of them happen to be different countries is co-incidental. Cultures are formulated by how the realities within them resonate AND their difference from others.

This is the reason a cultural identity is invariably strengthened by its uniqueness.

Therefore, in many ways the nation-state too is the creation of culture (however uncivilised it may be!) We do hear the phrase `cultural nationalism` often, and much as we`d like it to be otherwise, it is not a contradiction in terms.

- - -
Ana (#136):

I will choose a general comment you made...

[farzana has questioned various issues in more than just ONE group of indians. she has, whether you agree or not, challenged this more than a notion of us vs. them. but in her passion to do so, she unwittingly falls prey to the very thing she challenges. ]

I understand what you are saying, but I have more often questioned rather than challenged. Some of the questions have no ready answers, not by others and certainly not by me. For example, what I wrote in this article has been seen as my usual conspiracy theory, when one has tried to raise questions about what goes on beneath (or behind) the moves.

Far be it for me to expect, or even want, anyone to toe my line of thinking. That does not stop them from bludgeoning me with their points of view -- whether it is about politics or about when I should laugh.

You mention that I unwittingly fall prey to that which I challenge. I would say that my questions end up getting addressed to walls on which things have already been scrawled in indelible ink. So my voice just boomerangs on me. I have not fallen prey, I have just been heard but unable to get many to try and decipher what I have written in the little space between the scrawls.

If someone says that I have been fed the ``Paki line``, I just let that pass because it has been taken from that ink on the wall. And it has just got tangled...

I am writing this with the belief that you might at least figure out the metaphors...it is a change from the constant confirmation of most who know where I am coming from. Wish they`d tell me. At least I`d become aware of where I can return to!

And yes, thanks...for...just a few words...

Best,
Farzana