Dance of the wolves

farzana (168):

on a more serious note, i don`t really give a damn who`s happy by this, or who isn`t. as you said, these are not trivial matters. :)

and, farzana, i have noticed what a lot of these arseholes are saying, these are the same folks (or possibly just one with various masks) who everytime their fingers tap tap on a keyboard are reading straight from a rashtriya swayamsevak sangh document. i`m disgusted by it, and i have said so. i know what you were responding to, but you will brand us with literalism anyway.

no, directing outrage does not make one ``balanced`` farzana, but here`s the thing, you are someone who believes in ``your silence will not protect you`` when it comes to what you feel are matters vital to muslims. your silence will not protect you against what are acts of terror committed by anyone. not just non-muslims.

when you wrote that you mourn for the one lone bystander, i understood that this in fact was your response to both sides. this was where the violence ended, in the death of one person. such a needless death. all this violence is needless.

but when you write of your fear, and anger, and the fear for muslims, i don`t suppose you could consider going beyond that, beyond the hate-spewing, to indians of any creed who ``akhthoo`` on the togadia, thackeray, advani types, and who are themselves afraid, could you? do you really believe that besides the idiot(s) who keeps bringing anti-muslim trash, that no other hindu who responded on this board felt that one person had indeed died simply because they like you in regards to something else, kept quiet about it and directed their outrage towards the ``invisible`` attackers?

your perception of how others perceive him as the ``poster boy`` and yourself as ``the bad apple`` is almost like referring to him as the ``uncle tom``. there are no ``ideals`` here at chowk, or anywhere really for that matter. he is who he is. you are who you are. whatever that means here.

no, i`m not expecting a response. i will be gone within a couple of hours anyway. i won`t be returning to this board.

~a~

p. s. i have learned from making the same mistake myself, and by observing the more literary types here that we tend to show what approximates a certain condescencion towards those who do not quite see or may not be aware of various vehicles of expression, and thus are referred to as literalists, or dismissed. i don`t believe that benefits either those of us who know, or those of us who don`t understand. if we want to share what we write with everyone, then it doesn`t hurt to remember that everyone reads differently, with the tools they have (or don`t).

Re: # 173 by ana:

i have learned from making the same mistake myself, and by observing the more literary types here that we tend to show what approximates a certain condescencion towards those who do not quite see or may not be aware of various vehicles of expression, and thus are referred to as literalists, or dismissed. i don`t believe that benefits either those of us who know, or those of us who don`t understand. if we want to share what we write with everyone, then it doesn`t hurt to remember that everyone reads differently, with the tools they have (or don`t).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Literalist says: ``Dog killed cat``

Ana`s interpretation: Let`s see - dog is a four legged animal, so is a cat. So what is being said here is that a four legged animal is killing a four legged animal. How can this be distinguished from suicide? Also, consider the ideal of four-leggedness, which it can be said is manifesting itself in a canine manner as well as a feline manner. If we can assume that the manifestation of an ideal must deviate from the ideal itself in some way, how can the deviation of canineness from ideal four-leggedness and the deviation of felineness from ideal four-leggedness respectively be related to the suicide or extinction of one form of four-leggedness by another? Another perspective is that four-leggedness survives, with canineness as one manifestation and felineness as another, so perhaps from one viewpoint it can be said that there is really no killing.

All in good fun Ana :-) hope this statement is quite literal.

Any case - hats off to the Security Personnel at the attack site. They saved the day - they are the heroes. Probably one of the few suicide attacks that has been successfully stopped.

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=73998

#153 by ana on July 6, 2005 5:41pm PT

Ah..I see other (discerning;-) people saw the same thing I did...

Farzana...may I suggest a tactical retreat to your standard fallback position: It`s only 20 words of the thousands of words I`ve written...

#163 by iron_mask on July 7, 2005 0:07am PT


Re: # 155 you have put farzana babe; the Malabar Hill living, Rs200 a cup of Coffee drinker at TAJ, The Elitist ;


Her tastes are a bit more plebeian...the coffee she drinks at the sea lounge is only about 100Rs...unless FV led a crusade to have the prize increased for added snot value...

#168 by FarzanaVersey on July 7, 2005 2:20am PT


You do not know who/what sets the bar for me, although literalism never fails to work for you. Never mind. I was responding to a statement where I was told that if I directed some of my outrage against those who sponsored terrorism, then I could have been more balanced.


The fact that thackrey has said something was your rebuttal....The obvious point was that you don`t need to balanced because thackrey isn`t balanced....it`s not literalism(or some other construct fit only for a bombay tabloid)..it`s plain english...and simple logic...


The comment was well-intentioned, but I do not feel expressing outrage is what makes anyone balanced. This where I brought in the names I did to show up just how simplistic it would be.


Their world view is simple..muslims bad, hindus victims...you`ve said you shouldn`t be questioned because they aren`t questioned...clearly you are at par with luminaries like thackrey and togadia...just on the other side of the divide...

The people who matter deal with the possibility of life being too short by living it...not by trying so hard to `kill` an invisible enemy. But then, for some people that is the only evidence to prove they are alive.
- - -
#148 by arjun_m:
[#140 by FarzanaVersey on July 6, 2005 1:45pm PT
But Modi, Togadia, Mayawati, Advani, Thackeray, even Chhota Rajan have spoken about “crushing” terrorism….I do not think they are particularly balanced.

Now everyone knows who sets the bar for you....The next time someone says something about muslims, ``Osama Bin Laden isn`t particularly balanced`` should be a good defense...FV logic for you....]

You do not know who/what sets the bar for me, although literalism never fails to work for you. Never mind. I was responding to a statement where I was told that if I directed some of my outrage against those who sponsored terrorism, then I could have been more balanced.

The comment was well-intentioned, but I do not feel expressing outrage is what makes anyone balanced. This where I brought in the names I did to show up just how simplistic it would be.
- - -
#153 by ana:

[you see farzana, you are writing this from your point of view, but you write it as more or less an appeal. you cannot appeal for something like ``you and i are only as different as we want to be.`` and then not be balanced…]

Re. balanced, see my earlier comment. I am surprised that what I assume is a balanced ‘appeal’ can get nullified only because, as I mentioned in another context, there is no quid pro quo…for me that lone individual who represented nothing (at least not overtly) who died in the crossfire is the only victim. (No, I am not!…this is for some others.) By the logic of balance I should then even start talking about those who could have died.

[but when you write of things as an indian and someone who loves india. . . you should not rationalize or justify your subjectivity with the very people you`ve been writing about all along as being a threat to what you love. your love for india, your being indian is independent of these folks]

These folks have their sympathisers here…and I do not believe subjectivity can be rationalised. I said it in the post, “I admit that this is not an objective piece. It has made no such claims. I started with the first person account and I ended by saying that I mourn for only the innocent bystander. Others are free to mourn for whoever/whatever they wish.”

If you notice, there really hasn’t been much mourning for anything here…the outrage against the LeT has only resulted in talk about the ‘Islamists’. Check out the posts that talk about how Muslims think they are superior, Muslims read a despicable book, they do horrendous things…and my beef is that this becomes by default an Indian Muslim problem. I seriously object to that everytime.

[yes, ballukhan did praise you for what you said, and what you said was important, but ballukhan also spoke out against the attacks. and we all read that too.]

Please. ‘Praise’ is not the word I would use, nor does it hold much importance in a discussion such as this. I merely felt that the quote he pointed to was important to what I was saying. I am sure you read the rest of what he said…

There are lots of people on Chowk who are always lying in wait for the ideal IM, and at the moment he is their poster-boy (whether he likes it or not). Since I have seen a couple of others come and go, I suppose I shall survive the ordeal of being the ‘bad apple’, so to speak.

[ i realize that my criticism sounds harsh and i didn`t intend for it to be.]

Don’t worry about that. I have never expected people to toe my line of thinking…and criticism I have been able to take because I know I am not talking about pretty flowers. Well, even if I did, there would be something to disagree with…

I know even this post might bring forth disagreements, but I will have to skip responding. There are people like Veeresh who have great hopes in me and want me to write about so many things…Thanks for your responses.

(On a lighter note: a certain mohar will be finally happy!)
- - -
#155 by veeresh:

[I await an article from Farzana about the visible suffering and mis-treated Muslim sub-groups groups, both minorities and majorities, within the larger group of Indian Muslims.]

Drat, the subgroup I wrote about are ‘aadha Mussalmans’…I suppose just being called that is ‘mistreatment’.

[But. Would Farzana wish to speak about the actual treatment of Muslim women by Muslims, not just the MPLB?]

When will you ever get satisfied? Anyway, I had written an article called ‘The Triple Conspiracy’ where some examples of women who were married to men (yeah, it happens to this day) were provided. It was “actual treatment”.

[Then here is another one, in all this Nawab of Pataudi thing lately, illegal hunting and all that, would Farzana wish to write about why the Muslim leadership as well as rank and file in India has not made any sort of statement. Especially in view of the fact that the Nawab does hold certain responsible positions within Muslim Society. I mean, why would he not be sacked from all those Muslim religious and other posts in Bhopal and Gurgaon, oopoops, sorry, Pataudi?]

I was wondering why this did not strike you earlier…This man is an idiot who was arrested (and then let out) for illegal poaching. You think this deserves a statement from Muslim organisations? Religious organisations are filled with criminals who hold respectable positions in society…do you think they will come out and admit to it? Would any religious organisation do so? And this man messed up a meeting I had with one of his close friends. The gentleman said, “Oh, you don’t realise how worried we all are about the Nawaab. I have to meet Begum Sahiba”…this is the larger society…need I even state that the person who said this is not a Muslim? When it comes to a good supper, there are no devils and angels.

[Speak about the Muslims, Farzana.]

Why? (I have, but that is another matter.) A small rock is more worried about the sea rather than other rocks.

[The truth is that there is a resurgence and growth in India that is sweeping the Muslims along too. And the status-quo sorts within the Islamic inertia levels, are they getting worried?
And you are beginning to sound like an apologist for them. Sorry, but that is the truth as I see it.]

There is a resurgence in general…but I am convinced that IMs will never look to S. Arabia or even Pakistan for sustenance. It may appear to you that I sound like an apologist, but as you point out it is the truth as you see it. ‘Truth’ cannot be so absolute. But you have your views, I have mine.
- - -
#150 by harimau:

[Er, I was just pointing out to whoever it was, who was sympathizing with your plight as a Muslima stuck in Dar-ul-Harb, that IF you had similar opinions about Hindustan you would be making a beeline for a Pakistani green card. Not doing so implied you don`t feel bad about living amongst us kaffirs and idolaters. ]

Really? I don’t see it as living among ‘kafirs’ and ‘idolaters’. Why do you see yourself from the small Muslim prism?! Come now, shake yourself up. You guys are the majority. Repeat it a few times and it will work…

[So, I was actually on your side.]

That is very brave of you given the current atmosphere…unless of course, like Balasaheb, you have set your boys on the main course while you, in someone’s memorable words, deal with this “side dish” :)

Farzana, good for you. Now teach these indoos a lesson. Please give them a slap, spank them hard. Well done.

Doesnt the rich bitch understand that Togadia, Advani and Thackrey are not the Hindu Trinity and they dont represent the prevailing Hindu sentiments. Or even that they are not blaming muslims but Pakistan and cross-border terrorism. Didnt she ever met any Hindu who`s not a Ram-bhakt or a Bajrangdali. Hasnt she known any Shaivaits who have little patience for Krishna leelas and will only ever identify Nataraja as the Ultimate Reality. Did she ever think that the You in her `You and I` could be plural and ``as different as they can ever be``.
Does the rich bitch even thinks before she writes..

Much as i abhor the writings of this wretch, she must have her say.And, she must be ready to get as good as she gives.I think she has enough thick skin to withstand.I`d rather be by the beach in Goa than stay here any longer.I invite others too to do the same.........

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=212307&page=4

jeez RCapri and Mike and others......life`s too short ...but one word sarcasm.....

Re: Ferzana#140

Stop beating around the bush and be honest for a change. Who is responsible for your feelings of insecurity? Is it the hindus who are daily victims of terrorism all over India or is it the Pakistani terrorists with their local supporters who are committing these acts? Every day these terrorists kill 10-15 people in Kashmir and elsewhere. You are noticeably silent about this and any other despicable muslim conduct. But you are very vocal about potential hindu reaction that may not even occur.

Tell me one thing straight - Why do muslims keep provoking hindus? Why don`t they just sign-off on the status quo and make peace with hindus? Forget about Kashmir, jihad etc. Just say all hostilities are over, we want to live peacefully and follow on that promise. That will be the end of the story. You and everyone else can live peacefully. However, if we hindus keep getting provoked, can you blame us if one day we lose it and lash out.

khamkhwa:

i think it`s past your bedtime. jao, so jao. i already know i have no business interfering in the internal affairs of the islamic republic of pakistan. but the bishop who wants to be president hasn`t figured that out yet. unko ko bhi samjhaye :)

ana...
never been more serious...if ferzana does not write such junk on chowk, macho indians won`t get angry and i wont have to issue free fatwas...infact, you too should stop defending pakistan and it`s problems...before i issue a fatwa that non-muslims have no business to interfere in the internal affairs of the islamic republic of pakistan...

khamkhwa,

i see you`re bored. and a mullah with cheap whisky at that, to change john mcenroe`s takiya kalam ``your fatwa cannot be serious.``

addendum....
please correct the date as 6th july 2005.
(too much of cheap whisky does that to you)