The Naked Fakir

HP the wife beater#133
``He never said that Muslims are superior or better looking than hindus.``

He demanded in every major speech or statement or demand for 9 years that Hindus to be denied a majority because they would destroy Muslims and Islam otherwise. He said repeatedly that Hindus were unfit for democracy unlike the egalitarian Muslims for whom democracy was a natural impulse.

He even said at one point in time that Muslims were the natural rulers of the subcontinent and that since the British had taken over from Muslims, they must hand back power to Muslims. He said Pakistan came into being when the first Indian converted to Islam. He said Muslims deserved a separate state because Hindus refused to dine with him and washed their hands after shaking hands with him - this after many years of Gandhi, Nehru, Bose and others making tracks to his house in Bombay to hold discussions with him (Gandhi travelled third class from Wardha coming out of his self-imposed political exile simply to visit Jinnah at his home to hear what he had to say). I don`t remember reading that Jinnah took any particular pains to meet any of them anywhere.

Of course to argue that travelling around an entire subcontinent rousing a hatred of Hindus is not racism is par for the course on chowk.com, since this is basically Pakistani nationalism in essence.

The real racism however lies in the fact that it is/was considered necessary to poison the communal waters for Indian Muslims as well by insisting on a similar isolation for them within divided India, when it was clear to Jinnah and all other heroic champions of Muslims subsequently that all Indians Muslims couldn`t escape the horrible hindoos to Pakistan and many would be left behind.

#127 by Hello-mera-naam-RSS-sadna

There is no reason to be so offended by the facts that I presented. You are mixing way too many things to argue one simple point and that was: While Gandhi’s racism is documented and undeniable, what you claim to be Jinnah’s racism would only qualify for political brinkmanship.

He never said that Muslims are superior or better looking than hindus.

Most of the points that you make show his or Muslim league’s perception that they cannot work with the congress or may be his attempt to ensure that the coalition governments failed so that he could prove his point that Muslims and Hindus have reached an impasse.
There is a difference in brinkmanship and racism.

Why Jinnah insisted on “no nonMuslim League Muslim” was fairly obvious. It went to the heart of his or ML claim that the Muslim League represented Muslims and if there was going to be a muslim representative in the cabinet, he/she must be from the Muslim League.

This was unfortunate and I hope undivided India should never have reached that point but you cannot deny the polarization that existed at that time. In Jinnah’s opinion, conceding on this issue could have possibly impacted his claim of Muslim leadership. It may be a question of fragile ego or political obstinacy but it can never reach the heights of racism.

Condi and Colin example is irrelevant for the simple reason that Bush cabinet is not a coalition of the Blacks and Whites. If it was, then, within the confines of the race politics, Condi and Colin could have separate meetings to highlight the blacks inability to work with the whites. Since Bush cabinet is not selected on the bases of a coalition or even on the racial representation bases, the analogy is not appropriate.

“Pakistanis like to think they are the only Muslims in the world and represent all Muslims of the world for perpetuity.”

This is a completely irrelevant and unnecessary comment as you are again generalizing some thing about 150 million people where most of them differ on many things. The reality is that a good 75% Pakistani have no idea of history and have no connection with the ideological and political struggles that take place in the world. It is almost like saying ALL Hindus believe in killing Muslims whereas only some—the RSS types-- do.


#126,#131

Urstruly and Dost mittar. The race Hierarchy debate is older than Sir Syed. Sir Syed most likely picked up Urdu translation of this debate and repeated that verbatim. Gandhi too may have been influenced by it, is not outside the realm of possiblity as this debate raged in the 19th century.

Dost-mittar #131: ``His hypothesis is that blacks have the lowest IQ and the Chinese the highest, with Caucascians falling in between.``

.........My hypothesis on this issue is more original, and tends to pre-date Professor Rushton`s.........

Where exactly does Rushton rank Punjabi speakers? I have always wondered. My theory is that Punjabi speakers have amongst the lowest IQ. Other than Dr. Salam, I cannot think of too many intelligent minds coming from this region. If one starts from the East, with the Sardarjis (Bhatti Saab excluded, of course) at the bottom, the IQ tends to move slightly upwards as one moves West through Punjab, and then into Kashmir. But not by much......

I tested my theory in Onatario, as well. And it proved accurate. If you go to the Walmart in Scarborough (an area with South Indians and Sri Lankans), it takes five minutes for the cashier to clear you.......As you move to Mississauga (an area dominated by West Punjabis), the number goes up to ten minutes. And if you are in Brampton (an area dominated by Sardarjis), you could be stuck in the line for the whole day........

Slightly lower on the totem pole, than Punjabi speakers, would be Pushto speakers. Pathan being a state of mind and not an ethnicity.....

However, Pathans tend to be amongst the best looking, having produced the most film stars of any group in South Asia. Punjabis seem to be second in the looks department. As one moves South, this ratio tends to reverse. South Indians being the most intelligent group. But, lets just say, not quite in the Tom Cruise category, to say the least.......Rajnikant is, after all, no Shahrukh or Dilip or even Ajab Gul..........

I guess God, or nature, never gives looks, brains and brawn, all, to the same group of people.........

Urstruly#126:

The debate has been resusicated by a controversial Canadian academic, Professor Rushton. His hypothesis is that blacks have the lowest IQ and the Chinese the highest, with Caucascians falling in between. He argues that the differences are due to genetics and not due to environmental factors alone. Here is one link to his ideas:
http://www.cjsonline.ca/articles/wahlsten.html

if ``they`` blast the bamian buddha, should ``we`` blast mohammed (ghori)? no..for one it wont look good on 60-minutes.

Sadna is putting up nonsense because she has no feet to stand on. Now her claims about CMP have gone another radical change... after her lie was caught earlier on this board. Because Gandhi is indefensible Sadna is now resorting to stretching all sorts of arguments...
There is no comparison or relevance of the Cabinet Mission Plan here to Gandhi`s racism... especially since the CMP was the brain child of the Congress President Azad...

In any event this article is ABOUT GANDHI.... beating up on Jinnah with same old accusations which have been proved to be nonsense is not going to help...

hindvi:

While Noakhali is invariably mentioned as one of the places where Gandhi tried to stop communal riots, I have never read anything concrete regarding what he did, who were the victims and how successful he was. I would appreciate it if you could please provide me with a link that provides such details. Thanks.

HP #114
Pakistanis like to think they are the only Muslims in the world and represent all Muslims of the world for perpetuity. That is not true and it was not true when Jinnah was insisting he must be the sole spokesman of all Indian Muslims. He insisted on this total separation of Muslims from others being accepted as a principle.

He insisted on this principle - in essence that the 30% Muslims in the Hindustan group A must make no common cause with any other political party at a point in time when the Constitution of Hindustan group A was going to be written (as distinct from his precious Pakistan group, which he insisted must have a totally separate constitution and must be free to secede). He also insisted that this no nonMuslim League Muslim principle ne accepted in the formation of the 1946 interim government.

The Congress finally agreed to no nonMuslim League Muslim in that interim government only when Viceroy Wavell assured them that Jinnah`s demand would not be accepted as principle for perpetuity, but only as a one time exception.

And we know how well the interim government worked on this two separate communal nations principle of Jinnah`s because the Muslim League refused to sit together with the others in the Cabinet to thrash out decisions together or take collective responsibility as a combined cabinet despite Wavell`s pleas to Jinnah to the contrary. The Muslim League first made their own decision separately on basis of Jinnah`s racist `communal separation` leaving the rest of the Cabinet to take it or leave it.

It is like Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice forcibly sitting together to make a separate decision because they are `black` and Bush and other `whites` sitting separately making their own decision because they are white and the hispanics ditto and then all sitting together to only to take a straw poll to count to see what was decided.

It is hard to believe people are actually discussing the racism of asking for separate jail cells in a subdivision of S. Africa while ignoring the racism of Jinnah who insisted on an enforced division/separation at the highest level of governance, the national Union cabinet, in decisions affecting hundreds of millions of people.

Lets not signgle out Gandhi for his racist views. The reason for the racism among desis of Gandhis` time is unique to his time alone. As a matter of fact being a racist at that time was a hip, a fad and a kind of enlightened thing to do. Not just Gandhi but among Muslims, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan was also a staunch proponent of heirarchy of races. According to him, as he puts it in his monthly journal, tehzib-ul-Ikhlaque, the civility and civilization of a race is directly proportional to the color of the skin of that nation. So he makes an argument that White Europeans are culturally the most advanced civilization (this he presents as a proof of his thesis), at second come the yellow Japanese and Chineses etc., at third there are brown people e.g Indians, Arabs etc. and at the lowest in this heirarchy its the African blacks. Then he extends his thesis and stipulates in no uncertain terms that those nations that are low in heirarchy should obey and serve those above them.

Muslims in general found his ideas quite repugnant even in those days. The underlying ideas that drove Sir Syed to those conclusions was the new emerging ``science`` of Naturalism; which derived its basic ideas from the works of people like Charles Darwin and others. As a matter of fact the ideas like ``survival of the fittest`` and evolution and that coupled with his inventions and conquest all around the globe had put the white man in awe of himself. From animal world to plant world and to the humans everything testified to his ideas of evolution and survival of fittest.

A great many people of not so fair skin got infected by hacks like Darwin and his psuedo-sciences too; sir syed among them. The people who used to propound this pseudo-science were called ``Naturalists`` and in debates among Muslims in those days they were condescendingly referred to as ``Naturee``.

What happened to that science? Today White man himself is the greatest proponent of equality of races (in their countries at least in words). So along with them all those pips called ``Naturee`` have changed their kaaba as well. Where are they now? Well they are alive and well and they are more convinced than white man himself - do I need to point out their names?

There are always people in any society, especially among desis, who are convinced that whiteman has all the answers. The new psuedo-science of this era is ``secularism``; it is being propounded as an elixir that will cure all the ills in the wolrd. (Whereas whiteman himself is slowly changing towards being unsecular, but that is another debate). In todays world this new pseudo science is being shoved down our throats by the mental vassals of white man in the garb of ``enlightened moderation``.

So lets leave the Gandi alone and start worrying about our own racism first.

By the way , Gandhi died in 1948. Black people were given voting rights , a rudimentary step towards their acceptance as equal citizens , by US of A , world`s greatest democracy , in 1965. So much for date of birth/death.

Calling black people names == RACIST.

Having sexual relations with 6 year old children == PEDOPHILE.

Which is worse ?

#121 ,

Calling black people names.

Enjoying sexual intercourse with 6 year old girls.

Which is worse ? And how does date of birth/date affect the same ?

Continuing on the subject ,

how old were the high school boys who penetrated their young teacher Yasser Latif Hamdani ?

Yes supposedly...

But here is what we know for certain...

Prophet Muhammad died in 632

Gandhi died in 1948

How old was Prophet Mohammad when he married a 6 year old child ? 55.

How old was Prophet Mohammad when he first had sexual intercourse with that child ? 58.

Those interactors claiming Gandhi was a child when he made this statements:

A Simple Math Problem:

1908-1869=?

1904-1869=?

1901-1869=?