Bunty aur Babli: The latest RSS-BJP tango

shishapa #126 national boundries are not important. They can be changed - as long as it is done in a civilized manner (as in case of Czech - Slavakia) rather than with bloodshed (as in case of India - Pakistan).

In that sense i partially agree with kaura: indian AND pakistani politicians in power in 1947 did not lift their little finger to protect hindus/sikhs (on pakistan side) and muslims (on india`s side) when they were being brutalized during partition. Gandhi at least went on hunger strike and calmed down things in bengal. But then...how many indians and pakistanis have ever given two hoots about the massacres of 1947?? not one. Another indication of the primitive mindsets that pervade the subcontinent. They could learn a lot from the Czechs and Slovaks.

124,

its not a matter of me liking them or not. thats not the issue or point. i destroy false gods. Did u read the Gandhi article i posted on UP?

more than gandhi/jinnah, i despise idiots who worship these evils.....sheep worshiping wolves...what an irony?

i am just calling evil persons evil.

now. to answer your question....i don`t like or dislike these persons. i admire them .....Bose, Bhagat singh, Saraba, and thousands others who died for their motherland....without expecting any rewards. they didn`t do any circus or drama like gandhi`s `fasts` and his danda parades....and jinnah`s `secular` speeches.


only neech and lahanti can admire the parade jumpers who led comfortable lives and undermined and played fellow humans....the traitors backstabbers tamasha makers aswell as tamashbeens. they sold their mother(land) as a 2bit prostititute...these vultures ate their own mother....

Re: # 124

He likes Tara Singh... no particular reason. He was Sikh! and Sikhs are better than all other people.

Ofcourse... and Muslims are communal..

Re # 112

tahmed32,

I know Pakistan is here to stay, however way (which is what I have problem with because I do not want anybody to use such foul tactics in future to further divide India) it was secured.

I really have no problem with Pakistan as long as it does not extend its
``moral support`` to J&K or any other parts of India in future and does not shed crocodile tears for Indian Muslims.

I hope people like Yasser succeed there (which looks really difficult right now though but can change). Our neighbourhood will be much better place then. I really mean it.

Re: # 122

But the explosion last week proves that I was right all along... truth does come out. The problem with you is that you make so many statements but are unable to back it up... so many references to animals, private parts, violence etc yet no real attempt at fostering an understanding.

kaura: Ok, so you dont like jinnah/gandhi/nehru. Who do you like and why?

Re: # 119
HP ...

Ghaffar Khan`s and Frontier Congress` resolution:

A Free Pathan State of all Pakhtoons; Constitution based on Islamic conception of democracy, and refusal by all pathans to submit to any non-pakhtoon dominated government

Henry Grady to George Marshall, US Sec of state
Telegram, secret No. 465, 1st July 1947 10 AM
Received 1st July 1947 6:51 PM
US National Archives 845.00 7/147

Undoubtedly... but the point I am trying to drive home is that Ghaffar Khan was also a politician. The free Pathan state that he promised was to be based on Islamic values and Pushtoon traditions. By calling Jinnah`s government unIslamic he was trying to rally the Pathans under his own flag, which he failed to do. By the way you know as well as I do that the great majority nay... over 90percent majority of the Maulanas were in bed with the Congress... and these were not the brailvis, the low church Muslims... they were the fire breathing deobandis. It was Ashraf Thanvi and his followers who broke away from the Deoband Maulanas to join the League...

The point is that Ghaffar Khan did do what Jinnah had done but with much more fire .. and less effect. And the thing is that whatever his secular credentials, he didn`t leave behind a clear and classic exposition of western political theory as legacy for the state like Jinnah did.
Listen I do have a bias... I admire educated Barristers who speak the language of the court and believe in Western political theory and quote John Morley. I discovered this when I met an eloquent young Lincoln`s Inn Barrister the other day... t I admire those who quote precedents and appreciate finer points of law.

But ... lets accept it... yes... lets accept Ghaffar Khan was secular despite his sharia honking at the outset of Pakistan ... Would his word matter or would the words of the founding father matter when one furthers the cause of a secular state? Ghaffar Khan was a pathan and by psyche anti-British. This is why he was a hit with the Congressites. He was also indigenous... and Gandhi etc favored indigenisation... he was also a tribal with Pushtoonvali traditions... till today most Indians have a pathan fetish. The question of a secular state or Islamic state was thus immaterial to Ghaffar Khan as I will argue that it was immaterial to Gandhi as well. Constitutional concerns were those who remained part of the system... Jinnah, Ambedkar, Nehru etc.


About Alephnull...

I agree with you.

I actually went and read the ilogs by Sadna and initially was amazed that Sadna produced a great Jinnah omnibus .... but as I read closely most of her ilogs are cut-n-paste articles... not that she claimed any otherway... but Alephnull here is trying to present her as a great scholar.

From what I read ... she is bringing it down to that Jinnah championed the separate electorates. The fact is that he was the only Muslim politician in the League who didn`t in reality. He said so clearly and offered his counterparts in the Congress several settlements short of Separate electorates.... He stood in principle for the joint electorates.

32 ilogs wasted on a false premise.

-YLH

116,

u yell all u want jinnah`s dream turned out to be his nightmare along with millions` (for muslims as well). your false idol was a lie....so are u in his worshiping. u are as naive and foolish as gandhi worshipper. sheep who bleat an mimic without thinking......

History will continue to breed wolves like Jinnah/Gandhi/nehru as long there are enough sheep like u for them to feast on..........

Re: # 120

No my dear friend you are the one who is blind. My post proved it yet again.

115,

the reason i used bold/italics/red etc.....so this blind follower can see better. Obviously, that has not helped.

I am angry that a few kanjars and haramis (jinnah,nehru,gandhi) etc. destroyed millions of innocents.....and the hate u see even on chowk is the direct consequence of that.

108 by Mantolives

“Ghaffar Khan`s proclamation for a Free Pathan State where Islamic notions of statehood would succeed and which he proclaims that Jinnah`s government was unIslamic and against sharia and therefore had to be distanced from.”

Yassar,
There is no doubt in my mind that Ghaffar Khan wanted an independent Pukhtoonistan after the Indian independence, but claiming that he wanted a Islamic state in NWFP is a stretch. I don’t see anything wrong with his saying that Jinnah’s government was unislamic or against Sharia as it was or we can’t argue that Jinnah wanted a Secular Pakistani State. I don’t know the context of Ghaffar Khan said that but it appears to be the biggest compliment he could have given to Jinnah.

“but just like the secular Congress they have always allied themselves with the Mullahs”

The Muslim League and Jinnah worked with JUI that later became JUP of Maulana Shabir Usmani. There were many maulana, who represented Muslim League from Its platform. Maulana Noorani’s father was a Muslim league and JUI member from Meerut,UP. Many maulvis appeared on both ML and JUI platform.

“Bhutto might have been secular but he certainly wrote a theocratic constitution”

Politicians often compromise based on the situation. Rigidity is fanaticism that is followed by the religious parties and fundos and idiots like a-hole. There was a situation that had to be dealt with and Bhutto did it that way. There was an element of opportunism in Bhutto position too but Rome was not built in one day. Sometimes a step backwards helps to move two steps forward.


A-hole-
Your opinion does not mean diddlysquat. You and that woman (the RSS spokesperson) were discredited on UP. You are both liars.

Re: # 117

Dear Alephnull,

Why don`t you engage me in an honest debate instead of making comments about me ... with no roots in reality. What leveller said must have really hurt you.

This is what happens when you base your posts and knowledge on Sadna, an unimpressive and mediocre engineer from New Jersey who I have met, instead of basing it on facts.

Jinnah was always opposed to the separate electorates and wanted to negotiate with the Congress on the basis of joint electorates. The clearest proof of this is when Muslim League itself was divided into two groups the Shafi League and the Jinnah League. Shafi League being the pro-British faction and Jinnah League being the pro-Congress faction. You are free to read up on it instead of quoting Sadna as a valid source.

---

Back to Kaura


On Joshi`s comment

H V Hodson was the constitutional advisor to the Viceroy of India 1941-1942... H.V. Hodson says on Page 39 of his book `The Great Divide` in the chapter `Two Great personalities`


``One thing is certain, it was not for any venal motive that he changed. Not even his political enemies ever accused Jinnah of corruption or self seeking. He could be bought by no one and for no price. Nor was he in the least degree a weathercock, swinging in the wind of popularity or changing his politics to suit the chances of the time. He was a steadfast idealist, as well as a man of scrupulous honour.``

Now we know that H V Hodson was no real fan of Jinnah`s but look this was the general view that every honest person took of Mr Jinnah.

Dr B R Ambedkar wrote:

``At the same time, it is doubtful if there is a politician in India to whom the adjective incorruptible can be more fittingly applied. Anyone who knows what his relations with the British Government have been, will admit that he has always been their critic, if indeed, he has not been their adversary. No one can buy him. For it must be said to his credit that he has never been a soldier of fortune. The customary Hindu explanation fails to account for the ideological transformation of Mr. Jinnah.``

Pakistan or partition of India : http://www.ambedkar.org/pakistan/40E2.Pakistan%20or%20the%20Partition%20of%20India%20PART%20IV.htm



M C Rajah, the leader of the scheduled castes and made this comment in 1941:

``All religions hold that God sends suitable people into the world to work out his plans from time to time and at critical junctures. I regard Mr Jinnah as the man who has been called upon to correct the wrong ways in which the people of India have been led by the leadership of Mr Gandhi. Congress took a wrong turn when it adopted wholesale the non cooperation programme of Mr Gandhi and assumed an attitude of open hostility towards Britain and tried to infusew the minds of people a spirit of defiance of law and civil disobedience more of less thinly veiled under a formula of truth and non violence. Moreover by Mahatmafying Mr Gandhi it appealed to the idolatorous sperstition of the Hindus, thus converting the religious adherence of the Hindu section of the population to the Mahatma into political support of his non cooperation movement.While this strategy was of some avail in hustling the British Government to yield more and more it divided the people into Hindu and non hind! u sectionsIn these circumstances a man was needed to stand up to congress and tell its leaders that their organization however powerful numerically and financially doesnot represent the whole of India. I admire Mr Jinnah and feel grateful to him because in advocating the cause of the Muslims he is championing the cause of all the classes that are in danger of bein crushed under the steam roller of the caste Hindu majority, acting under the inspiration and orders of Mr Gandhi `` (25th December 1940, 9 months After the Pakistan Resolution, Seen here are Scheduled castes of India)


and your own Mahatma Gandhi:

``Jinnah is incorruptible and brave`` (Interview with Louis Fischer)

harish_hyd #99, #101

This game of quoting carefully selected ‘unbiased’ sources in support of your partisan position is old hat on Chowk. Romair dear Romair was one of its most distinguished exponents, quoting the allegedely ‘unbiased’ Eric Margolis and Brian Cloughley in support of his contentions. Then there are those who will enlist Winston Churchill and Beverly Nichols in support of Jinnah …

Those who employ this technique invariably also claim that they have made a deep and dispassionate study and penetrating ‘logical’ analysis of the subject in question, while all their adversaries are ignorant, brainwashed by state mythology, prejudiced, malevolent, etc. And so it goes …

---

In my opinion, Jinnah went beyond the bounds of secular democratic equity with his demand for parity of representation for Muslims with non-Muslims. That came well before the Pakistan demand.

In case you haven’t read them, sadna had an *outstanding* series of Chowk ilogs (32 at last count!) on “what Jinnah wanted”. I *especially recommend* numbers 18 and 19 in the series (May 20th and 21st 2005).

Re: # 113
Dear Kaurayjhoot...

I sympathise with you.... you suffer from a bad case of mythologitis.

This HAS also been discredited! We have letters, Mr Jinnah`s will and accounts of his life that prove that this was merely a story. Ofcourse... the Congress supported Mullahs were calling him Kafir-e-Azam ... so his followers spread this story.

But there is no truth to this myth in reality and that much is clear. There are several stories... like this about Indian leaders... about Gandhi`s son`s conversion to Islam and his violent reaction... about Jinnah`s supposed distance from his daughter. I don`t know about Gandhi`s truth... but about Jinnah this is merely a story.

Those who know a bit about money values know that there were no fortunes in ``Crores of rupees``. Jinnah`s fortune with all his houses added together as well as his shares in Indian firms amounted to somewhere between 1 million and 2 million rupees.

200 000 he left to Dina Wadia... and around 500 000 or so he distributed amongst educational institutions ... especially Bombay University which was a major beneficiary.


-YLH

kaura #113 yaar aenaaN ghoosa!! saadhay guru jinnah-ji naiN teraa ki bigaaryaa ai?? :-)

Re: # 111

Shishapa when people think in simplistic terms like you do... mythologies i.e. history taught in Pakistan and India are born. I maintain Jinnah was the last person who wanted to divide India. It is because it was him and not some Mullah that should atleast arouse curiousity...

But for you even that is wasted.